Mental Health

Suicide attempts spurring calls to poison control centers more than quadrupled among U.S. children aged 10-12 years from 2000 to 2020, according to research published in JAMA Pediatrics.

The reasons for the increase in suicide attempts isn’t clear from the new study, but the researchers note that popular social media networks launched during the 20-year period, and other studies have linked spending time on social media with depression in adolescence. The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in the last year the researchers looked at, also disrupted normal life and routines for children.

For all children older than age 9, the proportion of incidents in which kids ate or drank something harmful that were deemed suicide attempts increased, while those classified as misuse or abuse of potentially poisonous substances declined. Children aged 6-9 did not have an increase in suicide attempts, the study found.

“It’s a huge problem we’re seeing in [ERs]. It’s exponentially blowing up numbers across the nation,” says David Sheridan, MD, an ER pediatric doctor at the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, who led the study.

Adolescents or preteens who have attempted suicide can sit in ERs “for days or weeks” as they wait to be moved elsewhere in the hospital or to an outpatient facility for treatment, Dr. Sheridan says. The delays are not only unpleasant for the children, he says, but they also strain hospitals by leaving less space available for other patients coming to the ER.

“It’s really tough on the entire health care system, and most importantly, it’s really rough on the families who are going through a crisis,” Dr. Sheridan says. He noted that young people often attempt suicide by taking excessive quantities of common over-the-counter products found in many medicine cabinets – acetaminophen, ibuprofen, diphenhydramine – not items marked “poison.”
 

Twenty-year trend

The researchers examined phone calls to poison control centers about kids age 6 and up taking in potentially harmful substances from 2000-2020 recorded in the National Poison Data System, which is maintained by the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

Of more than 1.2 million total calls, 854,000 involved girls. A poison control data analyst determined if the call involved attempted suicide or the deliberate misuse or abuse of a potentially poisonous substance.

The researchers identified 1,005 deaths. About 70% of the total cases had either no effect or a minor effect on the child’s health.

Over the 20-year period, more than 90% of the calls involved children aged at least 13 years, with approximately 72,000 (5.7%) about children aged 10-12. Most calls for children 13 and older were for suicide attempts.

Suspected suicide attempts accounted for about 50% of the total calls to poison control centers among children aged 10-12 in 2000 – a figure that ballooned to 80% in 2020, the researchers found.

Both the number of calls and the proportion related to suicide attempts increased among children aged 10-12, Dr. Sheridan says. By 2020, the researchers found, poison control centers were fielding 4.5 times as many suicide-related calls among kids of this age group as they had in 2000. This jump was the largest such increase for any age group in the study, he says.

The reasons for such a large increase of suicide-related calls among preadolescents are unclear, the researchers note.

The increase became apparent around 2013, at the time many popular social media networks launched. Dr. Sheridan and his colleagues cite studies showing an association between spending more time on social media or watching television and depression in adolescence but said further research is needed to understand the root causes of this increase.

The latest study did not look specifically at the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicide among young people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier reported a sharp rise in suicide attempts among youth during the early months of the pandemic, especially among girls aged 12-17 years. By February 2021, suicide attempts within this group had climbed by 50%, compared with 2 years earlier.

Although suicide attempts are concerning enough, deaths by suicide are even more worrisome, experts said.

The researchers’ findings are consistent with overall recent trends in youth suicide deaths, says Jeff Bridge, PhD, an epidemiologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus. From 2010-2020, suicide rates increased by 50% among 13- to 18-year-olds, Dr. Bridge said, and more than doubled in children aged 10-12.

The latest study captured only calls to poison control centers, so it did not count suicide attempts that did not result in a call for help. Another limitation of the study is that poison control data are not categorized by race or ethnicity, prompting Dr. Bridge to urge researchers to look specifically at the effect of race and ethnicity on these trends.

“This study supports screening for suicide risk as young as 10 years old,” Dr. Bridge says.

Dr. Sheridan agrees that prevention is essential: “The ER is where kids come when they’re in crisis. Trying to be more preventative by diagnosing or picking up on this earlier, I think, is really important.”

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

Suicide attempts spurring calls to poison control centers more than quadrupled among U.S. children aged 10-12 years from 2000 to 2020, according to research published in JAMA Pediatrics.

The reasons for the increase in suicide attempts isn’t clear from the new study, but the researchers note that popular social media networks launched during the 20-year period, and other studies have linked spending time on social media with depression in adolescence. The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in the last year the researchers looked at, also disrupted normal life and routines for children.

For all children older than age 9, the proportion of incidents in which kids ate or drank something harmful that were deemed suicide attempts increased, while those classified as misuse or abuse of potentially poisonous substances declined. Children aged 6-9 did not have an increase in suicide attempts, the study found.

“It’s a huge problem we’re seeing in [ERs]. It’s exponentially blowing up numbers across the nation,” says David Sheridan, MD, an ER pediatric doctor at the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, who led the study.

Adolescents or preteens who have attempted suicide can sit in ERs “for days or weeks” as they wait to be moved elsewhere in the hospital or to an outpatient facility for treatment, Dr. Sheridan says. The delays are not only unpleasant for the children, he says, but they also strain hospitals by leaving less space available for other patients coming to the ER.

“It’s really tough on the entire health care system, and most importantly, it’s really rough on the families who are going through a crisis,” Dr. Sheridan says. He noted that young people often attempt suicide by taking excessive quantities of common over-the-counter products found in many medicine cabinets – acetaminophen, ibuprofen, diphenhydramine – not items marked “poison.”
 

Twenty-year trend

The researchers examined phone calls to poison control centers about kids age 6 and up taking in potentially harmful substances from 2000-2020 recorded in the National Poison Data System, which is maintained by the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

Of more than 1.2 million total calls, 854,000 involved girls. A poison control data analyst determined if the call involved attempted suicide or the deliberate misuse or abuse of a potentially poisonous substance.

The researchers identified 1,005 deaths. About 70% of the total cases had either no effect or a minor effect on the child’s health.

Over the 20-year period, more than 90% of the calls involved children aged at least 13 years, with approximately 72,000 (5.7%) about children aged 10-12. Most calls for children 13 and older were for suicide attempts.

Suspected suicide attempts accounted for about 50% of the total calls to poison control centers among children aged 10-12 in 2000 – a figure that ballooned to 80% in 2020, the researchers found.

Both the number of calls and the proportion related to suicide attempts increased among children aged 10-12, Dr. Sheridan says. By 2020, the researchers found, poison control centers were fielding 4.5 times as many suicide-related calls among kids of this age group as they had in 2000. This jump was the largest such increase for any age group in the study, he says.

The reasons for such a large increase of suicide-related calls among preadolescents are unclear, the researchers note.

The increase became apparent around 2013, at the time many popular social media networks launched. Dr. Sheridan and his colleagues cite studies showing an association between spending more time on social media or watching television and depression in adolescence but said further research is needed to understand the root causes of this increase.

The latest study did not look specifically at the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicide among young people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier reported a sharp rise in suicide attempts among youth during the early months of the pandemic, especially among girls aged 12-17 years. By February 2021, suicide attempts within this group had climbed by 50%, compared with 2 years earlier.

Although suicide attempts are concerning enough, deaths by suicide are even more worrisome, experts said.

The researchers’ findings are consistent with overall recent trends in youth suicide deaths, says Jeff Bridge, PhD, an epidemiologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus. From 2010-2020, suicide rates increased by 50% among 13- to 18-year-olds, Dr. Bridge said, and more than doubled in children aged 10-12.

The latest study captured only calls to poison control centers, so it did not count suicide attempts that did not result in a call for help. Another limitation of the study is that poison control data are not categorized by race or ethnicity, prompting Dr. Bridge to urge researchers to look specifically at the effect of race and ethnicity on these trends.

“This study supports screening for suicide risk as young as 10 years old,” Dr. Bridge says.

Dr. Sheridan agrees that prevention is essential: “The ER is where kids come when they’re in crisis. Trying to be more preventative by diagnosing or picking up on this earlier, I think, is really important.”

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

Suicide attempts spurring calls to poison control centers more than quadrupled among U.S. children aged 10-12 years from 2000 to 2020, according to research published in JAMA Pediatrics.

The reasons for the increase in suicide attempts isn’t clear from the new study, but the researchers note that popular social media networks launched during the 20-year period, and other studies have linked spending time on social media with depression in adolescence. The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in the last year the researchers looked at, also disrupted normal life and routines for children.

For all children older than age 9, the proportion of incidents in which kids ate or drank something harmful that were deemed suicide attempts increased, while those classified as misuse or abuse of potentially poisonous substances declined. Children aged 6-9 did not have an increase in suicide attempts, the study found.

“It’s a huge problem we’re seeing in [ERs]. It’s exponentially blowing up numbers across the nation,” says David Sheridan, MD, an ER pediatric doctor at the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, who led the study.

Adolescents or preteens who have attempted suicide can sit in ERs “for days or weeks” as they wait to be moved elsewhere in the hospital or to an outpatient facility for treatment, Dr. Sheridan says. The delays are not only unpleasant for the children, he says, but they also strain hospitals by leaving less space available for other patients coming to the ER.

“It’s really tough on the entire health care system, and most importantly, it’s really rough on the families who are going through a crisis,” Dr. Sheridan says. He noted that young people often attempt suicide by taking excessive quantities of common over-the-counter products found in many medicine cabinets – acetaminophen, ibuprofen, diphenhydramine – not items marked “poison.”
 

Twenty-year trend

The researchers examined phone calls to poison control centers about kids age 6 and up taking in potentially harmful substances from 2000-2020 recorded in the National Poison Data System, which is maintained by the American Association of Poison Control Centers.

Of more than 1.2 million total calls, 854,000 involved girls. A poison control data analyst determined if the call involved attempted suicide or the deliberate misuse or abuse of a potentially poisonous substance.

The researchers identified 1,005 deaths. About 70% of the total cases had either no effect or a minor effect on the child’s health.

Over the 20-year period, more than 90% of the calls involved children aged at least 13 years, with approximately 72,000 (5.7%) about children aged 10-12. Most calls for children 13 and older were for suicide attempts.

Suspected suicide attempts accounted for about 50% of the total calls to poison control centers among children aged 10-12 in 2000 – a figure that ballooned to 80% in 2020, the researchers found.

Both the number of calls and the proportion related to suicide attempts increased among children aged 10-12, Dr. Sheridan says. By 2020, the researchers found, poison control centers were fielding 4.5 times as many suicide-related calls among kids of this age group as they had in 2000. This jump was the largest such increase for any age group in the study, he says.

The reasons for such a large increase of suicide-related calls among preadolescents are unclear, the researchers note.

The increase became apparent around 2013, at the time many popular social media networks launched. Dr. Sheridan and his colleagues cite studies showing an association between spending more time on social media or watching television and depression in adolescence but said further research is needed to understand the root causes of this increase.

The latest study did not look specifically at the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicide among young people. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention earlier reported a sharp rise in suicide attempts among youth during the early months of the pandemic, especially among girls aged 12-17 years. By February 2021, suicide attempts within this group had climbed by 50%, compared with 2 years earlier.

Although suicide attempts are concerning enough, deaths by suicide are even more worrisome, experts said.

The researchers’ findings are consistent with overall recent trends in youth suicide deaths, says Jeff Bridge, PhD, an epidemiologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus. From 2010-2020, suicide rates increased by 50% among 13- to 18-year-olds, Dr. Bridge said, and more than doubled in children aged 10-12.

The latest study captured only calls to poison control centers, so it did not count suicide attempts that did not result in a call for help. Another limitation of the study is that poison control data are not categorized by race or ethnicity, prompting Dr. Bridge to urge researchers to look specifically at the effect of race and ethnicity on these trends.

“This study supports screening for suicide risk as young as 10 years old,” Dr. Bridge says.

Dr. Sheridan agrees that prevention is essential: “The ER is where kids come when they’re in crisis. Trying to be more preventative by diagnosing or picking up on this earlier, I think, is really important.”

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

Older adults with schizophrenia are not a homogeneous patient population, with various subgroups that differ significantly in terms of comorbid illness and mortality rates and causes, new research shows.

For example, individuals in a group characterized by substance use disorders (SUDs) had a depression prevalence of about 60% and relatively high death rates from unintentional injury and hepatitis.

American Psychiatric Association

“The health care needs of older adults with schizophrenia can vary widely, so aging persons with schizophrenia can’t be considered a uniform population,” study investigator Alison Hwong, MD, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, National Clinicians Scholars Program and San Francisco Veterans Affairs, told this news organization.

“For patients with multiple chronic conditions, we need to be proactive in coordinating specialty care. At the same time, we need novel models of person-centered care to help aging adults with schizophrenia live longer, healthier lives,” Dr. Hwong added. 

The findings were presented as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting.
 

Widening mortality gap

The life expectancy of patients with schizophrenia is lower by 8-15 years, compared with those without schizophrenia and this “mortality gap” has widened in recent years, Dr. Hwong noted. Those with schizophrenia also have high rates of health care utilization and high direct and indirect health care costs.

Most previous research looking at illness in schizophrenia focused on a single medical condition, “but by midlife, adults with schizophrenia may have multiple medical conditions,” said Dr. Hwong. “Little is known about multimorbidity in aging adults with schizophrenia and how that could be related to mortality outcomes.”

The study included 82,858 U.S. veterans aged 50 years and older who had at least one inpatient or two outpatient encounters associated with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the previous 2 years. The study period ran from 2012 to 2018.

Using health care records and data linkages, researchers examined 20 common medical and psychiatric conditions other than schizophrenia that required medical attention. The investigators used the “latent class analysis” statistical model to assess differences across classes.

The study included three distinct patient classes: minimal morbidity (43% of the cohort), depression and medical comorbidity (34.2%), and SUDs and related conditions (22.8%).

The SUD group tended to be younger, with a mean age of 57.9 years versus 60.4 years for the minimal comorbidity group and 65.9 years for the depression group.

The SUD group was also less likely to be female (4.8% vs. 6.7% and 6%, respectively), less likely to be White, and more likely to be Black. This group was also less likely to be married and more likely to have a history of homelessness.
 

Disease prevalence rates

Results showed the minimal morbidity group had prevalence rates of less than 10% for all major conditions, except for tobacco dependence, which had a rate of 11.8%.

The depression and medical comorbidity group had very high prevalence rates (more than 20%) for heart attack, heart failure, stroke, cancer, dementia, arthritis, renal disease, sleep disorders, depression, and tobacco dependence. In addition, the rate was 60% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Participants in the SUD and related conditions group had rates of more than 70% for alcohol use disorder, other drug use disorders, and tobacco dependence. They also had high rates of COPD, hepatitis C, chronic pain, sleep disorders, depression, and PTSD.

On average, the SUD group was younger and may explain why they were less likely to have heart failure and renal disease, Dr. Hwong noted. These results may help inform treatment approaches, she added.

“For the group with largely substance use–related conditions, perhaps we can better address their needs with, for example, specific addiction and infectious disease services instead of a one-size-fits-all model,” said Dr. Hwong.

The investigators also examined mortality rates. Those in the depression and morbidity group had the highest rate of overall mortality; 47.5% of this class died during the observation period, compared with 27.2% of the SUD group.

More research is needed to understand why the mortality rate is so high in the depression and morbidity group, she said.
 

High rates of accidental death

The SUD group had the highest rates of death from accidents, possibly from overdoses, suicide, hepatitis C, and alcohol use–related deaths. “Their risks are very specific and appear largely related to substance use,” Dr. Hwong said.

The minimal comorbidity group showed the lowest rates of overall mortality rate (18%) and of cause-specific mortality for most of the included conditions.

Dr. Hwong noted she would like to study this class further. “I’m interested to know who are the people with schizophrenia who are thriving and are successfully aging – to learn what is going well for them.”

The researchers also plan to examine the subgroups in more detail to understand differences in treatments, health care utilization, and outcomes across groups. They are also interested in assessing other predictors of mortality outcomes in addition to multimorbidity.

One limitation of the study is that its cohort consisted of male veterans, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. In addition, these were observational data and so the results do not imply causality, Dr. Hwong said.

Dr. Hwong reported no relevant financial relationships, but she is supported by the VA and the UCSF National Clinician Scholars Program.

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

Older adults with schizophrenia are not a homogeneous patient population, with various subgroups that differ significantly in terms of comorbid illness and mortality rates and causes, new research shows.

For example, individuals in a group characterized by substance use disorders (SUDs) had a depression prevalence of about 60% and relatively high death rates from unintentional injury and hepatitis.

American Psychiatric Association

“The health care needs of older adults with schizophrenia can vary widely, so aging persons with schizophrenia can’t be considered a uniform population,” study investigator Alison Hwong, MD, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, National Clinicians Scholars Program and San Francisco Veterans Affairs, told this news organization.

“For patients with multiple chronic conditions, we need to be proactive in coordinating specialty care. At the same time, we need novel models of person-centered care to help aging adults with schizophrenia live longer, healthier lives,” Dr. Hwong added. 

The findings were presented as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting.
 

Widening mortality gap

The life expectancy of patients with schizophrenia is lower by 8-15 years, compared with those without schizophrenia and this “mortality gap” has widened in recent years, Dr. Hwong noted. Those with schizophrenia also have high rates of health care utilization and high direct and indirect health care costs.

Most previous research looking at illness in schizophrenia focused on a single medical condition, “but by midlife, adults with schizophrenia may have multiple medical conditions,” said Dr. Hwong. “Little is known about multimorbidity in aging adults with schizophrenia and how that could be related to mortality outcomes.”

The study included 82,858 U.S. veterans aged 50 years and older who had at least one inpatient or two outpatient encounters associated with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the previous 2 years. The study period ran from 2012 to 2018.

Using health care records and data linkages, researchers examined 20 common medical and psychiatric conditions other than schizophrenia that required medical attention. The investigators used the “latent class analysis” statistical model to assess differences across classes.

The study included three distinct patient classes: minimal morbidity (43% of the cohort), depression and medical comorbidity (34.2%), and SUDs and related conditions (22.8%).

The SUD group tended to be younger, with a mean age of 57.9 years versus 60.4 years for the minimal comorbidity group and 65.9 years for the depression group.

The SUD group was also less likely to be female (4.8% vs. 6.7% and 6%, respectively), less likely to be White, and more likely to be Black. This group was also less likely to be married and more likely to have a history of homelessness.
 

Disease prevalence rates

Results showed the minimal morbidity group had prevalence rates of less than 10% for all major conditions, except for tobacco dependence, which had a rate of 11.8%.

The depression and medical comorbidity group had very high prevalence rates (more than 20%) for heart attack, heart failure, stroke, cancer, dementia, arthritis, renal disease, sleep disorders, depression, and tobacco dependence. In addition, the rate was 60% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Participants in the SUD and related conditions group had rates of more than 70% for alcohol use disorder, other drug use disorders, and tobacco dependence. They also had high rates of COPD, hepatitis C, chronic pain, sleep disorders, depression, and PTSD.

On average, the SUD group was younger and may explain why they were less likely to have heart failure and renal disease, Dr. Hwong noted. These results may help inform treatment approaches, she added.

“For the group with largely substance use–related conditions, perhaps we can better address their needs with, for example, specific addiction and infectious disease services instead of a one-size-fits-all model,” said Dr. Hwong.

The investigators also examined mortality rates. Those in the depression and morbidity group had the highest rate of overall mortality; 47.5% of this class died during the observation period, compared with 27.2% of the SUD group.

More research is needed to understand why the mortality rate is so high in the depression and morbidity group, she said.
 

High rates of accidental death

The SUD group had the highest rates of death from accidents, possibly from overdoses, suicide, hepatitis C, and alcohol use–related deaths. “Their risks are very specific and appear largely related to substance use,” Dr. Hwong said.

The minimal comorbidity group showed the lowest rates of overall mortality rate (18%) and of cause-specific mortality for most of the included conditions.

Dr. Hwong noted she would like to study this class further. “I’m interested to know who are the people with schizophrenia who are thriving and are successfully aging – to learn what is going well for them.”

The researchers also plan to examine the subgroups in more detail to understand differences in treatments, health care utilization, and outcomes across groups. They are also interested in assessing other predictors of mortality outcomes in addition to multimorbidity.

One limitation of the study is that its cohort consisted of male veterans, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. In addition, these were observational data and so the results do not imply causality, Dr. Hwong said.

Dr. Hwong reported no relevant financial relationships, but she is supported by the VA and the UCSF National Clinician Scholars Program.

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

Older adults with schizophrenia are not a homogeneous patient population, with various subgroups that differ significantly in terms of comorbid illness and mortality rates and causes, new research shows.

For example, individuals in a group characterized by substance use disorders (SUDs) had a depression prevalence of about 60% and relatively high death rates from unintentional injury and hepatitis.

American Psychiatric Association

“The health care needs of older adults with schizophrenia can vary widely, so aging persons with schizophrenia can’t be considered a uniform population,” study investigator Alison Hwong, MD, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, National Clinicians Scholars Program and San Francisco Veterans Affairs, told this news organization.

“For patients with multiple chronic conditions, we need to be proactive in coordinating specialty care. At the same time, we need novel models of person-centered care to help aging adults with schizophrenia live longer, healthier lives,” Dr. Hwong added. 

The findings were presented as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting.
 

Widening mortality gap

The life expectancy of patients with schizophrenia is lower by 8-15 years, compared with those without schizophrenia and this “mortality gap” has widened in recent years, Dr. Hwong noted. Those with schizophrenia also have high rates of health care utilization and high direct and indirect health care costs.

Most previous research looking at illness in schizophrenia focused on a single medical condition, “but by midlife, adults with schizophrenia may have multiple medical conditions,” said Dr. Hwong. “Little is known about multimorbidity in aging adults with schizophrenia and how that could be related to mortality outcomes.”

The study included 82,858 U.S. veterans aged 50 years and older who had at least one inpatient or two outpatient encounters associated with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the previous 2 years. The study period ran from 2012 to 2018.

Using health care records and data linkages, researchers examined 20 common medical and psychiatric conditions other than schizophrenia that required medical attention. The investigators used the “latent class analysis” statistical model to assess differences across classes.

The study included three distinct patient classes: minimal morbidity (43% of the cohort), depression and medical comorbidity (34.2%), and SUDs and related conditions (22.8%).

The SUD group tended to be younger, with a mean age of 57.9 years versus 60.4 years for the minimal comorbidity group and 65.9 years for the depression group.

The SUD group was also less likely to be female (4.8% vs. 6.7% and 6%, respectively), less likely to be White, and more likely to be Black. This group was also less likely to be married and more likely to have a history of homelessness.
 

Disease prevalence rates

Results showed the minimal morbidity group had prevalence rates of less than 10% for all major conditions, except for tobacco dependence, which had a rate of 11.8%.

The depression and medical comorbidity group had very high prevalence rates (more than 20%) for heart attack, heart failure, stroke, cancer, dementia, arthritis, renal disease, sleep disorders, depression, and tobacco dependence. In addition, the rate was 60% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Participants in the SUD and related conditions group had rates of more than 70% for alcohol use disorder, other drug use disorders, and tobacco dependence. They also had high rates of COPD, hepatitis C, chronic pain, sleep disorders, depression, and PTSD.

On average, the SUD group was younger and may explain why they were less likely to have heart failure and renal disease, Dr. Hwong noted. These results may help inform treatment approaches, she added.

“For the group with largely substance use–related conditions, perhaps we can better address their needs with, for example, specific addiction and infectious disease services instead of a one-size-fits-all model,” said Dr. Hwong.

The investigators also examined mortality rates. Those in the depression and morbidity group had the highest rate of overall mortality; 47.5% of this class died during the observation period, compared with 27.2% of the SUD group.

More research is needed to understand why the mortality rate is so high in the depression and morbidity group, she said.
 

High rates of accidental death

The SUD group had the highest rates of death from accidents, possibly from overdoses, suicide, hepatitis C, and alcohol use–related deaths. “Their risks are very specific and appear largely related to substance use,” Dr. Hwong said.

The minimal comorbidity group showed the lowest rates of overall mortality rate (18%) and of cause-specific mortality for most of the included conditions.

Dr. Hwong noted she would like to study this class further. “I’m interested to know who are the people with schizophrenia who are thriving and are successfully aging – to learn what is going well for them.”

The researchers also plan to examine the subgroups in more detail to understand differences in treatments, health care utilization, and outcomes across groups. They are also interested in assessing other predictors of mortality outcomes in addition to multimorbidity.

One limitation of the study is that its cohort consisted of male veterans, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. In addition, these were observational data and so the results do not imply causality, Dr. Hwong said.

Dr. Hwong reported no relevant financial relationships, but she is supported by the VA and the UCSF National Clinician Scholars Program.

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

CHICAGO – Patients undergoing primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for their glenohumeral osteoarthritis had more complications of care and higher hospital costs when they also had a diagnosis of depression, new data show.

The abstract was presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons.

Researchers, led by Keith Diamond, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Maimonides Medical Center in New York, queried a private payer database looking for patients who had primary RSA for treatment of glenohumeral OA and also had a diagnosis of depressive disorder (DD) from 2010 to 2019. Patients without DD served as the controls.

After the randomized matching with controls at a 1:5 ratio, the study consisted of 28,410 patients: 4,084 in the DD group and 24,326 in the control group.

Researchers found that patients with depression had longer hospital stays (3 vs. 2 days, P = .0007). They also had higher frequency and odds of developing side effects within the period of care (47.4% vs. 14.7%; odds ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 2.10-2.45,  P < .0001).

Patients with depression also had significantly higher rates of medical complications surrounding the surgery and costs were higher ($19,363 vs. $17,927, P < .0001).

Pneumonia rates were much higher in patients with DD (10% vs. 1.8%; OR, 2.88; P < .0001).

Patients with depression had higher odds of cerebrovascular accident (3.1% vs. 0.7%; OR, 2.69, P < .0001); myocardial infarctions (2% vs. 0.4%; OR, 2.54; P < .0001); acute kidney injuries (11.1% vs. 2.3%; OR, 2.11, P < .0001); surgical site infections (4.4% vs. 2.4%; OR, 1.52, P < .0001); and other complications, the authors wrote.

Dr. Diamond said in an interview that there may be a few potential reasons for the associations.

In regard to the strong association with pneumonia, Dr. Diamond hypothesized, “patients with depression can be shown to have lower respiratory drive. If a patient isn’t motivated to get out of bed, that can lead to decreased inflation of the lungs.”

Acute kidney injury could be linked with depression-related lack of self-care in properly hydrating, he said. Surgical site infections could come from suboptimal hygiene related to managing the cast after surgery, which may be more difficult when patients also struggle with depression.

Asked to comment on Dr. Diamond’s study, Grant Garrigues, MD, an associate professor at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and director of upper extremity research, told this news organization the study helps confirm known associations between depression and arthritis.

“We know that people with depression and anxiety feel pain differently,” he said. “It might have to do with your outlook – are you catastrophizing or thinking it’s a minor inconvenience? It’s not that it’s just in your head – you physically feel it differently. That is something we’re certainly attuned to. We want to make sure the mental health part of the picture is optimized as much as possible.”

He added that there is increasing evidence of links between depression and the development of arthritis.

“I’m not saying that everyone with arthritis has depression, but with arthritis being multifactorial, there’s a relatively high incidence of symptomatic arthritis in patients with depression,” Dr. Garrigues said.

“We think it may have something to do with the fight-or-flight hormones in your body that may be revved up if you are living in a stressful environment or are living with a mental health problem. Those will actually change – on a cellular and biochemical basis – some of the things that affect arthritis.”
 

Stronger emphasis on mental health

Dr. Diamond said the field needs more emphasis on perioperative state of mind.  

“As orthopedic surgeons, we are preoccupied with the mechanical, the structural aspects of health care as we try to fix bones, ligaments, and tendons. But I think we need to recognize and explore the connection between the psychiatric and psychological health with our musculoskeletal health.”

He noted that, in the preoperative setting, providers look for hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, and other conditions that could complicate surgical outcomes and said mental health should be a factor in whether a surgery proceeds.

“If someone’s diabetes isn’t controlled you can delay an elective case until their [hemoglobin] A1c is under the recommended limit and you get clearance from their primary care doctor. I think that’s something that should be applied to patients with depressive disorders,” Dr. Diamond said.

This study did not distinguish between patients who were being treated for depression at the time of surgery and those not on treatment. More study related to whether treatment affects depression’s association with RSA outcomes is needed, Dr. Diamond added.

Dr. Garrigues said he talks candidly with patients considering surgery about how they are managing their mental health struggles.

“If they say they haven’t seen their psychiatrist or are off their medications, that’s a nonstarter,” he said.

“Anything outside of the surgery you can optimize, whether it’s mental health, medical, social situations – you want to have all your ducks in a row before you dive into surgery,” Dr. Garrigues said.

He added that patients’ mental health status may even affect the venue for the patient – whether outpatient or inpatient, where they can get more supervision and help in making transitions after surgery.

Dr. Diamond and coauthors and Dr. Garrigues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Patients undergoing primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for their glenohumeral osteoarthritis had more complications of care and higher hospital costs when they also had a diagnosis of depression, new data show.

The abstract was presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons.

Researchers, led by Keith Diamond, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Maimonides Medical Center in New York, queried a private payer database looking for patients who had primary RSA for treatment of glenohumeral OA and also had a diagnosis of depressive disorder (DD) from 2010 to 2019. Patients without DD served as the controls.

After the randomized matching with controls at a 1:5 ratio, the study consisted of 28,410 patients: 4,084 in the DD group and 24,326 in the control group.

Researchers found that patients with depression had longer hospital stays (3 vs. 2 days, P = .0007). They also had higher frequency and odds of developing side effects within the period of care (47.4% vs. 14.7%; odds ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 2.10-2.45,  P < .0001).

Patients with depression also had significantly higher rates of medical complications surrounding the surgery and costs were higher ($19,363 vs. $17,927, P < .0001).

Pneumonia rates were much higher in patients with DD (10% vs. 1.8%; OR, 2.88; P < .0001).

Patients with depression had higher odds of cerebrovascular accident (3.1% vs. 0.7%; OR, 2.69, P < .0001); myocardial infarctions (2% vs. 0.4%; OR, 2.54; P < .0001); acute kidney injuries (11.1% vs. 2.3%; OR, 2.11, P < .0001); surgical site infections (4.4% vs. 2.4%; OR, 1.52, P < .0001); and other complications, the authors wrote.

Dr. Diamond said in an interview that there may be a few potential reasons for the associations.

In regard to the strong association with pneumonia, Dr. Diamond hypothesized, “patients with depression can be shown to have lower respiratory drive. If a patient isn’t motivated to get out of bed, that can lead to decreased inflation of the lungs.”

Acute kidney injury could be linked with depression-related lack of self-care in properly hydrating, he said. Surgical site infections could come from suboptimal hygiene related to managing the cast after surgery, which may be more difficult when patients also struggle with depression.

Asked to comment on Dr. Diamond’s study, Grant Garrigues, MD, an associate professor at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and director of upper extremity research, told this news organization the study helps confirm known associations between depression and arthritis.

“We know that people with depression and anxiety feel pain differently,” he said. “It might have to do with your outlook – are you catastrophizing or thinking it’s a minor inconvenience? It’s not that it’s just in your head – you physically feel it differently. That is something we’re certainly attuned to. We want to make sure the mental health part of the picture is optimized as much as possible.”

He added that there is increasing evidence of links between depression and the development of arthritis.

“I’m not saying that everyone with arthritis has depression, but with arthritis being multifactorial, there’s a relatively high incidence of symptomatic arthritis in patients with depression,” Dr. Garrigues said.

“We think it may have something to do with the fight-or-flight hormones in your body that may be revved up if you are living in a stressful environment or are living with a mental health problem. Those will actually change – on a cellular and biochemical basis – some of the things that affect arthritis.”
 

Stronger emphasis on mental health

Dr. Diamond said the field needs more emphasis on perioperative state of mind.  

“As orthopedic surgeons, we are preoccupied with the mechanical, the structural aspects of health care as we try to fix bones, ligaments, and tendons. But I think we need to recognize and explore the connection between the psychiatric and psychological health with our musculoskeletal health.”

He noted that, in the preoperative setting, providers look for hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, and other conditions that could complicate surgical outcomes and said mental health should be a factor in whether a surgery proceeds.

“If someone’s diabetes isn’t controlled you can delay an elective case until their [hemoglobin] A1c is under the recommended limit and you get clearance from their primary care doctor. I think that’s something that should be applied to patients with depressive disorders,” Dr. Diamond said.

This study did not distinguish between patients who were being treated for depression at the time of surgery and those not on treatment. More study related to whether treatment affects depression’s association with RSA outcomes is needed, Dr. Diamond added.

Dr. Garrigues said he talks candidly with patients considering surgery about how they are managing their mental health struggles.

“If they say they haven’t seen their psychiatrist or are off their medications, that’s a nonstarter,” he said.

“Anything outside of the surgery you can optimize, whether it’s mental health, medical, social situations – you want to have all your ducks in a row before you dive into surgery,” Dr. Garrigues said.

He added that patients’ mental health status may even affect the venue for the patient – whether outpatient or inpatient, where they can get more supervision and help in making transitions after surgery.

Dr. Diamond and coauthors and Dr. Garrigues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Patients undergoing primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for their glenohumeral osteoarthritis had more complications of care and higher hospital costs when they also had a diagnosis of depression, new data show.

The abstract was presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons.

Researchers, led by Keith Diamond, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Maimonides Medical Center in New York, queried a private payer database looking for patients who had primary RSA for treatment of glenohumeral OA and also had a diagnosis of depressive disorder (DD) from 2010 to 2019. Patients without DD served as the controls.

After the randomized matching with controls at a 1:5 ratio, the study consisted of 28,410 patients: 4,084 in the DD group and 24,326 in the control group.

Researchers found that patients with depression had longer hospital stays (3 vs. 2 days, P = .0007). They also had higher frequency and odds of developing side effects within the period of care (47.4% vs. 14.7%; odds ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 2.10-2.45,  P < .0001).

Patients with depression also had significantly higher rates of medical complications surrounding the surgery and costs were higher ($19,363 vs. $17,927, P < .0001).

Pneumonia rates were much higher in patients with DD (10% vs. 1.8%; OR, 2.88; P < .0001).

Patients with depression had higher odds of cerebrovascular accident (3.1% vs. 0.7%; OR, 2.69, P < .0001); myocardial infarctions (2% vs. 0.4%; OR, 2.54; P < .0001); acute kidney injuries (11.1% vs. 2.3%; OR, 2.11, P < .0001); surgical site infections (4.4% vs. 2.4%; OR, 1.52, P < .0001); and other complications, the authors wrote.

Dr. Diamond said in an interview that there may be a few potential reasons for the associations.

In regard to the strong association with pneumonia, Dr. Diamond hypothesized, “patients with depression can be shown to have lower respiratory drive. If a patient isn’t motivated to get out of bed, that can lead to decreased inflation of the lungs.”

Acute kidney injury could be linked with depression-related lack of self-care in properly hydrating, he said. Surgical site infections could come from suboptimal hygiene related to managing the cast after surgery, which may be more difficult when patients also struggle with depression.

Asked to comment on Dr. Diamond’s study, Grant Garrigues, MD, an associate professor at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, and director of upper extremity research, told this news organization the study helps confirm known associations between depression and arthritis.

“We know that people with depression and anxiety feel pain differently,” he said. “It might have to do with your outlook – are you catastrophizing or thinking it’s a minor inconvenience? It’s not that it’s just in your head – you physically feel it differently. That is something we’re certainly attuned to. We want to make sure the mental health part of the picture is optimized as much as possible.”

He added that there is increasing evidence of links between depression and the development of arthritis.

“I’m not saying that everyone with arthritis has depression, but with arthritis being multifactorial, there’s a relatively high incidence of symptomatic arthritis in patients with depression,” Dr. Garrigues said.

“We think it may have something to do with the fight-or-flight hormones in your body that may be revved up if you are living in a stressful environment or are living with a mental health problem. Those will actually change – on a cellular and biochemical basis – some of the things that affect arthritis.”
 

Stronger emphasis on mental health

Dr. Diamond said the field needs more emphasis on perioperative state of mind.  

“As orthopedic surgeons, we are preoccupied with the mechanical, the structural aspects of health care as we try to fix bones, ligaments, and tendons. But I think we need to recognize and explore the connection between the psychiatric and psychological health with our musculoskeletal health.”

He noted that, in the preoperative setting, providers look for hypertension, diabetes, smoking status, and other conditions that could complicate surgical outcomes and said mental health should be a factor in whether a surgery proceeds.

“If someone’s diabetes isn’t controlled you can delay an elective case until their [hemoglobin] A1c is under the recommended limit and you get clearance from their primary care doctor. I think that’s something that should be applied to patients with depressive disorders,” Dr. Diamond said.

This study did not distinguish between patients who were being treated for depression at the time of surgery and those not on treatment. More study related to whether treatment affects depression’s association with RSA outcomes is needed, Dr. Diamond added.

Dr. Garrigues said he talks candidly with patients considering surgery about how they are managing their mental health struggles.

“If they say they haven’t seen their psychiatrist or are off their medications, that’s a nonstarter,” he said.

“Anything outside of the surgery you can optimize, whether it’s mental health, medical, social situations – you want to have all your ducks in a row before you dive into surgery,” Dr. Garrigues said.

He added that patients’ mental health status may even affect the venue for the patient – whether outpatient or inpatient, where they can get more supervision and help in making transitions after surgery.

Dr. Diamond and coauthors and Dr. Garrigues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pediatric care centers are a significant point of access for intimate partner violence referrals, according to data from an IPV prevention program embedded in Boston Children’s Hospital.

The pediatric hospital’s embedded Advocacy for Women and Kids in Emergencies (AWAKE) program found an increase in IPV consults and referrals during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for emotional abuse. Despite the shift away from in-office consultations, care was effectively delivered remotely by telehealth.

The findings highlight the importance of pediatric primary care as a point of access for IPV survivor support, the authors concluded.

”Programming for survivors (including patients, family members, and staff) of intimate partner violence is critical in the pediatric hospital setting, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Rehana Rahman, MSW, and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.

Their results align with other research demonstrating an overall increase in violence against women and girls during the pandemic – a phenomenon the World Health Organization has called the “shadow pandemic.”

The challenges of accessing care during the COVID-19 restrictions demonstrate the utility of telehealth as a modality for providing assessment, support, and referrals, the authors stated.

They pointed to certain advantages in supporting IPV survivors virtually, including the ability to speak alone with the survivor, which is often not possible during in-person visits with children in the room.

Other research has documented that health care delivery via telemedicine, especially video teleconferencing, during the pandemic can be as effective as in-office visits. In fact, care providers may be able to pick up on significant visual cues on video that go unnoticed in the immediacy of the office setting.
 

The study

The researchers examined COVID-19–related variations in consultations and referrals in the 11 months before the COVID-19 pandemic (April 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020) and those following its emergence (April 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021).

Face-to-face consults declined from 28% to 2% (P < .001) after COVID-19 emergence, while total consults increased from 240 to 295 (P < .001), primarily for emotional abuse (from 195 to 264, P = .007).

There were no significant changes in the number of consults for other reasons or in the number of reasons recorded for each consult.

Psychoeducation referrals also rose significantly from 199 to 273 (P < .001), while referrals to community resources decreased significantly from 111 to 95 (P < .001).

Primary care was the only practice setting demonstrating significant differences in the overall number of and specific reasons for consultation, as well as associated referral types before and after COVID emergence.

“We hypothesize that this increase may be attributable to the fact that, although many survivors were at home with partners who use abusive behaviors, obligatory pediatric primary care visits may have been a rare opportunity for them to leave their residence and seek support,” the investigators wrote. “Our data support the importance of a domestic violence program in pediatric hospitals and suggest that such support be available as a standard part of care.”

They further suggested that support and assessment may be effective regardless of whether that care is performed face-to-face or via telehealth.
 

Commentary

An accompanying editorial noted that intimate partner violence affects one in five children and has profound health effects on survivors and their children.

“The health, economic, and social ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic have created unique challenges for families experiencing IPV, by increasing isolation, decreasing available safe and secure services and spaces (e.g., schools), and compounding preexisting inequities, especially for families from marginalized communities,” wrote Maya Ragavan, MD, MS, MPH, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh.

They stressed that pediatric health care providers should be aware of the emotionally coercive control used by abusive partners during the pandemic, including social isolation, manipulating child custody, and taking stimulus money.

Dr. Ragavan and Dr. Miller agreed with the authors that pediatric health care settings can play an important role in supporting families exposed to intimate partner violence, particularly by developing partnerships with IPV aid agencies.

Many pediatric offices may not have access to a comprehensive service like AWAKE, highlighting the importance of developing partnerships with community-based IPV agencies, which have been working innovatively during the pandemic to support families experiencing IPV. “Pediatric health care providers should work to develop formalized partnerships with IPV agencies to assist with staff training, clinical protocols and policies to address IPV, including survivor-centered approaches to care when IPV is disclosed,” they wrote. “Health care settings must recognize that IPV agencies are integral to the pediatric medical home and essential collaborators in the provision of healing-centered care for IPV survivors and their children.”

Among these, Futures Without Violence, a national violence-prevention advocacy and policy organization, offers recommendations on collaboration via the IPV Health Partners website.

Matthew I. Harris, MD, a pediatric emergency physician at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New York, concurred that the pediatric care setting can be an access point for IPV referrals. “Whether a child comes into our center with an ear infection or an injury, there’s a standard screening process for safety in the home,” he said in an interview. That standard filtering identifies the presence of smoking, alcohol, guns, and potential abusers. “It’s not uncommon that we discover violence or physical, verbal, or sexual abuse not only toward the child but also another family member, including IPV.”

Children’s hospitals are well positioned to identify at-risk families and refer them to appropriate protective services, Dr. Harris said. “Ultimately, we are charged with the responsibility of ensuring children have a safe home environment and that involves minimizing any harmful impact on other family members, including those exposed to IPV.”

The authors received no funding for this study and reported no competing interests. Dr. Ragavan had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Miller reported royalties for writing content for UpToDate. Dr. Harris disclosed no competing interests.

This article was updated 3/25/22.

Pediatric care centers are a significant point of access for intimate partner violence referrals, according to data from an IPV prevention program embedded in Boston Children’s Hospital.

The pediatric hospital’s embedded Advocacy for Women and Kids in Emergencies (AWAKE) program found an increase in IPV consults and referrals during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for emotional abuse. Despite the shift away from in-office consultations, care was effectively delivered remotely by telehealth.

The findings highlight the importance of pediatric primary care as a point of access for IPV survivor support, the authors concluded.

”Programming for survivors (including patients, family members, and staff) of intimate partner violence is critical in the pediatric hospital setting, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Rehana Rahman, MSW, and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.

Their results align with other research demonstrating an overall increase in violence against women and girls during the pandemic – a phenomenon the World Health Organization has called the “shadow pandemic.”

The challenges of accessing care during the COVID-19 restrictions demonstrate the utility of telehealth as a modality for providing assessment, support, and referrals, the authors stated.

They pointed to certain advantages in supporting IPV survivors virtually, including the ability to speak alone with the survivor, which is often not possible during in-person visits with children in the room.

Other research has documented that health care delivery via telemedicine, especially video teleconferencing, during the pandemic can be as effective as in-office visits. In fact, care providers may be able to pick up on significant visual cues on video that go unnoticed in the immediacy of the office setting.
 

The study

The researchers examined COVID-19–related variations in consultations and referrals in the 11 months before the COVID-19 pandemic (April 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020) and those following its emergence (April 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021).

Face-to-face consults declined from 28% to 2% (P < .001) after COVID-19 emergence, while total consults increased from 240 to 295 (P < .001), primarily for emotional abuse (from 195 to 264, P = .007).

There were no significant changes in the number of consults for other reasons or in the number of reasons recorded for each consult.

Psychoeducation referrals also rose significantly from 199 to 273 (P < .001), while referrals to community resources decreased significantly from 111 to 95 (P < .001).

Primary care was the only practice setting demonstrating significant differences in the overall number of and specific reasons for consultation, as well as associated referral types before and after COVID emergence.

“We hypothesize that this increase may be attributable to the fact that, although many survivors were at home with partners who use abusive behaviors, obligatory pediatric primary care visits may have been a rare opportunity for them to leave their residence and seek support,” the investigators wrote. “Our data support the importance of a domestic violence program in pediatric hospitals and suggest that such support be available as a standard part of care.”

They further suggested that support and assessment may be effective regardless of whether that care is performed face-to-face or via telehealth.
 

Commentary

An accompanying editorial noted that intimate partner violence affects one in five children and has profound health effects on survivors and their children.

“The health, economic, and social ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic have created unique challenges for families experiencing IPV, by increasing isolation, decreasing available safe and secure services and spaces (e.g., schools), and compounding preexisting inequities, especially for families from marginalized communities,” wrote Maya Ragavan, MD, MS, MPH, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh.

They stressed that pediatric health care providers should be aware of the emotionally coercive control used by abusive partners during the pandemic, including social isolation, manipulating child custody, and taking stimulus money.

Dr. Ragavan and Dr. Miller agreed with the authors that pediatric health care settings can play an important role in supporting families exposed to intimate partner violence, particularly by developing partnerships with IPV aid agencies.

Many pediatric offices may not have access to a comprehensive service like AWAKE, highlighting the importance of developing partnerships with community-based IPV agencies, which have been working innovatively during the pandemic to support families experiencing IPV. “Pediatric health care providers should work to develop formalized partnerships with IPV agencies to assist with staff training, clinical protocols and policies to address IPV, including survivor-centered approaches to care when IPV is disclosed,” they wrote. “Health care settings must recognize that IPV agencies are integral to the pediatric medical home and essential collaborators in the provision of healing-centered care for IPV survivors and their children.”

Among these, Futures Without Violence, a national violence-prevention advocacy and policy organization, offers recommendations on collaboration via the IPV Health Partners website.

Matthew I. Harris, MD, a pediatric emergency physician at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New York, concurred that the pediatric care setting can be an access point for IPV referrals. “Whether a child comes into our center with an ear infection or an injury, there’s a standard screening process for safety in the home,” he said in an interview. That standard filtering identifies the presence of smoking, alcohol, guns, and potential abusers. “It’s not uncommon that we discover violence or physical, verbal, or sexual abuse not only toward the child but also another family member, including IPV.”

Children’s hospitals are well positioned to identify at-risk families and refer them to appropriate protective services, Dr. Harris said. “Ultimately, we are charged with the responsibility of ensuring children have a safe home environment and that involves minimizing any harmful impact on other family members, including those exposed to IPV.”

The authors received no funding for this study and reported no competing interests. Dr. Ragavan had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Miller reported royalties for writing content for UpToDate. Dr. Harris disclosed no competing interests.

This article was updated 3/25/22.

Pediatric care centers are a significant point of access for intimate partner violence referrals, according to data from an IPV prevention program embedded in Boston Children’s Hospital.

The pediatric hospital’s embedded Advocacy for Women and Kids in Emergencies (AWAKE) program found an increase in IPV consults and referrals during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for emotional abuse. Despite the shift away from in-office consultations, care was effectively delivered remotely by telehealth.

The findings highlight the importance of pediatric primary care as a point of access for IPV survivor support, the authors concluded.

”Programming for survivors (including patients, family members, and staff) of intimate partner violence is critical in the pediatric hospital setting, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Rehana Rahman, MSW, and colleagues wrote in Pediatrics.

Their results align with other research demonstrating an overall increase in violence against women and girls during the pandemic – a phenomenon the World Health Organization has called the “shadow pandemic.”

The challenges of accessing care during the COVID-19 restrictions demonstrate the utility of telehealth as a modality for providing assessment, support, and referrals, the authors stated.

They pointed to certain advantages in supporting IPV survivors virtually, including the ability to speak alone with the survivor, which is often not possible during in-person visits with children in the room.

Other research has documented that health care delivery via telemedicine, especially video teleconferencing, during the pandemic can be as effective as in-office visits. In fact, care providers may be able to pick up on significant visual cues on video that go unnoticed in the immediacy of the office setting.
 

The study

The researchers examined COVID-19–related variations in consultations and referrals in the 11 months before the COVID-19 pandemic (April 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020) and those following its emergence (April 1, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021).

Face-to-face consults declined from 28% to 2% (P < .001) after COVID-19 emergence, while total consults increased from 240 to 295 (P < .001), primarily for emotional abuse (from 195 to 264, P = .007).

There were no significant changes in the number of consults for other reasons or in the number of reasons recorded for each consult.

Psychoeducation referrals also rose significantly from 199 to 273 (P < .001), while referrals to community resources decreased significantly from 111 to 95 (P < .001).

Primary care was the only practice setting demonstrating significant differences in the overall number of and specific reasons for consultation, as well as associated referral types before and after COVID emergence.

“We hypothesize that this increase may be attributable to the fact that, although many survivors were at home with partners who use abusive behaviors, obligatory pediatric primary care visits may have been a rare opportunity for them to leave their residence and seek support,” the investigators wrote. “Our data support the importance of a domestic violence program in pediatric hospitals and suggest that such support be available as a standard part of care.”

They further suggested that support and assessment may be effective regardless of whether that care is performed face-to-face or via telehealth.
 

Commentary

An accompanying editorial noted that intimate partner violence affects one in five children and has profound health effects on survivors and their children.

“The health, economic, and social ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic have created unique challenges for families experiencing IPV, by increasing isolation, decreasing available safe and secure services and spaces (e.g., schools), and compounding preexisting inequities, especially for families from marginalized communities,” wrote Maya Ragavan, MD, MS, MPH, and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh.

They stressed that pediatric health care providers should be aware of the emotionally coercive control used by abusive partners during the pandemic, including social isolation, manipulating child custody, and taking stimulus money.

Dr. Ragavan and Dr. Miller agreed with the authors that pediatric health care settings can play an important role in supporting families exposed to intimate partner violence, particularly by developing partnerships with IPV aid agencies.

Many pediatric offices may not have access to a comprehensive service like AWAKE, highlighting the importance of developing partnerships with community-based IPV agencies, which have been working innovatively during the pandemic to support families experiencing IPV. “Pediatric health care providers should work to develop formalized partnerships with IPV agencies to assist with staff training, clinical protocols and policies to address IPV, including survivor-centered approaches to care when IPV is disclosed,” they wrote. “Health care settings must recognize that IPV agencies are integral to the pediatric medical home and essential collaborators in the provision of healing-centered care for IPV survivors and their children.”

Among these, Futures Without Violence, a national violence-prevention advocacy and policy organization, offers recommendations on collaboration via the IPV Health Partners website.

Matthew I. Harris, MD, a pediatric emergency physician at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New York, concurred that the pediatric care setting can be an access point for IPV referrals. “Whether a child comes into our center with an ear infection or an injury, there’s a standard screening process for safety in the home,” he said in an interview. That standard filtering identifies the presence of smoking, alcohol, guns, and potential abusers. “It’s not uncommon that we discover violence or physical, verbal, or sexual abuse not only toward the child but also another family member, including IPV.”

Children’s hospitals are well positioned to identify at-risk families and refer them to appropriate protective services, Dr. Harris said. “Ultimately, we are charged with the responsibility of ensuring children have a safe home environment and that involves minimizing any harmful impact on other family members, including those exposed to IPV.”

The authors received no funding for this study and reported no competing interests. Dr. Ragavan had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Miller reported royalties for writing content for UpToDate. Dr. Harris disclosed no competing interests.

This article was updated 3/25/22.

Hospitalized COVID-19 survivors showed greater cognitive impairment 6 months later, compared with patients hospitalized for other causes, but the overall disease burden was similar, based on data from 85 adults with COVID-19.

Previous studies have shown that cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur from 2-6 months after COVID-19 recovery, and such symptoms are known to be associated with hospitalization for other severe medical conditions, Vardan Nersesjan, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues wrote.

However, it remains unknown if COVID-19 is associated with a unique pattern of cognitive and mental impairment compared with other similarly severe medical conditions, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry (2022 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0284), the researchers identified 85 adult COVID-19 survivors and 61 controls with non-COVID medical conditions who were treated and released between July 2020 and July 2021. The COVID-19 patients and controls were matched for age, sex, and ICU status. Cognitive impairment was assessed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), neurologic examination, and a semistructured interview to determine subjective symptoms.

The primary outcomes were the total scores on the MoCA and any new-onset psychiatric diagnoses. Secondary outcomes included specific psychiatric diagnoses such as depression, neurologic examination findings, and self-reported neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms. The mean age of the COVID-19 patients was 56.8 years, and 42% were women.

At 6 months’ follow-up, cognitive status was significantly lower in COVID-19 survivors, compared with controls, based on total geometric mean MoCA scores (26.7 vs. 27.5, P = .01). However, cognitive status improved significantly from 19.2 at hospital discharge to 26.1 at 6 months in 15 of the COVID-19 patients (P = .004), the researchers noted.

New-onset psychiatric diagnoses occurred in 16 COVID-19 patients and 12 of the controls (19% vs. 20%); this difference was not significant.

Secondary outcomes were not significantly different at 6 months between the groups, with the exception of anosmia, which was significantly more common in the COVID-19 patients; however, the significance disappeared in adjusted analysis, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causality because of the case-control feature and by the inability to detect small differences in neuropsychiatric outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a prospectively matched control group with similar disease severity admitted to the same hospital in the same time frame. Although the overall burden of neuropsychiatric and neurologic symptoms and diagnoses appeared similar in COVID-19 patients and those with other medical conditions, more research in larger populations is needed to determine smaller differences in neuropsychiatric profiles, the researchers noted.

Study fills research gap

The study is important at this time because, although prolonged neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms have been reported after COVID-19, the field lacked prospective case-control studies with well-matched controls to investigate whether these outcomes differed from those seen in other critical illnesses that had also required hospitalization, corresponding author Michael E. Benros, MD, of the Mental Health Center, Copenhagen, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was a significant worse cognitive functioning among COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset also when compared to this well-matched control group that had been hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although the absolute difference between the groups in cognition score were small,” said Dr. Benros. “Another notable finding is the large improvement in cognitive functioning from discharge to follow-up,” he added on behalf of himself and fellow corresponding author Daniel Kondziella, MD.

The study results show that cognitive function affected by COVID-19 and critical illness as observed at discharge showed a substantial improvement at 6 months after symptom onset, said Dr. Benros. “However, the cognitive function was significantly worse among severely ill COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset when compared to a matched control group of individuals hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although this difference in cognitive function was rather small in absolute numbers, and smaller than what had been suggested by other studies that lacked control groups. Strikingly, neuropsychiatric disorders were similar across the two groups, which was also the case when looking at neuropsychiatric symptoms.

“Larger prospective case-control studies of neuropsychiatric and cognitive functioning after COVID-19, compared with matched controls are still needed to detect smaller differences, and more detailed cognitive domains, and with longer follow-up time, which we are currently conducting,” Dr. Benros said.  
 

Controlled studies will help planning

“Lingering neuropsychiatric complications are common after COVID-19, but only controlled studies can tell us whether these complications are specific to COVID-19, rather than a general effect of having been medically ill,” Alasdair G. Rooney, MRCPsych MD PhD, of the University of Edinburgh, said in an interview. “The answer matters ultimately because COVID-19 is a new disease; societies and health care services need to be able to plan for its specific consequences.”

The health status of the control group is important as well. “Most previous studies had compared COVID-19 survivors against healthy controls or patients from a historical database. This new study compared COVID-19 survivors against those hospitalized for other medical causes over the same period,” Dr. Rooney said. “This is a more stringent test of whether COVID-19 has specific neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric consequences.

“The study found that new-onset neuropsychiatric diagnoses and symptoms were no more likely to occur after COVID-19 than after similarly severe medical illnesses,” Dr. Rooney said. “This negative finding runs counter to some earlier studies and may surprise some.” The findings need to be replicated in larger samples, but the current study shows the importance of prospectively recruiting active controls.

“In a subgroup analysis, some patients showed good improvement in cognitive scores between discharge and follow-up. While unsurprising, this is encouraging and suggests that the early postdischarge months are an important time for neurocognitive recovery,” Dr. Rooney noted.

“The findings suggest that COVID-19 may impair attention more selectively than other medical causes of hospitalization. COVID-19 survivors may also be at higher risk of significant overall cognitive impairment than survivors of similarly severe medical illnesses, after a similar duration,” said Dr. Rooney. “If the results are replicated by other prospective studies, they would suggest that there is something about COVID-19 that causes clinically significant neurocognitive difficulties in a minority of survivors.

“Larger well-controlled studies are required, with longer follow-up and more detailed neurocognitive testing,” as the duration of impairment and scope for further recovery are not known, Dr. Rooney added. Also unknown is whether COVID-19 affects attention permanently, or whether recovery is simply slower after COVID-19 compared to other medical illnesses.

“Knowing who is at the greatest risk of severe cognitive impairment after COVID-19 is important and likely to allow tailoring of more effective shielding strategies,” said Dr. Rooney. “This study was conducted before the widespread availability of vaccines for COVID-19. Long-term neuropsychiatric outcomes in vaccinated patients remain largely unknown. Arguably, these are now more important to understand, as future COVID-19 waves will occur mainly among vaccinated individuals.”

The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nersesjan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. Rooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/25/22.

Hospitalized COVID-19 survivors showed greater cognitive impairment 6 months later, compared with patients hospitalized for other causes, but the overall disease burden was similar, based on data from 85 adults with COVID-19.

Previous studies have shown that cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur from 2-6 months after COVID-19 recovery, and such symptoms are known to be associated with hospitalization for other severe medical conditions, Vardan Nersesjan, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues wrote.

However, it remains unknown if COVID-19 is associated with a unique pattern of cognitive and mental impairment compared with other similarly severe medical conditions, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry (2022 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0284), the researchers identified 85 adult COVID-19 survivors and 61 controls with non-COVID medical conditions who were treated and released between July 2020 and July 2021. The COVID-19 patients and controls were matched for age, sex, and ICU status. Cognitive impairment was assessed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), neurologic examination, and a semistructured interview to determine subjective symptoms.

The primary outcomes were the total scores on the MoCA and any new-onset psychiatric diagnoses. Secondary outcomes included specific psychiatric diagnoses such as depression, neurologic examination findings, and self-reported neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms. The mean age of the COVID-19 patients was 56.8 years, and 42% were women.

At 6 months’ follow-up, cognitive status was significantly lower in COVID-19 survivors, compared with controls, based on total geometric mean MoCA scores (26.7 vs. 27.5, P = .01). However, cognitive status improved significantly from 19.2 at hospital discharge to 26.1 at 6 months in 15 of the COVID-19 patients (P = .004), the researchers noted.

New-onset psychiatric diagnoses occurred in 16 COVID-19 patients and 12 of the controls (19% vs. 20%); this difference was not significant.

Secondary outcomes were not significantly different at 6 months between the groups, with the exception of anosmia, which was significantly more common in the COVID-19 patients; however, the significance disappeared in adjusted analysis, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causality because of the case-control feature and by the inability to detect small differences in neuropsychiatric outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a prospectively matched control group with similar disease severity admitted to the same hospital in the same time frame. Although the overall burden of neuropsychiatric and neurologic symptoms and diagnoses appeared similar in COVID-19 patients and those with other medical conditions, more research in larger populations is needed to determine smaller differences in neuropsychiatric profiles, the researchers noted.

Study fills research gap

The study is important at this time because, although prolonged neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms have been reported after COVID-19, the field lacked prospective case-control studies with well-matched controls to investigate whether these outcomes differed from those seen in other critical illnesses that had also required hospitalization, corresponding author Michael E. Benros, MD, of the Mental Health Center, Copenhagen, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was a significant worse cognitive functioning among COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset also when compared to this well-matched control group that had been hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although the absolute difference between the groups in cognition score were small,” said Dr. Benros. “Another notable finding is the large improvement in cognitive functioning from discharge to follow-up,” he added on behalf of himself and fellow corresponding author Daniel Kondziella, MD.

The study results show that cognitive function affected by COVID-19 and critical illness as observed at discharge showed a substantial improvement at 6 months after symptom onset, said Dr. Benros. “However, the cognitive function was significantly worse among severely ill COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset when compared to a matched control group of individuals hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although this difference in cognitive function was rather small in absolute numbers, and smaller than what had been suggested by other studies that lacked control groups. Strikingly, neuropsychiatric disorders were similar across the two groups, which was also the case when looking at neuropsychiatric symptoms.

“Larger prospective case-control studies of neuropsychiatric and cognitive functioning after COVID-19, compared with matched controls are still needed to detect smaller differences, and more detailed cognitive domains, and with longer follow-up time, which we are currently conducting,” Dr. Benros said.  
 

Controlled studies will help planning

“Lingering neuropsychiatric complications are common after COVID-19, but only controlled studies can tell us whether these complications are specific to COVID-19, rather than a general effect of having been medically ill,” Alasdair G. Rooney, MRCPsych MD PhD, of the University of Edinburgh, said in an interview. “The answer matters ultimately because COVID-19 is a new disease; societies and health care services need to be able to plan for its specific consequences.”

The health status of the control group is important as well. “Most previous studies had compared COVID-19 survivors against healthy controls or patients from a historical database. This new study compared COVID-19 survivors against those hospitalized for other medical causes over the same period,” Dr. Rooney said. “This is a more stringent test of whether COVID-19 has specific neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric consequences.

“The study found that new-onset neuropsychiatric diagnoses and symptoms were no more likely to occur after COVID-19 than after similarly severe medical illnesses,” Dr. Rooney said. “This negative finding runs counter to some earlier studies and may surprise some.” The findings need to be replicated in larger samples, but the current study shows the importance of prospectively recruiting active controls.

“In a subgroup analysis, some patients showed good improvement in cognitive scores between discharge and follow-up. While unsurprising, this is encouraging and suggests that the early postdischarge months are an important time for neurocognitive recovery,” Dr. Rooney noted.

“The findings suggest that COVID-19 may impair attention more selectively than other medical causes of hospitalization. COVID-19 survivors may also be at higher risk of significant overall cognitive impairment than survivors of similarly severe medical illnesses, after a similar duration,” said Dr. Rooney. “If the results are replicated by other prospective studies, they would suggest that there is something about COVID-19 that causes clinically significant neurocognitive difficulties in a minority of survivors.

“Larger well-controlled studies are required, with longer follow-up and more detailed neurocognitive testing,” as the duration of impairment and scope for further recovery are not known, Dr. Rooney added. Also unknown is whether COVID-19 affects attention permanently, or whether recovery is simply slower after COVID-19 compared to other medical illnesses.

“Knowing who is at the greatest risk of severe cognitive impairment after COVID-19 is important and likely to allow tailoring of more effective shielding strategies,” said Dr. Rooney. “This study was conducted before the widespread availability of vaccines for COVID-19. Long-term neuropsychiatric outcomes in vaccinated patients remain largely unknown. Arguably, these are now more important to understand, as future COVID-19 waves will occur mainly among vaccinated individuals.”

The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nersesjan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. Rooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/25/22.

Hospitalized COVID-19 survivors showed greater cognitive impairment 6 months later, compared with patients hospitalized for other causes, but the overall disease burden was similar, based on data from 85 adults with COVID-19.

Previous studies have shown that cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms can occur from 2-6 months after COVID-19 recovery, and such symptoms are known to be associated with hospitalization for other severe medical conditions, Vardan Nersesjan, MD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues wrote.

However, it remains unknown if COVID-19 is associated with a unique pattern of cognitive and mental impairment compared with other similarly severe medical conditions, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Psychiatry (2022 Mar 23. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0284), the researchers identified 85 adult COVID-19 survivors and 61 controls with non-COVID medical conditions who were treated and released between July 2020 and July 2021. The COVID-19 patients and controls were matched for age, sex, and ICU status. Cognitive impairment was assessed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), neurologic examination, and a semistructured interview to determine subjective symptoms.

The primary outcomes were the total scores on the MoCA and any new-onset psychiatric diagnoses. Secondary outcomes included specific psychiatric diagnoses such as depression, neurologic examination findings, and self-reported neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms. The mean age of the COVID-19 patients was 56.8 years, and 42% were women.

At 6 months’ follow-up, cognitive status was significantly lower in COVID-19 survivors, compared with controls, based on total geometric mean MoCA scores (26.7 vs. 27.5, P = .01). However, cognitive status improved significantly from 19.2 at hospital discharge to 26.1 at 6 months in 15 of the COVID-19 patients (P = .004), the researchers noted.

New-onset psychiatric diagnoses occurred in 16 COVID-19 patients and 12 of the controls (19% vs. 20%); this difference was not significant.

Secondary outcomes were not significantly different at 6 months between the groups, with the exception of anosmia, which was significantly more common in the COVID-19 patients; however, the significance disappeared in adjusted analysis, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove causality because of the case-control feature and by the inability to detect small differences in neuropsychiatric outcomes, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of a prospectively matched control group with similar disease severity admitted to the same hospital in the same time frame. Although the overall burden of neuropsychiatric and neurologic symptoms and diagnoses appeared similar in COVID-19 patients and those with other medical conditions, more research in larger populations is needed to determine smaller differences in neuropsychiatric profiles, the researchers noted.

Study fills research gap

The study is important at this time because, although prolonged neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms have been reported after COVID-19, the field lacked prospective case-control studies with well-matched controls to investigate whether these outcomes differed from those seen in other critical illnesses that had also required hospitalization, corresponding author Michael E. Benros, MD, of the Mental Health Center, Copenhagen, said in an interview.

“I was surprised that there was a significant worse cognitive functioning among COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset also when compared to this well-matched control group that had been hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although the absolute difference between the groups in cognition score were small,” said Dr. Benros. “Another notable finding is the large improvement in cognitive functioning from discharge to follow-up,” he added on behalf of himself and fellow corresponding author Daniel Kondziella, MD.

The study results show that cognitive function affected by COVID-19 and critical illness as observed at discharge showed a substantial improvement at 6 months after symptom onset, said Dr. Benros. “However, the cognitive function was significantly worse among severely ill COVID-19 patients 6 months after symptom onset when compared to a matched control group of individuals hospitalized for non–COVID-19 illness, although this difference in cognitive function was rather small in absolute numbers, and smaller than what had been suggested by other studies that lacked control groups. Strikingly, neuropsychiatric disorders were similar across the two groups, which was also the case when looking at neuropsychiatric symptoms.

“Larger prospective case-control studies of neuropsychiatric and cognitive functioning after COVID-19, compared with matched controls are still needed to detect smaller differences, and more detailed cognitive domains, and with longer follow-up time, which we are currently conducting,” Dr. Benros said.  
 

Controlled studies will help planning

“Lingering neuropsychiatric complications are common after COVID-19, but only controlled studies can tell us whether these complications are specific to COVID-19, rather than a general effect of having been medically ill,” Alasdair G. Rooney, MRCPsych MD PhD, of the University of Edinburgh, said in an interview. “The answer matters ultimately because COVID-19 is a new disease; societies and health care services need to be able to plan for its specific consequences.”

The health status of the control group is important as well. “Most previous studies had compared COVID-19 survivors against healthy controls or patients from a historical database. This new study compared COVID-19 survivors against those hospitalized for other medical causes over the same period,” Dr. Rooney said. “This is a more stringent test of whether COVID-19 has specific neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric consequences.

“The study found that new-onset neuropsychiatric diagnoses and symptoms were no more likely to occur after COVID-19 than after similarly severe medical illnesses,” Dr. Rooney said. “This negative finding runs counter to some earlier studies and may surprise some.” The findings need to be replicated in larger samples, but the current study shows the importance of prospectively recruiting active controls.

“In a subgroup analysis, some patients showed good improvement in cognitive scores between discharge and follow-up. While unsurprising, this is encouraging and suggests that the early postdischarge months are an important time for neurocognitive recovery,” Dr. Rooney noted.

“The findings suggest that COVID-19 may impair attention more selectively than other medical causes of hospitalization. COVID-19 survivors may also be at higher risk of significant overall cognitive impairment than survivors of similarly severe medical illnesses, after a similar duration,” said Dr. Rooney. “If the results are replicated by other prospective studies, they would suggest that there is something about COVID-19 that causes clinically significant neurocognitive difficulties in a minority of survivors.

“Larger well-controlled studies are required, with longer follow-up and more detailed neurocognitive testing,” as the duration of impairment and scope for further recovery are not known, Dr. Rooney added. Also unknown is whether COVID-19 affects attention permanently, or whether recovery is simply slower after COVID-19 compared to other medical illnesses.

“Knowing who is at the greatest risk of severe cognitive impairment after COVID-19 is important and likely to allow tailoring of more effective shielding strategies,” said Dr. Rooney. “This study was conducted before the widespread availability of vaccines for COVID-19. Long-term neuropsychiatric outcomes in vaccinated patients remain largely unknown. Arguably, these are now more important to understand, as future COVID-19 waves will occur mainly among vaccinated individuals.”

The study was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nersesjan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation and Novo Nordisk Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. Rooney had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This article was updated 3/25/22.

As the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) begins its integration into clinical practice, some physicians are concerned the drug’s prescribing label does not include adequate brain imaging recommendations to detect amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA).

Specifically, the drug’s label calls for three MRI brain scans before, and during, the titration period. The problem is the trial data used for the drug’s approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration included five MRIs to screen for ARIA.

“We recommend proceeding as per the clinical trials,” said Meghan Riddle, MD, associate director, Memory and Aging program, Butler Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Riddle shared her team’s clinical experience with aducanumab, as well as information on four ARIA cases from their clinic, during a presentation at the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) 2022 Annual Meeting.
 

Significant safety risk?

As previously reported by this news organization, the FDA granted accelerated approval of aducanumab for AD last year.

ARIA is the most common risk associated with aducanumab and has two types: ARIA-E (with edema) and ARIA-H (with hemosiderin). These can co-occur, particularly in areas of high amyloid burden, Dr. Riddle noted during her presentation.

ARIA is often detected incidentally via MRI. Patients are usually asymptomatic, but when they do have symptoms, headache, dizziness, and vision changes are the most common complaints. However, these are generally mild, said Dr. Riddle.

Nevertheless, in some cases, there can be severe sequelae, including severe edema or bleeding and seizures, she added.

A major risk factor for ARIA is apolipoprotein 4 (APOE ε4) status. Carriers are twice as likely to develop ARIA as non-carriers.

“If you’re heterozygote for APOE ε4, you have about a 40% chance of developing ARIA, and if you’re homozygote, you have about a 66% chance of developing ARIA,” Dr. Riddle said.

Given the high rate of ARIA in APOE ε4 carriers, the team from Butler Hospital recommends APOE testing prior to treatment with aducanumab.

The risk for developing ARIA is highest within the year of dose titration, Dr. Riddle noted. The current FDA label recommends obtaining a recent brain MRI, within 1 year, and then scans before the 7th and 12th infusions. However, the protocol during the clinical trials of aducanumab included MRI at baseline and prior to the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 12th infusions.

Dr. Riddle’s group has opted to continue the research protocol with new patients. “There’s concern that the decreased MRI monitoring based on the current FDA label may pose a significant safety risk, particularly among those who we know are already at a higher risk of developing ARIA,” she said.

Dr. Riddle also shared how her team selects aducanumab candidates. They need to have mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 24 to 30, and a recent MRI to review for eligibility and APOE testing.

The most common reason for treatment exclusion is advanced disease and comorbidity, such as stroke.

Once approved for treatment, patients receive monthly infusions titrated over 6 months – 1 mg/kg for 2 months, 3 mg/kg for 2 months, 6 mg/kg for 2 months, then 10 mg/kg.

Patients are monitored to ensure safety and tolerability and regular review of MRI findings. In addition, patients and their families receive ongoing education about the drug.

Dr. Riddle and her team permanently discontinue the aducanumab if patients develop microhemorrhage, more than one area of superficial siderosis, more than 10 microhemorrhages, more than two episodes of ARIA, or severe symptoms of ARIA.
 

Four cases

Of the 11 patients who were candidates for aducanumab treatment, four developed ARIA. All are APOE ε4 carriers, with two homozygotes and two heterozygotes. All had severe radiographic ARIA-E, with one developing ARIA-H.

“Importantly, they were all initially asymptomatic and the ARIA was just picked up on their regular surveillance MRI,” said Dr. Riddle. She added that the drug was discontinued in all four cases.

Three of the ARIA cases were detected prior to the 5th scan, which is “concerning,” said Dr. Riddle. “Based on the current FDA label of safety monitoring, they don’t recommend doing that MRI. So [clinicians] would have dosed through that ARIA, which could put someone at much greater risk of developing severe symptoms.”

In addition, 14 patients at the center are receiving treatment with aducanumab. However, at this point they have not yet received their first MRI screen.

Dr. Riddle noted that when patients are told they are not candidates for treatment, or when treatment is discontinued, they are upset. However, she added, there is also a substantial level of understanding.

“We have a very layered discussion that includes the simple fact that we still aren’t sure if this is going to provide any clinical benefit, that this decision [to approve the drug] was accelerated, and that data are still being gathered,” Dr. Riddle added.

Dr. Riddle noted that the risk of ARIA is highest during the dose titration period: “There’s a signal that once you get to the 10 mg/kg dose, that plateaus.”

None of the patients at her center have reached that 12-month treatment mark. “The current plan is to do the MRI at 12 months then to give serial MRIs but less frequently, and whether that’s at 6 months or annually is yet to be determined.”

“We’re kind of writing these protocols as information evolves,” Dr. Riddle said.

The Memory and Aging Program receives grants from NIH-ADNI, Alzheimer’s Association, Fain Family Foundation, Joukowsky Family Foundation, Winter Family, Rhode Island Foundation, Goodman Family Foundation, and Global Alzheimer Platform Foundation; and clinical trials include: Lilly, Biogen, Genentech, Avid, Roche, Eisai, and Novartis. Dr. Riddle has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) begins its integration into clinical practice, some physicians are concerned the drug’s prescribing label does not include adequate brain imaging recommendations to detect amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA).

Specifically, the drug’s label calls for three MRI brain scans before, and during, the titration period. The problem is the trial data used for the drug’s approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration included five MRIs to screen for ARIA.

“We recommend proceeding as per the clinical trials,” said Meghan Riddle, MD, associate director, Memory and Aging program, Butler Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Riddle shared her team’s clinical experience with aducanumab, as well as information on four ARIA cases from their clinic, during a presentation at the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) 2022 Annual Meeting.
 

Significant safety risk?

As previously reported by this news organization, the FDA granted accelerated approval of aducanumab for AD last year.

ARIA is the most common risk associated with aducanumab and has two types: ARIA-E (with edema) and ARIA-H (with hemosiderin). These can co-occur, particularly in areas of high amyloid burden, Dr. Riddle noted during her presentation.

ARIA is often detected incidentally via MRI. Patients are usually asymptomatic, but when they do have symptoms, headache, dizziness, and vision changes are the most common complaints. However, these are generally mild, said Dr. Riddle.

Nevertheless, in some cases, there can be severe sequelae, including severe edema or bleeding and seizures, she added.

A major risk factor for ARIA is apolipoprotein 4 (APOE ε4) status. Carriers are twice as likely to develop ARIA as non-carriers.

“If you’re heterozygote for APOE ε4, you have about a 40% chance of developing ARIA, and if you’re homozygote, you have about a 66% chance of developing ARIA,” Dr. Riddle said.

Given the high rate of ARIA in APOE ε4 carriers, the team from Butler Hospital recommends APOE testing prior to treatment with aducanumab.

The risk for developing ARIA is highest within the year of dose titration, Dr. Riddle noted. The current FDA label recommends obtaining a recent brain MRI, within 1 year, and then scans before the 7th and 12th infusions. However, the protocol during the clinical trials of aducanumab included MRI at baseline and prior to the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 12th infusions.

Dr. Riddle’s group has opted to continue the research protocol with new patients. “There’s concern that the decreased MRI monitoring based on the current FDA label may pose a significant safety risk, particularly among those who we know are already at a higher risk of developing ARIA,” she said.

Dr. Riddle also shared how her team selects aducanumab candidates. They need to have mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 24 to 30, and a recent MRI to review for eligibility and APOE testing.

The most common reason for treatment exclusion is advanced disease and comorbidity, such as stroke.

Once approved for treatment, patients receive monthly infusions titrated over 6 months – 1 mg/kg for 2 months, 3 mg/kg for 2 months, 6 mg/kg for 2 months, then 10 mg/kg.

Patients are monitored to ensure safety and tolerability and regular review of MRI findings. In addition, patients and their families receive ongoing education about the drug.

Dr. Riddle and her team permanently discontinue the aducanumab if patients develop microhemorrhage, more than one area of superficial siderosis, more than 10 microhemorrhages, more than two episodes of ARIA, or severe symptoms of ARIA.
 

Four cases

Of the 11 patients who were candidates for aducanumab treatment, four developed ARIA. All are APOE ε4 carriers, with two homozygotes and two heterozygotes. All had severe radiographic ARIA-E, with one developing ARIA-H.

“Importantly, they were all initially asymptomatic and the ARIA was just picked up on their regular surveillance MRI,” said Dr. Riddle. She added that the drug was discontinued in all four cases.

Three of the ARIA cases were detected prior to the 5th scan, which is “concerning,” said Dr. Riddle. “Based on the current FDA label of safety monitoring, they don’t recommend doing that MRI. So [clinicians] would have dosed through that ARIA, which could put someone at much greater risk of developing severe symptoms.”

In addition, 14 patients at the center are receiving treatment with aducanumab. However, at this point they have not yet received their first MRI screen.

Dr. Riddle noted that when patients are told they are not candidates for treatment, or when treatment is discontinued, they are upset. However, she added, there is also a substantial level of understanding.

“We have a very layered discussion that includes the simple fact that we still aren’t sure if this is going to provide any clinical benefit, that this decision [to approve the drug] was accelerated, and that data are still being gathered,” Dr. Riddle added.

Dr. Riddle noted that the risk of ARIA is highest during the dose titration period: “There’s a signal that once you get to the 10 mg/kg dose, that plateaus.”

None of the patients at her center have reached that 12-month treatment mark. “The current plan is to do the MRI at 12 months then to give serial MRIs but less frequently, and whether that’s at 6 months or annually is yet to be determined.”

“We’re kind of writing these protocols as information evolves,” Dr. Riddle said.

The Memory and Aging Program receives grants from NIH-ADNI, Alzheimer’s Association, Fain Family Foundation, Joukowsky Family Foundation, Winter Family, Rhode Island Foundation, Goodman Family Foundation, and Global Alzheimer Platform Foundation; and clinical trials include: Lilly, Biogen, Genentech, Avid, Roche, Eisai, and Novartis. Dr. Riddle has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) begins its integration into clinical practice, some physicians are concerned the drug’s prescribing label does not include adequate brain imaging recommendations to detect amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA).

Specifically, the drug’s label calls for three MRI brain scans before, and during, the titration period. The problem is the trial data used for the drug’s approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration included five MRIs to screen for ARIA.

“We recommend proceeding as per the clinical trials,” said Meghan Riddle, MD, associate director, Memory and Aging program, Butler Hospital, and assistant professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

Dr. Riddle shared her team’s clinical experience with aducanumab, as well as information on four ARIA cases from their clinic, during a presentation at the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (AAGP) 2022 Annual Meeting.
 

Significant safety risk?

As previously reported by this news organization, the FDA granted accelerated approval of aducanumab for AD last year.

ARIA is the most common risk associated with aducanumab and has two types: ARIA-E (with edema) and ARIA-H (with hemosiderin). These can co-occur, particularly in areas of high amyloid burden, Dr. Riddle noted during her presentation.

ARIA is often detected incidentally via MRI. Patients are usually asymptomatic, but when they do have symptoms, headache, dizziness, and vision changes are the most common complaints. However, these are generally mild, said Dr. Riddle.

Nevertheless, in some cases, there can be severe sequelae, including severe edema or bleeding and seizures, she added.

A major risk factor for ARIA is apolipoprotein 4 (APOE ε4) status. Carriers are twice as likely to develop ARIA as non-carriers.

“If you’re heterozygote for APOE ε4, you have about a 40% chance of developing ARIA, and if you’re homozygote, you have about a 66% chance of developing ARIA,” Dr. Riddle said.

Given the high rate of ARIA in APOE ε4 carriers, the team from Butler Hospital recommends APOE testing prior to treatment with aducanumab.

The risk for developing ARIA is highest within the year of dose titration, Dr. Riddle noted. The current FDA label recommends obtaining a recent brain MRI, within 1 year, and then scans before the 7th and 12th infusions. However, the protocol during the clinical trials of aducanumab included MRI at baseline and prior to the 5th, 7th, 9th, and 12th infusions.

Dr. Riddle’s group has opted to continue the research protocol with new patients. “There’s concern that the decreased MRI monitoring based on the current FDA label may pose a significant safety risk, particularly among those who we know are already at a higher risk of developing ARIA,” she said.

Dr. Riddle also shared how her team selects aducanumab candidates. They need to have mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 24 to 30, and a recent MRI to review for eligibility and APOE testing.

The most common reason for treatment exclusion is advanced disease and comorbidity, such as stroke.

Once approved for treatment, patients receive monthly infusions titrated over 6 months – 1 mg/kg for 2 months, 3 mg/kg for 2 months, 6 mg/kg for 2 months, then 10 mg/kg.

Patients are monitored to ensure safety and tolerability and regular review of MRI findings. In addition, patients and their families receive ongoing education about the drug.

Dr. Riddle and her team permanently discontinue the aducanumab if patients develop microhemorrhage, more than one area of superficial siderosis, more than 10 microhemorrhages, more than two episodes of ARIA, or severe symptoms of ARIA.
 

Four cases

Of the 11 patients who were candidates for aducanumab treatment, four developed ARIA. All are APOE ε4 carriers, with two homozygotes and two heterozygotes. All had severe radiographic ARIA-E, with one developing ARIA-H.

“Importantly, they were all initially asymptomatic and the ARIA was just picked up on their regular surveillance MRI,” said Dr. Riddle. She added that the drug was discontinued in all four cases.

Three of the ARIA cases were detected prior to the 5th scan, which is “concerning,” said Dr. Riddle. “Based on the current FDA label of safety monitoring, they don’t recommend doing that MRI. So [clinicians] would have dosed through that ARIA, which could put someone at much greater risk of developing severe symptoms.”

In addition, 14 patients at the center are receiving treatment with aducanumab. However, at this point they have not yet received their first MRI screen.

Dr. Riddle noted that when patients are told they are not candidates for treatment, or when treatment is discontinued, they are upset. However, she added, there is also a substantial level of understanding.

“We have a very layered discussion that includes the simple fact that we still aren’t sure if this is going to provide any clinical benefit, that this decision [to approve the drug] was accelerated, and that data are still being gathered,” Dr. Riddle added.

Dr. Riddle noted that the risk of ARIA is highest during the dose titration period: “There’s a signal that once you get to the 10 mg/kg dose, that plateaus.”

None of the patients at her center have reached that 12-month treatment mark. “The current plan is to do the MRI at 12 months then to give serial MRIs but less frequently, and whether that’s at 6 months or annually is yet to be determined.”

“We’re kind of writing these protocols as information evolves,” Dr. Riddle said.

The Memory and Aging Program receives grants from NIH-ADNI, Alzheimer’s Association, Fain Family Foundation, Joukowsky Family Foundation, Winter Family, Rhode Island Foundation, Goodman Family Foundation, and Global Alzheimer Platform Foundation; and clinical trials include: Lilly, Biogen, Genentech, Avid, Roche, Eisai, and Novartis. Dr. Riddle has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

City dwellers with high exposure to green space have a significantly lower risk of developing schizophrenia than their counterparts who live in areas with little green space, a new study shows.

The investigators, led by Martin Rotenberg, MD, of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and the University of Toronto, found individuals living in areas with the lowest levels of green space were 24% more likely to develop schizophrenia.

This study contributes to a growing body of evidence showing the importance of exposure to green space to mental health.

“These findings contribute to a growing evidence base that environmental factors may play a role in the etiology of schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

The study was published online Feb. 4 in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Underlying mechanism unknown

For the study, researchers used a retrospective population-based cohort of 649,020 individuals between ages 14 and 40 years from different neighborhoods in Toronto.

Green space was calculated using geospatial data of all public parks and green spaces in the city; data were drawn from the Urban Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool.

Over a 10-year period, 4,841 participants were diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Those who lived in neighborhoods with the least amount of green space were significantly more likely to develop schizophrenia than those who lived in areas with the most green space, even after adjusting for age, sex, and neighborhood-level marginalization (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.45).

Overall, schizophrenia risk was also elevated in men vs. women (adjusted IRR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.50-1.68). Those living in areas with moderate amounts of green space did not have an increased schizophrenia risk.

“We found that residing in an area with the lowest amount of green space was associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, independent of other sociodemographic and socioenvironmental factors,” the researchers note. “The underlying mechanism at play is unknown and requires further study.”

One possibility, they added, is that exposure to green space may reduce the risk of air pollution, which other studies have suggested may be associated with increased schizophrenia risk.

The new study builds on a 2018 report from Denmark that showed a 52% increased risk of psychotic disorders in adulthood among people who spent their childhood in neighborhoods with little green space.
 

Important, longitudinal data

Commenting on the findings, John Torous, MD, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the study provides important longitudinal data.

“The 10-year duration of the study and large sample size make the results very compelling and help confirm what has been thought about green space and risk of schizophrenia,” Dr. Torous said.

“Often, we think of green space at a very macro level,” he added. “This study is important because it shows us that green space matters on a block-by-block level just as much.”

The study was unfunded. The authors and Dr. Torous have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

City dwellers with high exposure to green space have a significantly lower risk of developing schizophrenia than their counterparts who live in areas with little green space, a new study shows.

The investigators, led by Martin Rotenberg, MD, of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and the University of Toronto, found individuals living in areas with the lowest levels of green space were 24% more likely to develop schizophrenia.

This study contributes to a growing body of evidence showing the importance of exposure to green space to mental health.

“These findings contribute to a growing evidence base that environmental factors may play a role in the etiology of schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

The study was published online Feb. 4 in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Underlying mechanism unknown

For the study, researchers used a retrospective population-based cohort of 649,020 individuals between ages 14 and 40 years from different neighborhoods in Toronto.

Green space was calculated using geospatial data of all public parks and green spaces in the city; data were drawn from the Urban Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool.

Over a 10-year period, 4,841 participants were diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Those who lived in neighborhoods with the least amount of green space were significantly more likely to develop schizophrenia than those who lived in areas with the most green space, even after adjusting for age, sex, and neighborhood-level marginalization (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.45).

Overall, schizophrenia risk was also elevated in men vs. women (adjusted IRR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.50-1.68). Those living in areas with moderate amounts of green space did not have an increased schizophrenia risk.

“We found that residing in an area with the lowest amount of green space was associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, independent of other sociodemographic and socioenvironmental factors,” the researchers note. “The underlying mechanism at play is unknown and requires further study.”

One possibility, they added, is that exposure to green space may reduce the risk of air pollution, which other studies have suggested may be associated with increased schizophrenia risk.

The new study builds on a 2018 report from Denmark that showed a 52% increased risk of psychotic disorders in adulthood among people who spent their childhood in neighborhoods with little green space.
 

Important, longitudinal data

Commenting on the findings, John Torous, MD, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the study provides important longitudinal data.

“The 10-year duration of the study and large sample size make the results very compelling and help confirm what has been thought about green space and risk of schizophrenia,” Dr. Torous said.

“Often, we think of green space at a very macro level,” he added. “This study is important because it shows us that green space matters on a block-by-block level just as much.”

The study was unfunded. The authors and Dr. Torous have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

City dwellers with high exposure to green space have a significantly lower risk of developing schizophrenia than their counterparts who live in areas with little green space, a new study shows.

The investigators, led by Martin Rotenberg, MD, of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and the University of Toronto, found individuals living in areas with the lowest levels of green space were 24% more likely to develop schizophrenia.

This study contributes to a growing body of evidence showing the importance of exposure to green space to mental health.

“These findings contribute to a growing evidence base that environmental factors may play a role in the etiology of schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

The study was published online Feb. 4 in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Underlying mechanism unknown

For the study, researchers used a retrospective population-based cohort of 649,020 individuals between ages 14 and 40 years from different neighborhoods in Toronto.

Green space was calculated using geospatial data of all public parks and green spaces in the city; data were drawn from the Urban Health Equity Assessment and Response Tool.

Over a 10-year period, 4,841 participants were diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Those who lived in neighborhoods with the least amount of green space were significantly more likely to develop schizophrenia than those who lived in areas with the most green space, even after adjusting for age, sex, and neighborhood-level marginalization (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.45).

Overall, schizophrenia risk was also elevated in men vs. women (adjusted IRR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.50-1.68). Those living in areas with moderate amounts of green space did not have an increased schizophrenia risk.

“We found that residing in an area with the lowest amount of green space was associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, independent of other sociodemographic and socioenvironmental factors,” the researchers note. “The underlying mechanism at play is unknown and requires further study.”

One possibility, they added, is that exposure to green space may reduce the risk of air pollution, which other studies have suggested may be associated with increased schizophrenia risk.

The new study builds on a 2018 report from Denmark that showed a 52% increased risk of psychotic disorders in adulthood among people who spent their childhood in neighborhoods with little green space.
 

Important, longitudinal data

Commenting on the findings, John Torous, MD, director of digital psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said the study provides important longitudinal data.

“The 10-year duration of the study and large sample size make the results very compelling and help confirm what has been thought about green space and risk of schizophrenia,” Dr. Torous said.

“Often, we think of green space at a very macro level,” he added. “This study is important because it shows us that green space matters on a block-by-block level just as much.”

The study was unfunded. The authors and Dr. Torous have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

DENVER – Deficits in executive function (EF) are linked to with development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and exacerbation of such symptoms over time, new research suggests.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to show that executive-function deficits maintain PTSD symptoms following trauma exposure,” investigators noted in research presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) Anxiety & Depression conference.

Courtesy Auburn University

The results are important in “developing precision medicine–based approaches for alleviating [posttraumatic stress] symptoms, and improving well-established PTSD treatments for those with relative deficits in executive function,” study investigator Joseph R. Bardeen, PhD, associate professor at Auburn (Ala.) University, told meeting attendees.

The findings were published in the Journal of Anxiety Disorders.
 

Cognitive impairment

In earlier research, deficits in EF were associated with an increased vulnerability for PTSD symptoms. However, less is known about the role of these deficits, which can impair higher-level cognitive ability, in sustaining PTSD symptoms.

To investigate, the authors conducted a longitudinal study that included 98 participants aged 18-65 years who had been identified via phone screening as experiencing clinically significant PTSD symptoms.

Participants completed self-report measures for PTSD symptoms, as well as measures for EF deficits at baseline and 6-month (n = 92) and 12-month (n = 91) follow-up sessions.

A path analysis showed a significant relationship between baseline PTSD symptoms and EF deficits at 6 months (P < .001). Baseline PTSD symptoms were associated with 12-month PTSD symptoms (P < .04).

EF deficits at 6 months were also associated with 12-month PTSD symptoms (P = .02).

Importantly, no associations were observed between baseline or 6-month PTSD symptoms and EF deficits at 12 months. However, EF deficits at 6 months drove the relationship between PTSD symptoms at baseline and at 1 year (indirect effect = .061).

“What this suggests is that executive-function deficits are a mechanism that maintains patients’ symptoms over the course of 1 year,” Dr. Bardeen said.

“And you don’t see the reverse,” he added. “You don’t see that PTSD symptoms at [6 months] mediate the relationship between [baseline] and 6 month executive-function deficits.”
 

Surprising finding

The findings suggest deficits in executive functioning have a stronger role in maintaining PTSD symptoms than these symptoms have in maintaining EF deficits, Dr. Bardeen told this news organization.

“I had originally hypothesized a bidirectional relationship in which PTSD symptoms influenced future executive-function deficits and executive-function deficits influenced future PTSD symptoms,” he said.

“So, it was a surprise that, when accounting for both variables in the same model, executive-function deficits predicted future PTSD symptoms, but PTSD symptoms did not significantly predict future EF deficits,” he added.

Dr. Bardeen noted this suggests that EF deficits “may be a particularly important maintenance factor.”  

In addition, he recommended the use of neuropsychological assessments prior to treatment to identify individuals with EF deficits and distinguish those deficits from PTSD symptoms.

“There is certainly overlap between executive-function deficits and PTSD symptoms,” Dr. Bardeen said. “For example, several of the symptoms of PTSD, such as concentration difficulties, may be indicators of executive-function deficits.”

He noted assessments such as the Delis Kaplan Executive Function System, and Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5, when used as part of a larger assessment battery, can help differentiate between the EF deficits and PTSD.

“This would take several hours to administer, but in cases in which serious cognitive impairment is suspected, a comprehensive assessment is the way to go,” Dr. Bardeen said.

The standard approaches of prolonged exposure therapy and cognitive processing therapy can be effective in patients without EF deficits, while some modifications may benefit those with these deficits, he added.

“For example, it’s important to provide a more directive and structured environment in which the practitioner repeats key points frequently, uses concrete language, simplifies worksheets, and provides written summaries and reminder cards,” he said.
 

Further findings

In additional research presented at the meeting, Elsa Mattson, a PhD student from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues reported findings further distinguishing the role of EF in PTSD.

In that study of 149 patients with chronic PTSD, those with low performing working memory, but not high working memory, had higher pre- as well as posttreatment PTSD symptom severity and depressive symptoms.

“Clinicians should consider that impairments in executive function may play a role in reduced treatment response, potentially impairing a client’s ability to learn new information in treatment,” the investigators wrote.

“Understanding how executive function processes change over the course of treatment, particularly in relation to processing the trauma memories, is an important next step,” they added.

The first study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

DENVER – Deficits in executive function (EF) are linked to with development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and exacerbation of such symptoms over time, new research suggests.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to show that executive-function deficits maintain PTSD symptoms following trauma exposure,” investigators noted in research presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) Anxiety & Depression conference.

Courtesy Auburn University

The results are important in “developing precision medicine–based approaches for alleviating [posttraumatic stress] symptoms, and improving well-established PTSD treatments for those with relative deficits in executive function,” study investigator Joseph R. Bardeen, PhD, associate professor at Auburn (Ala.) University, told meeting attendees.

The findings were published in the Journal of Anxiety Disorders.
 

Cognitive impairment

In earlier research, deficits in EF were associated with an increased vulnerability for PTSD symptoms. However, less is known about the role of these deficits, which can impair higher-level cognitive ability, in sustaining PTSD symptoms.

To investigate, the authors conducted a longitudinal study that included 98 participants aged 18-65 years who had been identified via phone screening as experiencing clinically significant PTSD symptoms.

Participants completed self-report measures for PTSD symptoms, as well as measures for EF deficits at baseline and 6-month (n = 92) and 12-month (n = 91) follow-up sessions.

A path analysis showed a significant relationship between baseline PTSD symptoms and EF deficits at 6 months (P < .001). Baseline PTSD symptoms were associated with 12-month PTSD symptoms (P < .04).

EF deficits at 6 months were also associated with 12-month PTSD symptoms (P = .02).

Importantly, no associations were observed between baseline or 6-month PTSD symptoms and EF deficits at 12 months. However, EF deficits at 6 months drove the relationship between PTSD symptoms at baseline and at 1 year (indirect effect = .061).

“What this suggests is that executive-function deficits are a mechanism that maintains patients’ symptoms over the course of 1 year,” Dr. Bardeen said.

“And you don’t see the reverse,” he added. “You don’t see that PTSD symptoms at [6 months] mediate the relationship between [baseline] and 6 month executive-function deficits.”
 

Surprising finding

The findings suggest deficits in executive functioning have a stronger role in maintaining PTSD symptoms than these symptoms have in maintaining EF deficits, Dr. Bardeen told this news organization.

“I had originally hypothesized a bidirectional relationship in which PTSD symptoms influenced future executive-function deficits and executive-function deficits influenced future PTSD symptoms,” he said.

“So, it was a surprise that, when accounting for both variables in the same model, executive-function deficits predicted future PTSD symptoms, but PTSD symptoms did not significantly predict future EF deficits,” he added.

Dr. Bardeen noted this suggests that EF deficits “may be a particularly important maintenance factor.”  

In addition, he recommended the use of neuropsychological assessments prior to treatment to identify individuals with EF deficits and distinguish those deficits from PTSD symptoms.

“There is certainly overlap between executive-function deficits and PTSD symptoms,” Dr. Bardeen said. “For example, several of the symptoms of PTSD, such as concentration difficulties, may be indicators of executive-function deficits.”

He noted assessments such as the Delis Kaplan Executive Function System, and Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5, when used as part of a larger assessment battery, can help differentiate between the EF deficits and PTSD.

“This would take several hours to administer, but in cases in which serious cognitive impairment is suspected, a comprehensive assessment is the way to go,” Dr. Bardeen said.

The standard approaches of prolonged exposure therapy and cognitive processing therapy can be effective in patients without EF deficits, while some modifications may benefit those with these deficits, he added.

“For example, it’s important to provide a more directive and structured environment in which the practitioner repeats key points frequently, uses concrete language, simplifies worksheets, and provides written summaries and reminder cards,” he said.
 

Further findings

In additional research presented at the meeting, Elsa Mattson, a PhD student from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues reported findings further distinguishing the role of EF in PTSD.

In that study of 149 patients with chronic PTSD, those with low performing working memory, but not high working memory, had higher pre- as well as posttreatment PTSD symptom severity and depressive symptoms.

“Clinicians should consider that impairments in executive function may play a role in reduced treatment response, potentially impairing a client’s ability to learn new information in treatment,” the investigators wrote.

“Understanding how executive function processes change over the course of treatment, particularly in relation to processing the trauma memories, is an important next step,” they added.

The first study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

DENVER – Deficits in executive function (EF) are linked to with development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms and exacerbation of such symptoms over time, new research suggests.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to show that executive-function deficits maintain PTSD symptoms following trauma exposure,” investigators noted in research presented at the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA) Anxiety & Depression conference.

Courtesy Auburn University

The results are important in “developing precision medicine–based approaches for alleviating [posttraumatic stress] symptoms, and improving well-established PTSD treatments for those with relative deficits in executive function,” study investigator Joseph R. Bardeen, PhD, associate professor at Auburn (Ala.) University, told meeting attendees.

The findings were published in the Journal of Anxiety Disorders.
 

Cognitive impairment

In earlier research, deficits in EF were associated with an increased vulnerability for PTSD symptoms. However, less is known about the role of these deficits, which can impair higher-level cognitive ability, in sustaining PTSD symptoms.

To investigate, the authors conducted a longitudinal study that included 98 participants aged 18-65 years who had been identified via phone screening as experiencing clinically significant PTSD symptoms.

Participants completed self-report measures for PTSD symptoms, as well as measures for EF deficits at baseline and 6-month (n = 92) and 12-month (n = 91) follow-up sessions.

A path analysis showed a significant relationship between baseline PTSD symptoms and EF deficits at 6 months (P < .001). Baseline PTSD symptoms were associated with 12-month PTSD symptoms (P < .04).

EF deficits at 6 months were also associated with 12-month PTSD symptoms (P = .02).

Importantly, no associations were observed between baseline or 6-month PTSD symptoms and EF deficits at 12 months. However, EF deficits at 6 months drove the relationship between PTSD symptoms at baseline and at 1 year (indirect effect = .061).

“What this suggests is that executive-function deficits are a mechanism that maintains patients’ symptoms over the course of 1 year,” Dr. Bardeen said.

“And you don’t see the reverse,” he added. “You don’t see that PTSD symptoms at [6 months] mediate the relationship between [baseline] and 6 month executive-function deficits.”
 

Surprising finding

The findings suggest deficits in executive functioning have a stronger role in maintaining PTSD symptoms than these symptoms have in maintaining EF deficits, Dr. Bardeen told this news organization.

“I had originally hypothesized a bidirectional relationship in which PTSD symptoms influenced future executive-function deficits and executive-function deficits influenced future PTSD symptoms,” he said.

“So, it was a surprise that, when accounting for both variables in the same model, executive-function deficits predicted future PTSD symptoms, but PTSD symptoms did not significantly predict future EF deficits,” he added.

Dr. Bardeen noted this suggests that EF deficits “may be a particularly important maintenance factor.”  

In addition, he recommended the use of neuropsychological assessments prior to treatment to identify individuals with EF deficits and distinguish those deficits from PTSD symptoms.

“There is certainly overlap between executive-function deficits and PTSD symptoms,” Dr. Bardeen said. “For example, several of the symptoms of PTSD, such as concentration difficulties, may be indicators of executive-function deficits.”

He noted assessments such as the Delis Kaplan Executive Function System, and Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5, when used as part of a larger assessment battery, can help differentiate between the EF deficits and PTSD.

“This would take several hours to administer, but in cases in which serious cognitive impairment is suspected, a comprehensive assessment is the way to go,” Dr. Bardeen said.

The standard approaches of prolonged exposure therapy and cognitive processing therapy can be effective in patients without EF deficits, while some modifications may benefit those with these deficits, he added.

“For example, it’s important to provide a more directive and structured environment in which the practitioner repeats key points frequently, uses concrete language, simplifies worksheets, and provides written summaries and reminder cards,” he said.
 

Further findings

In additional research presented at the meeting, Elsa Mattson, a PhD student from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues reported findings further distinguishing the role of EF in PTSD.

In that study of 149 patients with chronic PTSD, those with low performing working memory, but not high working memory, had higher pre- as well as posttreatment PTSD symptom severity and depressive symptoms.

“Clinicians should consider that impairments in executive function may play a role in reduced treatment response, potentially impairing a client’s ability to learn new information in treatment,” the investigators wrote.

“Understanding how executive function processes change over the course of treatment, particularly in relation to processing the trauma memories, is an important next step,” they added.

The first study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says in their first-ever statement on the topic.

Eating disorders (binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) can cause “serious harms to physical and psychosocial health and take a tremendous toll on individuals and families,” task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, told this news organization.

“Screening for eating disorders has the potential to improve health by leading to early detection and effective treatment,” said Dr. Pbert, with the department of population and quantitative health sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

However, a “deep dive” into the available literature failed to turn up adequate evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for eating disorders for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older and for adults who have no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert said.

The task force, therefore, issued an “I” statement (insufficient evidence), meaning it cannot at this time recommend for or against screening for eating disorders.

An “I” statement is “fundamentally a call for more research,” Dr. Pbert noted.

Adolescents and adults who have signs and symptoms of an eating disorder – which include rapid weight loss; weight gain or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea – are not included in this recommendation.

The USPSTF recommendation statement and accompanying evidence report were published online March 15 in JAMA.
 

Clinical judgment key

In the absence of evidence, clinicians should use their judgment when determining whether or not to screen an individual patient for an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert advised.

One thing to consider is whether the patient is in a group at higher risk for eating disorders, such as athletes, females, young adults aged 18-29, and transgender individuals.

Another is whether the patient reports engaging in unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as fasting or skipping meals, Dr. Pbert said.

Importantly, any patient who has signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or is expressing concerns about their eating should be assessed and referred for appropriate care, Dr. Pbert said.

“The good news is that eating disorders can be treated,” she said.

Several organizations currently recommend screening in the context of monitoring changes in weight and other vital signs or signs and symptoms to determine whether a patient might have an eating disorder.

Dr. Pbert said it’s important to recognize that the USPSTF statement “doesn’t really conflict” with the recommendations of other organizations. “We all agree that patients who present with signs or symptoms of an eating disorder should be assessed further.”
 

Evidence gaps

The authors of an invited commentary in JAMA) say the task force has identified several “notable deficiencies” in the available data on screening for eating disorders.

“Directing attention to rigorous research to close this evidence gap will be important to find optimal approaches to identify patients with these complex disorders and improve their health outcomes,” write Evelyn Attia, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and Angela Guarda, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This “I” statement, they say, “highlights the need to prioritize research aimed at closing the evidence gap identified by USPSTF in a timely manner and underscores the need for new studies that address screening for eating disorders, treatment trials that enroll screen-detected populations from primary care settings, and screening in specific populations.

“Research on screening in primary care also should be paired with development and assessment of early brief intervention strategies for those individuals who screen positive, especially adolescents,” Dr. Attia and Dr. Guarda say.

Members of the USPSTF have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Attia has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Hilda & Preston David Foundation; royalties from UpToDate; and has served as a clinical advisor to Equip Health. Dr. Guarda has received support from the Stephen and Jean Robinson Fund and research funding from the Klarman Family Foundation.

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

There is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says in their first-ever statement on the topic.

Eating disorders (binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) can cause “serious harms to physical and psychosocial health and take a tremendous toll on individuals and families,” task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, told this news organization.

“Screening for eating disorders has the potential to improve health by leading to early detection and effective treatment,” said Dr. Pbert, with the department of population and quantitative health sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

However, a “deep dive” into the available literature failed to turn up adequate evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for eating disorders for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older and for adults who have no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert said.

The task force, therefore, issued an “I” statement (insufficient evidence), meaning it cannot at this time recommend for or against screening for eating disorders.

An “I” statement is “fundamentally a call for more research,” Dr. Pbert noted.

Adolescents and adults who have signs and symptoms of an eating disorder – which include rapid weight loss; weight gain or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea – are not included in this recommendation.

The USPSTF recommendation statement and accompanying evidence report were published online March 15 in JAMA.
 

Clinical judgment key

In the absence of evidence, clinicians should use their judgment when determining whether or not to screen an individual patient for an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert advised.

One thing to consider is whether the patient is in a group at higher risk for eating disorders, such as athletes, females, young adults aged 18-29, and transgender individuals.

Another is whether the patient reports engaging in unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as fasting or skipping meals, Dr. Pbert said.

Importantly, any patient who has signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or is expressing concerns about their eating should be assessed and referred for appropriate care, Dr. Pbert said.

“The good news is that eating disorders can be treated,” she said.

Several organizations currently recommend screening in the context of monitoring changes in weight and other vital signs or signs and symptoms to determine whether a patient might have an eating disorder.

Dr. Pbert said it’s important to recognize that the USPSTF statement “doesn’t really conflict” with the recommendations of other organizations. “We all agree that patients who present with signs or symptoms of an eating disorder should be assessed further.”
 

Evidence gaps

The authors of an invited commentary in JAMA) say the task force has identified several “notable deficiencies” in the available data on screening for eating disorders.

“Directing attention to rigorous research to close this evidence gap will be important to find optimal approaches to identify patients with these complex disorders and improve their health outcomes,” write Evelyn Attia, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and Angela Guarda, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This “I” statement, they say, “highlights the need to prioritize research aimed at closing the evidence gap identified by USPSTF in a timely manner and underscores the need for new studies that address screening for eating disorders, treatment trials that enroll screen-detected populations from primary care settings, and screening in specific populations.

“Research on screening in primary care also should be paired with development and assessment of early brief intervention strategies for those individuals who screen positive, especially adolescents,” Dr. Attia and Dr. Guarda say.

Members of the USPSTF have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Attia has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Hilda & Preston David Foundation; royalties from UpToDate; and has served as a clinical advisor to Equip Health. Dr. Guarda has received support from the Stephen and Jean Robinson Fund and research funding from the Klarman Family Foundation.

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

There is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for eating disorders in adolescents and adults, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says in their first-ever statement on the topic.

Eating disorders (binge eating disorder, bulimia nervosa, and anorexia nervosa) can cause “serious harms to physical and psychosocial health and take a tremendous toll on individuals and families,” task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, told this news organization.

“Screening for eating disorders has the potential to improve health by leading to early detection and effective treatment,” said Dr. Pbert, with the department of population and quantitative health sciences, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

However, a “deep dive” into the available literature failed to turn up adequate evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for eating disorders for children and adolescents aged 10 years and older and for adults who have no signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or concerns about their eating and who have not previously been diagnosed with an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert said.

The task force, therefore, issued an “I” statement (insufficient evidence), meaning it cannot at this time recommend for or against screening for eating disorders.

An “I” statement is “fundamentally a call for more research,” Dr. Pbert noted.

Adolescents and adults who have signs and symptoms of an eating disorder – which include rapid weight loss; weight gain or pronounced deviation from growth trajectory; pubertal delay; bradycardia; oligomenorrhea; and amenorrhea – are not included in this recommendation.

The USPSTF recommendation statement and accompanying evidence report were published online March 15 in JAMA.
 

Clinical judgment key

In the absence of evidence, clinicians should use their judgment when determining whether or not to screen an individual patient for an eating disorder, Dr. Pbert advised.

One thing to consider is whether the patient is in a group at higher risk for eating disorders, such as athletes, females, young adults aged 18-29, and transgender individuals.

Another is whether the patient reports engaging in unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as fasting or skipping meals, Dr. Pbert said.

Importantly, any patient who has signs or symptoms of an eating disorder or is expressing concerns about their eating should be assessed and referred for appropriate care, Dr. Pbert said.

“The good news is that eating disorders can be treated,” she said.

Several organizations currently recommend screening in the context of monitoring changes in weight and other vital signs or signs and symptoms to determine whether a patient might have an eating disorder.

Dr. Pbert said it’s important to recognize that the USPSTF statement “doesn’t really conflict” with the recommendations of other organizations. “We all agree that patients who present with signs or symptoms of an eating disorder should be assessed further.”
 

Evidence gaps

The authors of an invited commentary in JAMA) say the task force has identified several “notable deficiencies” in the available data on screening for eating disorders.

“Directing attention to rigorous research to close this evidence gap will be important to find optimal approaches to identify patients with these complex disorders and improve their health outcomes,” write Evelyn Attia, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, and Angela Guarda, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This “I” statement, they say, “highlights the need to prioritize research aimed at closing the evidence gap identified by USPSTF in a timely manner and underscores the need for new studies that address screening for eating disorders, treatment trials that enroll screen-detected populations from primary care settings, and screening in specific populations.

“Research on screening in primary care also should be paired with development and assessment of early brief intervention strategies for those individuals who screen positive, especially adolescents,” Dr. Attia and Dr. Guarda say.

Members of the USPSTF have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Attia has received research support from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Hilda & Preston David Foundation; royalties from UpToDate; and has served as a clinical advisor to Equip Health. Dr. Guarda has received support from the Stephen and Jean Robinson Fund and research funding from the Klarman Family Foundation.

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

Misaligned eyes in children are associated with an increased prevalence of mental illness, results of a large study suggest.

Investigators found children with strabismus or “crossed eyes” had up to a twofold increased risk of developing anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, compared with their counterparts without the eye condition.

“Psychiatrists who have a patient with depression or anxiety and notice that patient also has strabismus might think about the link between those two conditions and refer that patient,” study investigator Stacy L. Pineles, MD, professor, department of ophthalmology, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

University of California at Los Angeles

A common condition

Strabismus, a condition in which the eyes don’t line up or are “crossed,” is one of the most common eye diseases in children, with some estimates suggesting it affects more than 1.5 million American youth.

Patients with strabismus have problems making eye contact and are affected socially and functionally, said Dr. Pineles. They’re often met with a negative bias, as shown by children’s responses to pictures of faces with and without strabismus, she said.

There is a signal from previous research suggesting that strabismus is linked to a higher risk of mental illness. However, most of these studies were small and had relatively homogenous populations, said Dr. Pineles.

The new study includes over 12 million children (mean age, 8.0 years) from a private health insurance claims database that represents diverse races and ethnicities as well as geographic regions across the United States.

The sample included 352,636 children with strabismus and 11,652,553 children with no diagnosed eye disease who served as controls. Most participants were White (51.6%), came from a family with an annual household income of $40,000 or more (51.0%), had point-of-service insurance (68.7%), and had at least one comorbid condition (64.5%).

The study evaluated five mental illness diagnoses. These included anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, substance use or addictive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.

Overall, children with strabismus had a higher prevalence of all these illnesses, with the exception of substance use disorder.

After adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, census region, education level of caregiver, family net worth, and presence of at least one comorbid condition, the odds ratios among those with versus without strabismus were: 2.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.04; P < .001) for anxiety disorder, 1.83 (95% CI, 1.76-1.90; P < .001) for schizophrenia, 1.64 (95% CI, 1.59-1.70; P < .001) for bipolar disorder, and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.59-1.63; P < .001) for depressive disorder.

Substance use disorder had a negative unadjusted association with strabismus, but after adjustment for confounders, the association was not significant (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02; P = .48).

Dr. Pineles noted that the study participants, who were all under age 19, may be too young to have substance use disorders.

The results for substance use disorders provided something of an “internal control” and reaffirmed results for the other four conditions, said Dr. Pineles.

“When you do research on such a large database, you’re very likely to find significant associations; the dataset is so large that even very small differences become statistically significant. It was interesting that not everything gave us a positive association.”

Researchers divided the strabismus group into those with esotropia, where the eyes turn inward (52.2%), exotropia, where they turn outward (46.3%), and hypertropia, where one eye wanders upward (12.5%). Investigators found that all three conditions were associated with increased risk of anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia.

Investigators note that rates in the current study were lower than in previous studies, which showed that children with congenital esotropia were 2.6 times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis, and children with intermittent exotropia were 2.7 times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis.

“It is probable that our study found a lower risk than these studies, because our study was cross-sectional and claims based, whereas these studies observed the children to early adulthood and were based on medical records,” the investigators note.

It’s impossible to determine from this study how strabismus is connected to mental illness. However, Dr. Pineles believes depression and anxiety might be tied to strabismus via teasing, which affects self-esteem, although genetics could also play a role. For conditions such as schizophrenia, a shared genetic link with strabismus might be more likely, she added.

“Schizophrenia is a pretty severe diagnosis, so just being teased or having poor self-esteem is probably not enough” to develop schizophrenia.

Based on her clinical experience, Dr. Pineles said that realigning the eyes of patients with milder forms of depression or anxiety “definitely anecdotally helps these patients a lot.”

Dr. Pineles and colleagues have another paper in press that examines mental illnesses and other serious eye disorders in children and shows similar findings, she said.
 

Implications for insurance coverage?

In an accompanying editorial, experts, led by S. Grace Prakalapakorn, MD, department of ophthalmology and pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted the exclusion of children covered under government insurance or without insurance is an important study limitation, largely because socioeconomic status is a risk factor for poor mental health.   

The editorialists point to studies showing that surgical correction of ocular misalignments may be associated with reduced anxiety and depression. However, health insurance coverage for such surgical correction “may not be available owing to a misconception that these conditions are ‘cosmetic’.”  

Evidence of the broader association of strabismus with physical and mental health “may play an important role in shifting policy to promote insurance coverage for timely strabismus care,” they write.

As many mental health disorders begin in childhood or adolescence, “it is paramount to identify, address, and, if possible, prevent mental health disorders at a young age, because failure to intervene in a timely fashion can have lifelong health consequences,” say Dr. Prakalapakorn and colleagues.

With mental health conditions and disorders increasing worldwide, compounded by the stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic, additional studies are needed to explore the causal relationships between ocular and psychiatric phenomena, their treatment, and outcomes, they add.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Eye Institute and an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. Dr. Pineles has reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Commentary author Manpreet K. Singh, MD, has reported receiving research support from Stanford’s Maternal Child Health Research Institute and Stanford’s Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Johnson & Johnson, Allergan, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; serving on the advisory board for Sunovion and Skyland Trail; serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson; previously serving as a consultant for X, the moonshot factory, Alphabet, and Limbix Health; receiving honoraria from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; and receiving royalties from American Psychiatric Association Publishing and Thrive Global. Commentary author Nathan Congdon, MD, has reported receiving personal fees from Belkin Vision outside the submitted work.

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

Misaligned eyes in children are associated with an increased prevalence of mental illness, results of a large study suggest.

Investigators found children with strabismus or “crossed eyes” had up to a twofold increased risk of developing anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, compared with their counterparts without the eye condition.

“Psychiatrists who have a patient with depression or anxiety and notice that patient also has strabismus might think about the link between those two conditions and refer that patient,” study investigator Stacy L. Pineles, MD, professor, department of ophthalmology, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

University of California at Los Angeles

A common condition

Strabismus, a condition in which the eyes don’t line up or are “crossed,” is one of the most common eye diseases in children, with some estimates suggesting it affects more than 1.5 million American youth.

Patients with strabismus have problems making eye contact and are affected socially and functionally, said Dr. Pineles. They’re often met with a negative bias, as shown by children’s responses to pictures of faces with and without strabismus, she said.

There is a signal from previous research suggesting that strabismus is linked to a higher risk of mental illness. However, most of these studies were small and had relatively homogenous populations, said Dr. Pineles.

The new study includes over 12 million children (mean age, 8.0 years) from a private health insurance claims database that represents diverse races and ethnicities as well as geographic regions across the United States.

The sample included 352,636 children with strabismus and 11,652,553 children with no diagnosed eye disease who served as controls. Most participants were White (51.6%), came from a family with an annual household income of $40,000 or more (51.0%), had point-of-service insurance (68.7%), and had at least one comorbid condition (64.5%).

The study evaluated five mental illness diagnoses. These included anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, substance use or addictive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.

Overall, children with strabismus had a higher prevalence of all these illnesses, with the exception of substance use disorder.

After adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, census region, education level of caregiver, family net worth, and presence of at least one comorbid condition, the odds ratios among those with versus without strabismus were: 2.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.04; P < .001) for anxiety disorder, 1.83 (95% CI, 1.76-1.90; P < .001) for schizophrenia, 1.64 (95% CI, 1.59-1.70; P < .001) for bipolar disorder, and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.59-1.63; P < .001) for depressive disorder.

Substance use disorder had a negative unadjusted association with strabismus, but after adjustment for confounders, the association was not significant (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02; P = .48).

Dr. Pineles noted that the study participants, who were all under age 19, may be too young to have substance use disorders.

The results for substance use disorders provided something of an “internal control” and reaffirmed results for the other four conditions, said Dr. Pineles.

“When you do research on such a large database, you’re very likely to find significant associations; the dataset is so large that even very small differences become statistically significant. It was interesting that not everything gave us a positive association.”

Researchers divided the strabismus group into those with esotropia, where the eyes turn inward (52.2%), exotropia, where they turn outward (46.3%), and hypertropia, where one eye wanders upward (12.5%). Investigators found that all three conditions were associated with increased risk of anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia.

Investigators note that rates in the current study were lower than in previous studies, which showed that children with congenital esotropia were 2.6 times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis, and children with intermittent exotropia were 2.7 times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis.

“It is probable that our study found a lower risk than these studies, because our study was cross-sectional and claims based, whereas these studies observed the children to early adulthood and were based on medical records,” the investigators note.

It’s impossible to determine from this study how strabismus is connected to mental illness. However, Dr. Pineles believes depression and anxiety might be tied to strabismus via teasing, which affects self-esteem, although genetics could also play a role. For conditions such as schizophrenia, a shared genetic link with strabismus might be more likely, she added.

“Schizophrenia is a pretty severe diagnosis, so just being teased or having poor self-esteem is probably not enough” to develop schizophrenia.

Based on her clinical experience, Dr. Pineles said that realigning the eyes of patients with milder forms of depression or anxiety “definitely anecdotally helps these patients a lot.”

Dr. Pineles and colleagues have another paper in press that examines mental illnesses and other serious eye disorders in children and shows similar findings, she said.
 

Implications for insurance coverage?

In an accompanying editorial, experts, led by S. Grace Prakalapakorn, MD, department of ophthalmology and pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted the exclusion of children covered under government insurance or without insurance is an important study limitation, largely because socioeconomic status is a risk factor for poor mental health.   

The editorialists point to studies showing that surgical correction of ocular misalignments may be associated with reduced anxiety and depression. However, health insurance coverage for such surgical correction “may not be available owing to a misconception that these conditions are ‘cosmetic’.”  

Evidence of the broader association of strabismus with physical and mental health “may play an important role in shifting policy to promote insurance coverage for timely strabismus care,” they write.

As many mental health disorders begin in childhood or adolescence, “it is paramount to identify, address, and, if possible, prevent mental health disorders at a young age, because failure to intervene in a timely fashion can have lifelong health consequences,” say Dr. Prakalapakorn and colleagues.

With mental health conditions and disorders increasing worldwide, compounded by the stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic, additional studies are needed to explore the causal relationships between ocular and psychiatric phenomena, their treatment, and outcomes, they add.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Eye Institute and an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. Dr. Pineles has reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Commentary author Manpreet K. Singh, MD, has reported receiving research support from Stanford’s Maternal Child Health Research Institute and Stanford’s Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Johnson & Johnson, Allergan, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; serving on the advisory board for Sunovion and Skyland Trail; serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson; previously serving as a consultant for X, the moonshot factory, Alphabet, and Limbix Health; receiving honoraria from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; and receiving royalties from American Psychiatric Association Publishing and Thrive Global. Commentary author Nathan Congdon, MD, has reported receiving personal fees from Belkin Vision outside the submitted work.

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

Misaligned eyes in children are associated with an increased prevalence of mental illness, results of a large study suggest.

Investigators found children with strabismus or “crossed eyes” had up to a twofold increased risk of developing anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, compared with their counterparts without the eye condition.

“Psychiatrists who have a patient with depression or anxiety and notice that patient also has strabismus might think about the link between those two conditions and refer that patient,” study investigator Stacy L. Pineles, MD, professor, department of ophthalmology, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

University of California at Los Angeles

A common condition

Strabismus, a condition in which the eyes don’t line up or are “crossed,” is one of the most common eye diseases in children, with some estimates suggesting it affects more than 1.5 million American youth.

Patients with strabismus have problems making eye contact and are affected socially and functionally, said Dr. Pineles. They’re often met with a negative bias, as shown by children’s responses to pictures of faces with and without strabismus, she said.

There is a signal from previous research suggesting that strabismus is linked to a higher risk of mental illness. However, most of these studies were small and had relatively homogenous populations, said Dr. Pineles.

The new study includes over 12 million children (mean age, 8.0 years) from a private health insurance claims database that represents diverse races and ethnicities as well as geographic regions across the United States.

The sample included 352,636 children with strabismus and 11,652,553 children with no diagnosed eye disease who served as controls. Most participants were White (51.6%), came from a family with an annual household income of $40,000 or more (51.0%), had point-of-service insurance (68.7%), and had at least one comorbid condition (64.5%).

The study evaluated five mental illness diagnoses. These included anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, substance use or addictive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.

Overall, children with strabismus had a higher prevalence of all these illnesses, with the exception of substance use disorder.

After adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, census region, education level of caregiver, family net worth, and presence of at least one comorbid condition, the odds ratios among those with versus without strabismus were: 2.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.04; P < .001) for anxiety disorder, 1.83 (95% CI, 1.76-1.90; P < .001) for schizophrenia, 1.64 (95% CI, 1.59-1.70; P < .001) for bipolar disorder, and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.59-1.63; P < .001) for depressive disorder.

Substance use disorder had a negative unadjusted association with strabismus, but after adjustment for confounders, the association was not significant (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02; P = .48).

Dr. Pineles noted that the study participants, who were all under age 19, may be too young to have substance use disorders.

The results for substance use disorders provided something of an “internal control” and reaffirmed results for the other four conditions, said Dr. Pineles.

“When you do research on such a large database, you’re very likely to find significant associations; the dataset is so large that even very small differences become statistically significant. It was interesting that not everything gave us a positive association.”

Researchers divided the strabismus group into those with esotropia, where the eyes turn inward (52.2%), exotropia, where they turn outward (46.3%), and hypertropia, where one eye wanders upward (12.5%). Investigators found that all three conditions were associated with increased risk of anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia.

Investigators note that rates in the current study were lower than in previous studies, which showed that children with congenital esotropia were 2.6 times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis, and children with intermittent exotropia were 2.7 times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis.

“It is probable that our study found a lower risk than these studies, because our study was cross-sectional and claims based, whereas these studies observed the children to early adulthood and were based on medical records,” the investigators note.

It’s impossible to determine from this study how strabismus is connected to mental illness. However, Dr. Pineles believes depression and anxiety might be tied to strabismus via teasing, which affects self-esteem, although genetics could also play a role. For conditions such as schizophrenia, a shared genetic link with strabismus might be more likely, she added.

“Schizophrenia is a pretty severe diagnosis, so just being teased or having poor self-esteem is probably not enough” to develop schizophrenia.

Based on her clinical experience, Dr. Pineles said that realigning the eyes of patients with milder forms of depression or anxiety “definitely anecdotally helps these patients a lot.”

Dr. Pineles and colleagues have another paper in press that examines mental illnesses and other serious eye disorders in children and shows similar findings, she said.
 

Implications for insurance coverage?

In an accompanying editorial, experts, led by S. Grace Prakalapakorn, MD, department of ophthalmology and pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted the exclusion of children covered under government insurance or without insurance is an important study limitation, largely because socioeconomic status is a risk factor for poor mental health.   

The editorialists point to studies showing that surgical correction of ocular misalignments may be associated with reduced anxiety and depression. However, health insurance coverage for such surgical correction “may not be available owing to a misconception that these conditions are ‘cosmetic’.”  

Evidence of the broader association of strabismus with physical and mental health “may play an important role in shifting policy to promote insurance coverage for timely strabismus care,” they write.

As many mental health disorders begin in childhood or adolescence, “it is paramount to identify, address, and, if possible, prevent mental health disorders at a young age, because failure to intervene in a timely fashion can have lifelong health consequences,” say Dr. Prakalapakorn and colleagues.

With mental health conditions and disorders increasing worldwide, compounded by the stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic, additional studies are needed to explore the causal relationships between ocular and psychiatric phenomena, their treatment, and outcomes, they add.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Eye Institute and an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. Dr. Pineles has reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Commentary author Manpreet K. Singh, MD, has reported receiving research support from Stanford’s Maternal Child Health Research Institute and Stanford’s Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Johnson & Johnson, Allergan, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; serving on the advisory board for Sunovion and Skyland Trail; serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson; previously serving as a consultant for X, the moonshot factory, Alphabet, and Limbix Health; receiving honoraria from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; and receiving royalties from American Psychiatric Association Publishing and Thrive Global. Commentary author Nathan Congdon, MD, has reported receiving personal fees from Belkin Vision outside the submitted work.

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