Mental Health

Researchers have known for some time that depression is associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but a causal link has been elusive. Now, using newly available data, they have uncovered genetic evidence of a causal role for depression in AD.

As depression typically affects those in early or midlife and dementia often occurs in later life, “it’s fascinating to see a connection between the two brain illnesses that manifest in different time windows,” coinvestigator Aliza P. Wingo, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral science, Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“If we can treat the depression early on, we may help reduce risk for dementia for our patients later in life,” Dr. Wingo said.

The findings were published online Dec. 16, 2021, in Biological Psychiatry.

Postmortem data

The investigators, who are all from the Emory University Center for Neurodegenerative Disease, wanted to clarify the genetic basis underlying the association between the established link between depression and dementia risk.

They used data from the largest and most recent genomewide association studies (GWAS). These included a 2019 analysis of depression among 807,553 individuals and a 2019 study of AD among 455,258 individuals, all of European ancestry. For sensitivity analyses, they used results from two additional AD GWAS.

The researchers also accessed postmortem brain samples from participants in the Religious Orders Study (ROS) and the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP). These participants were cognitively normal at enrollment, underwent annual clinical evaluations, and agreed to donate their brains.

They also assessed brain samples donated by participants in the Banner Sun Health Research Institute longitudinal study of healthy aging, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease.

The brain samples allowed researchers to use deep brain proteomic data to help determine molecular links between depression and AD.

After quality control, the analysis included 8,356 proteins in 391 ROS/MAP participants and 7,854 proteins in 196 Banner participants.

Results showed a small but significant positive genetic correlation between depression and AD, suggesting the two conditions have a shared genetic basis.

The investigators also applied a framework called “Mendelian randomization” to determine causality between depression and AD.

After assessing the effect of 115 independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the GWAS of depression, they uncovered significant evidence “that the SNPs cause depression, which in turn cause AD,” said Dr. Wingo.
 

One-way relationship

The researchers conducted the same analysis on 61 significant SNPs from the GWAS of AD but did not find evidence to conclude AD causes depression.

“We found genetic evidence supporting a causal role of depression in AD but not vice versa,” Dr. Wingo said.

In addition, the investigators identified 75 brain transcripts (messenger RNA) and 28 brain proteins regulated by the depression-predisposing genetic variants. Of these, 46 brain transcripts and seven proteins were significantly associated with at least one AD feature – for example, beta-amyloid, tau tangles, and cognitive trajectory.

“These findings support the notion that the depression risk variants contribute to AD via regulating expression of their corresponding transcripts in the brain,” the investigators wrote.

It is only recently that large enough studies have allowed researchers sufficient power to reach these conclusions, coinvestigator Thomas Wingo, MD, said in an interview.

These additional “insights” into the relationship between depression and AD might “motivate” clinicians more to screen for and treat depressive symptoms, Dr. Aliza Wingo noted.

The new results also have implications for developing therapeutics to treat depression, she said. “If we target the genes, the brain proteins, that are shared risk between depression and AD, the medications that target that gene might mitigate risk for AD later on.”

However, the investigators advised caution. “A lot of this is still unknown,” said Dr. Thomas Wingo.

For example, it is not clear whether successfully treating depression mitigates the eventual risk of dementia, which is “a very important topic of inquiry and one we continue to work on,” he said, adding that a significant number of patients do not respond well to existing antidepressants such as SSRIs.
 

Need for further research

Commenting on the findings, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach, Alzheimer’s Association, said the study contributes to the debate about whether depression increases risk for AD, whether AD increases risk for depression, or both.

“These newly published findings strengthen our understanding of the role of depression as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s dementia,” said Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the research.

While experts do not yet fully understand the impact of treating depression on dementia risk, “the findings emphasize the importance of assessing mental health status, particularly depression, and getting it properly diagnosed and treated in a timely manner,” she said.

However, she agreed more research in this area is needed. “Importantly, these findings need replication in broader, more diverse study populations,” Dr. Sexton said.

A study funded by the Alzheimer’s Association may provide more information on the link between depression and AD. It will investigate whether machine learning, an advanced computer science technique, can better predict cognitive decline, compared with traditional methods.

Over a period of 6 months, researchers will collect smartphone conversations from 225 older adults with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or no cognitive impairment. They will also have data from cognitive tests, brain scans, and biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid samples to study brain changes associated with AD.

The novel method of analysis should be able to identify subtle differences in speech quality to indicate which depressive symptoms an individual might be experiencing.

“The study could help us further understand the potential impact of depression in the risk of developing dementia,” said Dr. Sexton.

Dr. Aliza Wingo and Dr. Thomas Wingo reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have known for some time that depression is associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but a causal link has been elusive. Now, using newly available data, they have uncovered genetic evidence of a causal role for depression in AD.

As depression typically affects those in early or midlife and dementia often occurs in later life, “it’s fascinating to see a connection between the two brain illnesses that manifest in different time windows,” coinvestigator Aliza P. Wingo, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral science, Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“If we can treat the depression early on, we may help reduce risk for dementia for our patients later in life,” Dr. Wingo said.

The findings were published online Dec. 16, 2021, in Biological Psychiatry.

Postmortem data

The investigators, who are all from the Emory University Center for Neurodegenerative Disease, wanted to clarify the genetic basis underlying the association between the established link between depression and dementia risk.

They used data from the largest and most recent genomewide association studies (GWAS). These included a 2019 analysis of depression among 807,553 individuals and a 2019 study of AD among 455,258 individuals, all of European ancestry. For sensitivity analyses, they used results from two additional AD GWAS.

The researchers also accessed postmortem brain samples from participants in the Religious Orders Study (ROS) and the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP). These participants were cognitively normal at enrollment, underwent annual clinical evaluations, and agreed to donate their brains.

They also assessed brain samples donated by participants in the Banner Sun Health Research Institute longitudinal study of healthy aging, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease.

The brain samples allowed researchers to use deep brain proteomic data to help determine molecular links between depression and AD.

After quality control, the analysis included 8,356 proteins in 391 ROS/MAP participants and 7,854 proteins in 196 Banner participants.

Results showed a small but significant positive genetic correlation between depression and AD, suggesting the two conditions have a shared genetic basis.

The investigators also applied a framework called “Mendelian randomization” to determine causality between depression and AD.

After assessing the effect of 115 independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the GWAS of depression, they uncovered significant evidence “that the SNPs cause depression, which in turn cause AD,” said Dr. Wingo.
 

One-way relationship

The researchers conducted the same analysis on 61 significant SNPs from the GWAS of AD but did not find evidence to conclude AD causes depression.

“We found genetic evidence supporting a causal role of depression in AD but not vice versa,” Dr. Wingo said.

In addition, the investigators identified 75 brain transcripts (messenger RNA) and 28 brain proteins regulated by the depression-predisposing genetic variants. Of these, 46 brain transcripts and seven proteins were significantly associated with at least one AD feature – for example, beta-amyloid, tau tangles, and cognitive trajectory.

“These findings support the notion that the depression risk variants contribute to AD via regulating expression of their corresponding transcripts in the brain,” the investigators wrote.

It is only recently that large enough studies have allowed researchers sufficient power to reach these conclusions, coinvestigator Thomas Wingo, MD, said in an interview.

These additional “insights” into the relationship between depression and AD might “motivate” clinicians more to screen for and treat depressive symptoms, Dr. Aliza Wingo noted.

The new results also have implications for developing therapeutics to treat depression, she said. “If we target the genes, the brain proteins, that are shared risk between depression and AD, the medications that target that gene might mitigate risk for AD later on.”

However, the investigators advised caution. “A lot of this is still unknown,” said Dr. Thomas Wingo.

For example, it is not clear whether successfully treating depression mitigates the eventual risk of dementia, which is “a very important topic of inquiry and one we continue to work on,” he said, adding that a significant number of patients do not respond well to existing antidepressants such as SSRIs.
 

Need for further research

Commenting on the findings, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach, Alzheimer’s Association, said the study contributes to the debate about whether depression increases risk for AD, whether AD increases risk for depression, or both.

“These newly published findings strengthen our understanding of the role of depression as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s dementia,” said Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the research.

While experts do not yet fully understand the impact of treating depression on dementia risk, “the findings emphasize the importance of assessing mental health status, particularly depression, and getting it properly diagnosed and treated in a timely manner,” she said.

However, she agreed more research in this area is needed. “Importantly, these findings need replication in broader, more diverse study populations,” Dr. Sexton said.

A study funded by the Alzheimer’s Association may provide more information on the link between depression and AD. It will investigate whether machine learning, an advanced computer science technique, can better predict cognitive decline, compared with traditional methods.

Over a period of 6 months, researchers will collect smartphone conversations from 225 older adults with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or no cognitive impairment. They will also have data from cognitive tests, brain scans, and biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid samples to study brain changes associated with AD.

The novel method of analysis should be able to identify subtle differences in speech quality to indicate which depressive symptoms an individual might be experiencing.

“The study could help us further understand the potential impact of depression in the risk of developing dementia,” said Dr. Sexton.

Dr. Aliza Wingo and Dr. Thomas Wingo reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have known for some time that depression is associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but a causal link has been elusive. Now, using newly available data, they have uncovered genetic evidence of a causal role for depression in AD.

As depression typically affects those in early or midlife and dementia often occurs in later life, “it’s fascinating to see a connection between the two brain illnesses that manifest in different time windows,” coinvestigator Aliza P. Wingo, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral science, Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“If we can treat the depression early on, we may help reduce risk for dementia for our patients later in life,” Dr. Wingo said.

The findings were published online Dec. 16, 2021, in Biological Psychiatry.

Postmortem data

The investigators, who are all from the Emory University Center for Neurodegenerative Disease, wanted to clarify the genetic basis underlying the association between the established link between depression and dementia risk.

They used data from the largest and most recent genomewide association studies (GWAS). These included a 2019 analysis of depression among 807,553 individuals and a 2019 study of AD among 455,258 individuals, all of European ancestry. For sensitivity analyses, they used results from two additional AD GWAS.

The researchers also accessed postmortem brain samples from participants in the Religious Orders Study (ROS) and the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP). These participants were cognitively normal at enrollment, underwent annual clinical evaluations, and agreed to donate their brains.

They also assessed brain samples donated by participants in the Banner Sun Health Research Institute longitudinal study of healthy aging, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease.

The brain samples allowed researchers to use deep brain proteomic data to help determine molecular links between depression and AD.

After quality control, the analysis included 8,356 proteins in 391 ROS/MAP participants and 7,854 proteins in 196 Banner participants.

Results showed a small but significant positive genetic correlation between depression and AD, suggesting the two conditions have a shared genetic basis.

The investigators also applied a framework called “Mendelian randomization” to determine causality between depression and AD.

After assessing the effect of 115 independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the GWAS of depression, they uncovered significant evidence “that the SNPs cause depression, which in turn cause AD,” said Dr. Wingo.
 

One-way relationship

The researchers conducted the same analysis on 61 significant SNPs from the GWAS of AD but did not find evidence to conclude AD causes depression.

“We found genetic evidence supporting a causal role of depression in AD but not vice versa,” Dr. Wingo said.

In addition, the investigators identified 75 brain transcripts (messenger RNA) and 28 brain proteins regulated by the depression-predisposing genetic variants. Of these, 46 brain transcripts and seven proteins were significantly associated with at least one AD feature – for example, beta-amyloid, tau tangles, and cognitive trajectory.

“These findings support the notion that the depression risk variants contribute to AD via regulating expression of their corresponding transcripts in the brain,” the investigators wrote.

It is only recently that large enough studies have allowed researchers sufficient power to reach these conclusions, coinvestigator Thomas Wingo, MD, said in an interview.

These additional “insights” into the relationship between depression and AD might “motivate” clinicians more to screen for and treat depressive symptoms, Dr. Aliza Wingo noted.

The new results also have implications for developing therapeutics to treat depression, she said. “If we target the genes, the brain proteins, that are shared risk between depression and AD, the medications that target that gene might mitigate risk for AD later on.”

However, the investigators advised caution. “A lot of this is still unknown,” said Dr. Thomas Wingo.

For example, it is not clear whether successfully treating depression mitigates the eventual risk of dementia, which is “a very important topic of inquiry and one we continue to work on,” he said, adding that a significant number of patients do not respond well to existing antidepressants such as SSRIs.
 

Need for further research

Commenting on the findings, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach, Alzheimer’s Association, said the study contributes to the debate about whether depression increases risk for AD, whether AD increases risk for depression, or both.

“These newly published findings strengthen our understanding of the role of depression as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s dementia,” said Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the research.

While experts do not yet fully understand the impact of treating depression on dementia risk, “the findings emphasize the importance of assessing mental health status, particularly depression, and getting it properly diagnosed and treated in a timely manner,” she said.

However, she agreed more research in this area is needed. “Importantly, these findings need replication in broader, more diverse study populations,” Dr. Sexton said.

A study funded by the Alzheimer’s Association may provide more information on the link between depression and AD. It will investigate whether machine learning, an advanced computer science technique, can better predict cognitive decline, compared with traditional methods.

Over a period of 6 months, researchers will collect smartphone conversations from 225 older adults with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or no cognitive impairment. They will also have data from cognitive tests, brain scans, and biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid samples to study brain changes associated with AD.

The novel method of analysis should be able to identify subtle differences in speech quality to indicate which depressive symptoms an individual might be experiencing.

“The study could help us further understand the potential impact of depression in the risk of developing dementia,” said Dr. Sexton.

Dr. Aliza Wingo and Dr. Thomas Wingo reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new meta-analysis suggests the risk for violence is higher in patients with schizophrenia, but some experts beg to differ, calling out study limitations and urging caution when interpreting the findings.

The study suggests patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD) are 4.5 times more likely than individuals in the general population to perpetrate violence against others.

While the results showed comorbid substance misuse was associated with a significantly increased risk for violence in those with SSD, data on medication nonadherence, prior exposure to violence, childhood trauma, or other known risk factors were not included in the study.

“I think one of the main implications of this study is that prevention of violence outcomes really should be a focus for clinical services, because these are important outcomes to prevent and many of the factors that increase risk are modifiable, such as substance misuse and treatment adherence,” study coinvestigator Seena Fazel, MD, professor of forensic psychiatry at the University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Still, some experts urge caution when interpreting the findings, which they fear could perpetuate stigma against individuals with serious mental illness if not taken in the context of a study that shows association, not causation.

“While potential for violence is certainly a relevant consideration in assessing persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, it would be wrong to conclude from this study that schizophrenia spectrum disorders per se cause people to become violent,” said Ronald W. Pies, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the State University of New York, Syracuse, who commented on the findings.

The findings were published online Dec. 22, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

No causal link

The meta-analysis included 24 studies involving 51,309 individuals with SSD from 15 countries over 4 decades.

Risk for violence perpetrated by men with schizophrenia was 4.5 times higher (95% confidence interval, 3.6-5.6) than their counterparts in the general population. Among women, the rate was 10.2 times higher (95% CI, 7.1-14.6) versus those without SSD.

The odds of perpetrating sexual offenses (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.8-6.8) and homicide (OR, 17.7; 95% CI, 13.9-22.6) were also increased.

When restricting analysis to studies that used outcomes only from register-based sources, indicating a criminal arrest or conviction, absolute risks of violence perpetration ranged from 2.3% to 24.7% in men with SSD and from 0% to 5.4% in women up to a 35-year follow-up.

“That means that over a 35-year period most men are not going to be involved in these criminal register-based violent outcomes,” Dr. Fazel said. “And at least 90% of the women are not going to have any register-based violent outcomes.”

When accounting for substance use comorbidity, risk for violence perpetration dropped sharply. Those with no substance misuse were 3.5 times more likely than those in the general population to commit acts of violence versus 9.9 times in those with substance misuse comorbidity.

“In these subgroup studies of people with dual diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance misuse, the risk was increased 10-fold,” Dr. Fazel said. “If you look at people without substance misuse comorbidity, there remains a risk there of between three- to fourfold increase. It doesn’t explain the association completely.”

The investigators were quick to point out that this new study identifies an association between SSD and violence, and not causation.

“One important way to consider the association is to think of clinical services for people presenting with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder: Does the evidence suggest that violence is an important enough potential adverse outcome, for a minority of those individuals, such that support for this clinical need should be improved?” study investigator Daniel Whiting, BM BCh, a doctoral research fellow in psychiatry at the University of Oxford, said in an interview. “We highlight this as an implication of the findings.”

Whether the association would change if researchers controlled for substance misuse in both the study and control groups is unknown. Also unclear from this study is what impact other risk factors may have on increasing violent outcomes in individuals with SSD.
 

Education, treatment adherence important

Dr. Pies pointed out that, “notably, the risk for violence in the study population declined more than sixfold when comorbid substance abuse was excluded from the analysis.”

That aligns with an earlier study conducted in Sweden by Dr. Fazel, which showed that, after controlling for substance misuse, the rate of violent crime among individuals with schizophrenia was only slightly higher than in the general population.

“The fact is that people with schizophrenia who are compliant with proper medication do not commit violent acts any more than those in the general population,” Lynn DeLisi, MD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founding editor of Schizophrenia Research, said in a comment.

Indeed, Dr. Fazel’s own research suggests treatment with antipsychotics cuts in half the risk for violent crime by patients with severe mental illness.

“The goal should be education of school officials, families, and primary care physicians to detect this illness early and treat it. Programs that make sure patients comply with medication once they begin it are equally important,” Dr. DeLisi said.

Treatment adherence is important, but the first step toward violence prevention is high-quality risk assessment, said Dr. Fazel. His research team has developed a web-based, free risk calculator shown to help clinicians evaluate the risk that a patient might become violent.

Dr. Pies agreed with the importance of comprehensive, clinical assessments of modifiable risk factors, including substance use, homelessness, medication adherence, and conflictual relationships.

This kind of assessment, “in my experience, is rarely carried out in most evaluations of persons with psychotic symptoms or SSD,” he said.
 

Perpetuating stigma?

Another concern raised by Dr. Pies and Dr. DeLisi is how the findings might perpetuate stigma toward individuals with serious mental illness. Results from a recently published study showed that, although attitudes toward those with major depression have improved in the United States over the past few decades, stigma toward those with schizophrenia has actually worsened.

The most effective approach to reducing stigma is to “face up to the evidence, then try and prevent the negative outcomes,” Dr. Fazel said.

“The conclusion of this paper is that it’s all pointing toward a strategy toward prevention by developing high-quality risk assessment and then developing high-quality treatment programs that include not just pharmacological treatments but psychosocial treatments and beyond,” he added. “We know that’s the way it works for other disorders as well.”

Although mental illness stigma is a serious problem, Dr. Pies noted, “the risk is not so much that studies of this sort are carried out and then covered in the media, but that they are decontextualized and reduced to ‘bumper sticker’ headlines.”

“The public needs context and perspective,” he said. “It needs to be informed that violent behavior is relatively rare among persons with psychiatric illness, including persons with schizophrenia and related disorders who do not also have a substance use disorder.”

Indeed, some studies have shown that individuals with mental illness are more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

“Frankly, the public is much more at risk from the neighborhood lout who drinks heavily and repeatedly starts bar fights than from the average patient with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder,” Dr. Pies said.

Dr. Fazel reported receiving funding from the Wellcome Trust. Dr. DeLisi and Dr. Pies disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new meta-analysis suggests the risk for violence is higher in patients with schizophrenia, but some experts beg to differ, calling out study limitations and urging caution when interpreting the findings.

The study suggests patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD) are 4.5 times more likely than individuals in the general population to perpetrate violence against others.

While the results showed comorbid substance misuse was associated with a significantly increased risk for violence in those with SSD, data on medication nonadherence, prior exposure to violence, childhood trauma, or other known risk factors were not included in the study.

“I think one of the main implications of this study is that prevention of violence outcomes really should be a focus for clinical services, because these are important outcomes to prevent and many of the factors that increase risk are modifiable, such as substance misuse and treatment adherence,” study coinvestigator Seena Fazel, MD, professor of forensic psychiatry at the University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Still, some experts urge caution when interpreting the findings, which they fear could perpetuate stigma against individuals with serious mental illness if not taken in the context of a study that shows association, not causation.

“While potential for violence is certainly a relevant consideration in assessing persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, it would be wrong to conclude from this study that schizophrenia spectrum disorders per se cause people to become violent,” said Ronald W. Pies, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the State University of New York, Syracuse, who commented on the findings.

The findings were published online Dec. 22, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

No causal link

The meta-analysis included 24 studies involving 51,309 individuals with SSD from 15 countries over 4 decades.

Risk for violence perpetrated by men with schizophrenia was 4.5 times higher (95% confidence interval, 3.6-5.6) than their counterparts in the general population. Among women, the rate was 10.2 times higher (95% CI, 7.1-14.6) versus those without SSD.

The odds of perpetrating sexual offenses (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.8-6.8) and homicide (OR, 17.7; 95% CI, 13.9-22.6) were also increased.

When restricting analysis to studies that used outcomes only from register-based sources, indicating a criminal arrest or conviction, absolute risks of violence perpetration ranged from 2.3% to 24.7% in men with SSD and from 0% to 5.4% in women up to a 35-year follow-up.

“That means that over a 35-year period most men are not going to be involved in these criminal register-based violent outcomes,” Dr. Fazel said. “And at least 90% of the women are not going to have any register-based violent outcomes.”

When accounting for substance use comorbidity, risk for violence perpetration dropped sharply. Those with no substance misuse were 3.5 times more likely than those in the general population to commit acts of violence versus 9.9 times in those with substance misuse comorbidity.

“In these subgroup studies of people with dual diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance misuse, the risk was increased 10-fold,” Dr. Fazel said. “If you look at people without substance misuse comorbidity, there remains a risk there of between three- to fourfold increase. It doesn’t explain the association completely.”

The investigators were quick to point out that this new study identifies an association between SSD and violence, and not causation.

“One important way to consider the association is to think of clinical services for people presenting with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder: Does the evidence suggest that violence is an important enough potential adverse outcome, for a minority of those individuals, such that support for this clinical need should be improved?” study investigator Daniel Whiting, BM BCh, a doctoral research fellow in psychiatry at the University of Oxford, said in an interview. “We highlight this as an implication of the findings.”

Whether the association would change if researchers controlled for substance misuse in both the study and control groups is unknown. Also unclear from this study is what impact other risk factors may have on increasing violent outcomes in individuals with SSD.
 

Education, treatment adherence important

Dr. Pies pointed out that, “notably, the risk for violence in the study population declined more than sixfold when comorbid substance abuse was excluded from the analysis.”

That aligns with an earlier study conducted in Sweden by Dr. Fazel, which showed that, after controlling for substance misuse, the rate of violent crime among individuals with schizophrenia was only slightly higher than in the general population.

“The fact is that people with schizophrenia who are compliant with proper medication do not commit violent acts any more than those in the general population,” Lynn DeLisi, MD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founding editor of Schizophrenia Research, said in a comment.

Indeed, Dr. Fazel’s own research suggests treatment with antipsychotics cuts in half the risk for violent crime by patients with severe mental illness.

“The goal should be education of school officials, families, and primary care physicians to detect this illness early and treat it. Programs that make sure patients comply with medication once they begin it are equally important,” Dr. DeLisi said.

Treatment adherence is important, but the first step toward violence prevention is high-quality risk assessment, said Dr. Fazel. His research team has developed a web-based, free risk calculator shown to help clinicians evaluate the risk that a patient might become violent.

Dr. Pies agreed with the importance of comprehensive, clinical assessments of modifiable risk factors, including substance use, homelessness, medication adherence, and conflictual relationships.

This kind of assessment, “in my experience, is rarely carried out in most evaluations of persons with psychotic symptoms or SSD,” he said.
 

Perpetuating stigma?

Another concern raised by Dr. Pies and Dr. DeLisi is how the findings might perpetuate stigma toward individuals with serious mental illness. Results from a recently published study showed that, although attitudes toward those with major depression have improved in the United States over the past few decades, stigma toward those with schizophrenia has actually worsened.

The most effective approach to reducing stigma is to “face up to the evidence, then try and prevent the negative outcomes,” Dr. Fazel said.

“The conclusion of this paper is that it’s all pointing toward a strategy toward prevention by developing high-quality risk assessment and then developing high-quality treatment programs that include not just pharmacological treatments but psychosocial treatments and beyond,” he added. “We know that’s the way it works for other disorders as well.”

Although mental illness stigma is a serious problem, Dr. Pies noted, “the risk is not so much that studies of this sort are carried out and then covered in the media, but that they are decontextualized and reduced to ‘bumper sticker’ headlines.”

“The public needs context and perspective,” he said. “It needs to be informed that violent behavior is relatively rare among persons with psychiatric illness, including persons with schizophrenia and related disorders who do not also have a substance use disorder.”

Indeed, some studies have shown that individuals with mental illness are more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

“Frankly, the public is much more at risk from the neighborhood lout who drinks heavily and repeatedly starts bar fights than from the average patient with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder,” Dr. Pies said.

Dr. Fazel reported receiving funding from the Wellcome Trust. Dr. DeLisi and Dr. Pies disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new meta-analysis suggests the risk for violence is higher in patients with schizophrenia, but some experts beg to differ, calling out study limitations and urging caution when interpreting the findings.

The study suggests patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD) are 4.5 times more likely than individuals in the general population to perpetrate violence against others.

While the results showed comorbid substance misuse was associated with a significantly increased risk for violence in those with SSD, data on medication nonadherence, prior exposure to violence, childhood trauma, or other known risk factors were not included in the study.

“I think one of the main implications of this study is that prevention of violence outcomes really should be a focus for clinical services, because these are important outcomes to prevent and many of the factors that increase risk are modifiable, such as substance misuse and treatment adherence,” study coinvestigator Seena Fazel, MD, professor of forensic psychiatry at the University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Still, some experts urge caution when interpreting the findings, which they fear could perpetuate stigma against individuals with serious mental illness if not taken in the context of a study that shows association, not causation.

“While potential for violence is certainly a relevant consideration in assessing persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, it would be wrong to conclude from this study that schizophrenia spectrum disorders per se cause people to become violent,” said Ronald W. Pies, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the State University of New York, Syracuse, who commented on the findings.

The findings were published online Dec. 22, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

No causal link

The meta-analysis included 24 studies involving 51,309 individuals with SSD from 15 countries over 4 decades.

Risk for violence perpetrated by men with schizophrenia was 4.5 times higher (95% confidence interval, 3.6-5.6) than their counterparts in the general population. Among women, the rate was 10.2 times higher (95% CI, 7.1-14.6) versus those without SSD.

The odds of perpetrating sexual offenses (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.8-6.8) and homicide (OR, 17.7; 95% CI, 13.9-22.6) were also increased.

When restricting analysis to studies that used outcomes only from register-based sources, indicating a criminal arrest or conviction, absolute risks of violence perpetration ranged from 2.3% to 24.7% in men with SSD and from 0% to 5.4% in women up to a 35-year follow-up.

“That means that over a 35-year period most men are not going to be involved in these criminal register-based violent outcomes,” Dr. Fazel said. “And at least 90% of the women are not going to have any register-based violent outcomes.”

When accounting for substance use comorbidity, risk for violence perpetration dropped sharply. Those with no substance misuse were 3.5 times more likely than those in the general population to commit acts of violence versus 9.9 times in those with substance misuse comorbidity.

“In these subgroup studies of people with dual diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance misuse, the risk was increased 10-fold,” Dr. Fazel said. “If you look at people without substance misuse comorbidity, there remains a risk there of between three- to fourfold increase. It doesn’t explain the association completely.”

The investigators were quick to point out that this new study identifies an association between SSD and violence, and not causation.

“One important way to consider the association is to think of clinical services for people presenting with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder: Does the evidence suggest that violence is an important enough potential adverse outcome, for a minority of those individuals, such that support for this clinical need should be improved?” study investigator Daniel Whiting, BM BCh, a doctoral research fellow in psychiatry at the University of Oxford, said in an interview. “We highlight this as an implication of the findings.”

Whether the association would change if researchers controlled for substance misuse in both the study and control groups is unknown. Also unclear from this study is what impact other risk factors may have on increasing violent outcomes in individuals with SSD.
 

Education, treatment adherence important

Dr. Pies pointed out that, “notably, the risk for violence in the study population declined more than sixfold when comorbid substance abuse was excluded from the analysis.”

That aligns with an earlier study conducted in Sweden by Dr. Fazel, which showed that, after controlling for substance misuse, the rate of violent crime among individuals with schizophrenia was only slightly higher than in the general population.

“The fact is that people with schizophrenia who are compliant with proper medication do not commit violent acts any more than those in the general population,” Lynn DeLisi, MD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founding editor of Schizophrenia Research, said in a comment.

Indeed, Dr. Fazel’s own research suggests treatment with antipsychotics cuts in half the risk for violent crime by patients with severe mental illness.

“The goal should be education of school officials, families, and primary care physicians to detect this illness early and treat it. Programs that make sure patients comply with medication once they begin it are equally important,” Dr. DeLisi said.

Treatment adherence is important, but the first step toward violence prevention is high-quality risk assessment, said Dr. Fazel. His research team has developed a web-based, free risk calculator shown to help clinicians evaluate the risk that a patient might become violent.

Dr. Pies agreed with the importance of comprehensive, clinical assessments of modifiable risk factors, including substance use, homelessness, medication adherence, and conflictual relationships.

This kind of assessment, “in my experience, is rarely carried out in most evaluations of persons with psychotic symptoms or SSD,” he said.
 

Perpetuating stigma?

Another concern raised by Dr. Pies and Dr. DeLisi is how the findings might perpetuate stigma toward individuals with serious mental illness. Results from a recently published study showed that, although attitudes toward those with major depression have improved in the United States over the past few decades, stigma toward those with schizophrenia has actually worsened.

The most effective approach to reducing stigma is to “face up to the evidence, then try and prevent the negative outcomes,” Dr. Fazel said.

“The conclusion of this paper is that it’s all pointing toward a strategy toward prevention by developing high-quality risk assessment and then developing high-quality treatment programs that include not just pharmacological treatments but psychosocial treatments and beyond,” he added. “We know that’s the way it works for other disorders as well.”

Although mental illness stigma is a serious problem, Dr. Pies noted, “the risk is not so much that studies of this sort are carried out and then covered in the media, but that they are decontextualized and reduced to ‘bumper sticker’ headlines.”

“The public needs context and perspective,” he said. “It needs to be informed that violent behavior is relatively rare among persons with psychiatric illness, including persons with schizophrenia and related disorders who do not also have a substance use disorder.”

Indeed, some studies have shown that individuals with mental illness are more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

“Frankly, the public is much more at risk from the neighborhood lout who drinks heavily and repeatedly starts bar fights than from the average patient with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder,” Dr. Pies said.

Dr. Fazel reported receiving funding from the Wellcome Trust. Dr. DeLisi and Dr. Pies disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY

Cessation of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) significantly increases the risk of self-harm and death by suicide in the first month after stopping the treatment in new findings that highlight the need for “advanced safety planning” during this critical time.

Investigators found that 4 weeks after stopping OAT, the risk of death by suicide was almost five times higher and the risk of hospital admission for self-harm was almost three times higher during this period, compared with the 4 weeks after initiation of OAT to treatment end.

These results highlight the importance of a “transition” period when stopping OAT and highlight the need for better supports for patients coming off this treatment, study investigator Prianka Padmanathan, MD, PhD candidate, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol (England), told this news organization.

She noted the study supports previous findings that OAT “has an important role” in suicide prevention.

“Suicide and self-harm risk is greatly increased during treatment cessation, and advanced safety planning and additional psychosocial support during this time may be required,” Dr. Padmanathan said.

The findings were published online Dec. 15 in The Lancet Psychiatry.

Suicide, self-harm risk

Previous research shows an increased risk for overdose deaths and death in general during the first few weeks of starting and stopping treatment for opioid dependence.

“We wanted to see if the risk of dying by suicide was also elevated during these times,” said Dr. Padmanathan. As suicides are relatively rare, the researchers also looked at self-harm, “which is an important risk factor for suicide.”

The investigators used linked health care databases to gather information on mortality and hospital admissions among primary care patients in England prescribed OAT, particularly buprenorphine or methadone.

“We tried to exclude people prescribed these drugs for pain and focused specifically on their prescription for opioid dependence,” Dr. Padmanathan said.

They estimated rates and adjusted risk ratios of hospital admissions for nonfatal self-harm and completed suicide during treatment initiation, maintenance, and cessation.

The study included 8,070 patients (69.3% men; mean baseline age, 33.3 years) who received OAT at least once from January 1998 through November 2018. The median treatment time was 84 days. Most of the participants lived in the most deprived neighborhoods and were White.

There were 807 hospital admissions for self-harm (1.99 per 100 person-years) and 46 suicides (0.11 per 100 person-years).

The investigators examined age, sex, socioeconomic status, number of previous OAT treatment episodes, previous self-harm, previous mental illness, and major chronic illness scores as potential confounders.

Need for psychosocial care

Results showed the risk for self-harm was significantly increased while off OAT (aRR, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.88).

The overall age- and sex-standardized mortality ratio for suicide was 7.5 times higher (95% CI, 5.5-10) in the study cohort, compared with the general population in England between 1998 and 2017.

There was insufficient evidence to show the risk for suicide was higher off, versus on, treatment, but this may be because suicides are relatively rare, Dr. Padmanathan noted.

“The sample may have been too small to enable a difference to be detected. In contrast, self-harm is more common, so there was power to detect a difference there,” she said.

Risk for self-harm was more than double in the first 4 weeks after stopping OAT versus stable periods on treatment (aRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.83-3.7). Risk for suicide more than quadrupled during this period (aRR, 4.68; 95% CI, 1.63-13.42).

These new results suggest additional interventions may be in order, Dr. Padmanathan noted.

“We already knew that extra care – for example, providing naloxone when coming off OAT – was important to prevent overdoses. But this study suggests providing psychosocial care and other extra care may also be important to prevent suicides,” she said.

There was no statistical evidence of difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of self-harm and suicide risks. However, this may be because the sample was not large enough to detect a difference, said Dr. Padmanathan.

Although there are currently no guidelines to indicate an ideal OAT period, previous study results have suggested extending treatment to 2 years may be beneficial, perhaps reducing self-harm and, therefore, suicides, she noted.

“We think most of these adverse outcomes likely occur during short treatment episodes with an unplanned ending. Extending OAT sufficiently to enable a planned ending might help to reduce these risks,” she added.

‘A window of vulnerability’

Authors of an accompanying editorial note the study “adds weight” to the evidence that OAT is a “lifesaving” treatment.

“It’s critical to recognize that transitions in and out of care are vulnerable periods” when it comes to suicide, the coauthor of the editorial, Paul S. Nestadt, MD, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Official suicide statistics may not reflect the entire story, as many deaths that occur because of overdose after treatment cessation are not counted as suicides, he said. “It can be difficult for medical examiners to determine if an overdose was intentional or not,” Dr. Nestadt added.

After treatment has been established, physicians “would be wise to delay treatment cessation” until the patient is in a stable condition and can be closely followed by mental health professionals, the editorialists note.

“We must consider the month following OAT cessation to be a window of vulnerability, not just for relapse but also for suicide,” they write.

The finding that patients prescribed OAT have such a high rate of suicide, compared with the general population, is “troubling” and “highlights the importance of interventions which address both opioid use and suicide risk,” they add.

The editorialists point out the median treatment period of 84 days is less than what is generally recommended, raising the question of whether longer treatment might lower suicide risk after treatment discontinuation.

They also emphasized the need for further study to test potential suicide prevention interventions in the period after treatment cessation.

Dr. Nestadt added the new findings are “quite generalizable outside of the U.K.” and referred to similar studies carried out in Australia and elsewhere.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. Dr. Padmanathan was a coapplicant on an a grant awarded to University of Bristol by Bristol and Weston Hospital Charity focusing on suicide prevention for patients presenting to the emergency department with self-harm and harmful substance use. Dr. Nestadt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY

Cessation of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) significantly increases the risk of self-harm and death by suicide in the first month after stopping the treatment in new findings that highlight the need for “advanced safety planning” during this critical time.

Investigators found that 4 weeks after stopping OAT, the risk of death by suicide was almost five times higher and the risk of hospital admission for self-harm was almost three times higher during this period, compared with the 4 weeks after initiation of OAT to treatment end.

These results highlight the importance of a “transition” period when stopping OAT and highlight the need for better supports for patients coming off this treatment, study investigator Prianka Padmanathan, MD, PhD candidate, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol (England), told this news organization.

She noted the study supports previous findings that OAT “has an important role” in suicide prevention.

“Suicide and self-harm risk is greatly increased during treatment cessation, and advanced safety planning and additional psychosocial support during this time may be required,” Dr. Padmanathan said.

The findings were published online Dec. 15 in The Lancet Psychiatry.

Suicide, self-harm risk

Previous research shows an increased risk for overdose deaths and death in general during the first few weeks of starting and stopping treatment for opioid dependence.

“We wanted to see if the risk of dying by suicide was also elevated during these times,” said Dr. Padmanathan. As suicides are relatively rare, the researchers also looked at self-harm, “which is an important risk factor for suicide.”

The investigators used linked health care databases to gather information on mortality and hospital admissions among primary care patients in England prescribed OAT, particularly buprenorphine or methadone.

“We tried to exclude people prescribed these drugs for pain and focused specifically on their prescription for opioid dependence,” Dr. Padmanathan said.

They estimated rates and adjusted risk ratios of hospital admissions for nonfatal self-harm and completed suicide during treatment initiation, maintenance, and cessation.

The study included 8,070 patients (69.3% men; mean baseline age, 33.3 years) who received OAT at least once from January 1998 through November 2018. The median treatment time was 84 days. Most of the participants lived in the most deprived neighborhoods and were White.

There were 807 hospital admissions for self-harm (1.99 per 100 person-years) and 46 suicides (0.11 per 100 person-years).

The investigators examined age, sex, socioeconomic status, number of previous OAT treatment episodes, previous self-harm, previous mental illness, and major chronic illness scores as potential confounders.

Need for psychosocial care

Results showed the risk for self-harm was significantly increased while off OAT (aRR, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.88).

The overall age- and sex-standardized mortality ratio for suicide was 7.5 times higher (95% CI, 5.5-10) in the study cohort, compared with the general population in England between 1998 and 2017.

There was insufficient evidence to show the risk for suicide was higher off, versus on, treatment, but this may be because suicides are relatively rare, Dr. Padmanathan noted.

“The sample may have been too small to enable a difference to be detected. In contrast, self-harm is more common, so there was power to detect a difference there,” she said.

Risk for self-harm was more than double in the first 4 weeks after stopping OAT versus stable periods on treatment (aRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.83-3.7). Risk for suicide more than quadrupled during this period (aRR, 4.68; 95% CI, 1.63-13.42).

These new results suggest additional interventions may be in order, Dr. Padmanathan noted.

“We already knew that extra care – for example, providing naloxone when coming off OAT – was important to prevent overdoses. But this study suggests providing psychosocial care and other extra care may also be important to prevent suicides,” she said.

There was no statistical evidence of difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of self-harm and suicide risks. However, this may be because the sample was not large enough to detect a difference, said Dr. Padmanathan.

Although there are currently no guidelines to indicate an ideal OAT period, previous study results have suggested extending treatment to 2 years may be beneficial, perhaps reducing self-harm and, therefore, suicides, she noted.

“We think most of these adverse outcomes likely occur during short treatment episodes with an unplanned ending. Extending OAT sufficiently to enable a planned ending might help to reduce these risks,” she added.

‘A window of vulnerability’

Authors of an accompanying editorial note the study “adds weight” to the evidence that OAT is a “lifesaving” treatment.

“It’s critical to recognize that transitions in and out of care are vulnerable periods” when it comes to suicide, the coauthor of the editorial, Paul S. Nestadt, MD, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Official suicide statistics may not reflect the entire story, as many deaths that occur because of overdose after treatment cessation are not counted as suicides, he said. “It can be difficult for medical examiners to determine if an overdose was intentional or not,” Dr. Nestadt added.

After treatment has been established, physicians “would be wise to delay treatment cessation” until the patient is in a stable condition and can be closely followed by mental health professionals, the editorialists note.

“We must consider the month following OAT cessation to be a window of vulnerability, not just for relapse but also for suicide,” they write.

The finding that patients prescribed OAT have such a high rate of suicide, compared with the general population, is “troubling” and “highlights the importance of interventions which address both opioid use and suicide risk,” they add.

The editorialists point out the median treatment period of 84 days is less than what is generally recommended, raising the question of whether longer treatment might lower suicide risk after treatment discontinuation.

They also emphasized the need for further study to test potential suicide prevention interventions in the period after treatment cessation.

Dr. Nestadt added the new findings are “quite generalizable outside of the U.K.” and referred to similar studies carried out in Australia and elsewhere.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. Dr. Padmanathan was a coapplicant on an a grant awarded to University of Bristol by Bristol and Weston Hospital Charity focusing on suicide prevention for patients presenting to the emergency department with self-harm and harmful substance use. Dr. Nestadt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY

Cessation of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) significantly increases the risk of self-harm and death by suicide in the first month after stopping the treatment in new findings that highlight the need for “advanced safety planning” during this critical time.

Investigators found that 4 weeks after stopping OAT, the risk of death by suicide was almost five times higher and the risk of hospital admission for self-harm was almost three times higher during this period, compared with the 4 weeks after initiation of OAT to treatment end.

These results highlight the importance of a “transition” period when stopping OAT and highlight the need for better supports for patients coming off this treatment, study investigator Prianka Padmanathan, MD, PhD candidate, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol (England), told this news organization.

She noted the study supports previous findings that OAT “has an important role” in suicide prevention.

“Suicide and self-harm risk is greatly increased during treatment cessation, and advanced safety planning and additional psychosocial support during this time may be required,” Dr. Padmanathan said.

The findings were published online Dec. 15 in The Lancet Psychiatry.

Suicide, self-harm risk

Previous research shows an increased risk for overdose deaths and death in general during the first few weeks of starting and stopping treatment for opioid dependence.

“We wanted to see if the risk of dying by suicide was also elevated during these times,” said Dr. Padmanathan. As suicides are relatively rare, the researchers also looked at self-harm, “which is an important risk factor for suicide.”

The investigators used linked health care databases to gather information on mortality and hospital admissions among primary care patients in England prescribed OAT, particularly buprenorphine or methadone.

“We tried to exclude people prescribed these drugs for pain and focused specifically on their prescription for opioid dependence,” Dr. Padmanathan said.

They estimated rates and adjusted risk ratios of hospital admissions for nonfatal self-harm and completed suicide during treatment initiation, maintenance, and cessation.

The study included 8,070 patients (69.3% men; mean baseline age, 33.3 years) who received OAT at least once from January 1998 through November 2018. The median treatment time was 84 days. Most of the participants lived in the most deprived neighborhoods and were White.

There were 807 hospital admissions for self-harm (1.99 per 100 person-years) and 46 suicides (0.11 per 100 person-years).

The investigators examined age, sex, socioeconomic status, number of previous OAT treatment episodes, previous self-harm, previous mental illness, and major chronic illness scores as potential confounders.

Need for psychosocial care

Results showed the risk for self-harm was significantly increased while off OAT (aRR, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.88).

The overall age- and sex-standardized mortality ratio for suicide was 7.5 times higher (95% CI, 5.5-10) in the study cohort, compared with the general population in England between 1998 and 2017.

There was insufficient evidence to show the risk for suicide was higher off, versus on, treatment, but this may be because suicides are relatively rare, Dr. Padmanathan noted.

“The sample may have been too small to enable a difference to be detected. In contrast, self-harm is more common, so there was power to detect a difference there,” she said.

Risk for self-harm was more than double in the first 4 weeks after stopping OAT versus stable periods on treatment (aRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.83-3.7). Risk for suicide more than quadrupled during this period (aRR, 4.68; 95% CI, 1.63-13.42).

These new results suggest additional interventions may be in order, Dr. Padmanathan noted.

“We already knew that extra care – for example, providing naloxone when coming off OAT – was important to prevent overdoses. But this study suggests providing psychosocial care and other extra care may also be important to prevent suicides,” she said.

There was no statistical evidence of difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of self-harm and suicide risks. However, this may be because the sample was not large enough to detect a difference, said Dr. Padmanathan.

Although there are currently no guidelines to indicate an ideal OAT period, previous study results have suggested extending treatment to 2 years may be beneficial, perhaps reducing self-harm and, therefore, suicides, she noted.

“We think most of these adverse outcomes likely occur during short treatment episodes with an unplanned ending. Extending OAT sufficiently to enable a planned ending might help to reduce these risks,” she added.

‘A window of vulnerability’

Authors of an accompanying editorial note the study “adds weight” to the evidence that OAT is a “lifesaving” treatment.

“It’s critical to recognize that transitions in and out of care are vulnerable periods” when it comes to suicide, the coauthor of the editorial, Paul S. Nestadt, MD, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Official suicide statistics may not reflect the entire story, as many deaths that occur because of overdose after treatment cessation are not counted as suicides, he said. “It can be difficult for medical examiners to determine if an overdose was intentional or not,” Dr. Nestadt added.

After treatment has been established, physicians “would be wise to delay treatment cessation” until the patient is in a stable condition and can be closely followed by mental health professionals, the editorialists note.

“We must consider the month following OAT cessation to be a window of vulnerability, not just for relapse but also for suicide,” they write.

The finding that patients prescribed OAT have such a high rate of suicide, compared with the general population, is “troubling” and “highlights the importance of interventions which address both opioid use and suicide risk,” they add.

The editorialists point out the median treatment period of 84 days is less than what is generally recommended, raising the question of whether longer treatment might lower suicide risk after treatment discontinuation.

They also emphasized the need for further study to test potential suicide prevention interventions in the period after treatment cessation.

Dr. Nestadt added the new findings are “quite generalizable outside of the U.K.” and referred to similar studies carried out in Australia and elsewhere.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. Dr. Padmanathan was a coapplicant on an a grant awarded to University of Bristol by Bristol and Weston Hospital Charity focusing on suicide prevention for patients presenting to the emergency department with self-harm and harmful substance use. Dr. Nestadt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low vitamin D is common in patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP), but supplementation does not appear to improve mental or physical symptoms, new data show.

“Previous work, our own and others, has shown that people with psychosis, even soon after their first diagnosis, have low vitamin D levels, but it was not known whether supplementing with vitamin D in people with early psychosis would improve health outcomes,” study investigator Fiona Gaughran, MD, with the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, told this news organization.

“While we did not demonstrate a benefit of supplementation over 6 months, these very high rates of vitamin deficiency and insufficiency may have longer-term negative health impacts which we have not measured, so raising awareness of the need to optimize vitamin D in people with psychosis is important,” said Dr. Gaughran.

The results of the randomized clinical trial were published online Dec. 28 in JAMA Network Open.

Thoughtful approach, negative result

Participants included 149 adults within 3 years of a first presentation with a functional psychotic disorder. The cohort’s mean age was 28 years, 60% were men, 44% were Black or of other racial and ethnic minority groups, and 56% were White.

Seventy-five participants were randomly assigned to receive 120,000 IU of cholecalciferol or matching placebo administered by the researchers in monthly doses with an oral syringe.

“We chose a dose of 120,000 IU monthly (equivalent to 4,000 IU daily) which was expected to safely increase vitamin D levels. The regimen was discussed with experts with lived experience, and took into account that a daily preparation would add to the significant medication load that people with psychosis already carry,” said Dr. Gaughran.

Vitamin D supplementation as administered in this study was safe and led to a significant increase in 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations.

However, there was no significant difference between vitamin D and placebo in the primary outcome of total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score at 6 months (mean difference, 3.57; 95% confidence interval, –1.11 to 8.25; P = .13).

There was also no apparent benefit of vitamin D supplementation on any secondary outcome, including the PANSS subscores of global function and depression or cardiometabolic risk factors.

“With respect to clinical practice, we cannot now recommend monthly treatments with 120,000 IU of cholecalciferol in FEP,” the investigators note.

The prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency was high in the population – 74.6% overall and 93.4% among ethnic minorities.

“Thus, the sample was well suited to detecting any potential benefits that may have arisen from correcting this. However, even in this subgroup, there was no evidence to support the guiding hypothesis” that vitamin D supplementation would improve outcomes in patients with early psychosis, the researchers note.

They suggest that future studies examine the association of vitamin D with brain-related outcomes based on periods of treatment longer than 6 months and administered as daily rather than bolus treatments.

“Future public health strategies should acknowledge the high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency in people with psychosis and consider any reasonable adjustments which may be needed to address this over and above general population guidance,” said Dr. Gaughran.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute and received support from the National Institute for Health Research Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre, King’s College London, and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South London. Dr. Gaughran reported receiving speaking honoraria from Otsuka Lundbeck outside the submitted work. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Low vitamin D is common in patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP), but supplementation does not appear to improve mental or physical symptoms, new data show.

“Previous work, our own and others, has shown that people with psychosis, even soon after their first diagnosis, have low vitamin D levels, but it was not known whether supplementing with vitamin D in people with early psychosis would improve health outcomes,” study investigator Fiona Gaughran, MD, with the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, told this news organization.

“While we did not demonstrate a benefit of supplementation over 6 months, these very high rates of vitamin deficiency and insufficiency may have longer-term negative health impacts which we have not measured, so raising awareness of the need to optimize vitamin D in people with psychosis is important,” said Dr. Gaughran.

The results of the randomized clinical trial were published online Dec. 28 in JAMA Network Open.

Thoughtful approach, negative result

Participants included 149 adults within 3 years of a first presentation with a functional psychotic disorder. The cohort’s mean age was 28 years, 60% were men, 44% were Black or of other racial and ethnic minority groups, and 56% were White.

Seventy-five participants were randomly assigned to receive 120,000 IU of cholecalciferol or matching placebo administered by the researchers in monthly doses with an oral syringe.

“We chose a dose of 120,000 IU monthly (equivalent to 4,000 IU daily) which was expected to safely increase vitamin D levels. The regimen was discussed with experts with lived experience, and took into account that a daily preparation would add to the significant medication load that people with psychosis already carry,” said Dr. Gaughran.

Vitamin D supplementation as administered in this study was safe and led to a significant increase in 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations.

However, there was no significant difference between vitamin D and placebo in the primary outcome of total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score at 6 months (mean difference, 3.57; 95% confidence interval, –1.11 to 8.25; P = .13).

There was also no apparent benefit of vitamin D supplementation on any secondary outcome, including the PANSS subscores of global function and depression or cardiometabolic risk factors.

“With respect to clinical practice, we cannot now recommend monthly treatments with 120,000 IU of cholecalciferol in FEP,” the investigators note.

The prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency was high in the population – 74.6% overall and 93.4% among ethnic minorities.

“Thus, the sample was well suited to detecting any potential benefits that may have arisen from correcting this. However, even in this subgroup, there was no evidence to support the guiding hypothesis” that vitamin D supplementation would improve outcomes in patients with early psychosis, the researchers note.

They suggest that future studies examine the association of vitamin D with brain-related outcomes based on periods of treatment longer than 6 months and administered as daily rather than bolus treatments.

“Future public health strategies should acknowledge the high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency in people with psychosis and consider any reasonable adjustments which may be needed to address this over and above general population guidance,” said Dr. Gaughran.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute and received support from the National Institute for Health Research Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre, King’s College London, and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South London. Dr. Gaughran reported receiving speaking honoraria from Otsuka Lundbeck outside the submitted work. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Low vitamin D is common in patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP), but supplementation does not appear to improve mental or physical symptoms, new data show.

“Previous work, our own and others, has shown that people with psychosis, even soon after their first diagnosis, have low vitamin D levels, but it was not known whether supplementing with vitamin D in people with early psychosis would improve health outcomes,” study investigator Fiona Gaughran, MD, with the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, told this news organization.

“While we did not demonstrate a benefit of supplementation over 6 months, these very high rates of vitamin deficiency and insufficiency may have longer-term negative health impacts which we have not measured, so raising awareness of the need to optimize vitamin D in people with psychosis is important,” said Dr. Gaughran.

The results of the randomized clinical trial were published online Dec. 28 in JAMA Network Open.

Thoughtful approach, negative result

Participants included 149 adults within 3 years of a first presentation with a functional psychotic disorder. The cohort’s mean age was 28 years, 60% were men, 44% were Black or of other racial and ethnic minority groups, and 56% were White.

Seventy-five participants were randomly assigned to receive 120,000 IU of cholecalciferol or matching placebo administered by the researchers in monthly doses with an oral syringe.

“We chose a dose of 120,000 IU monthly (equivalent to 4,000 IU daily) which was expected to safely increase vitamin D levels. The regimen was discussed with experts with lived experience, and took into account that a daily preparation would add to the significant medication load that people with psychosis already carry,” said Dr. Gaughran.

Vitamin D supplementation as administered in this study was safe and led to a significant increase in 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations.

However, there was no significant difference between vitamin D and placebo in the primary outcome of total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score at 6 months (mean difference, 3.57; 95% confidence interval, –1.11 to 8.25; P = .13).

There was also no apparent benefit of vitamin D supplementation on any secondary outcome, including the PANSS subscores of global function and depression or cardiometabolic risk factors.

“With respect to clinical practice, we cannot now recommend monthly treatments with 120,000 IU of cholecalciferol in FEP,” the investigators note.

The prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency was high in the population – 74.6% overall and 93.4% among ethnic minorities.

“Thus, the sample was well suited to detecting any potential benefits that may have arisen from correcting this. However, even in this subgroup, there was no evidence to support the guiding hypothesis” that vitamin D supplementation would improve outcomes in patients with early psychosis, the researchers note.

They suggest that future studies examine the association of vitamin D with brain-related outcomes based on periods of treatment longer than 6 months and administered as daily rather than bolus treatments.

“Future public health strategies should acknowledge the high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency in people with psychosis and consider any reasonable adjustments which may be needed to address this over and above general population guidance,” said Dr. Gaughran.

The study was funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute and received support from the National Institute for Health Research Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre, King’s College London, and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South London. Dr. Gaughran reported receiving speaking honoraria from Otsuka Lundbeck outside the submitted work. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Older Canadian schoolchildren who spent the most time looking at screens during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced higher levels of anxiety and depression, while their younger counterparts had more conduct problems, researchers have found. However, the study doesn’t definitively prove that screen time is harmful, and an expert challenged the conclusions.

Still, the findings highlight the potential harms of excessive screen time, especially in the context of pandemic-era virtual learning. Clinicians “really need to advocate for policies that would be protective for children to reduce their screen time and social isolation and increase their involvement with school, sports, and academic activities,” Catherine S. Birken, MD, a pediatrician at the University of Toronto and study coauthor said in an interview.

The study appeared Dec. 28, 2021, in the journal JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.40875).

Dr. Birken and colleagues launched the study to examine whether heightened levels of screen time during the pandemic disrupted mental health in kids. In particular, they wanted to break down different types of screen time, such as virtual learning, watching television, and playing video games.

“The bulk of the literature is supportive of a strong relationship between screen time and mental health symptoms like anxiety,” Dr. Birken said.

For the study, the researchers surveyed parents to track the screen time of 2,026 children between May 2020 and April 2021.

In a cohort of 532 younger children (average age, 5.9 years; 52% male; 58% of European ancestry), the researchers linked each extra daily hour of TV or use of digital media to worse behavior, as measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: 0.22 in an adjusted model for children aged 2-4;(95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.35; P < .001) and 0.07 in an adjusted model in those aged 4 and older (95% CI, 0.02-0.11; P = .007).

However, the researchers observed no statistically significant links to more anxiety/depression or hyperactivity/inattention in this group of children.

Among 1,494 older kids (mean age, 11.3; 57% male; 58% of European ancestry), researchers linked greater daily use of TV or digital media to higher levels of depression symptoms in a dose-dependent relationship, Dr. Birken said (1 hour: beta, 0.21; 95% CI, –1.28 to 0.78; 2-3 hours: beta, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.29-3.33; 4-5 hours: beta, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.15-4.44; 6-8 hours: beta, 5.16; 95% CI, 3.32-7.01; 9 hours: beta, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.30-7.54; overall P < .001).

“Similarly, higher TV or digital media time per day was associated with higher levels of anxiety symptoms,” the researchers reported. “TV or digital media time per day was also significantly associated with differences in symptoms of irritability, inattention, and hyperactivity/inattention.”

More time spent learning virtually was associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety in both groups of children, according to the researchers. Whether this finding reflects an effect of screens themselves or because the children most exposed to virtual learning may also have been the most exposed to the stressful disruptiveness of the pandemic is unclear.

The researchers also found “insufficient evidence” to link more virtual learning to irritability, inattention and hyperactivity, inattention, and hyperactivity/impulsivity in adjusted models.

Video chatting did not appear to have a protective effect, Dr. Birken said. The researchers also specifically analyzed children with autism and found no link between more screen time and various mental health/conduct problems.

Is it possible that kids with more anxiety, depression, and isolation simply turn to screens because they’re anxious, depressed, and isolated? Dr. Birken said the researchers adjusted the findings to account for previous mental health problems. And she noted that the study linked more pandemic-era virtual learning to more depression/anxiety. It’s “hard to imagine” how more mental health problems would cause more virtual learning.
 

Bad news or bad stats?

Chris Ferguson, PhD, a professor of psychology at Stetson University. DeLand, Fla., who studies screen time, criticized the study in an interview. “The observed effects are so tiny, it’s impossible to know if they are real or a false-positive artifact common to social science research,” he said. “Ultimately, this study is better evidence about how many scholars are bad at statistics than anything having to do with kids and screens.”

Dr. Ferguson said that the results may be confounded because kids turn to screens to reduce their anxiety. “For the most part, screens were a godsend during COVID-19,” he said. “They helped kids stay inside and gave them something to do while social distancing and allowed them to keep in touch with friends and families. Honestly, what else were we expecting kids to do, stare at the wallpaper?”

Children with depression and anxiety often retreat into screens or books to escape the unpleasantries of real life. “That doesn’t mean the screens or books are the culprits,” he said.

Instead of focusing on screen time, Dr. Ferguson suggested parents consider these factors: “Keeping in mind not every kid is a genius, is your kid doing about as well in school as you’d expect, given their natural ability? Are they getting at least some exercise every day? Are they getting adequate sleep? Are they able to socialize with friends in some context, either in real life or online? Are they happy?”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Center for Brain & Mental Health at The Hospital for Sick Children, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund in Prevention and Early Detection of Severe Mental Illness at the University of Toronto. The study authors reported various financial relationships. Dr. Ferguson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Older Canadian schoolchildren who spent the most time looking at screens during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced higher levels of anxiety and depression, while their younger counterparts had more conduct problems, researchers have found. However, the study doesn’t definitively prove that screen time is harmful, and an expert challenged the conclusions.

Still, the findings highlight the potential harms of excessive screen time, especially in the context of pandemic-era virtual learning. Clinicians “really need to advocate for policies that would be protective for children to reduce their screen time and social isolation and increase their involvement with school, sports, and academic activities,” Catherine S. Birken, MD, a pediatrician at the University of Toronto and study coauthor said in an interview.

The study appeared Dec. 28, 2021, in the journal JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.40875).

Dr. Birken and colleagues launched the study to examine whether heightened levels of screen time during the pandemic disrupted mental health in kids. In particular, they wanted to break down different types of screen time, such as virtual learning, watching television, and playing video games.

“The bulk of the literature is supportive of a strong relationship between screen time and mental health symptoms like anxiety,” Dr. Birken said.

For the study, the researchers surveyed parents to track the screen time of 2,026 children between May 2020 and April 2021.

In a cohort of 532 younger children (average age, 5.9 years; 52% male; 58% of European ancestry), the researchers linked each extra daily hour of TV or use of digital media to worse behavior, as measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: 0.22 in an adjusted model for children aged 2-4;(95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.35; P < .001) and 0.07 in an adjusted model in those aged 4 and older (95% CI, 0.02-0.11; P = .007).

However, the researchers observed no statistically significant links to more anxiety/depression or hyperactivity/inattention in this group of children.

Among 1,494 older kids (mean age, 11.3; 57% male; 58% of European ancestry), researchers linked greater daily use of TV or digital media to higher levels of depression symptoms in a dose-dependent relationship, Dr. Birken said (1 hour: beta, 0.21; 95% CI, –1.28 to 0.78; 2-3 hours: beta, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.29-3.33; 4-5 hours: beta, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.15-4.44; 6-8 hours: beta, 5.16; 95% CI, 3.32-7.01; 9 hours: beta, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.30-7.54; overall P < .001).

“Similarly, higher TV or digital media time per day was associated with higher levels of anxiety symptoms,” the researchers reported. “TV or digital media time per day was also significantly associated with differences in symptoms of irritability, inattention, and hyperactivity/inattention.”

More time spent learning virtually was associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety in both groups of children, according to the researchers. Whether this finding reflects an effect of screens themselves or because the children most exposed to virtual learning may also have been the most exposed to the stressful disruptiveness of the pandemic is unclear.

The researchers also found “insufficient evidence” to link more virtual learning to irritability, inattention and hyperactivity, inattention, and hyperactivity/impulsivity in adjusted models.

Video chatting did not appear to have a protective effect, Dr. Birken said. The researchers also specifically analyzed children with autism and found no link between more screen time and various mental health/conduct problems.

Is it possible that kids with more anxiety, depression, and isolation simply turn to screens because they’re anxious, depressed, and isolated? Dr. Birken said the researchers adjusted the findings to account for previous mental health problems. And she noted that the study linked more pandemic-era virtual learning to more depression/anxiety. It’s “hard to imagine” how more mental health problems would cause more virtual learning.
 

Bad news or bad stats?

Chris Ferguson, PhD, a professor of psychology at Stetson University. DeLand, Fla., who studies screen time, criticized the study in an interview. “The observed effects are so tiny, it’s impossible to know if they are real or a false-positive artifact common to social science research,” he said. “Ultimately, this study is better evidence about how many scholars are bad at statistics than anything having to do with kids and screens.”

Dr. Ferguson said that the results may be confounded because kids turn to screens to reduce their anxiety. “For the most part, screens were a godsend during COVID-19,” he said. “They helped kids stay inside and gave them something to do while social distancing and allowed them to keep in touch with friends and families. Honestly, what else were we expecting kids to do, stare at the wallpaper?”

Children with depression and anxiety often retreat into screens or books to escape the unpleasantries of real life. “That doesn’t mean the screens or books are the culprits,” he said.

Instead of focusing on screen time, Dr. Ferguson suggested parents consider these factors: “Keeping in mind not every kid is a genius, is your kid doing about as well in school as you’d expect, given their natural ability? Are they getting at least some exercise every day? Are they getting adequate sleep? Are they able to socialize with friends in some context, either in real life or online? Are they happy?”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Center for Brain & Mental Health at The Hospital for Sick Children, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund in Prevention and Early Detection of Severe Mental Illness at the University of Toronto. The study authors reported various financial relationships. Dr. Ferguson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Older Canadian schoolchildren who spent the most time looking at screens during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced higher levels of anxiety and depression, while their younger counterparts had more conduct problems, researchers have found. However, the study doesn’t definitively prove that screen time is harmful, and an expert challenged the conclusions.

Still, the findings highlight the potential harms of excessive screen time, especially in the context of pandemic-era virtual learning. Clinicians “really need to advocate for policies that would be protective for children to reduce their screen time and social isolation and increase their involvement with school, sports, and academic activities,” Catherine S. Birken, MD, a pediatrician at the University of Toronto and study coauthor said in an interview.

The study appeared Dec. 28, 2021, in the journal JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.40875).

Dr. Birken and colleagues launched the study to examine whether heightened levels of screen time during the pandemic disrupted mental health in kids. In particular, they wanted to break down different types of screen time, such as virtual learning, watching television, and playing video games.

“The bulk of the literature is supportive of a strong relationship between screen time and mental health symptoms like anxiety,” Dr. Birken said.

For the study, the researchers surveyed parents to track the screen time of 2,026 children between May 2020 and April 2021.

In a cohort of 532 younger children (average age, 5.9 years; 52% male; 58% of European ancestry), the researchers linked each extra daily hour of TV or use of digital media to worse behavior, as measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: 0.22 in an adjusted model for children aged 2-4;(95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.35; P < .001) and 0.07 in an adjusted model in those aged 4 and older (95% CI, 0.02-0.11; P = .007).

However, the researchers observed no statistically significant links to more anxiety/depression or hyperactivity/inattention in this group of children.

Among 1,494 older kids (mean age, 11.3; 57% male; 58% of European ancestry), researchers linked greater daily use of TV or digital media to higher levels of depression symptoms in a dose-dependent relationship, Dr. Birken said (1 hour: beta, 0.21; 95% CI, –1.28 to 0.78; 2-3 hours: beta, 1.81; 95% CI, 0.29-3.33; 4-5 hours: beta, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.15-4.44; 6-8 hours: beta, 5.16; 95% CI, 3.32-7.01; 9 hours: beta, 5.42; 95% CI, 3.30-7.54; overall P < .001).

“Similarly, higher TV or digital media time per day was associated with higher levels of anxiety symptoms,” the researchers reported. “TV or digital media time per day was also significantly associated with differences in symptoms of irritability, inattention, and hyperactivity/inattention.”

More time spent learning virtually was associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety in both groups of children, according to the researchers. Whether this finding reflects an effect of screens themselves or because the children most exposed to virtual learning may also have been the most exposed to the stressful disruptiveness of the pandemic is unclear.

The researchers also found “insufficient evidence” to link more virtual learning to irritability, inattention and hyperactivity, inattention, and hyperactivity/impulsivity in adjusted models.

Video chatting did not appear to have a protective effect, Dr. Birken said. The researchers also specifically analyzed children with autism and found no link between more screen time and various mental health/conduct problems.

Is it possible that kids with more anxiety, depression, and isolation simply turn to screens because they’re anxious, depressed, and isolated? Dr. Birken said the researchers adjusted the findings to account for previous mental health problems. And she noted that the study linked more pandemic-era virtual learning to more depression/anxiety. It’s “hard to imagine” how more mental health problems would cause more virtual learning.
 

Bad news or bad stats?

Chris Ferguson, PhD, a professor of psychology at Stetson University. DeLand, Fla., who studies screen time, criticized the study in an interview. “The observed effects are so tiny, it’s impossible to know if they are real or a false-positive artifact common to social science research,” he said. “Ultimately, this study is better evidence about how many scholars are bad at statistics than anything having to do with kids and screens.”

Dr. Ferguson said that the results may be confounded because kids turn to screens to reduce their anxiety. “For the most part, screens were a godsend during COVID-19,” he said. “They helped kids stay inside and gave them something to do while social distancing and allowed them to keep in touch with friends and families. Honestly, what else were we expecting kids to do, stare at the wallpaper?”

Children with depression and anxiety often retreat into screens or books to escape the unpleasantries of real life. “That doesn’t mean the screens or books are the culprits,” he said.

Instead of focusing on screen time, Dr. Ferguson suggested parents consider these factors: “Keeping in mind not every kid is a genius, is your kid doing about as well in school as you’d expect, given their natural ability? Are they getting at least some exercise every day? Are they getting adequate sleep? Are they able to socialize with friends in some context, either in real life or online? Are they happy?”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Center for Brain & Mental Health at The Hospital for Sick Children, the Ontario Ministry of Health, and the Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund in Prevention and Early Detection of Severe Mental Illness at the University of Toronto. The study authors reported various financial relationships. Dr. Ferguson reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to shorten the length of isolation time for asymptomatic Americans with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status, to 5 days from 10 days is confusing. I hope the agency reconsiders this decision.

After all, one of the CDC’s key messages during this pandemic has been that even people with asymptomatic COVID who have been vaccinated and boosted can transmit the disease. So it seems to me that the Dec. 27, 2021, recommendation about shortening the isolation time for COVID-19–positive people, like the agency’s earlier guidance encouraging people who are vaccinated to stop wearing masks while in indoor settings, runs contrary to good public health principles.

As an expert in human behavior, I am worried about the impact of these confusing messages on the psyche of people in general, as well as on our patients.
 

Mental health impact

Soon after the United States went on lockdown in March 2020, I wrote about the likelihood of a pandemic of PTSD, anxiety, and depression that would occur in the wake of rising COVID-19 rates. Well, it happened.

Many people have felt a sense of existential despair, depression, and anxiety. As we head into year No. 3 of disruption of our daily lives – and face the loss of more than 825,000 Americans to COVID – we continue to navigate this uncertainty. And now we must deal with Omicron, a variant that is so highly transmissible that it is apparently able to, in some cases, evade two-dose regimens of mRNA vaccines, boosters, and immunity from past infections, according to a report from Imperial College London. Yet, we are being told by some that Omicron might be less severe, compared with other variants. I worry that this assessment is misleading. In that same report, the Imperial College said it “found no evidence” that Omicron is less virulent than Delta, based on the risk of hospitalization and symptom status.

Meanwhile, animal studies suggest that the Omicron variant might lead to less lung damage than previous variants. A preprint article that is being considered for publication by a Nature Portfolio journal suggests that hamsters and mice infected with the Omicron variant do not have as much lung damage as those infected with other variants. More data need to come in for us to get a true understanding of Omicron’s virulence and transmissibility. We should keep an eye on Israel, which is launching a clinical trial of a second booster, or fourth mRNA shot.

As clinicians, we should give our patients and other people with whom we come in contact a sense of hope. In addition to urging people to get boosters, let’s tell them to err on the side of safety when it comes to this pandemic. That means encouraging them to remain isolated for longer than 5 days – until they test negative for COVID. It also means encouraging patients to wear high-quality face masks while inside public spaces – even in the absence of mandates. I have found it heartbreaking to watch televised broadcasts of sporting events held at some stadiums across the country where masks are not being worn. This absence of face coverings is counterintuitive at a time when some Broadway shows are closing. Even the great Radio City Rockettes shut down their holiday shows early in December 2021 because of COVID.

And, as I’ve argued before, we must not give up on unvaccinated people. I have had success in changing the minds of a few patients and some acquaintances with gentle, respectful prodding and vaccine education.

I would also like to see public health principles implemented in our schools and colleges. To protect the health of our children and young adults, we must continue to be nimble – which means school districts should implement layered prevention strategies, as the CDC recommends. This includes not only encouraging eligible staff members and students to get vaccinated, but requiring face masks inside school facilities, maintaining a physical distance of at least 3 feet, “screening testing, ventilation, handwashing, and staying home when sick.”

Furthermore, in deciding whether schools should remain open or be closed after positive COVID cases are discovered, officials should look at the vaccine demographics of that particular school. For example, if 15% of students are vaccinated in one school and 70% are vaccinated in another, the judgment would be different. Of course, it’s clearly best for schools to remain open, but perhaps closing them temporarily – perhaps for a week or 10 days – should be on the table if infection rates reach a certain level.

Now that we know more and have the benefit of getting more than 200 million Americans fully vaccinated, we can be far more selective about closings and openings. An important part of our strategy must be to communicate honestly with the public about which measures are best for safety. As a key tenet of cognitive-behavioral therapy tells us, “all-or-nothing” thinking is not productive. That should also be the case with our approach to managing COVID-19.

We don’t know the future of the pandemic. Yes, it will end, and possibly COVID will become endemic – like the flu. However, in the meantime, in addition to promoting vaccinations and boosters, we must rigorously encourage our patients to follow public health standards of masking, social distancing, and closing down businesses – and schools – temporarily.

This pandemic has taken a horrendous mental health toll on all of us – especially our patients and frontline health care workers. I’ve spoken with numerous people who were anxious, depressed, and showed signs of PTSD in early 2020; after they got vaccinated, COVID spread diminished, and as public health protocols began to lift, so did their spirits. Clearly for some, the benefit of psychiatric/psychological care centering on the pandemic has proven invaluable. In some ways, the pandemic has brought to the surface the importance of mental health care and removed some of the stigma from mental illness. And that’s a good thing.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist who has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to shorten the length of isolation time for asymptomatic Americans with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status, to 5 days from 10 days is confusing. I hope the agency reconsiders this decision.

After all, one of the CDC’s key messages during this pandemic has been that even people with asymptomatic COVID who have been vaccinated and boosted can transmit the disease. So it seems to me that the Dec. 27, 2021, recommendation about shortening the isolation time for COVID-19–positive people, like the agency’s earlier guidance encouraging people who are vaccinated to stop wearing masks while in indoor settings, runs contrary to good public health principles.

As an expert in human behavior, I am worried about the impact of these confusing messages on the psyche of people in general, as well as on our patients.
 

Mental health impact

Soon after the United States went on lockdown in March 2020, I wrote about the likelihood of a pandemic of PTSD, anxiety, and depression that would occur in the wake of rising COVID-19 rates. Well, it happened.

Many people have felt a sense of existential despair, depression, and anxiety. As we head into year No. 3 of disruption of our daily lives – and face the loss of more than 825,000 Americans to COVID – we continue to navigate this uncertainty. And now we must deal with Omicron, a variant that is so highly transmissible that it is apparently able to, in some cases, evade two-dose regimens of mRNA vaccines, boosters, and immunity from past infections, according to a report from Imperial College London. Yet, we are being told by some that Omicron might be less severe, compared with other variants. I worry that this assessment is misleading. In that same report, the Imperial College said it “found no evidence” that Omicron is less virulent than Delta, based on the risk of hospitalization and symptom status.

Meanwhile, animal studies suggest that the Omicron variant might lead to less lung damage than previous variants. A preprint article that is being considered for publication by a Nature Portfolio journal suggests that hamsters and mice infected with the Omicron variant do not have as much lung damage as those infected with other variants. More data need to come in for us to get a true understanding of Omicron’s virulence and transmissibility. We should keep an eye on Israel, which is launching a clinical trial of a second booster, or fourth mRNA shot.

As clinicians, we should give our patients and other people with whom we come in contact a sense of hope. In addition to urging people to get boosters, let’s tell them to err on the side of safety when it comes to this pandemic. That means encouraging them to remain isolated for longer than 5 days – until they test negative for COVID. It also means encouraging patients to wear high-quality face masks while inside public spaces – even in the absence of mandates. I have found it heartbreaking to watch televised broadcasts of sporting events held at some stadiums across the country where masks are not being worn. This absence of face coverings is counterintuitive at a time when some Broadway shows are closing. Even the great Radio City Rockettes shut down their holiday shows early in December 2021 because of COVID.

And, as I’ve argued before, we must not give up on unvaccinated people. I have had success in changing the minds of a few patients and some acquaintances with gentle, respectful prodding and vaccine education.

I would also like to see public health principles implemented in our schools and colleges. To protect the health of our children and young adults, we must continue to be nimble – which means school districts should implement layered prevention strategies, as the CDC recommends. This includes not only encouraging eligible staff members and students to get vaccinated, but requiring face masks inside school facilities, maintaining a physical distance of at least 3 feet, “screening testing, ventilation, handwashing, and staying home when sick.”

Furthermore, in deciding whether schools should remain open or be closed after positive COVID cases are discovered, officials should look at the vaccine demographics of that particular school. For example, if 15% of students are vaccinated in one school and 70% are vaccinated in another, the judgment would be different. Of course, it’s clearly best for schools to remain open, but perhaps closing them temporarily – perhaps for a week or 10 days – should be on the table if infection rates reach a certain level.

Now that we know more and have the benefit of getting more than 200 million Americans fully vaccinated, we can be far more selective about closings and openings. An important part of our strategy must be to communicate honestly with the public about which measures are best for safety. As a key tenet of cognitive-behavioral therapy tells us, “all-or-nothing” thinking is not productive. That should also be the case with our approach to managing COVID-19.

We don’t know the future of the pandemic. Yes, it will end, and possibly COVID will become endemic – like the flu. However, in the meantime, in addition to promoting vaccinations and boosters, we must rigorously encourage our patients to follow public health standards of masking, social distancing, and closing down businesses – and schools – temporarily.

This pandemic has taken a horrendous mental health toll on all of us – especially our patients and frontline health care workers. I’ve spoken with numerous people who were anxious, depressed, and showed signs of PTSD in early 2020; after they got vaccinated, COVID spread diminished, and as public health protocols began to lift, so did their spirits. Clearly for some, the benefit of psychiatric/psychological care centering on the pandemic has proven invaluable. In some ways, the pandemic has brought to the surface the importance of mental health care and removed some of the stigma from mental illness. And that’s a good thing.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist who has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to shorten the length of isolation time for asymptomatic Americans with COVID-19, regardless of their vaccination status, to 5 days from 10 days is confusing. I hope the agency reconsiders this decision.

After all, one of the CDC’s key messages during this pandemic has been that even people with asymptomatic COVID who have been vaccinated and boosted can transmit the disease. So it seems to me that the Dec. 27, 2021, recommendation about shortening the isolation time for COVID-19–positive people, like the agency’s earlier guidance encouraging people who are vaccinated to stop wearing masks while in indoor settings, runs contrary to good public health principles.

As an expert in human behavior, I am worried about the impact of these confusing messages on the psyche of people in general, as well as on our patients.
 

Mental health impact

Soon after the United States went on lockdown in March 2020, I wrote about the likelihood of a pandemic of PTSD, anxiety, and depression that would occur in the wake of rising COVID-19 rates. Well, it happened.

Many people have felt a sense of existential despair, depression, and anxiety. As we head into year No. 3 of disruption of our daily lives – and face the loss of more than 825,000 Americans to COVID – we continue to navigate this uncertainty. And now we must deal with Omicron, a variant that is so highly transmissible that it is apparently able to, in some cases, evade two-dose regimens of mRNA vaccines, boosters, and immunity from past infections, according to a report from Imperial College London. Yet, we are being told by some that Omicron might be less severe, compared with other variants. I worry that this assessment is misleading. In that same report, the Imperial College said it “found no evidence” that Omicron is less virulent than Delta, based on the risk of hospitalization and symptom status.

Meanwhile, animal studies suggest that the Omicron variant might lead to less lung damage than previous variants. A preprint article that is being considered for publication by a Nature Portfolio journal suggests that hamsters and mice infected with the Omicron variant do not have as much lung damage as those infected with other variants. More data need to come in for us to get a true understanding of Omicron’s virulence and transmissibility. We should keep an eye on Israel, which is launching a clinical trial of a second booster, or fourth mRNA shot.

As clinicians, we should give our patients and other people with whom we come in contact a sense of hope. In addition to urging people to get boosters, let’s tell them to err on the side of safety when it comes to this pandemic. That means encouraging them to remain isolated for longer than 5 days – until they test negative for COVID. It also means encouraging patients to wear high-quality face masks while inside public spaces – even in the absence of mandates. I have found it heartbreaking to watch televised broadcasts of sporting events held at some stadiums across the country where masks are not being worn. This absence of face coverings is counterintuitive at a time when some Broadway shows are closing. Even the great Radio City Rockettes shut down their holiday shows early in December 2021 because of COVID.

And, as I’ve argued before, we must not give up on unvaccinated people. I have had success in changing the minds of a few patients and some acquaintances with gentle, respectful prodding and vaccine education.

I would also like to see public health principles implemented in our schools and colleges. To protect the health of our children and young adults, we must continue to be nimble – which means school districts should implement layered prevention strategies, as the CDC recommends. This includes not only encouraging eligible staff members and students to get vaccinated, but requiring face masks inside school facilities, maintaining a physical distance of at least 3 feet, “screening testing, ventilation, handwashing, and staying home when sick.”

Furthermore, in deciding whether schools should remain open or be closed after positive COVID cases are discovered, officials should look at the vaccine demographics of that particular school. For example, if 15% of students are vaccinated in one school and 70% are vaccinated in another, the judgment would be different. Of course, it’s clearly best for schools to remain open, but perhaps closing them temporarily – perhaps for a week or 10 days – should be on the table if infection rates reach a certain level.

Now that we know more and have the benefit of getting more than 200 million Americans fully vaccinated, we can be far more selective about closings and openings. An important part of our strategy must be to communicate honestly with the public about which measures are best for safety. As a key tenet of cognitive-behavioral therapy tells us, “all-or-nothing” thinking is not productive. That should also be the case with our approach to managing COVID-19.

We don’t know the future of the pandemic. Yes, it will end, and possibly COVID will become endemic – like the flu. However, in the meantime, in addition to promoting vaccinations and boosters, we must rigorously encourage our patients to follow public health standards of masking, social distancing, and closing down businesses – and schools – temporarily.

This pandemic has taken a horrendous mental health toll on all of us – especially our patients and frontline health care workers. I’ve spoken with numerous people who were anxious, depressed, and showed signs of PTSD in early 2020; after they got vaccinated, COVID spread diminished, and as public health protocols began to lift, so did their spirits. Clearly for some, the benefit of psychiatric/psychological care centering on the pandemic has proven invaluable. In some ways, the pandemic has brought to the surface the importance of mental health care and removed some of the stigma from mental illness. And that’s a good thing.

Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist who has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
 

Researchers have identified a risk locus on chromosome 7 containing DNA variations that increase the risk that an individual will attempt suicide, even in the absence of a psychiatric disorder.

This finding suggests the genetic underpinnings of suicide attempts are partially shared and partially distinct from those of related psychiatric disorders, the investigators note.

“This study brings us a step closer to understanding the neurobiology of suicidality, with the ultimate goal of developing new treatments and prevention strategies,” Niamh Mullins, PhD, department of psychiatry, department of genetics and genomic sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.

Largest study to date

In the largest genetic association study of suicide attempt published to date, the researchers conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 29,782 suicide attempt cases and 519,961 controls in the International Suicide Genetics Consortium (ISGC).

Two loci reached genome-wide significance for suicide attempt – the major histocompatibility complex and an intergenic locus on chromosome 7, the latter of which remained associated with suicide attempt after conditioning on psychiatric disorders and was replicated in an independent cohort of over 14,000 veterans in the Million Veteran Program.

“This is the first replicated genetic locus that contributes more to suicide attempt than related psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Mullins said.

“The study found overlap in the genetic basis of suicide attempt and that of related psychiatric disorders, particularly major depression, but also with that of nonpsychiatric risk factors such as smoking, pain, risk-taking behavior, sleep disturbances, and poorer general health,” Dr. Mullins said.

“These genetic relationships between suicide attempt and nonpsychiatric risk factors were not a by-product of comorbid psychiatric illness, suggesting that there is some shared biological basis between suicide attempt and nonpsychiatric risk factors,” she added.

Dr. Mullins cautioned that the findings do not have any immediate impact on patient care.

“The ultimate goal of this research is to gain insight into the underlying biological pathways involved in suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts, providing potential avenues to treatments and prevention strategies,” she said.

“The study findings also point to the importance of studying the potential direct causal paths between these risk factors and suicide attempt in patients with and without psychiatric illness,” Douglas Ruderfer, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., cofounder and cochair of the consortium and senior author of the paper, added in a news release.

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

Researchers have identified a risk locus on chromosome 7 containing DNA variations that increase the risk that an individual will attempt suicide, even in the absence of a psychiatric disorder.

This finding suggests the genetic underpinnings of suicide attempts are partially shared and partially distinct from those of related psychiatric disorders, the investigators note.

“This study brings us a step closer to understanding the neurobiology of suicidality, with the ultimate goal of developing new treatments and prevention strategies,” Niamh Mullins, PhD, department of psychiatry, department of genetics and genomic sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.

Largest study to date

In the largest genetic association study of suicide attempt published to date, the researchers conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 29,782 suicide attempt cases and 519,961 controls in the International Suicide Genetics Consortium (ISGC).

Two loci reached genome-wide significance for suicide attempt – the major histocompatibility complex and an intergenic locus on chromosome 7, the latter of which remained associated with suicide attempt after conditioning on psychiatric disorders and was replicated in an independent cohort of over 14,000 veterans in the Million Veteran Program.

“This is the first replicated genetic locus that contributes more to suicide attempt than related psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Mullins said.

“The study found overlap in the genetic basis of suicide attempt and that of related psychiatric disorders, particularly major depression, but also with that of nonpsychiatric risk factors such as smoking, pain, risk-taking behavior, sleep disturbances, and poorer general health,” Dr. Mullins said.

“These genetic relationships between suicide attempt and nonpsychiatric risk factors were not a by-product of comorbid psychiatric illness, suggesting that there is some shared biological basis between suicide attempt and nonpsychiatric risk factors,” she added.

Dr. Mullins cautioned that the findings do not have any immediate impact on patient care.

“The ultimate goal of this research is to gain insight into the underlying biological pathways involved in suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts, providing potential avenues to treatments and prevention strategies,” she said.

“The study findings also point to the importance of studying the potential direct causal paths between these risk factors and suicide attempt in patients with and without psychiatric illness,” Douglas Ruderfer, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., cofounder and cochair of the consortium and senior author of the paper, added in a news release.

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

Researchers have identified a risk locus on chromosome 7 containing DNA variations that increase the risk that an individual will attempt suicide, even in the absence of a psychiatric disorder.

This finding suggests the genetic underpinnings of suicide attempts are partially shared and partially distinct from those of related psychiatric disorders, the investigators note.

“This study brings us a step closer to understanding the neurobiology of suicidality, with the ultimate goal of developing new treatments and prevention strategies,” Niamh Mullins, PhD, department of psychiatry, department of genetics and genomic sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Biological Psychiatry.

Largest study to date

In the largest genetic association study of suicide attempt published to date, the researchers conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 29,782 suicide attempt cases and 519,961 controls in the International Suicide Genetics Consortium (ISGC).

Two loci reached genome-wide significance for suicide attempt – the major histocompatibility complex and an intergenic locus on chromosome 7, the latter of which remained associated with suicide attempt after conditioning on psychiatric disorders and was replicated in an independent cohort of over 14,000 veterans in the Million Veteran Program.

“This is the first replicated genetic locus that contributes more to suicide attempt than related psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Mullins said.

“The study found overlap in the genetic basis of suicide attempt and that of related psychiatric disorders, particularly major depression, but also with that of nonpsychiatric risk factors such as smoking, pain, risk-taking behavior, sleep disturbances, and poorer general health,” Dr. Mullins said.

“These genetic relationships between suicide attempt and nonpsychiatric risk factors were not a by-product of comorbid psychiatric illness, suggesting that there is some shared biological basis between suicide attempt and nonpsychiatric risk factors,” she added.

Dr. Mullins cautioned that the findings do not have any immediate impact on patient care.

“The ultimate goal of this research is to gain insight into the underlying biological pathways involved in suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts, providing potential avenues to treatments and prevention strategies,” she said.

“The study findings also point to the importance of studying the potential direct causal paths between these risk factors and suicide attempt in patients with and without psychiatric illness,” Douglas Ruderfer, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., cofounder and cochair of the consortium and senior author of the paper, added in a news release.

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

As a psychiatrist dedicated to working with people who are experiencing homelessness, I was very impressed with the new book edited by Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, and Maria D. Llorente, MD, about treating and providing services to this vulnerable population.

Courtesy Springer Publishing

The book, “Clinical Management of the Homeless Patient: Social, Psychiatric, and Medical Issues” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2021), offers an in-depth review and analysis of the biopsychosocial complexities that affect how medical and behavioral health conditions present in those who are unhoused. Notably, the book recommends with great sensitivity best practices to address these conditions with care, understanding, and love.

This text, invaluable in particular for those of us clinicians who work with people experiencing homelessness (PEH), provides a historical context of homelessness in the United States, an evaluation of the current state, and indispensable guidance for medical and behavioral health practitioners, case managers, housing navigators, and policy makers alike. It also serves as an inspiring source for those who are considering work in the public sector while reminding those of us in the field why we continue to do this challenging and rewarding work.

Tips can provide hope to clinicians

The volume is divided into four clear sections that are easy to navigate depending on your area of expertise and interest. Each chapter consolidates an extensive literature review into an intriguing and thought-provoking analysis. Part I, “The Big Picture – Social and Medical Issues,” focuses on conditions that disproportionately affect those who are unhoused. The authors offer a glimpse into the unique challenges of managing routine health conditions. They also detail the practical knowledge that’s needed to best care for our most vulnerable neighbors; for example, promoting a shared decision-making model; simplifying treatment plans; prescribing, when possible, medications that are dosed daily – instead of multiple times per day; allowing for walk-in appointments; and addressing cultural, linguistic, and educational barriers.

Most chapters highlight informative case examples that bring the text to life. It can be heartbreaking to recognize and witness the inhumane conditions in which PEH live, and these practical tips and suggestions for future policies based on best practices can help prevent burnout and provide hope for those who care for this community.

Part II, “Psychiatric Issues and Treatments,” presents a brief yet comprehensive history on homelessness, beginning with the deep shame that PEH experienced in Colonial times as the result of cultural and religious influences. Sadly, that negative judgment continues to this day.

The authors also explain how deinstitutionalization and transinstitutionalization have shaped the current state of homelessness, including why many PEH receive their care in emergency departments while incarcerated. This section highlights the barriers of care that are created not just by the patient, but also by the clinicians and systems of care – and what’s needed practically to overcome those challenges.

I appreciate the chapter on substance use disorders. It reminds us that the most commonly used substance among PEH is tobacco, which has serious health effects and for which we have treatment; nevertheless, tobacco use is often overlooked because of the intense focus on opioid use disorder. This section also provides examples of the trauma-informed language to use when addressing difficult and sometimes stigmatizing topics, such as survival sex and trauma history.

The evidence-based discussion continues in Part III with a focus on topics that everyone working with PEH should understand, including food insecurity, the criminal justice system, and sex trafficking. Part IV highlights best practices that should be replicated in every community, including Housing First approaches, medical respite care, and multiple Veterans Administration programs.

Throughout the text, major themes reverberate across the chapters, beginning with empathy. All who work with PEH must understand the conditions and challenges PEH face every day that affect their physical and mental health. The authors offer a stark and pointed reminder that being unhoused amounts to a full-time job just to meet basic needs. In addition, the devastating role of trauma and structural racism in creating and promoting the conditions that lead someone to be unhoused cannot be underestimated.

Fortunately, the primary aim of the book is to highlight solutions, and it’s here that the book shines. While some interventions are well-known, such as the importance of working in multidisciplinary teams, building trust and rapport with our patients, and urging clinicians and institutions to examine their own judgments and biases that might interfere with humane treatment, other suggestions will lead some readers into new territory. The authors, for example, maintain that we need more data and evidence-based research that include PEH. They also make a case for more preventive care and enhanced professional education for all health care workers that centers on trauma-informed care, social determinants of health, and the unique needs of especially vulnerable communities, such as the unhoused LBGTQ+ community and policies that promote best practices, such as Housing First. The book is a stirring read. It offers both inspiration and practical guidance for all who are currently working with or interested in caring for people experiencing homelessness.

Dr. Bird is a psychiatrist with Alameda County Health Care for the Homeless and the TRUST Clinic in Oakland, Calif. She also is a cofounder of StreetHealth, a backpack street medicine team that provides psychiatric and substance use disorder treatment to people experiencing homelessness in downtown Oakland.

Dr. Bird has no disclosures.

As a psychiatrist dedicated to working with people who are experiencing homelessness, I was very impressed with the new book edited by Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, and Maria D. Llorente, MD, about treating and providing services to this vulnerable population.

Courtesy Springer Publishing

The book, “Clinical Management of the Homeless Patient: Social, Psychiatric, and Medical Issues” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2021), offers an in-depth review and analysis of the biopsychosocial complexities that affect how medical and behavioral health conditions present in those who are unhoused. Notably, the book recommends with great sensitivity best practices to address these conditions with care, understanding, and love.

This text, invaluable in particular for those of us clinicians who work with people experiencing homelessness (PEH), provides a historical context of homelessness in the United States, an evaluation of the current state, and indispensable guidance for medical and behavioral health practitioners, case managers, housing navigators, and policy makers alike. It also serves as an inspiring source for those who are considering work in the public sector while reminding those of us in the field why we continue to do this challenging and rewarding work.

Tips can provide hope to clinicians

The volume is divided into four clear sections that are easy to navigate depending on your area of expertise and interest. Each chapter consolidates an extensive literature review into an intriguing and thought-provoking analysis. Part I, “The Big Picture – Social and Medical Issues,” focuses on conditions that disproportionately affect those who are unhoused. The authors offer a glimpse into the unique challenges of managing routine health conditions. They also detail the practical knowledge that’s needed to best care for our most vulnerable neighbors; for example, promoting a shared decision-making model; simplifying treatment plans; prescribing, when possible, medications that are dosed daily – instead of multiple times per day; allowing for walk-in appointments; and addressing cultural, linguistic, and educational barriers.

Most chapters highlight informative case examples that bring the text to life. It can be heartbreaking to recognize and witness the inhumane conditions in which PEH live, and these practical tips and suggestions for future policies based on best practices can help prevent burnout and provide hope for those who care for this community.

Part II, “Psychiatric Issues and Treatments,” presents a brief yet comprehensive history on homelessness, beginning with the deep shame that PEH experienced in Colonial times as the result of cultural and religious influences. Sadly, that negative judgment continues to this day.

The authors also explain how deinstitutionalization and transinstitutionalization have shaped the current state of homelessness, including why many PEH receive their care in emergency departments while incarcerated. This section highlights the barriers of care that are created not just by the patient, but also by the clinicians and systems of care – and what’s needed practically to overcome those challenges.

I appreciate the chapter on substance use disorders. It reminds us that the most commonly used substance among PEH is tobacco, which has serious health effects and for which we have treatment; nevertheless, tobacco use is often overlooked because of the intense focus on opioid use disorder. This section also provides examples of the trauma-informed language to use when addressing difficult and sometimes stigmatizing topics, such as survival sex and trauma history.

The evidence-based discussion continues in Part III with a focus on topics that everyone working with PEH should understand, including food insecurity, the criminal justice system, and sex trafficking. Part IV highlights best practices that should be replicated in every community, including Housing First approaches, medical respite care, and multiple Veterans Administration programs.

Throughout the text, major themes reverberate across the chapters, beginning with empathy. All who work with PEH must understand the conditions and challenges PEH face every day that affect their physical and mental health. The authors offer a stark and pointed reminder that being unhoused amounts to a full-time job just to meet basic needs. In addition, the devastating role of trauma and structural racism in creating and promoting the conditions that lead someone to be unhoused cannot be underestimated.

Fortunately, the primary aim of the book is to highlight solutions, and it’s here that the book shines. While some interventions are well-known, such as the importance of working in multidisciplinary teams, building trust and rapport with our patients, and urging clinicians and institutions to examine their own judgments and biases that might interfere with humane treatment, other suggestions will lead some readers into new territory. The authors, for example, maintain that we need more data and evidence-based research that include PEH. They also make a case for more preventive care and enhanced professional education for all health care workers that centers on trauma-informed care, social determinants of health, and the unique needs of especially vulnerable communities, such as the unhoused LBGTQ+ community and policies that promote best practices, such as Housing First. The book is a stirring read. It offers both inspiration and practical guidance for all who are currently working with or interested in caring for people experiencing homelessness.

Dr. Bird is a psychiatrist with Alameda County Health Care for the Homeless and the TRUST Clinic in Oakland, Calif. She also is a cofounder of StreetHealth, a backpack street medicine team that provides psychiatric and substance use disorder treatment to people experiencing homelessness in downtown Oakland.

Dr. Bird has no disclosures.

As a psychiatrist dedicated to working with people who are experiencing homelessness, I was very impressed with the new book edited by Col. (Ret.) Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, MPH, and Maria D. Llorente, MD, about treating and providing services to this vulnerable population.

Courtesy Springer Publishing

The book, “Clinical Management of the Homeless Patient: Social, Psychiatric, and Medical Issues” (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2021), offers an in-depth review and analysis of the biopsychosocial complexities that affect how medical and behavioral health conditions present in those who are unhoused. Notably, the book recommends with great sensitivity best practices to address these conditions with care, understanding, and love.

This text, invaluable in particular for those of us clinicians who work with people experiencing homelessness (PEH), provides a historical context of homelessness in the United States, an evaluation of the current state, and indispensable guidance for medical and behavioral health practitioners, case managers, housing navigators, and policy makers alike. It also serves as an inspiring source for those who are considering work in the public sector while reminding those of us in the field why we continue to do this challenging and rewarding work.

Tips can provide hope to clinicians

The volume is divided into four clear sections that are easy to navigate depending on your area of expertise and interest. Each chapter consolidates an extensive literature review into an intriguing and thought-provoking analysis. Part I, “The Big Picture – Social and Medical Issues,” focuses on conditions that disproportionately affect those who are unhoused. The authors offer a glimpse into the unique challenges of managing routine health conditions. They also detail the practical knowledge that’s needed to best care for our most vulnerable neighbors; for example, promoting a shared decision-making model; simplifying treatment plans; prescribing, when possible, medications that are dosed daily – instead of multiple times per day; allowing for walk-in appointments; and addressing cultural, linguistic, and educational barriers.

Most chapters highlight informative case examples that bring the text to life. It can be heartbreaking to recognize and witness the inhumane conditions in which PEH live, and these practical tips and suggestions for future policies based on best practices can help prevent burnout and provide hope for those who care for this community.

Part II, “Psychiatric Issues and Treatments,” presents a brief yet comprehensive history on homelessness, beginning with the deep shame that PEH experienced in Colonial times as the result of cultural and religious influences. Sadly, that negative judgment continues to this day.

The authors also explain how deinstitutionalization and transinstitutionalization have shaped the current state of homelessness, including why many PEH receive their care in emergency departments while incarcerated. This section highlights the barriers of care that are created not just by the patient, but also by the clinicians and systems of care – and what’s needed practically to overcome those challenges.

I appreciate the chapter on substance use disorders. It reminds us that the most commonly used substance among PEH is tobacco, which has serious health effects and for which we have treatment; nevertheless, tobacco use is often overlooked because of the intense focus on opioid use disorder. This section also provides examples of the trauma-informed language to use when addressing difficult and sometimes stigmatizing topics, such as survival sex and trauma history.

The evidence-based discussion continues in Part III with a focus on topics that everyone working with PEH should understand, including food insecurity, the criminal justice system, and sex trafficking. Part IV highlights best practices that should be replicated in every community, including Housing First approaches, medical respite care, and multiple Veterans Administration programs.

Throughout the text, major themes reverberate across the chapters, beginning with empathy. All who work with PEH must understand the conditions and challenges PEH face every day that affect their physical and mental health. The authors offer a stark and pointed reminder that being unhoused amounts to a full-time job just to meet basic needs. In addition, the devastating role of trauma and structural racism in creating and promoting the conditions that lead someone to be unhoused cannot be underestimated.

Fortunately, the primary aim of the book is to highlight solutions, and it’s here that the book shines. While some interventions are well-known, such as the importance of working in multidisciplinary teams, building trust and rapport with our patients, and urging clinicians and institutions to examine their own judgments and biases that might interfere with humane treatment, other suggestions will lead some readers into new territory. The authors, for example, maintain that we need more data and evidence-based research that include PEH. They also make a case for more preventive care and enhanced professional education for all health care workers that centers on trauma-informed care, social determinants of health, and the unique needs of especially vulnerable communities, such as the unhoused LBGTQ+ community and policies that promote best practices, such as Housing First. The book is a stirring read. It offers both inspiration and practical guidance for all who are currently working with or interested in caring for people experiencing homelessness.

Dr. Bird is a psychiatrist with Alameda County Health Care for the Homeless and the TRUST Clinic in Oakland, Calif. She also is a cofounder of StreetHealth, a backpack street medicine team that provides psychiatric and substance use disorder treatment to people experiencing homelessness in downtown Oakland.

Dr. Bird has no disclosures.

When holiday shoppers recently went to their local liquor stores in search of some liquid spirit, many were instead greeted by the sight of increasingly barren shelves.

ThinkStock

Although partly a result of global supply chain issues, this was also yet more evidence of the rising demand for alcohol among adults during these difficult COVID years. It’s a trend that has led to concerns of an echo pandemic of alcohol-related morbidity, which has begun to play out in the form of rising rates of gastrointestinal and liver disease, hospital admissions for alcoholic hepatitis, and alcohol-related incidents of domestic violence.

Those who imbibe alcohol in low to moderate levels may not see themselves reflected in such stories of drinking’s hefty tolls. They’re instead following established health guidance that a little bit of alcohol now and then actually has robust health benefits. Yet the past few of years have seen a notable fraying of this idea, as emerging data calls into question whether alcohol in moderation should really continue to be just what the doctor ordered. 
 

Behind the curve: Alcohol’s diminishing cardioprotective value

Perhaps the most resonant argument for the benefits of light to moderate alcohol consumption – usually defined as between one to two drinks a day – has been its proposed cardioprotective value. In this way, alcohol differs from tobacco, which is unsafe at any level. Alcohol’s proposed cardioprotective effects are often represented as a J-shaped curve, with moderate drinking occupying the sweet spot between teetotaling and heavy/binge drinking when it comes to reduced mortality.

In reality, this association is more likely “a statistical artifact” largely derived from low-quality observational studies, according to Christopher Labos, MD, CM, MSc, an epidemiologist and cardiologist at the Queen Elizabeth Health Complex in Montreal.

“When you look at studies that correct for things like reverse causation, or the fact that some people who drink zero alcohol are former drinkers who used to drink alcohol, then you realize that the protective benefit of alcohol is either minimal or nonexistent and that alcohol does more harm than good to our society,” said Dr. Labos, who detailed the reasons underpinning alcohol’s unearned cardioprotective reputation in a 2020 Medscape commentary.

This statistical limitation was on display in July 2021 when BMC Medicine published results from meta-analyses suggesting that current drinkers need not stop consuming small amounts of alcohol for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study’s own investigators noted that it likely overestimated the reduced risk of CVD by including former heavy drinkers as nondrinkers.

Even if the J-shaped curve exists, its simplicity is deceiving. CVD risk increases alongside alcohol consumption owning to a complicated array of genetic and lifestyle factors. The curve also presents something of a catch-22. If you like alcohol enough to drink it every day, staying at the nadir of the curve where you’d gain the most benefits may prove challenging.

Another factor dimming alcohol’s cardioprotective reputation came via recent data that atrial fibrillation episodes can be triggered by acute alcohol use. A randomized, controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that abstinence reduced arrhythmia recurrences in regular drinkers with atrial fibrillation.

“If we can replicate that, I think we’ll find that reducing alcohol consumption might be a very effective way to prevent and treat atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Labos.

However, J-curve proponents will note the publication of study data from the UK Biobank indicating that low levels of alcohol consumption confers the greatest reduction in atrial fibrillation risk.
 

An overlooked carcinogen no longer  

Surveys indicate that less than half of Americans realize alcohol increases cancer risk. That might have changed just a bit this year. In early 2021, an epidemiological analysis estimated that alcohol contributed to 4.8% of cancer cases and 3.2% of cancer deaths in the United States. Then the Lancet Oncology published the results of a high-profile, population-based study on the global burden of cancer as a result of alcoho. Although the main takeaway message was that 4% of new cancer cases worldwide in 2020 were attributable to alcohol, it was also noteworthy that moderate drinking accounted for 103,100 out of 741,300 of these projected annual cases.

“The risk of cancer increases even with low or moderate levels of drinking,” said the study’s lead author Harriet Rumgay, BSc, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. “Drinking less means you’ll have a lower risk of cancer than if you drink heavily, but there is no safe limit of alcohol consumption.”

The study linked alcohol consumption with an increased risk of at least seven different cancer types, including cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, colon, rectum, liver, and breast.

Although in North America men represented about two-thirds of the burden of cancer caused by alcohol, Ms. Rumgay added that “low and moderate levels of drinking [one or two alcoholic drinks per day] contributed relatively more cancer cases among women than among men.”

Yet more negative news for moderate alcohol drinkers arrived in August 2021, when a team of South Korean researchers published data in JAMA Network Open showing that, when it came to the risk of developing gastrointestinal cancers, even binge drinking may be preferable to continuous but moderate consumption.

Perhaps the changing perception of alcohol’s carcinogenic potential is best summed up by the American Cancer Society, who in updating its guidelines in 2020 after an 8-year interim offered this succinct piece of advice: “It is best not to drink alcohol.” 
 

Neurotoxic implications

There has similarly been a reconsideration of the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on brain health.

A recent report of multimodal MRI brain and cognitive testing data from over 25,000 participants in the UK Biobank study indicate that alcohol may have no safe dosage . Even moderate consumption reduced gray matter volume and functional connectivity, negative associations that were increased in those with higher blood pressure and body mass index.

Speaking with this news organization in May 2021, an investigator said: “The size of the effect is small, albeit greater than any other modifiable risk factor,” noting that the changes have been linked to decreased memory and dementia.

Louise Mewton, PhD, from the Center for Healthy Brain Aging at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said that these results provide an interesting comparison with others into the association between alcohol and dementia.

“A recent study of over 1 million dementia cases in France indicated that problematic alcohol use (alcohol use disorders) were one of the strongest risk factors for dementia – even more so than things like high blood pressure and diabetes,” Dr. Mewton said in an interview. In comparison, “the most-recent reviews indicate that 4 drinks/week is associated with the lowest risk for dementia – so we’re talking about very low levels of alcohol use in terms of maintaining brain health.

“Understanding why very small amounts of alcohol appear to be protective in terms of dementia but damaging when we look at brain scans is something that would be really interesting to unpack.”

Dr. Mewton and colleagues recently published data suggesting that there are three periods when the brain might be particularly susceptible to alcohol’s neurotoxic effects: gestation (from conception to birth), later adolescence (15-19 years), and older adulthood (over 65 years). Directing behavioral interventions to patients in these stages may therefore be beneficial.

And there’s no time too soon to promote abstinence among those with alcohol use disorder, as brain damage is shown to still occur even in the immediate period after people cease drinking.

Although in one more argument for the J-shaped curve’s relevance, data from the Massachusetts General Brigham Biobank recently indicated that moderate alcohol use, unlike low and heavy use, lowered both stress-related neurobiological activity and major adverse cardiovascular events.
 

Getting patients to reconsider alcohol’s ‘benefits’

These new findings mean physicians will find themselves imparting a more nuanced message about the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption than in prior years. To aid those efforts, Ms. Rumgay advised clinicians to consult a special issue of the journal Nutrients that features review articles of alcohol›s impact on various health outcomes.

Ms. Rumgay also supports broader policy changes.

“There is some evidence that adding cancer warnings to alcohol labels, similar to those used on cigarette packages, might deter people from purchasing alcohol products and increase awareness of the causal link with cancer,” she said. “But the most effective ways of reducing alcohol use in the population are through increasing the price of alcohol through higher taxes, limiting purchasing availability, and reducing marketing of alcohol brands to the public.”

Dr. Mewton recommended various interventions for patients who still find it difficult to curtail their drinking.

“For less severe, problematic use, things like cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational therapy are very effective in reducing alcohol consumption,” she said in an interview.

For all the discussion about how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated problematic drinking, it has also provided an opportunity for getting patients to reexamine their relationship to alcohol. And as Dr. Labos noted, emerging data on alcohol’s negative effects probably won’t be considered earth-shattering to most patients.

“Deep down, I think most people know that alcohol is not healthy, but it is part of our social culture and so we find ways to justify our own behavior,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Labos suggested that clinicians reframe alcohol in their patients’ minds for what it really is – “an indulgence that we shouldn’t have too much of very often.

“Just like junk food, that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy small amounts occasionally, but we have to stop presenting that it is good for us, because it isn’t.”

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

When holiday shoppers recently went to their local liquor stores in search of some liquid spirit, many were instead greeted by the sight of increasingly barren shelves.

ThinkStock

Although partly a result of global supply chain issues, this was also yet more evidence of the rising demand for alcohol among adults during these difficult COVID years. It’s a trend that has led to concerns of an echo pandemic of alcohol-related morbidity, which has begun to play out in the form of rising rates of gastrointestinal and liver disease, hospital admissions for alcoholic hepatitis, and alcohol-related incidents of domestic violence.

Those who imbibe alcohol in low to moderate levels may not see themselves reflected in such stories of drinking’s hefty tolls. They’re instead following established health guidance that a little bit of alcohol now and then actually has robust health benefits. Yet the past few of years have seen a notable fraying of this idea, as emerging data calls into question whether alcohol in moderation should really continue to be just what the doctor ordered. 
 

Behind the curve: Alcohol’s diminishing cardioprotective value

Perhaps the most resonant argument for the benefits of light to moderate alcohol consumption – usually defined as between one to two drinks a day – has been its proposed cardioprotective value. In this way, alcohol differs from tobacco, which is unsafe at any level. Alcohol’s proposed cardioprotective effects are often represented as a J-shaped curve, with moderate drinking occupying the sweet spot between teetotaling and heavy/binge drinking when it comes to reduced mortality.

In reality, this association is more likely “a statistical artifact” largely derived from low-quality observational studies, according to Christopher Labos, MD, CM, MSc, an epidemiologist and cardiologist at the Queen Elizabeth Health Complex in Montreal.

“When you look at studies that correct for things like reverse causation, or the fact that some people who drink zero alcohol are former drinkers who used to drink alcohol, then you realize that the protective benefit of alcohol is either minimal or nonexistent and that alcohol does more harm than good to our society,” said Dr. Labos, who detailed the reasons underpinning alcohol’s unearned cardioprotective reputation in a 2020 Medscape commentary.

This statistical limitation was on display in July 2021 when BMC Medicine published results from meta-analyses suggesting that current drinkers need not stop consuming small amounts of alcohol for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study’s own investigators noted that it likely overestimated the reduced risk of CVD by including former heavy drinkers as nondrinkers.

Even if the J-shaped curve exists, its simplicity is deceiving. CVD risk increases alongside alcohol consumption owning to a complicated array of genetic and lifestyle factors. The curve also presents something of a catch-22. If you like alcohol enough to drink it every day, staying at the nadir of the curve where you’d gain the most benefits may prove challenging.

Another factor dimming alcohol’s cardioprotective reputation came via recent data that atrial fibrillation episodes can be triggered by acute alcohol use. A randomized, controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that abstinence reduced arrhythmia recurrences in regular drinkers with atrial fibrillation.

“If we can replicate that, I think we’ll find that reducing alcohol consumption might be a very effective way to prevent and treat atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Labos.

However, J-curve proponents will note the publication of study data from the UK Biobank indicating that low levels of alcohol consumption confers the greatest reduction in atrial fibrillation risk.
 

An overlooked carcinogen no longer  

Surveys indicate that less than half of Americans realize alcohol increases cancer risk. That might have changed just a bit this year. In early 2021, an epidemiological analysis estimated that alcohol contributed to 4.8% of cancer cases and 3.2% of cancer deaths in the United States. Then the Lancet Oncology published the results of a high-profile, population-based study on the global burden of cancer as a result of alcoho. Although the main takeaway message was that 4% of new cancer cases worldwide in 2020 were attributable to alcohol, it was also noteworthy that moderate drinking accounted for 103,100 out of 741,300 of these projected annual cases.

“The risk of cancer increases even with low or moderate levels of drinking,” said the study’s lead author Harriet Rumgay, BSc, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. “Drinking less means you’ll have a lower risk of cancer than if you drink heavily, but there is no safe limit of alcohol consumption.”

The study linked alcohol consumption with an increased risk of at least seven different cancer types, including cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, colon, rectum, liver, and breast.

Although in North America men represented about two-thirds of the burden of cancer caused by alcohol, Ms. Rumgay added that “low and moderate levels of drinking [one or two alcoholic drinks per day] contributed relatively more cancer cases among women than among men.”

Yet more negative news for moderate alcohol drinkers arrived in August 2021, when a team of South Korean researchers published data in JAMA Network Open showing that, when it came to the risk of developing gastrointestinal cancers, even binge drinking may be preferable to continuous but moderate consumption.

Perhaps the changing perception of alcohol’s carcinogenic potential is best summed up by the American Cancer Society, who in updating its guidelines in 2020 after an 8-year interim offered this succinct piece of advice: “It is best not to drink alcohol.” 
 

Neurotoxic implications

There has similarly been a reconsideration of the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on brain health.

A recent report of multimodal MRI brain and cognitive testing data from over 25,000 participants in the UK Biobank study indicate that alcohol may have no safe dosage . Even moderate consumption reduced gray matter volume and functional connectivity, negative associations that were increased in those with higher blood pressure and body mass index.

Speaking with this news organization in May 2021, an investigator said: “The size of the effect is small, albeit greater than any other modifiable risk factor,” noting that the changes have been linked to decreased memory and dementia.

Louise Mewton, PhD, from the Center for Healthy Brain Aging at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said that these results provide an interesting comparison with others into the association between alcohol and dementia.

“A recent study of over 1 million dementia cases in France indicated that problematic alcohol use (alcohol use disorders) were one of the strongest risk factors for dementia – even more so than things like high blood pressure and diabetes,” Dr. Mewton said in an interview. In comparison, “the most-recent reviews indicate that 4 drinks/week is associated with the lowest risk for dementia – so we’re talking about very low levels of alcohol use in terms of maintaining brain health.

“Understanding why very small amounts of alcohol appear to be protective in terms of dementia but damaging when we look at brain scans is something that would be really interesting to unpack.”

Dr. Mewton and colleagues recently published data suggesting that there are three periods when the brain might be particularly susceptible to alcohol’s neurotoxic effects: gestation (from conception to birth), later adolescence (15-19 years), and older adulthood (over 65 years). Directing behavioral interventions to patients in these stages may therefore be beneficial.

And there’s no time too soon to promote abstinence among those with alcohol use disorder, as brain damage is shown to still occur even in the immediate period after people cease drinking.

Although in one more argument for the J-shaped curve’s relevance, data from the Massachusetts General Brigham Biobank recently indicated that moderate alcohol use, unlike low and heavy use, lowered both stress-related neurobiological activity and major adverse cardiovascular events.
 

Getting patients to reconsider alcohol’s ‘benefits’

These new findings mean physicians will find themselves imparting a more nuanced message about the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption than in prior years. To aid those efforts, Ms. Rumgay advised clinicians to consult a special issue of the journal Nutrients that features review articles of alcohol›s impact on various health outcomes.

Ms. Rumgay also supports broader policy changes.

“There is some evidence that adding cancer warnings to alcohol labels, similar to those used on cigarette packages, might deter people from purchasing alcohol products and increase awareness of the causal link with cancer,” she said. “But the most effective ways of reducing alcohol use in the population are through increasing the price of alcohol through higher taxes, limiting purchasing availability, and reducing marketing of alcohol brands to the public.”

Dr. Mewton recommended various interventions for patients who still find it difficult to curtail their drinking.

“For less severe, problematic use, things like cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational therapy are very effective in reducing alcohol consumption,” she said in an interview.

For all the discussion about how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated problematic drinking, it has also provided an opportunity for getting patients to reexamine their relationship to alcohol. And as Dr. Labos noted, emerging data on alcohol’s negative effects probably won’t be considered earth-shattering to most patients.

“Deep down, I think most people know that alcohol is not healthy, but it is part of our social culture and so we find ways to justify our own behavior,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Labos suggested that clinicians reframe alcohol in their patients’ minds for what it really is – “an indulgence that we shouldn’t have too much of very often.

“Just like junk food, that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy small amounts occasionally, but we have to stop presenting that it is good for us, because it isn’t.”

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

When holiday shoppers recently went to their local liquor stores in search of some liquid spirit, many were instead greeted by the sight of increasingly barren shelves.

ThinkStock

Although partly a result of global supply chain issues, this was also yet more evidence of the rising demand for alcohol among adults during these difficult COVID years. It’s a trend that has led to concerns of an echo pandemic of alcohol-related morbidity, which has begun to play out in the form of rising rates of gastrointestinal and liver disease, hospital admissions for alcoholic hepatitis, and alcohol-related incidents of domestic violence.

Those who imbibe alcohol in low to moderate levels may not see themselves reflected in such stories of drinking’s hefty tolls. They’re instead following established health guidance that a little bit of alcohol now and then actually has robust health benefits. Yet the past few of years have seen a notable fraying of this idea, as emerging data calls into question whether alcohol in moderation should really continue to be just what the doctor ordered. 
 

Behind the curve: Alcohol’s diminishing cardioprotective value

Perhaps the most resonant argument for the benefits of light to moderate alcohol consumption – usually defined as between one to two drinks a day – has been its proposed cardioprotective value. In this way, alcohol differs from tobacco, which is unsafe at any level. Alcohol’s proposed cardioprotective effects are often represented as a J-shaped curve, with moderate drinking occupying the sweet spot between teetotaling and heavy/binge drinking when it comes to reduced mortality.

In reality, this association is more likely “a statistical artifact” largely derived from low-quality observational studies, according to Christopher Labos, MD, CM, MSc, an epidemiologist and cardiologist at the Queen Elizabeth Health Complex in Montreal.

“When you look at studies that correct for things like reverse causation, or the fact that some people who drink zero alcohol are former drinkers who used to drink alcohol, then you realize that the protective benefit of alcohol is either minimal or nonexistent and that alcohol does more harm than good to our society,” said Dr. Labos, who detailed the reasons underpinning alcohol’s unearned cardioprotective reputation in a 2020 Medscape commentary.

This statistical limitation was on display in July 2021 when BMC Medicine published results from meta-analyses suggesting that current drinkers need not stop consuming small amounts of alcohol for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study’s own investigators noted that it likely overestimated the reduced risk of CVD by including former heavy drinkers as nondrinkers.

Even if the J-shaped curve exists, its simplicity is deceiving. CVD risk increases alongside alcohol consumption owning to a complicated array of genetic and lifestyle factors. The curve also presents something of a catch-22. If you like alcohol enough to drink it every day, staying at the nadir of the curve where you’d gain the most benefits may prove challenging.

Another factor dimming alcohol’s cardioprotective reputation came via recent data that atrial fibrillation episodes can be triggered by acute alcohol use. A randomized, controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that abstinence reduced arrhythmia recurrences in regular drinkers with atrial fibrillation.

“If we can replicate that, I think we’ll find that reducing alcohol consumption might be a very effective way to prevent and treat atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Labos.

However, J-curve proponents will note the publication of study data from the UK Biobank indicating that low levels of alcohol consumption confers the greatest reduction in atrial fibrillation risk.
 

An overlooked carcinogen no longer  

Surveys indicate that less than half of Americans realize alcohol increases cancer risk. That might have changed just a bit this year. In early 2021, an epidemiological analysis estimated that alcohol contributed to 4.8% of cancer cases and 3.2% of cancer deaths in the United States. Then the Lancet Oncology published the results of a high-profile, population-based study on the global burden of cancer as a result of alcoho. Although the main takeaway message was that 4% of new cancer cases worldwide in 2020 were attributable to alcohol, it was also noteworthy that moderate drinking accounted for 103,100 out of 741,300 of these projected annual cases.

“The risk of cancer increases even with low or moderate levels of drinking,” said the study’s lead author Harriet Rumgay, BSc, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. “Drinking less means you’ll have a lower risk of cancer than if you drink heavily, but there is no safe limit of alcohol consumption.”

The study linked alcohol consumption with an increased risk of at least seven different cancer types, including cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, colon, rectum, liver, and breast.

Although in North America men represented about two-thirds of the burden of cancer caused by alcohol, Ms. Rumgay added that “low and moderate levels of drinking [one or two alcoholic drinks per day] contributed relatively more cancer cases among women than among men.”

Yet more negative news for moderate alcohol drinkers arrived in August 2021, when a team of South Korean researchers published data in JAMA Network Open showing that, when it came to the risk of developing gastrointestinal cancers, even binge drinking may be preferable to continuous but moderate consumption.

Perhaps the changing perception of alcohol’s carcinogenic potential is best summed up by the American Cancer Society, who in updating its guidelines in 2020 after an 8-year interim offered this succinct piece of advice: “It is best not to drink alcohol.” 
 

Neurotoxic implications

There has similarly been a reconsideration of the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on brain health.

A recent report of multimodal MRI brain and cognitive testing data from over 25,000 participants in the UK Biobank study indicate that alcohol may have no safe dosage . Even moderate consumption reduced gray matter volume and functional connectivity, negative associations that were increased in those with higher blood pressure and body mass index.

Speaking with this news organization in May 2021, an investigator said: “The size of the effect is small, albeit greater than any other modifiable risk factor,” noting that the changes have been linked to decreased memory and dementia.

Louise Mewton, PhD, from the Center for Healthy Brain Aging at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said that these results provide an interesting comparison with others into the association between alcohol and dementia.

“A recent study of over 1 million dementia cases in France indicated that problematic alcohol use (alcohol use disorders) were one of the strongest risk factors for dementia – even more so than things like high blood pressure and diabetes,” Dr. Mewton said in an interview. In comparison, “the most-recent reviews indicate that 4 drinks/week is associated with the lowest risk for dementia – so we’re talking about very low levels of alcohol use in terms of maintaining brain health.

“Understanding why very small amounts of alcohol appear to be protective in terms of dementia but damaging when we look at brain scans is something that would be really interesting to unpack.”

Dr. Mewton and colleagues recently published data suggesting that there are three periods when the brain might be particularly susceptible to alcohol’s neurotoxic effects: gestation (from conception to birth), later adolescence (15-19 years), and older adulthood (over 65 years). Directing behavioral interventions to patients in these stages may therefore be beneficial.

And there’s no time too soon to promote abstinence among those with alcohol use disorder, as brain damage is shown to still occur even in the immediate period after people cease drinking.

Although in one more argument for the J-shaped curve’s relevance, data from the Massachusetts General Brigham Biobank recently indicated that moderate alcohol use, unlike low and heavy use, lowered both stress-related neurobiological activity and major adverse cardiovascular events.
 

Getting patients to reconsider alcohol’s ‘benefits’

These new findings mean physicians will find themselves imparting a more nuanced message about the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption than in prior years. To aid those efforts, Ms. Rumgay advised clinicians to consult a special issue of the journal Nutrients that features review articles of alcohol›s impact on various health outcomes.

Ms. Rumgay also supports broader policy changes.

“There is some evidence that adding cancer warnings to alcohol labels, similar to those used on cigarette packages, might deter people from purchasing alcohol products and increase awareness of the causal link with cancer,” she said. “But the most effective ways of reducing alcohol use in the population are through increasing the price of alcohol through higher taxes, limiting purchasing availability, and reducing marketing of alcohol brands to the public.”

Dr. Mewton recommended various interventions for patients who still find it difficult to curtail their drinking.

“For less severe, problematic use, things like cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational therapy are very effective in reducing alcohol consumption,” she said in an interview.

For all the discussion about how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated problematic drinking, it has also provided an opportunity for getting patients to reexamine their relationship to alcohol. And as Dr. Labos noted, emerging data on alcohol’s negative effects probably won’t be considered earth-shattering to most patients.

“Deep down, I think most people know that alcohol is not healthy, but it is part of our social culture and so we find ways to justify our own behavior,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Labos suggested that clinicians reframe alcohol in their patients’ minds for what it really is – “an indulgence that we shouldn’t have too much of very often.

“Just like junk food, that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy small amounts occasionally, but we have to stop presenting that it is good for us, because it isn’t.”

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

Fish oil supplementation does not help prevent depression or boost mood, new research suggests.

The VITAL-DEP study included more than 18,000 participants. Among adults aged 50 years or older free of clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, long-term use of marine omega-3 fatty acid (omega-3) supplements did not reduce risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms — or make a difference in the quality of mood.

In fact, there was a small increase found in risk for depression or depressive symptoms with omega-3 supplements.

“While a small increase in risk of depression was inside the statistical margin of significance, there was no harmful or beneficial effect of omega-3 on the overall course of mood during the roughly 5 to 7 years of follow-up,” lead author Olivia I. Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

“The takeaway from our study is that there is no net benefit of long-term use of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements for preventing depression or boosting mood,” Okereke said.

The findings were published online Dec. 21 in JAMA.
 

Assessing general population risk

For many years, experts have recommended omega-3 supplements for reduction in depression recurrence in some high-risk patients, Okereke noted.

“However, there are no guidelines related to the use of omega-3 supplements for preventing depression in the general population. Therefore, we undertook this study to provide clarity in the issue,” she said.

The VITAL-DEP study enrolled 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women). Of these, 16,657 were at risk for incident depression, defined as having no previous history of depression; and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression, defined as having a history of depression but not having undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years.

Roughly half the participants were randomly assigned to receive marine omega-3 fatty acids (1 g/d of fish oil, including 465 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and 375 mg of docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) and the other half to matching placebo for an average of 5.3 years.

“Because of the large sample size and long follow-up, we were able to test the effects of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements on universal prevention of depression in the adult population,” Okereke said.
 

No significant benefit

Results showed risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the omega-3 group and the placebo group.

The omega-3 group had 651 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (13.9 per 1000 person-years), and the placebo group had 583 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (12.3 per 1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 - 1.26; P = .03).

There were also no significant between-group differences in longitudinal mood scores. The mean difference in change in 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) score was 0.03 points (95% CI, −0.01 to 0.07; P = .19).

“Patients, physicians, and other clinicians should understand that there are still many reasons for some people, under the guidance of their health care providers, to take omega-3 fish oil supplements,” Okereke noted.

“These supplements increasingly have been found to have benefits for cardiac disease prevention and treatment of inflammatory conditions, in addition to being used for management of existing depressive disorders in some high-risk patients,” she said.

“However, the results of our study indicate there is no reason for adults in the general population to be taking daily omega-3 fish oil supplements solely for the purpose of preventing depression or for maintaining a positive mood,” she added.

Okereke noted, however, that the VITAL-DEP study used 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids and there may be a greater benefit from taking higher doses, such as 4 g/day.
 

Cautionary notes

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Kuan-Pin Su, MD, PhD, chief of the Department of General Psychiatry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, highlighted some of the limitations cited by the investigators.

First, depression or depressive symptoms were defined using self-rating scales, which are “convenient to screen for depressive disorders, but a high score obtained on a self-rating scale does not necessarily indicate the presence of depressive psychopathology,” said Su, who was not involved with the research.

He also noted that use of 465 mg of EPA and 375 mg of DHA in VITAL-DEP “might be too low” to have an impact.

Finally, Su said it is “very important to also address the potential for type I error, which makes the secondary and subgroup analyses less reliable.”

VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pronova BioPharma donated the fish oil and matching placebo. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing. Su is a founding committee member of the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research, the board director of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids, and an associate editor of the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.

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

Fish oil supplementation does not help prevent depression or boost mood, new research suggests.

The VITAL-DEP study included more than 18,000 participants. Among adults aged 50 years or older free of clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, long-term use of marine omega-3 fatty acid (omega-3) supplements did not reduce risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms — or make a difference in the quality of mood.

In fact, there was a small increase found in risk for depression or depressive symptoms with omega-3 supplements.

“While a small increase in risk of depression was inside the statistical margin of significance, there was no harmful or beneficial effect of omega-3 on the overall course of mood during the roughly 5 to 7 years of follow-up,” lead author Olivia I. Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

“The takeaway from our study is that there is no net benefit of long-term use of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements for preventing depression or boosting mood,” Okereke said.

The findings were published online Dec. 21 in JAMA.
 

Assessing general population risk

For many years, experts have recommended omega-3 supplements for reduction in depression recurrence in some high-risk patients, Okereke noted.

“However, there are no guidelines related to the use of omega-3 supplements for preventing depression in the general population. Therefore, we undertook this study to provide clarity in the issue,” she said.

The VITAL-DEP study enrolled 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women). Of these, 16,657 were at risk for incident depression, defined as having no previous history of depression; and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression, defined as having a history of depression but not having undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years.

Roughly half the participants were randomly assigned to receive marine omega-3 fatty acids (1 g/d of fish oil, including 465 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and 375 mg of docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) and the other half to matching placebo for an average of 5.3 years.

“Because of the large sample size and long follow-up, we were able to test the effects of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements on universal prevention of depression in the adult population,” Okereke said.
 

No significant benefit

Results showed risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the omega-3 group and the placebo group.

The omega-3 group had 651 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (13.9 per 1000 person-years), and the placebo group had 583 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (12.3 per 1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 - 1.26; P = .03).

There were also no significant between-group differences in longitudinal mood scores. The mean difference in change in 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) score was 0.03 points (95% CI, −0.01 to 0.07; P = .19).

“Patients, physicians, and other clinicians should understand that there are still many reasons for some people, under the guidance of their health care providers, to take omega-3 fish oil supplements,” Okereke noted.

“These supplements increasingly have been found to have benefits for cardiac disease prevention and treatment of inflammatory conditions, in addition to being used for management of existing depressive disorders in some high-risk patients,” she said.

“However, the results of our study indicate there is no reason for adults in the general population to be taking daily omega-3 fish oil supplements solely for the purpose of preventing depression or for maintaining a positive mood,” she added.

Okereke noted, however, that the VITAL-DEP study used 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids and there may be a greater benefit from taking higher doses, such as 4 g/day.
 

Cautionary notes

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Kuan-Pin Su, MD, PhD, chief of the Department of General Psychiatry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, highlighted some of the limitations cited by the investigators.

First, depression or depressive symptoms were defined using self-rating scales, which are “convenient to screen for depressive disorders, but a high score obtained on a self-rating scale does not necessarily indicate the presence of depressive psychopathology,” said Su, who was not involved with the research.

He also noted that use of 465 mg of EPA and 375 mg of DHA in VITAL-DEP “might be too low” to have an impact.

Finally, Su said it is “very important to also address the potential for type I error, which makes the secondary and subgroup analyses less reliable.”

VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pronova BioPharma donated the fish oil and matching placebo. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing. Su is a founding committee member of the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research, the board director of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids, and an associate editor of the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.

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

Fish oil supplementation does not help prevent depression or boost mood, new research suggests.

The VITAL-DEP study included more than 18,000 participants. Among adults aged 50 years or older free of clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline, long-term use of marine omega-3 fatty acid (omega-3) supplements did not reduce risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms — or make a difference in the quality of mood.

In fact, there was a small increase found in risk for depression or depressive symptoms with omega-3 supplements.

“While a small increase in risk of depression was inside the statistical margin of significance, there was no harmful or beneficial effect of omega-3 on the overall course of mood during the roughly 5 to 7 years of follow-up,” lead author Olivia I. Okereke, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

“The takeaway from our study is that there is no net benefit of long-term use of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements for preventing depression or boosting mood,” Okereke said.

The findings were published online Dec. 21 in JAMA.
 

Assessing general population risk

For many years, experts have recommended omega-3 supplements for reduction in depression recurrence in some high-risk patients, Okereke noted.

“However, there are no guidelines related to the use of omega-3 supplements for preventing depression in the general population. Therefore, we undertook this study to provide clarity in the issue,” she said.

The VITAL-DEP study enrolled 18,353 older adults (mean age, 67.5 years; 49% women). Of these, 16,657 were at risk for incident depression, defined as having no previous history of depression; and 1696 were at risk for recurrent depression, defined as having a history of depression but not having undergone treatment for depression within the past 2 years.

Roughly half the participants were randomly assigned to receive marine omega-3 fatty acids (1 g/d of fish oil, including 465 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and 375 mg of docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]) and the other half to matching placebo for an average of 5.3 years.

“Because of the large sample size and long follow-up, we were able to test the effects of daily omega-3 fish oil supplements on universal prevention of depression in the adult population,” Okereke said.
 

No significant benefit

Results showed risk for depression or clinically relevant depressive symptoms (total of incident and recurrent cases) was not significantly different between the omega-3 group and the placebo group.

The omega-3 group had 651 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (13.9 per 1000 person-years), and the placebo group had 583 depression or clinically relevant depressive symptom events (12.3 per 1000 person-years). The hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.01 - 1.26; P = .03).

There were also no significant between-group differences in longitudinal mood scores. The mean difference in change in 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) score was 0.03 points (95% CI, −0.01 to 0.07; P = .19).

“Patients, physicians, and other clinicians should understand that there are still many reasons for some people, under the guidance of their health care providers, to take omega-3 fish oil supplements,” Okereke noted.

“These supplements increasingly have been found to have benefits for cardiac disease prevention and treatment of inflammatory conditions, in addition to being used for management of existing depressive disorders in some high-risk patients,” she said.

“However, the results of our study indicate there is no reason for adults in the general population to be taking daily omega-3 fish oil supplements solely for the purpose of preventing depression or for maintaining a positive mood,” she added.

Okereke noted, however, that the VITAL-DEP study used 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids and there may be a greater benefit from taking higher doses, such as 4 g/day.
 

Cautionary notes

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Kuan-Pin Su, MD, PhD, chief of the Department of General Psychiatry, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, highlighted some of the limitations cited by the investigators.

First, depression or depressive symptoms were defined using self-rating scales, which are “convenient to screen for depressive disorders, but a high score obtained on a self-rating scale does not necessarily indicate the presence of depressive psychopathology,” said Su, who was not involved with the research.

He also noted that use of 465 mg of EPA and 375 mg of DHA in VITAL-DEP “might be too low” to have an impact.

Finally, Su said it is “very important to also address the potential for type I error, which makes the secondary and subgroup analyses less reliable.”

VITAL-DEP was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Pronova BioPharma donated the fish oil and matching placebo. Okereke reported receiving royalties from Springer Publishing. Su is a founding committee member of the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research, the board director of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids, and an associate editor of the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.

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