Mental Health

A growing trend of off-label, low-dose antipsychotic prescribing to treat disorders such as anxiety and insomnia has been tied to an increased risk of cardiometabolic death, new research shows.

Investigators studied data from large Swedish registries on over 420,000 individuals without previous psychotic, bipolar, or cardiometabolic disorders and found that off-label treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for 6 to 12 months – even at a low dose – was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of cardiometabolic mortality, compared to no treatment. The risk remained elevated after 12 months, but the finding was not deemed significant.

“Clinicians should be made aware that low-dose treatment with these drugs is probably not a harmless choice for insomnia and anxiety, and while they have the benefit of not being addictive and [are] seemingly effective, they might come at a cost of shortening patients’ life span,” study investigator Jonas Berge, MD, PhD, associate professor and resident psychiatrist, Lund University, Sweden, said in an interview.

“Clinicians should take this information into account when prescribing the drugs and also monitor the patients with regular physical examinations and blood tests in the same way as when treating patients with psychosis with higher doses of these drugs,” he said.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

A growing trend

Use of low-dose antipsychotics to treat a variety of psychiatric and behavioral disturbances, including anxiety, insomnia, and agitation, has “surged in popularity,” the authors wrote.

Quetiapine and olanzapine “rank as two of the most frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics and, next to clozapine, are considered to exhort the highest risk for cardiometabolic sequelae, including components of metabolic syndrome,” they added.

Previous research examining the association between second-generation antipsychotics and placebo has either not focused on cardiometabolic-specific causes or has examined only cohorts with severe mental illness, so those findings “do not necessarily generalize to others treated off-label,” they noted.

“The motivation for the study came from my work as a psychiatrist, in which I’ve noticed that the off-label use of these medications [olanzapine and quetiapine] for anxiety and insomnia seems highly prevalent, and that many patients seem to gain a lot of weight, despite low doses,” Dr. Berge said.

There is “evidence to suggest that clinicians may underappreciate cardiometabolic risks owing to antipsychotic treatment, as routine screening is often incomplete or inconsistent,” the authors noted.

“To do a risk-benefit analysis of these drugs in low doses, the risks involved – as well as the effects, of course – need to be studied,” Dr. Berge stated.

To investigate the question, the researchers turned to three large cross-linked Swedish registers: the National Patient Register, containing demographic and medical data; the Prescribed Drug Register; and the Cause of Death Register.

They identified all individuals aged 18 years and older with at least one psychiatric visit (inpatient or outpatient) between July 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2016, to see how many were prescribed low-dose olanzapine or quetiapine (defined as ≤ 5 mg/day of olanzapine or olanzapine equivalent [OE]), which was used as a proxy marker for off-label treatment, since this dose is considered subtherapeutic for severe mental illness.

They calculated two time-dependent variables – cumulative dose and past annual average dose – and then used those to compute three different exposure valuables: those treated with low-dose OE; cumulative exposure (i.e., period treated with an average 5 mg/day); and a continuous variable “corresponding to each year exposed OE 5 mg/day.”

The primary outcome was set as mortality from cardiometabolic-related disorders, while secondary outcomes were disease-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

‘Weak’ association

The final cohort consisted of 428,525 individuals (mean [SD] age, 36.8 [15.4] years, 52.7% female) at baseline, with observation taking place over a mean of 4.8 years [range, 1 day to 10.5 years]) or a total of over 2 million (2,062,241) person-years.

Of the cohort, 4.3% (n = 18,317) had at least two prescriptions for either olanzapine or quetiapine (although subsequently, 86.5% were censored for exceeding the average OE dose of 5 mg/day).

By the end of the study, 3.1% of the cohort had died during the observation time, and of these, 69.5% were from disease-specific causes, while close to one-fifth (19.5%) were from cardiometabolic-specific causes.

On the whole, treatment status (i.e., treated vs. untreated) was not significantly associated with cardiometabolic mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], .86 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.15]; P = .307).

Compared to no treatment, treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for less than 6 months was significantly associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, .56 [.37 – .87]; P = .010). On the other hand, treatment for 6-12 months was significantly associated with an almost twofold increased risk (adjusted HR, 1.89 [1.22-2.92]; P = .004). The increased risk continued beyond 12 months, although the difference no longer remained significant.

“In the subgroup analysis consisting of individuals who had ever been treated with olanzapine/quetiapine, starting at the date of their first prescription, the hazard for cardiometabolic mortality increased significantly by 45% (6%-99%; P = .019) for every year exposed to an average 5 mg/day,” the authors reported.

The authors concluded that the association between low-dose olanzapine/quetiapine treatment and cardiometabolic mortality was present, but “weak.”

The hazard for disease-specific mortality also significantly increased with each year exposed to an average of 5 mg/day of OE (HR, 1.24 [1.03-1.50]; P = .026).

Treatment status similarly was associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.16 [1.03-1.30]; P = .012), although the increased hazard for all-cause mortality with each year of exposure was not considered significant.

“The findings of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that continuous low-dose treatment with these drugs is associated with increased cardiometabolic mortality, but the results are somewhat divergent and not conclusive, so more research is needed,” Dr. Berge said.
 

Seek alternatives

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, called it a “timely paper” and “an important concept [because] low-doses of these antipsychotics are frequently prescribed across America and there has been less data on the safety [of these antipsychotics at lower doses].”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, who was not involved with the study, said that this “important report reminds us that there are metabolic safety concerns, even at low doses, where these medications are often used off label.”

He advised clinicians to “seek alternatives, and alternatives that are on-label, for conditions like anxiety and sleep disturbances.”

This work was supported by the South Region Board ALF, Sweden. Dr. Berge and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Eisai, Minerva, Intra-Cellular, and AbbVie. Dr. McIntyre is CEO of AltMed.

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

A growing trend of off-label, low-dose antipsychotic prescribing to treat disorders such as anxiety and insomnia has been tied to an increased risk of cardiometabolic death, new research shows.

Investigators studied data from large Swedish registries on over 420,000 individuals without previous psychotic, bipolar, or cardiometabolic disorders and found that off-label treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for 6 to 12 months – even at a low dose – was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of cardiometabolic mortality, compared to no treatment. The risk remained elevated after 12 months, but the finding was not deemed significant.

“Clinicians should be made aware that low-dose treatment with these drugs is probably not a harmless choice for insomnia and anxiety, and while they have the benefit of not being addictive and [are] seemingly effective, they might come at a cost of shortening patients’ life span,” study investigator Jonas Berge, MD, PhD, associate professor and resident psychiatrist, Lund University, Sweden, said in an interview.

“Clinicians should take this information into account when prescribing the drugs and also monitor the patients with regular physical examinations and blood tests in the same way as when treating patients with psychosis with higher doses of these drugs,” he said.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

A growing trend

Use of low-dose antipsychotics to treat a variety of psychiatric and behavioral disturbances, including anxiety, insomnia, and agitation, has “surged in popularity,” the authors wrote.

Quetiapine and olanzapine “rank as two of the most frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics and, next to clozapine, are considered to exhort the highest risk for cardiometabolic sequelae, including components of metabolic syndrome,” they added.

Previous research examining the association between second-generation antipsychotics and placebo has either not focused on cardiometabolic-specific causes or has examined only cohorts with severe mental illness, so those findings “do not necessarily generalize to others treated off-label,” they noted.

“The motivation for the study came from my work as a psychiatrist, in which I’ve noticed that the off-label use of these medications [olanzapine and quetiapine] for anxiety and insomnia seems highly prevalent, and that many patients seem to gain a lot of weight, despite low doses,” Dr. Berge said.

There is “evidence to suggest that clinicians may underappreciate cardiometabolic risks owing to antipsychotic treatment, as routine screening is often incomplete or inconsistent,” the authors noted.

“To do a risk-benefit analysis of these drugs in low doses, the risks involved – as well as the effects, of course – need to be studied,” Dr. Berge stated.

To investigate the question, the researchers turned to three large cross-linked Swedish registers: the National Patient Register, containing demographic and medical data; the Prescribed Drug Register; and the Cause of Death Register.

They identified all individuals aged 18 years and older with at least one psychiatric visit (inpatient or outpatient) between July 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2016, to see how many were prescribed low-dose olanzapine or quetiapine (defined as ≤ 5 mg/day of olanzapine or olanzapine equivalent [OE]), which was used as a proxy marker for off-label treatment, since this dose is considered subtherapeutic for severe mental illness.

They calculated two time-dependent variables – cumulative dose and past annual average dose – and then used those to compute three different exposure valuables: those treated with low-dose OE; cumulative exposure (i.e., period treated with an average 5 mg/day); and a continuous variable “corresponding to each year exposed OE 5 mg/day.”

The primary outcome was set as mortality from cardiometabolic-related disorders, while secondary outcomes were disease-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

‘Weak’ association

The final cohort consisted of 428,525 individuals (mean [SD] age, 36.8 [15.4] years, 52.7% female) at baseline, with observation taking place over a mean of 4.8 years [range, 1 day to 10.5 years]) or a total of over 2 million (2,062,241) person-years.

Of the cohort, 4.3% (n = 18,317) had at least two prescriptions for either olanzapine or quetiapine (although subsequently, 86.5% were censored for exceeding the average OE dose of 5 mg/day).

By the end of the study, 3.1% of the cohort had died during the observation time, and of these, 69.5% were from disease-specific causes, while close to one-fifth (19.5%) were from cardiometabolic-specific causes.

On the whole, treatment status (i.e., treated vs. untreated) was not significantly associated with cardiometabolic mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], .86 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.15]; P = .307).

Compared to no treatment, treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for less than 6 months was significantly associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, .56 [.37 – .87]; P = .010). On the other hand, treatment for 6-12 months was significantly associated with an almost twofold increased risk (adjusted HR, 1.89 [1.22-2.92]; P = .004). The increased risk continued beyond 12 months, although the difference no longer remained significant.

“In the subgroup analysis consisting of individuals who had ever been treated with olanzapine/quetiapine, starting at the date of their first prescription, the hazard for cardiometabolic mortality increased significantly by 45% (6%-99%; P = .019) for every year exposed to an average 5 mg/day,” the authors reported.

The authors concluded that the association between low-dose olanzapine/quetiapine treatment and cardiometabolic mortality was present, but “weak.”

The hazard for disease-specific mortality also significantly increased with each year exposed to an average of 5 mg/day of OE (HR, 1.24 [1.03-1.50]; P = .026).

Treatment status similarly was associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.16 [1.03-1.30]; P = .012), although the increased hazard for all-cause mortality with each year of exposure was not considered significant.

“The findings of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that continuous low-dose treatment with these drugs is associated with increased cardiometabolic mortality, but the results are somewhat divergent and not conclusive, so more research is needed,” Dr. Berge said.
 

Seek alternatives

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, called it a “timely paper” and “an important concept [because] low-doses of these antipsychotics are frequently prescribed across America and there has been less data on the safety [of these antipsychotics at lower doses].”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, who was not involved with the study, said that this “important report reminds us that there are metabolic safety concerns, even at low doses, where these medications are often used off label.”

He advised clinicians to “seek alternatives, and alternatives that are on-label, for conditions like anxiety and sleep disturbances.”

This work was supported by the South Region Board ALF, Sweden. Dr. Berge and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Eisai, Minerva, Intra-Cellular, and AbbVie. Dr. McIntyre is CEO of AltMed.

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

A growing trend of off-label, low-dose antipsychotic prescribing to treat disorders such as anxiety and insomnia has been tied to an increased risk of cardiometabolic death, new research shows.

Investigators studied data from large Swedish registries on over 420,000 individuals without previous psychotic, bipolar, or cardiometabolic disorders and found that off-label treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for 6 to 12 months – even at a low dose – was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of cardiometabolic mortality, compared to no treatment. The risk remained elevated after 12 months, but the finding was not deemed significant.

“Clinicians should be made aware that low-dose treatment with these drugs is probably not a harmless choice for insomnia and anxiety, and while they have the benefit of not being addictive and [are] seemingly effective, they might come at a cost of shortening patients’ life span,” study investigator Jonas Berge, MD, PhD, associate professor and resident psychiatrist, Lund University, Sweden, said in an interview.

“Clinicians should take this information into account when prescribing the drugs and also monitor the patients with regular physical examinations and blood tests in the same way as when treating patients with psychosis with higher doses of these drugs,” he said.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

A growing trend

Use of low-dose antipsychotics to treat a variety of psychiatric and behavioral disturbances, including anxiety, insomnia, and agitation, has “surged in popularity,” the authors wrote.

Quetiapine and olanzapine “rank as two of the most frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics and, next to clozapine, are considered to exhort the highest risk for cardiometabolic sequelae, including components of metabolic syndrome,” they added.

Previous research examining the association between second-generation antipsychotics and placebo has either not focused on cardiometabolic-specific causes or has examined only cohorts with severe mental illness, so those findings “do not necessarily generalize to others treated off-label,” they noted.

“The motivation for the study came from my work as a psychiatrist, in which I’ve noticed that the off-label use of these medications [olanzapine and quetiapine] for anxiety and insomnia seems highly prevalent, and that many patients seem to gain a lot of weight, despite low doses,” Dr. Berge said.

There is “evidence to suggest that clinicians may underappreciate cardiometabolic risks owing to antipsychotic treatment, as routine screening is often incomplete or inconsistent,” the authors noted.

“To do a risk-benefit analysis of these drugs in low doses, the risks involved – as well as the effects, of course – need to be studied,” Dr. Berge stated.

To investigate the question, the researchers turned to three large cross-linked Swedish registers: the National Patient Register, containing demographic and medical data; the Prescribed Drug Register; and the Cause of Death Register.

They identified all individuals aged 18 years and older with at least one psychiatric visit (inpatient or outpatient) between July 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2016, to see how many were prescribed low-dose olanzapine or quetiapine (defined as ≤ 5 mg/day of olanzapine or olanzapine equivalent [OE]), which was used as a proxy marker for off-label treatment, since this dose is considered subtherapeutic for severe mental illness.

They calculated two time-dependent variables – cumulative dose and past annual average dose – and then used those to compute three different exposure valuables: those treated with low-dose OE; cumulative exposure (i.e., period treated with an average 5 mg/day); and a continuous variable “corresponding to each year exposed OE 5 mg/day.”

The primary outcome was set as mortality from cardiometabolic-related disorders, while secondary outcomes were disease-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

‘Weak’ association

The final cohort consisted of 428,525 individuals (mean [SD] age, 36.8 [15.4] years, 52.7% female) at baseline, with observation taking place over a mean of 4.8 years [range, 1 day to 10.5 years]) or a total of over 2 million (2,062,241) person-years.

Of the cohort, 4.3% (n = 18,317) had at least two prescriptions for either olanzapine or quetiapine (although subsequently, 86.5% were censored for exceeding the average OE dose of 5 mg/day).

By the end of the study, 3.1% of the cohort had died during the observation time, and of these, 69.5% were from disease-specific causes, while close to one-fifth (19.5%) were from cardiometabolic-specific causes.

On the whole, treatment status (i.e., treated vs. untreated) was not significantly associated with cardiometabolic mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], .86 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.15]; P = .307).

Compared to no treatment, treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for less than 6 months was significantly associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, .56 [.37 – .87]; P = .010). On the other hand, treatment for 6-12 months was significantly associated with an almost twofold increased risk (adjusted HR, 1.89 [1.22-2.92]; P = .004). The increased risk continued beyond 12 months, although the difference no longer remained significant.

“In the subgroup analysis consisting of individuals who had ever been treated with olanzapine/quetiapine, starting at the date of their first prescription, the hazard for cardiometabolic mortality increased significantly by 45% (6%-99%; P = .019) for every year exposed to an average 5 mg/day,” the authors reported.

The authors concluded that the association between low-dose olanzapine/quetiapine treatment and cardiometabolic mortality was present, but “weak.”

The hazard for disease-specific mortality also significantly increased with each year exposed to an average of 5 mg/day of OE (HR, 1.24 [1.03-1.50]; P = .026).

Treatment status similarly was associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.16 [1.03-1.30]; P = .012), although the increased hazard for all-cause mortality with each year of exposure was not considered significant.

“The findings of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that continuous low-dose treatment with these drugs is associated with increased cardiometabolic mortality, but the results are somewhat divergent and not conclusive, so more research is needed,” Dr. Berge said.
 

Seek alternatives

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, called it a “timely paper” and “an important concept [because] low-doses of these antipsychotics are frequently prescribed across America and there has been less data on the safety [of these antipsychotics at lower doses].”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, who was not involved with the study, said that this “important report reminds us that there are metabolic safety concerns, even at low doses, where these medications are often used off label.”

He advised clinicians to “seek alternatives, and alternatives that are on-label, for conditions like anxiety and sleep disturbances.”

This work was supported by the South Region Board ALF, Sweden. Dr. Berge and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Eisai, Minerva, Intra-Cellular, and AbbVie. Dr. McIntyre is CEO of AltMed.

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

Schizophrenia and severe mood and anxiety disorders are associated with a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 but are tied to a two- to fourfold increased risk of death from the virus, new research shows.

The study results held after the researchers controlled for other risk factors, and they contradict an earlier study that showed no increased mortality risk associated with mood or anxiety disorders. The findings come as the overall number of deaths in the United States approaches 800,000.

“These patients were less likely to be infected because they were probably less exposed, but once they have the infection, they are more prone to worse outcomes,” lead author Antonio L. Teixeira, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry with McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said in an interview.

The study was published online Nov. 23 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Unexpected finding

Researchers analyzed electronic health records for 2.5 million adults with private health insurance who were tested for COVID-19 in 2020.

The overall positivity rate for the entire cohort was 11.91%, and patients with severe psychiatric illness fell below that rate. Positivity rates were 9.86% for people with schizophrenia or mood disorders and 11.17% among those with anxiety disorder.

Despite their lower positivity rate, patients with schizophrenia had the highest odds of death from COVID-19 after adjustment for age, race, body mass index, and comorbidities (aOR, 3.74; 95% confidence interval, 2.66-5.24).

Those results were not very surprising, Dr. Teixeira said, as earlier studies have reported similar findings. However, the data on individuals with mood and anxiety disorders were unexpected.

Patients with mood disorders were nearly three times as likely to die (aOR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.00-3.81), and those with anxiety disorders had more than double the mortality risk (aOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.68-3.27).

“We were expecting some increase, but there was strong evidence in those populations as well,” he said. “We were especially surprised at the data on patients with anxiety disorders.”
 

An outstanding question

These findings contradict a study published Jan. 27, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry, that showed no significant increase in mortality risk among those with mood or anxiety disorders.

Study methodology and timing might explain some of the differences, Katlyn Nemani, MD, a research assistant professor of psychiatry at New York University, who led that earlier study, said in an interview.

Dr. Nemani’s study had a smaller study sample, examined mortality over a 30-day period after a positive COVID-19 test, and was limited to the peak of the pandemic in New York, between March and May 2020. Dr. Teixeira’s team examined a full year of data and assessed mortality for 7 days following a positive test.

“It is possible patients with some psychiatric disorders were less likely to receive or successfully respond to treatment for severe COVD-19 which evolved during the course of the pandemic,” Dr. Nemani said, adding that it’s also possible that differences in mortality in the days following infection became attenuated over time.

While a meta-analysis published in July and reported by this news organization at that time did show higher COVID-19 mortality among patients with mood disorders, the risk was far lower than that reported in this new study. That report, which included 33 studies in 22 countries, also found no increase in risk among those with anxiety disorder.

In October, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added mood disorders to the list of medical conditions that increase the risk for more severe COVID-19. Schizophrenia was already on that list.

“The outstanding question is what underlies this increased risk,” Dr. Nemani said. “Future studies focused on immune-mediated mechanisms and other potential explanations will help guide targeted interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population.”

Funding for the study was not disclosed. Dr. Teixeira and Dr. Nemani report no conflicts of interest.

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

Schizophrenia and severe mood and anxiety disorders are associated with a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 but are tied to a two- to fourfold increased risk of death from the virus, new research shows.

The study results held after the researchers controlled for other risk factors, and they contradict an earlier study that showed no increased mortality risk associated with mood or anxiety disorders. The findings come as the overall number of deaths in the United States approaches 800,000.

“These patients were less likely to be infected because they were probably less exposed, but once they have the infection, they are more prone to worse outcomes,” lead author Antonio L. Teixeira, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry with McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said in an interview.

The study was published online Nov. 23 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Unexpected finding

Researchers analyzed electronic health records for 2.5 million adults with private health insurance who were tested for COVID-19 in 2020.

The overall positivity rate for the entire cohort was 11.91%, and patients with severe psychiatric illness fell below that rate. Positivity rates were 9.86% for people with schizophrenia or mood disorders and 11.17% among those with anxiety disorder.

Despite their lower positivity rate, patients with schizophrenia had the highest odds of death from COVID-19 after adjustment for age, race, body mass index, and comorbidities (aOR, 3.74; 95% confidence interval, 2.66-5.24).

Those results were not very surprising, Dr. Teixeira said, as earlier studies have reported similar findings. However, the data on individuals with mood and anxiety disorders were unexpected.

Patients with mood disorders were nearly three times as likely to die (aOR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.00-3.81), and those with anxiety disorders had more than double the mortality risk (aOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.68-3.27).

“We were expecting some increase, but there was strong evidence in those populations as well,” he said. “We were especially surprised at the data on patients with anxiety disorders.”
 

An outstanding question

These findings contradict a study published Jan. 27, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry, that showed no significant increase in mortality risk among those with mood or anxiety disorders.

Study methodology and timing might explain some of the differences, Katlyn Nemani, MD, a research assistant professor of psychiatry at New York University, who led that earlier study, said in an interview.

Dr. Nemani’s study had a smaller study sample, examined mortality over a 30-day period after a positive COVID-19 test, and was limited to the peak of the pandemic in New York, between March and May 2020. Dr. Teixeira’s team examined a full year of data and assessed mortality for 7 days following a positive test.

“It is possible patients with some psychiatric disorders were less likely to receive or successfully respond to treatment for severe COVD-19 which evolved during the course of the pandemic,” Dr. Nemani said, adding that it’s also possible that differences in mortality in the days following infection became attenuated over time.

While a meta-analysis published in July and reported by this news organization at that time did show higher COVID-19 mortality among patients with mood disorders, the risk was far lower than that reported in this new study. That report, which included 33 studies in 22 countries, also found no increase in risk among those with anxiety disorder.

In October, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added mood disorders to the list of medical conditions that increase the risk for more severe COVID-19. Schizophrenia was already on that list.

“The outstanding question is what underlies this increased risk,” Dr. Nemani said. “Future studies focused on immune-mediated mechanisms and other potential explanations will help guide targeted interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population.”

Funding for the study was not disclosed. Dr. Teixeira and Dr. Nemani report no conflicts of interest.

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

Schizophrenia and severe mood and anxiety disorders are associated with a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 but are tied to a two- to fourfold increased risk of death from the virus, new research shows.

The study results held after the researchers controlled for other risk factors, and they contradict an earlier study that showed no increased mortality risk associated with mood or anxiety disorders. The findings come as the overall number of deaths in the United States approaches 800,000.

“These patients were less likely to be infected because they were probably less exposed, but once they have the infection, they are more prone to worse outcomes,” lead author Antonio L. Teixeira, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry with McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said in an interview.

The study was published online Nov. 23 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Unexpected finding

Researchers analyzed electronic health records for 2.5 million adults with private health insurance who were tested for COVID-19 in 2020.

The overall positivity rate for the entire cohort was 11.91%, and patients with severe psychiatric illness fell below that rate. Positivity rates were 9.86% for people with schizophrenia or mood disorders and 11.17% among those with anxiety disorder.

Despite their lower positivity rate, patients with schizophrenia had the highest odds of death from COVID-19 after adjustment for age, race, body mass index, and comorbidities (aOR, 3.74; 95% confidence interval, 2.66-5.24).

Those results were not very surprising, Dr. Teixeira said, as earlier studies have reported similar findings. However, the data on individuals with mood and anxiety disorders were unexpected.

Patients with mood disorders were nearly three times as likely to die (aOR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.00-3.81), and those with anxiety disorders had more than double the mortality risk (aOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.68-3.27).

“We were expecting some increase, but there was strong evidence in those populations as well,” he said. “We were especially surprised at the data on patients with anxiety disorders.”
 

An outstanding question

These findings contradict a study published Jan. 27, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry, that showed no significant increase in mortality risk among those with mood or anxiety disorders.

Study methodology and timing might explain some of the differences, Katlyn Nemani, MD, a research assistant professor of psychiatry at New York University, who led that earlier study, said in an interview.

Dr. Nemani’s study had a smaller study sample, examined mortality over a 30-day period after a positive COVID-19 test, and was limited to the peak of the pandemic in New York, between March and May 2020. Dr. Teixeira’s team examined a full year of data and assessed mortality for 7 days following a positive test.

“It is possible patients with some psychiatric disorders were less likely to receive or successfully respond to treatment for severe COVD-19 which evolved during the course of the pandemic,” Dr. Nemani said, adding that it’s also possible that differences in mortality in the days following infection became attenuated over time.

While a meta-analysis published in July and reported by this news organization at that time did show higher COVID-19 mortality among patients with mood disorders, the risk was far lower than that reported in this new study. That report, which included 33 studies in 22 countries, also found no increase in risk among those with anxiety disorder.

In October, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added mood disorders to the list of medical conditions that increase the risk for more severe COVID-19. Schizophrenia was already on that list.

“The outstanding question is what underlies this increased risk,” Dr. Nemani said. “Future studies focused on immune-mediated mechanisms and other potential explanations will help guide targeted interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population.”

Funding for the study was not disclosed. Dr. Teixeira and Dr. Nemani report no conflicts of interest.

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

Higher poverty concentration at the county level significantly increased the risk of firearm-related deaths in children and youth aged 5-24 years in the United States, based on a review of approximately 67,000 fatalities.

Firearms are the second-leading cause of death in children and young adults in the United States, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wrote Jefferson T. Barrett, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, New York, and colleagues. County-level poverty has been associated with increased injury mortality in children, but the association between county-level poverty and firearm-related mortality in particular has not been well studied.

In a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Pediatrics, 67,905 firearm-related deaths in children and youth aged 5-24 years that occurred between Jan. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2016 were analyzed. The deaths included 42,512 homicides (62.6%), 23,034 suicides (33.9%), and 1,627 unintentional deaths (2.4%).

County poverty data were acquired from the U.S. Census Bureau. County-level poverty was divided into five categories based on percentage of the population living below the federal poverty level: 0%-4.9%, 5%-9.9%, 10%-14.9%, 15%-19.9%, and 20% or more.

Overall, 88.6% of the total deaths were in males. Notably, 44.8% of total firearm-related deaths and 63.9% of homicides occurred in non-Hispanic Blacks, who make up only 14% of the youth population in the United States, the researchers wrote.

The total number of firearm-related deaths was 248 in the lowest quintile of poverty concentration, followed by 6,841, 18,551, 27,305, and 14,960 in the remaining quintiles.

In a multivariate regression model that included demographics, urban versus rural, and statewide firearm prevalence, youth in counties with the highest quintile of poverty concentration had an increased rate of total firearm-related deaths (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 2.29), as well as increased rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths (aIRR, 3.55, 1.45, and 9.32, respectively), compared with those living in the lowest quintile of poverty concentration. Individuals in the highest poverty quintile accounted for 22.0% of total firearm-related deaths, 25.5% of homicides, 15.3% of suicides, and 25.1% of unintentional deaths.

The researchers also calculated the population-attributable fraction (PAF) and years of potential life lost. “The PAF represents the proportion of deaths associated with a particular exposure, which was concentrated county poverty in this study,” they explained. The PAF for all firearm-related deaths was 0.51, PAFs for homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths were 0.66, 0.30, and 0.86, respectively. The PAF calculation translated to 34,292 firearm-related deaths that may not have occurred if youth in all counties had the same risk as those in counties with the lowest poverty concentration.

“Over the 10-year study period, we observed 3,833,105 years of potential life lost in youth aged 5-24 years from firearm-related deaths,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential bias of a cross-section design, and inability to account for all the ways that county-level poverty might increase the risk of firearm-related death in children and teens, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include possible misclassification of death, lack of data on individual family incomes, shifts in counties in the poverty categories over time, and the use of statewide, rather than countywide, estimates of firearm ownership.

However, the results are consistent with those of previous studies, and add that “mortality rates were consistent even after controlling for demographic variables, county urbanicity, and statewide firearm prevalence,” the researchers concluded.
 

Address structural racism to reduce disparities

“Firearm-related homicides among youth aged 5-24 years are among the causes of death with the greatest disparities,” based on CDC fatal injury reports, wrote Alice M. Ellyson, PhD, Frederick P. Rivara, MD, and Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, MD, all of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an accompanying editorial.

The current study builds on previous research, including studies showing an association between income inequality and firearm-related homicide, they said. More research is needed to determine how to intervene in the pathways between poverty and firearm-related death. For example, if access to high-quality health care is a factor, programs to increase access to health insurance, such as the Affordable Care Act and Children’s Health Insurance Program, or to increase access to high-quality trauma care may help reduce firearm-related death in youth.

“The study of where, how, and why racism operates as a factor in both poverty and firearm-related death must continue, especially considering the disparities consistently documented in Alaska Native or American Indian, Black, and Hispanic communities,” the editorialists wrote.

“Key potential mechanisms for reducing the consequences of poverty for firearm-related death are often denied to racial and ethnic minority groups through a variety of structures, policies, and systems in health care, employment, housing, transportation, and education,” they emphasized, and the impact of racism, not only on the pathways to poverty, but also on mediators between poverty and firearm-related death, must be explored.

Findings spotlight need to for poverty programs

The study was an interesting look at the specific relationship between poverty and firearm-related deaths in people aged younger than 25 years in the United States, Tim Joos, MD, of Seattle said in an interview.

“Although America is not a poor country, the combination of poverty within America and its unique gun culture seems to prove deadly for its youth,” Dr. Joos said. “The strongest relationship is between firearm-related homicide and poverty, but unintentional firearm deaths and poverty also are clearly linked, whereas the link between firearm-related suicide and poverty appears to be present, but small.”.

In the current study, “the authors note that firearm deaths are the second-leading cause of death among all people ages 15-24 years,” said Dr. Joos. “Many of us have followed children from infancy just to have them meet this untimely end as adolescents, wishing we had a vaccine or other remedy in our toolbelt for this particular scourge.

“As our country currently debates the size of the social safety net, this study is one of many that suggests government programs aimed at poverty alleviation would substantially contribute to the health of American youth,” Dr. Joos added.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Barrett had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ellyson disclosed funds from the CDC, the state of Washington, and the Grandmothers Against Gun Violence Foundation for research outside the submitted work. Dr. Rivara disclosed funds from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Washington, and the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research for research outside the submitted work. Dr. Rowhani-Rahbar disclosed funds from the CDC, National Institutes of Health, National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, Fund for a Safer Future, and state of Washington for research outside the submitted work. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Higher poverty concentration at the county level significantly increased the risk of firearm-related deaths in children and youth aged 5-24 years in the United States, based on a review of approximately 67,000 fatalities.

Firearms are the second-leading cause of death in children and young adults in the United States, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wrote Jefferson T. Barrett, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, New York, and colleagues. County-level poverty has been associated with increased injury mortality in children, but the association between county-level poverty and firearm-related mortality in particular has not been well studied.

In a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Pediatrics, 67,905 firearm-related deaths in children and youth aged 5-24 years that occurred between Jan. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2016 were analyzed. The deaths included 42,512 homicides (62.6%), 23,034 suicides (33.9%), and 1,627 unintentional deaths (2.4%).

County poverty data were acquired from the U.S. Census Bureau. County-level poverty was divided into five categories based on percentage of the population living below the federal poverty level: 0%-4.9%, 5%-9.9%, 10%-14.9%, 15%-19.9%, and 20% or more.

Overall, 88.6% of the total deaths were in males. Notably, 44.8% of total firearm-related deaths and 63.9% of homicides occurred in non-Hispanic Blacks, who make up only 14% of the youth population in the United States, the researchers wrote.

The total number of firearm-related deaths was 248 in the lowest quintile of poverty concentration, followed by 6,841, 18,551, 27,305, and 14,960 in the remaining quintiles.

In a multivariate regression model that included demographics, urban versus rural, and statewide firearm prevalence, youth in counties with the highest quintile of poverty concentration had an increased rate of total firearm-related deaths (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 2.29), as well as increased rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths (aIRR, 3.55, 1.45, and 9.32, respectively), compared with those living in the lowest quintile of poverty concentration. Individuals in the highest poverty quintile accounted for 22.0% of total firearm-related deaths, 25.5% of homicides, 15.3% of suicides, and 25.1% of unintentional deaths.

The researchers also calculated the population-attributable fraction (PAF) and years of potential life lost. “The PAF represents the proportion of deaths associated with a particular exposure, which was concentrated county poverty in this study,” they explained. The PAF for all firearm-related deaths was 0.51, PAFs for homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths were 0.66, 0.30, and 0.86, respectively. The PAF calculation translated to 34,292 firearm-related deaths that may not have occurred if youth in all counties had the same risk as those in counties with the lowest poverty concentration.

“Over the 10-year study period, we observed 3,833,105 years of potential life lost in youth aged 5-24 years from firearm-related deaths,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential bias of a cross-section design, and inability to account for all the ways that county-level poverty might increase the risk of firearm-related death in children and teens, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include possible misclassification of death, lack of data on individual family incomes, shifts in counties in the poverty categories over time, and the use of statewide, rather than countywide, estimates of firearm ownership.

However, the results are consistent with those of previous studies, and add that “mortality rates were consistent even after controlling for demographic variables, county urbanicity, and statewide firearm prevalence,” the researchers concluded.
 

Address structural racism to reduce disparities

“Firearm-related homicides among youth aged 5-24 years are among the causes of death with the greatest disparities,” based on CDC fatal injury reports, wrote Alice M. Ellyson, PhD, Frederick P. Rivara, MD, and Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, MD, all of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an accompanying editorial.

The current study builds on previous research, including studies showing an association between income inequality and firearm-related homicide, they said. More research is needed to determine how to intervene in the pathways between poverty and firearm-related death. For example, if access to high-quality health care is a factor, programs to increase access to health insurance, such as the Affordable Care Act and Children’s Health Insurance Program, or to increase access to high-quality trauma care may help reduce firearm-related death in youth.

“The study of where, how, and why racism operates as a factor in both poverty and firearm-related death must continue, especially considering the disparities consistently documented in Alaska Native or American Indian, Black, and Hispanic communities,” the editorialists wrote.

“Key potential mechanisms for reducing the consequences of poverty for firearm-related death are often denied to racial and ethnic minority groups through a variety of structures, policies, and systems in health care, employment, housing, transportation, and education,” they emphasized, and the impact of racism, not only on the pathways to poverty, but also on mediators between poverty and firearm-related death, must be explored.

Findings spotlight need to for poverty programs

The study was an interesting look at the specific relationship between poverty and firearm-related deaths in people aged younger than 25 years in the United States, Tim Joos, MD, of Seattle said in an interview.

“Although America is not a poor country, the combination of poverty within America and its unique gun culture seems to prove deadly for its youth,” Dr. Joos said. “The strongest relationship is between firearm-related homicide and poverty, but unintentional firearm deaths and poverty also are clearly linked, whereas the link between firearm-related suicide and poverty appears to be present, but small.”.

In the current study, “the authors note that firearm deaths are the second-leading cause of death among all people ages 15-24 years,” said Dr. Joos. “Many of us have followed children from infancy just to have them meet this untimely end as adolescents, wishing we had a vaccine or other remedy in our toolbelt for this particular scourge.

“As our country currently debates the size of the social safety net, this study is one of many that suggests government programs aimed at poverty alleviation would substantially contribute to the health of American youth,” Dr. Joos added.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Barrett had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ellyson disclosed funds from the CDC, the state of Washington, and the Grandmothers Against Gun Violence Foundation for research outside the submitted work. Dr. Rivara disclosed funds from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Washington, and the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research for research outside the submitted work. Dr. Rowhani-Rahbar disclosed funds from the CDC, National Institutes of Health, National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, Fund for a Safer Future, and state of Washington for research outside the submitted work. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Higher poverty concentration at the county level significantly increased the risk of firearm-related deaths in children and youth aged 5-24 years in the United States, based on a review of approximately 67,000 fatalities.

Firearms are the second-leading cause of death in children and young adults in the United States, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wrote Jefferson T. Barrett, MD, of The Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, New York, and colleagues. County-level poverty has been associated with increased injury mortality in children, but the association between county-level poverty and firearm-related mortality in particular has not been well studied.

In a cross-sectional study published in JAMA Pediatrics, 67,905 firearm-related deaths in children and youth aged 5-24 years that occurred between Jan. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2016 were analyzed. The deaths included 42,512 homicides (62.6%), 23,034 suicides (33.9%), and 1,627 unintentional deaths (2.4%).

County poverty data were acquired from the U.S. Census Bureau. County-level poverty was divided into five categories based on percentage of the population living below the federal poverty level: 0%-4.9%, 5%-9.9%, 10%-14.9%, 15%-19.9%, and 20% or more.

Overall, 88.6% of the total deaths were in males. Notably, 44.8% of total firearm-related deaths and 63.9% of homicides occurred in non-Hispanic Blacks, who make up only 14% of the youth population in the United States, the researchers wrote.

The total number of firearm-related deaths was 248 in the lowest quintile of poverty concentration, followed by 6,841, 18,551, 27,305, and 14,960 in the remaining quintiles.

In a multivariate regression model that included demographics, urban versus rural, and statewide firearm prevalence, youth in counties with the highest quintile of poverty concentration had an increased rate of total firearm-related deaths (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 2.29), as well as increased rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths (aIRR, 3.55, 1.45, and 9.32, respectively), compared with those living in the lowest quintile of poverty concentration. Individuals in the highest poverty quintile accounted for 22.0% of total firearm-related deaths, 25.5% of homicides, 15.3% of suicides, and 25.1% of unintentional deaths.

The researchers also calculated the population-attributable fraction (PAF) and years of potential life lost. “The PAF represents the proportion of deaths associated with a particular exposure, which was concentrated county poverty in this study,” they explained. The PAF for all firearm-related deaths was 0.51, PAFs for homicides, suicides, and unintentional deaths were 0.66, 0.30, and 0.86, respectively. The PAF calculation translated to 34,292 firearm-related deaths that may not have occurred if youth in all counties had the same risk as those in counties with the lowest poverty concentration.

“Over the 10-year study period, we observed 3,833,105 years of potential life lost in youth aged 5-24 years from firearm-related deaths,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential bias of a cross-section design, and inability to account for all the ways that county-level poverty might increase the risk of firearm-related death in children and teens, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include possible misclassification of death, lack of data on individual family incomes, shifts in counties in the poverty categories over time, and the use of statewide, rather than countywide, estimates of firearm ownership.

However, the results are consistent with those of previous studies, and add that “mortality rates were consistent even after controlling for demographic variables, county urbanicity, and statewide firearm prevalence,” the researchers concluded.
 

Address structural racism to reduce disparities

“Firearm-related homicides among youth aged 5-24 years are among the causes of death with the greatest disparities,” based on CDC fatal injury reports, wrote Alice M. Ellyson, PhD, Frederick P. Rivara, MD, and Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, MD, all of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an accompanying editorial.

The current study builds on previous research, including studies showing an association between income inequality and firearm-related homicide, they said. More research is needed to determine how to intervene in the pathways between poverty and firearm-related death. For example, if access to high-quality health care is a factor, programs to increase access to health insurance, such as the Affordable Care Act and Children’s Health Insurance Program, or to increase access to high-quality trauma care may help reduce firearm-related death in youth.

“The study of where, how, and why racism operates as a factor in both poverty and firearm-related death must continue, especially considering the disparities consistently documented in Alaska Native or American Indian, Black, and Hispanic communities,” the editorialists wrote.

“Key potential mechanisms for reducing the consequences of poverty for firearm-related death are often denied to racial and ethnic minority groups through a variety of structures, policies, and systems in health care, employment, housing, transportation, and education,” they emphasized, and the impact of racism, not only on the pathways to poverty, but also on mediators between poverty and firearm-related death, must be explored.

Findings spotlight need to for poverty programs

The study was an interesting look at the specific relationship between poverty and firearm-related deaths in people aged younger than 25 years in the United States, Tim Joos, MD, of Seattle said in an interview.

“Although America is not a poor country, the combination of poverty within America and its unique gun culture seems to prove deadly for its youth,” Dr. Joos said. “The strongest relationship is between firearm-related homicide and poverty, but unintentional firearm deaths and poverty also are clearly linked, whereas the link between firearm-related suicide and poverty appears to be present, but small.”.

In the current study, “the authors note that firearm deaths are the second-leading cause of death among all people ages 15-24 years,” said Dr. Joos. “Many of us have followed children from infancy just to have them meet this untimely end as adolescents, wishing we had a vaccine or other remedy in our toolbelt for this particular scourge.

“As our country currently debates the size of the social safety net, this study is one of many that suggests government programs aimed at poverty alleviation would substantially contribute to the health of American youth,” Dr. Joos added.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Barrett had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Ellyson disclosed funds from the CDC, the state of Washington, and the Grandmothers Against Gun Violence Foundation for research outside the submitted work. Dr. Rivara disclosed funds from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Washington, and the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research for research outside the submitted work. Dr. Rowhani-Rahbar disclosed funds from the CDC, National Institutes of Health, National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, Fund for a Safer Future, and state of Washington for research outside the submitted work. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

From the Department of Neurology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA (Drs. Ching, Darwish, Li, Wong, Simpson, and Funk), the Department of Anesthesia, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA (Keith Siegel), and the Department of Psychiatry, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA (Dr. Bamgbose).

Objectives: To reduce the incidence and duration of delirium among patients in a hospital ward through standardized delirium screening tools and nonpharmacologic interventions. To advance nursing-focused education on delirium-prevention strategies. To measure the efficacy of the interventions with the aim of reproducing best practices.

Background: Delirium is associated with poor patient outcomes but may be preventable in a significant percentage of hospitalized patients.

Methods: Following nursing-focused education to prevent delirium, we prospectively evaluated patient care outcomes in a consecutive series of patients who were admitted to a hospital medical-surgical ward within a 25-week period. All patients who had at least 1 Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) documented by a nurse during hospitalization met our inclusion criteria (N = 353). Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines were adhered to.

Results: There were 187 patients in the control group, and 166 in the postintervention group. Compared to the control group, the postintervention group had a significant decrease in the incidence of delirium during hospitalization (14.4% vs 4.2%) and a significant decrease in the mean percentage of tested nursing shifts with 1 or more positive CAM (4.9% vs 1.1%). Significant differences in secondary outcomes between the control and postintervention groups included median length of stay (6 days vs 4 days), mean length of stay (8.5 days vs 5.9 days), and use of an indwelling urinary catheter (9.1% vs 2.4%).

Conclusion: A multimodal strategy involving nursing-focused training and nonpharmacologic interventions to address hospital delirium is associated with improved patient care outcomes and nursing confidence. Nurses play an integral role in the early recognition and prevention of hospital delirium, which directly translates to reducing burdens in both patient functionality and health care costs.

Delirium is a disorder characterized by inattention and acute changes in cognition. It is defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a disturbance in attention, awareness, and cognition over hours to a few days that is not better explained by a preexisting, established, or other evolving neurocognitive disorder.¹ Delirium is common yet often under-recognized among hospitalized patients, particularly in the elderly. The incidence of delirium in elderly patients on admission is estimated to be 11% to 25%, and an additional 29% to 31% of elderly patients will develop delirium during the hospitalization.² Delirium costs the health care system an estimated $38 billion to $152 billion per year.³ It is associated with negative outcomes, such as increased new placements to nursing homes, increased mortality, increased risk of dementia, and further cognitive deterioration among patients with dementia.^4-6

Despite its prevalence, delirium may be preventable in a significant percentage of hospitalized patients. Targeted intervention strategies, such as frequent reorientation, maximizing sleep, early mobilization, restricting use of psychoactive medications, and addressing hearing or vision impairment, have been demonstrated to significantly reduce the incidence of hospital delirium.^7,8 To achieve these goals, we explored the use of a multimodal strategy centered on nursing education. We integrated consistent, standardized delirium screening and nonpharmacologic interventions as part of a preventative protocol to reduce the incidence of delirium in the hospital ward.

Methods

We evaluated a consecutive series of patients who were admitted to a designated hospital medical-surgical ward within a 25-week period between October 2019 and April 2020. All patients during this period who had at least 1 Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) documented by a nurse during hospitalization met our inclusion criteria. Patients who did not have a CAM documented were excluded from the analysis. Delirium was defined according to the CAM diagnostic algorithm.⁹

Core nursing staff regularly assigned to the ward completed a multimodal training program designed to improve recognition, documentation, and prevention of hospital delirium. Prior to the training, the nurses completed a 5-point Likert scale survey assessing their level of confidence with recognizing delirium risk factors, preventing delirium, addressing delirium, utilizing the CAM tool, and educating others about delirium. Nurses completed the same survey after the study period ended.

The training curriculum for nurses began with an online module reviewing the epidemiology and risk factors for delirium. Nurses then participated in a series of in-service training sessions led by a team of physicians, during which the CAM and nonpharmacologic delirium prevention measures were reviewed then practiced first-hand. Nursing staff attended an in-person lecture reviewing the current body of literature on delirium risk factors and effective nursing interventions. After formal training was completed, nurses were instructed to document CAM screens for each patient under their care at least once every 12-hour shift for the remainder of the study. An order set, reflected in Table 1, was made available to physicians and floor nurses to assist with implementing the educational components.

Patients admitted to the hospital unit from the start of the training program (week 1) until the order set was made available (week 15) constituted our control group. The postintervention study group consisted of patients admitted for 10 weeks after the completion of the interventions (weeks 16-25). A timeline of the study events is shown in Figure 1.

Patient demographics and hospital-stay metrics determined a priori were attained via the Cedars-Sinai Enterprise Information Services core. Age, sex, medical history, and incidence of surgery with anesthesia during hospitalization were recorded. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was calculated from patients’ listed diagnoses following discharge. Primary outcomes included incidence of patients with delirium during hospitalization, percentage of tested shifts with positive CAM screens, length of hospital stay, and survival. Secondary outcomes included measures associated with delirium, including the use of chemical restraints, physical restraints, sitters, indwelling urinary catheters, and new psychiatry and neurology consults. Chemical restraints were defined as administration of a new antipsychotic medication or benzodiazepine for the specific indication of hyperactive delirium or agitation.            

Statistical analysis was conducted by a statistician, using R version 3.6.3.10P values of < .05 were considered significant. Categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables were analyzed with Welch’s t-test or, for highly skewed continuous variables, with Wilcoxon rank-sum test or Mood’s median test. All patient data were anonymized and stored securely in accordance with institutional guidelines.

Our project was deemed to represent nonhuman subject research and therefore did not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval upon review by our institution’s IRB committee and Office of Research Compliance and Quality Improvement. Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) guidelines were adhered to (Supplementary File can be found at mdedge.com/jcomjournal).

Results

We evaluated 353 patients who met our inclusion criteria: 187 in the control group, and 166 in the postintervention group. Ten patients were readmitted to the ward after their initial discharge; only the initial admission encounters were included in our analysis. Median age, sex, median Charlson Comorbidity Index, and incidence of surgery with anesthesia during hospitalization were comparable between the control and postintervention groups and are summarized in Table 2.

In the control group, 1572 CAMs were performed, with 74 positive CAMs recorded among 27 patients with delirium. In the postintervention group, 1298 CAMs were performed, with 12 positive CAMs recorded among 7 patients with delirium (Figure 2). Primary and secondary outcomes, as well as CAM compliance measures, are summarized in Table 3.

Compared to the control group, the postintervention group had a significant decrease in the incidence of delirium during hospitalization (14.4% vs 4.2%, P = .002) and a significant decrease in the mean percentage of tested nursing shifts with 1 or more positive CAM (4.9% vs 1.1%, P = .002). Significant differences in secondary outcomes between the control and postintervention groups included median length of stay (6 days vs 4 days, P = .004), mean length of stay (8.5 days vs 5.9 days, P = .003), and use of an indwelling urinary catheter (9.1% vs 2.4%, P = .012). There was a trend towards decreased incidence of chemical restraints and psychiatry consults, which did not reach statistical significance. Differences in mortality during hospitalization, physical restraint use, and sitter use could not be assessed due to low incidence.

Results of nursing surveys completed before and after the training program are listed in Table 4. After training, nurses had a greater level of confidence with recognizing delirium risk factors, preventing delirium, addressing delirium, utilizing the CAM tool, and educating others about delirium.

Discussion

Our study utilized a standardized delirium assessment tool to compare patient cohorts before and after nurse-targeted training interventions on delirium recognition and prevention. Our interventions emphasized nonpharmacologic intervention strategies, which are recommended as first-line in the management of patients with delirium.¹¹ Patients were not excluded from the analysis based on preexisting medical conditions or recent surgery with anesthesia, to allow for conditions that are representative of community hospitals. We also did not use an inclusion criterion based on age; however, the majority of our patients were greater than 70 years old, representing those at highest risk for delirium.² Significant outcomes among patients in the postintervention group include decreased incidence of delirium, lower average length of stay, decreased indwelling urinary catheter use, and increased compliance with delirium screening by nursing staff.

While the study’s focus was primarily on delirium prevention rather than treatment, these strategies may also have conferred the benefit of reversing delirium symptoms. In addition to measuring incidence of delirium, our primary outcome of percentage of tested shifts with 1 or more positive CAM was intended to assess the overall duration in which patients had delirium during their hospitalization. The reduction in shifts with positive CAMs observed in the postintervention group is notable, given that a significant percentage of patients with hospital delirium have the potential for symptom reversibility.¹²

Multiple studies have shown that admitted patients who develop delirium experience prolonged hospital stays, often up to 5 to 10 days longer.^12-14 The decreased incidence and duration of delirium in our postintervention group is a reasonable explanation for the observed decrease in average length of stay. Our study is in line with previously documented initiatives that show that nonpharmacologic interventions can effectively address downstream health and fiscal sequelae of hospital delirium. For example, a volunteer-based initiative named the Hospital Elder Life Program, from which elements in our order set were modeled after, demonstrated significant reductions in delirium incidence, length of stay, and health care costs.^14-16 Other initiatives that focused on educational training for nurses to assess and prevent delirium have also demonstrated similar positive results.^17-19 Our study provides a model for effective nursing-focused education that can be reproduced in the hospital setting.

Unlike some other studies, which identified delirium based only on physician assessments, our initiative utilized the CAM performed by floor nurses to identify delirium. While this method may have affected the sensitivity and specificity of the CAMs, it also conferred the advantage of recognizing, documenting, and intervening on delirium in real time, given that bedside nurses are often the first to encounter delirium. Furthermore, nurses were instructed to notify a physician if a patient had a new positive CAM, as reflected in Table 1.

Our study demonstrated an increase in the overall compliance with the CAM screening during the postintervention period, which is significant given the under-recognition of delirium by health care professionals.²⁰ We attribute this increase to greater realized importance and a higher level of confidence from nursing staff in recognizing and addressing delirium, as supported by survey data. While the increased screening of patients should be considered a positive outcome, it also poses the possibility that the observed decrease in delirium incidence in the postintervention group was in fact due to more CAMs performed on patients without delirium. Likewise, nurses may have become more adept at recognizing true delirium, as opposed to delirium mimics, in the latter period of the study.

Perhaps the greatest limitation of our study is the variability in performing and recording CAMs, as some patients had multiple CAMs recorded while others did not have any CAMs recorded. This may have been affected in part by the increase in COVID-19 cases in our hospital towards the latter half of the study, which resulted in changes in nursing assignments as well as patient comorbidities in ways that cannot be easily quantified. Given the limited size of our patient cohorts, certain outcomes, such as the use of sitters, physical restraints, and in-hospital mortality, were unable to be assessed for changes statistically. Causative relationships between our interventions and associated outcome measures are necessarily limited in a binary comparison between control and postintervention groups.

Within these limitations, our study demonstrates promising results in core dimensions of patient care. We anticipate further quality improvement initiatives involving greater numbers of nursing staff and patients to better quantify the impact of nonpharmacologic nursing-centered interventions for preventing hospital delirium.

Conclusion

A multimodal strategy involving nursing-focused training and nonpharmacologic interventions to address hospital delirium is associated with improved patient care outcomes and nursing confidence. Nurses play an integral role in the early recognition and prevention of hospital delirium, which directly translates to reducing burdens in both patient functionality and health care costs. Education and tools to equip nurses to perform standardized delirium screening and interventions should be prioritized.

Acknowledgment: The authors thanks Olena Svetlov, NP, Oscar Abarca, Jose Chavez, and Jenita Gutierrez.

Corresponding author: Jason Ching, MD, Department of Neurology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90048; jason.ching@cshs.org.

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding: This research was supported by NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) UCLA CTSI Grant Number UL1TR001881.

From the Department of Neurology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA (Drs. Ching, Darwish, Li, Wong, Simpson, and Funk), the Department of Anesthesia, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA (Keith Siegel), and the Department of Psychiatry, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA (Dr. Bamgbose).

Objectives: To reduce the incidence and duration of delirium among patients in a hospital ward through standardized delirium screening tools and nonpharmacologic interventions. To advance nursing-focused education on delirium-prevention strategies. To measure the efficacy of the interventions with the aim of reproducing best practices.

Background: Delirium is associated with poor patient outcomes but may be preventable in a significant percentage of hospitalized patients.

Methods: Following nursing-focused education to prevent delirium, we prospectively evaluated patient care outcomes in a consecutive series of patients who were admitted to a hospital medical-surgical ward within a 25-week period. All patients who had at least 1 Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) documented by a nurse during hospitalization met our inclusion criteria (N = 353). Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines were adhered to.

Results: There were 187 patients in the control group, and 166 in the postintervention group. Compared to the control group, the postintervention group had a significant decrease in the incidence of delirium during hospitalization (14.4% vs 4.2%) and a significant decrease in the mean percentage of tested nursing shifts with 1 or more positive CAM (4.9% vs 1.1%). Significant differences in secondary outcomes between the control and postintervention groups included median length of stay (6 days vs 4 days), mean length of stay (8.5 days vs 5.9 days), and use of an indwelling urinary catheter (9.1% vs 2.4%).

Conclusion: A multimodal strategy involving nursing-focused training and nonpharmacologic interventions to address hospital delirium is associated with improved patient care outcomes and nursing confidence. Nurses play an integral role in the early recognition and prevention of hospital delirium, which directly translates to reducing burdens in both patient functionality and health care costs.

Delirium is a disorder characterized by inattention and acute changes in cognition. It is defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a disturbance in attention, awareness, and cognition over hours to a few days that is not better explained by a preexisting, established, or other evolving neurocognitive disorder.¹ Delirium is common yet often under-recognized among hospitalized patients, particularly in the elderly. The incidence of delirium in elderly patients on admission is estimated to be 11% to 25%, and an additional 29% to 31% of elderly patients will develop delirium during the hospitalization.² Delirium costs the health care system an estimated $38 billion to $152 billion per year.³ It is associated with negative outcomes, such as increased new placements to nursing homes, increased mortality, increased risk of dementia, and further cognitive deterioration among patients with dementia.^4-6

Despite its prevalence, delirium may be preventable in a significant percentage of hospitalized patients. Targeted intervention strategies, such as frequent reorientation, maximizing sleep, early mobilization, restricting use of psychoactive medications, and addressing hearing or vision impairment, have been demonstrated to significantly reduce the incidence of hospital delirium.^7,8 To achieve these goals, we explored the use of a multimodal strategy centered on nursing education. We integrated consistent, standardized delirium screening and nonpharmacologic interventions as part of a preventative protocol to reduce the incidence of delirium in the hospital ward.

Methods

We evaluated a consecutive series of patients who were admitted to a designated hospital medical-surgical ward within a 25-week period between October 2019 and April 2020. All patients during this period who had at least 1 Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) documented by a nurse during hospitalization met our inclusion criteria. Patients who did not have a CAM documented were excluded from the analysis. Delirium was defined according to the CAM diagnostic algorithm.⁹

Core nursing staff regularly assigned to the ward completed a multimodal training program designed to improve recognition, documentation, and prevention of hospital delirium. Prior to the training, the nurses completed a 5-point Likert scale survey assessing their level of confidence with recognizing delirium risk factors, preventing delirium, addressing delirium, utilizing the CAM tool, and educating others about delirium. Nurses completed the same survey after the study period ended.

The training curriculum for nurses began with an online module reviewing the epidemiology and risk factors for delirium. Nurses then participated in a series of in-service training sessions led by a team of physicians, during which the CAM and nonpharmacologic delirium prevention measures were reviewed then practiced first-hand. Nursing staff attended an in-person lecture reviewing the current body of literature on delirium risk factors and effective nursing interventions. After formal training was completed, nurses were instructed to document CAM screens for each patient under their care at least once every 12-hour shift for the remainder of the study. An order set, reflected in Table 1, was made available to physicians and floor nurses to assist with implementing the educational components.

Patients admitted to the hospital unit from the start of the training program (week 1) until the order set was made available (week 15) constituted our control group. The postintervention study group consisted of patients admitted for 10 weeks after the completion of the interventions (weeks 16-25). A timeline of the study events is shown in Figure 1.

Patient demographics and hospital-stay metrics determined a priori were attained via the Cedars-Sinai Enterprise Information Services core. Age, sex, medical history, and incidence of surgery with anesthesia during hospitalization were recorded. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was calculated from patients’ listed diagnoses following discharge. Primary outcomes included incidence of patients with delirium during hospitalization, percentage of tested shifts with positive CAM screens, length of hospital stay, and survival. Secondary outcomes included measures associated with delirium, including the use of chemical restraints, physical restraints, sitters, indwelling urinary catheters, and new psychiatry and neurology consults. Chemical restraints were defined as administration of a new antipsychotic medication or benzodiazepine for the specific indication of hyperactive delirium or agitation.            

Statistical analysis was conducted by a statistician, using R version 3.6.3.10P values of < .05 were considered significant. Categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables were analyzed with Welch’s t-test or, for highly skewed continuous variables, with Wilcoxon rank-sum test or Mood’s median test. All patient data were anonymized and stored securely in accordance with institutional guidelines.

Our project was deemed to represent nonhuman subject research and therefore did not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval upon review by our institution’s IRB committee and Office of Research Compliance and Quality Improvement. Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) guidelines were adhered to (Supplementary File can be found at mdedge.com/jcomjournal).

Results

We evaluated 353 patients who met our inclusion criteria: 187 in the control group, and 166 in the postintervention group. Ten patients were readmitted to the ward after their initial discharge; only the initial admission encounters were included in our analysis. Median age, sex, median Charlson Comorbidity Index, and incidence of surgery with anesthesia during hospitalization were comparable between the control and postintervention groups and are summarized in Table 2.

In the control group, 1572 CAMs were performed, with 74 positive CAMs recorded among 27 patients with delirium. In the postintervention group, 1298 CAMs were performed, with 12 positive CAMs recorded among 7 patients with delirium (Figure 2). Primary and secondary outcomes, as well as CAM compliance measures, are summarized in Table 3.

Compared to the control group, the postintervention group had a significant decrease in the incidence of delirium during hospitalization (14.4% vs 4.2%, P = .002) and a significant decrease in the mean percentage of tested nursing shifts with 1 or more positive CAM (4.9% vs 1.1%, P = .002). Significant differences in secondary outcomes between the control and postintervention groups included median length of stay (6 days vs 4 days, P = .004), mean length of stay (8.5 days vs 5.9 days, P = .003), and use of an indwelling urinary catheter (9.1% vs 2.4%, P = .012). There was a trend towards decreased incidence of chemical restraints and psychiatry consults, which did not reach statistical significance. Differences in mortality during hospitalization, physical restraint use, and sitter use could not be assessed due to low incidence.

Results of nursing surveys completed before and after the training program are listed in Table 4. After training, nurses had a greater level of confidence with recognizing delirium risk factors, preventing delirium, addressing delirium, utilizing the CAM tool, and educating others about delirium.

Discussion

Our study utilized a standardized delirium assessment tool to compare patient cohorts before and after nurse-targeted training interventions on delirium recognition and prevention. Our interventions emphasized nonpharmacologic intervention strategies, which are recommended as first-line in the management of patients with delirium.¹¹ Patients were not excluded from the analysis based on preexisting medical conditions or recent surgery with anesthesia, to allow for conditions that are representative of community hospitals. We also did not use an inclusion criterion based on age; however, the majority of our patients were greater than 70 years old, representing those at highest risk for delirium.² Significant outcomes among patients in the postintervention group include decreased incidence of delirium, lower average length of stay, decreased indwelling urinary catheter use, and increased compliance with delirium screening by nursing staff.

While the study’s focus was primarily on delirium prevention rather than treatment, these strategies may also have conferred the benefit of reversing delirium symptoms. In addition to measuring incidence of delirium, our primary outcome of percentage of tested shifts with 1 or more positive CAM was intended to assess the overall duration in which patients had delirium during their hospitalization. The reduction in shifts with positive CAMs observed in the postintervention group is notable, given that a significant percentage of patients with hospital delirium have the potential for symptom reversibility.¹²

Multiple studies have shown that admitted patients who develop delirium experience prolonged hospital stays, often up to 5 to 10 days longer.^12-14 The decreased incidence and duration of delirium in our postintervention group is a reasonable explanation for the observed decrease in average length of stay. Our study is in line with previously documented initiatives that show that nonpharmacologic interventions can effectively address downstream health and fiscal sequelae of hospital delirium. For example, a volunteer-based initiative named the Hospital Elder Life Program, from which elements in our order set were modeled after, demonstrated significant reductions in delirium incidence, length of stay, and health care costs.^14-16 Other initiatives that focused on educational training for nurses to assess and prevent delirium have also demonstrated similar positive results.^17-19 Our study provides a model for effective nursing-focused education that can be reproduced in the hospital setting.

Unlike some other studies, which identified delirium based only on physician assessments, our initiative utilized the CAM performed by floor nurses to identify delirium. While this method may have affected the sensitivity and specificity of the CAMs, it also conferred the advantage of recognizing, documenting, and intervening on delirium in real time, given that bedside nurses are often the first to encounter delirium. Furthermore, nurses were instructed to notify a physician if a patient had a new positive CAM, as reflected in Table 1.

Our study demonstrated an increase in the overall compliance with the CAM screening during the postintervention period, which is significant given the under-recognition of delirium by health care professionals.²⁰ We attribute this increase to greater realized importance and a higher level of confidence from nursing staff in recognizing and addressing delirium, as supported by survey data. While the increased screening of patients should be considered a positive outcome, it also poses the possibility that the observed decrease in delirium incidence in the postintervention group was in fact due to more CAMs performed on patients without delirium. Likewise, nurses may have become more adept at recognizing true delirium, as opposed to delirium mimics, in the latter period of the study.

Perhaps the greatest limitation of our study is the variability in performing and recording CAMs, as some patients had multiple CAMs recorded while others did not have any CAMs recorded. This may have been affected in part by the increase in COVID-19 cases in our hospital towards the latter half of the study, which resulted in changes in nursing assignments as well as patient comorbidities in ways that cannot be easily quantified. Given the limited size of our patient cohorts, certain outcomes, such as the use of sitters, physical restraints, and in-hospital mortality, were unable to be assessed for changes statistically. Causative relationships between our interventions and associated outcome measures are necessarily limited in a binary comparison between control and postintervention groups.

Within these limitations, our study demonstrates promising results in core dimensions of patient care. We anticipate further quality improvement initiatives involving greater numbers of nursing staff and patients to better quantify the impact of nonpharmacologic nursing-centered interventions for preventing hospital delirium.

Conclusion

A multimodal strategy involving nursing-focused training and nonpharmacologic interventions to address hospital delirium is associated with improved patient care outcomes and nursing confidence. Nurses play an integral role in the early recognition and prevention of hospital delirium, which directly translates to reducing burdens in both patient functionality and health care costs. Education and tools to equip nurses to perform standardized delirium screening and interventions should be prioritized.

Acknowledgment: The authors thanks Olena Svetlov, NP, Oscar Abarca, Jose Chavez, and Jenita Gutierrez.

Corresponding author: Jason Ching, MD, Department of Neurology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90048; jason.ching@cshs.org.

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding: This research was supported by NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) UCLA CTSI Grant Number UL1TR001881.

From the Department of Neurology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA (Drs. Ching, Darwish, Li, Wong, Simpson, and Funk), the Department of Anesthesia, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA (Keith Siegel), and the Department of Psychiatry, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA (Dr. Bamgbose).

Objectives: To reduce the incidence and duration of delirium among patients in a hospital ward through standardized delirium screening tools and nonpharmacologic interventions. To advance nursing-focused education on delirium-prevention strategies. To measure the efficacy of the interventions with the aim of reproducing best practices.

Background: Delirium is associated with poor patient outcomes but may be preventable in a significant percentage of hospitalized patients.

Methods: Following nursing-focused education to prevent delirium, we prospectively evaluated patient care outcomes in a consecutive series of patients who were admitted to a hospital medical-surgical ward within a 25-week period. All patients who had at least 1 Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) documented by a nurse during hospitalization met our inclusion criteria (N = 353). Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines were adhered to.

Results: There were 187 patients in the control group, and 166 in the postintervention group. Compared to the control group, the postintervention group had a significant decrease in the incidence of delirium during hospitalization (14.4% vs 4.2%) and a significant decrease in the mean percentage of tested nursing shifts with 1 or more positive CAM (4.9% vs 1.1%). Significant differences in secondary outcomes between the control and postintervention groups included median length of stay (6 days vs 4 days), mean length of stay (8.5 days vs 5.9 days), and use of an indwelling urinary catheter (9.1% vs 2.4%).

Conclusion: A multimodal strategy involving nursing-focused training and nonpharmacologic interventions to address hospital delirium is associated with improved patient care outcomes and nursing confidence. Nurses play an integral role in the early recognition and prevention of hospital delirium, which directly translates to reducing burdens in both patient functionality and health care costs.

Delirium is a disorder characterized by inattention and acute changes in cognition. It is defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a disturbance in attention, awareness, and cognition over hours to a few days that is not better explained by a preexisting, established, or other evolving neurocognitive disorder.¹ Delirium is common yet often under-recognized among hospitalized patients, particularly in the elderly. The incidence of delirium in elderly patients on admission is estimated to be 11% to 25%, and an additional 29% to 31% of elderly patients will develop delirium during the hospitalization.² Delirium costs the health care system an estimated $38 billion to $152 billion per year.³ It is associated with negative outcomes, such as increased new placements to nursing homes, increased mortality, increased risk of dementia, and further cognitive deterioration among patients with dementia.^4-6

Despite its prevalence, delirium may be preventable in a significant percentage of hospitalized patients. Targeted intervention strategies, such as frequent reorientation, maximizing sleep, early mobilization, restricting use of psychoactive medications, and addressing hearing or vision impairment, have been demonstrated to significantly reduce the incidence of hospital delirium.^7,8 To achieve these goals, we explored the use of a multimodal strategy centered on nursing education. We integrated consistent, standardized delirium screening and nonpharmacologic interventions as part of a preventative protocol to reduce the incidence of delirium in the hospital ward.

Methods

We evaluated a consecutive series of patients who were admitted to a designated hospital medical-surgical ward within a 25-week period between October 2019 and April 2020. All patients during this period who had at least 1 Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) documented by a nurse during hospitalization met our inclusion criteria. Patients who did not have a CAM documented were excluded from the analysis. Delirium was defined according to the CAM diagnostic algorithm.⁹

Core nursing staff regularly assigned to the ward completed a multimodal training program designed to improve recognition, documentation, and prevention of hospital delirium. Prior to the training, the nurses completed a 5-point Likert scale survey assessing their level of confidence with recognizing delirium risk factors, preventing delirium, addressing delirium, utilizing the CAM tool, and educating others about delirium. Nurses completed the same survey after the study period ended.

The training curriculum for nurses began with an online module reviewing the epidemiology and risk factors for delirium. Nurses then participated in a series of in-service training sessions led by a team of physicians, during which the CAM and nonpharmacologic delirium prevention measures were reviewed then practiced first-hand. Nursing staff attended an in-person lecture reviewing the current body of literature on delirium risk factors and effective nursing interventions. After formal training was completed, nurses were instructed to document CAM screens for each patient under their care at least once every 12-hour shift for the remainder of the study. An order set, reflected in Table 1, was made available to physicians and floor nurses to assist with implementing the educational components.

Patients admitted to the hospital unit from the start of the training program (week 1) until the order set was made available (week 15) constituted our control group. The postintervention study group consisted of patients admitted for 10 weeks after the completion of the interventions (weeks 16-25). A timeline of the study events is shown in Figure 1.

Patient demographics and hospital-stay metrics determined a priori were attained via the Cedars-Sinai Enterprise Information Services core. Age, sex, medical history, and incidence of surgery with anesthesia during hospitalization were recorded. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was calculated from patients’ listed diagnoses following discharge. Primary outcomes included incidence of patients with delirium during hospitalization, percentage of tested shifts with positive CAM screens, length of hospital stay, and survival. Secondary outcomes included measures associated with delirium, including the use of chemical restraints, physical restraints, sitters, indwelling urinary catheters, and new psychiatry and neurology consults. Chemical restraints were defined as administration of a new antipsychotic medication or benzodiazepine for the specific indication of hyperactive delirium or agitation.            

Statistical analysis was conducted by a statistician, using R version 3.6.3.10P values of < .05 were considered significant. Categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. Continuous variables were analyzed with Welch’s t-test or, for highly skewed continuous variables, with Wilcoxon rank-sum test or Mood’s median test. All patient data were anonymized and stored securely in accordance with institutional guidelines.

Our project was deemed to represent nonhuman subject research and therefore did not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval upon review by our institution’s IRB committee and Office of Research Compliance and Quality Improvement. Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) guidelines were adhered to (Supplementary File can be found at mdedge.com/jcomjournal).

Results

We evaluated 353 patients who met our inclusion criteria: 187 in the control group, and 166 in the postintervention group. Ten patients were readmitted to the ward after their initial discharge; only the initial admission encounters were included in our analysis. Median age, sex, median Charlson Comorbidity Index, and incidence of surgery with anesthesia during hospitalization were comparable between the control and postintervention groups and are summarized in Table 2.

In the control group, 1572 CAMs were performed, with 74 positive CAMs recorded among 27 patients with delirium. In the postintervention group, 1298 CAMs were performed, with 12 positive CAMs recorded among 7 patients with delirium (Figure 2). Primary and secondary outcomes, as well as CAM compliance measures, are summarized in Table 3.

Compared to the control group, the postintervention group had a significant decrease in the incidence of delirium during hospitalization (14.4% vs 4.2%, P = .002) and a significant decrease in the mean percentage of tested nursing shifts with 1 or more positive CAM (4.9% vs 1.1%, P = .002). Significant differences in secondary outcomes between the control and postintervention groups included median length of stay (6 days vs 4 days, P = .004), mean length of stay (8.5 days vs 5.9 days, P = .003), and use of an indwelling urinary catheter (9.1% vs 2.4%, P = .012). There was a trend towards decreased incidence of chemical restraints and psychiatry consults, which did not reach statistical significance. Differences in mortality during hospitalization, physical restraint use, and sitter use could not be assessed due to low incidence.

Results of nursing surveys completed before and after the training program are listed in Table 4. After training, nurses had a greater level of confidence with recognizing delirium risk factors, preventing delirium, addressing delirium, utilizing the CAM tool, and educating others about delirium.

Discussion

Our study utilized a standardized delirium assessment tool to compare patient cohorts before and after nurse-targeted training interventions on delirium recognition and prevention. Our interventions emphasized nonpharmacologic intervention strategies, which are recommended as first-line in the management of patients with delirium.¹¹ Patients were not excluded from the analysis based on preexisting medical conditions or recent surgery with anesthesia, to allow for conditions that are representative of community hospitals. We also did not use an inclusion criterion based on age; however, the majority of our patients were greater than 70 years old, representing those at highest risk for delirium.² Significant outcomes among patients in the postintervention group include decreased incidence of delirium, lower average length of stay, decreased indwelling urinary catheter use, and increased compliance with delirium screening by nursing staff.

While the study’s focus was primarily on delirium prevention rather than treatment, these strategies may also have conferred the benefit of reversing delirium symptoms. In addition to measuring incidence of delirium, our primary outcome of percentage of tested shifts with 1 or more positive CAM was intended to assess the overall duration in which patients had delirium during their hospitalization. The reduction in shifts with positive CAMs observed in the postintervention group is notable, given that a significant percentage of patients with hospital delirium have the potential for symptom reversibility.¹²

Multiple studies have shown that admitted patients who develop delirium experience prolonged hospital stays, often up to 5 to 10 days longer.^12-14 The decreased incidence and duration of delirium in our postintervention group is a reasonable explanation for the observed decrease in average length of stay. Our study is in line with previously documented initiatives that show that nonpharmacologic interventions can effectively address downstream health and fiscal sequelae of hospital delirium. For example, a volunteer-based initiative named the Hospital Elder Life Program, from which elements in our order set were modeled after, demonstrated significant reductions in delirium incidence, length of stay, and health care costs.^14-16 Other initiatives that focused on educational training for nurses to assess and prevent delirium have also demonstrated similar positive results.^17-19 Our study provides a model for effective nursing-focused education that can be reproduced in the hospital setting.

Unlike some other studies, which identified delirium based only on physician assessments, our initiative utilized the CAM performed by floor nurses to identify delirium. While this method may have affected the sensitivity and specificity of the CAMs, it also conferred the advantage of recognizing, documenting, and intervening on delirium in real time, given that bedside nurses are often the first to encounter delirium. Furthermore, nurses were instructed to notify a physician if a patient had a new positive CAM, as reflected in Table 1.

Our study demonstrated an increase in the overall compliance with the CAM screening during the postintervention period, which is significant given the under-recognition of delirium by health care professionals.²⁰ We attribute this increase to greater realized importance and a higher level of confidence from nursing staff in recognizing and addressing delirium, as supported by survey data. While the increased screening of patients should be considered a positive outcome, it also poses the possibility that the observed decrease in delirium incidence in the postintervention group was in fact due to more CAMs performed on patients without delirium. Likewise, nurses may have become more adept at recognizing true delirium, as opposed to delirium mimics, in the latter period of the study.

Perhaps the greatest limitation of our study is the variability in performing and recording CAMs, as some patients had multiple CAMs recorded while others did not have any CAMs recorded. This may have been affected in part by the increase in COVID-19 cases in our hospital towards the latter half of the study, which resulted in changes in nursing assignments as well as patient comorbidities in ways that cannot be easily quantified. Given the limited size of our patient cohorts, certain outcomes, such as the use of sitters, physical restraints, and in-hospital mortality, were unable to be assessed for changes statistically. Causative relationships between our interventions and associated outcome measures are necessarily limited in a binary comparison between control and postintervention groups.

Within these limitations, our study demonstrates promising results in core dimensions of patient care. We anticipate further quality improvement initiatives involving greater numbers of nursing staff and patients to better quantify the impact of nonpharmacologic nursing-centered interventions for preventing hospital delirium.

Conclusion

A multimodal strategy involving nursing-focused training and nonpharmacologic interventions to address hospital delirium is associated with improved patient care outcomes and nursing confidence. Nurses play an integral role in the early recognition and prevention of hospital delirium, which directly translates to reducing burdens in both patient functionality and health care costs. Education and tools to equip nurses to perform standardized delirium screening and interventions should be prioritized.

Acknowledgment: The authors thanks Olena Svetlov, NP, Oscar Abarca, Jose Chavez, and Jenita Gutierrez.

Corresponding author: Jason Ching, MD, Department of Neurology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90048; jason.ching@cshs.org.

Financial disclosures: None.

Funding: This research was supported by NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) UCLA CTSI Grant Number UL1TR001881.

The negative emotions stemming from teens’ involvement with social media have been grabbing the headlines. But adults may also be experiencing depression because of their use of social media, suggests a new study.

Use of social media has been linked to increased anxiety and depression, as well as reduced well-being in adolescents and young adults, but similar associations in older adults have not been well studied, and longitudinal data are lacking, Ron H. Perlis, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their paper, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

To examine the association between social media use and depressive symptoms in older adults, the researchers reviewed data from 13 waves of an internet survey conducted each month between May 2020 and May 2021. The survey respondents included individuals aged 18 years and older, with a mean age of 56 years.

In the study the researchers analyzed responses from 5,395 individuals aged 18 years and older, with a mean age of 56 years. The study participants had minimal or no depressive symptoms at baseline, according to scores on the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

Overall, 8.9% of the respondents reported a worsening of 5 points or more on the PHQ-9 score on a follow-up survey, which was the primary outcome. Participants who reported using social media platforms Snapchat, Facebook, or TikTok were significantly more likely to report increased depressive symptoms, compared with those who did not report use of social media. The fully adjusted odds ratio was largest for Snapchat (aOR, 1.53), followed by Facebook (aOR, 1.42), and TikTok (aOR, 1.39).

Incorporating recent television and internet news terms, such as COVID-19, changed the association for Snapchat, for which the aOR decreased from 1.53 to 1.12 when news source terms were included in the survey. TikTok and Facebook associations remained similar.

When the results were further stratified by age, use of TikTok and Snapchat was associated with depressive symptoms in those aged 35 years and older, but not in those younger than 35 years. However, the opposite pattern emerged for Facebook; use was associated with depressive symptoms for individuals younger than 35 years, but not in those aged 35 years and older (aOR, 2.60 vs. aOR, 1.12).

The association between increased self-reported depressive symptoms and use of certain social media platforms was not impacted by baseline social support or face-to-face interactions, the researchers noted.
 

Family physician was surprised results weren’t more significant

In the current study, “I was honestly surprised the results weren’t more significant,” Mary Ann Dakkak, MD, of Boston University said in an interview. “That said, social media uses during the COVID pandemic may have been a necessary social outlet and form of connection for many people who were otherwise isolated.”

To still see a significant increase in depression when social media could have been a positive force may suggest a heavier impact during “normal” times, she added.

“It is not surprising that what we see in youth is shown among adults,” noted Dr. Dakkak, who was not involved with this study. “I always tell my patients that what is good for their children is good for the adults too, and vice versa.

“We expect to see outcomes of this on youth and adults who have been more isolated, who have used more screen time for learning, work, connection and boredom, in the near future,” she said. “The complex nature of why social media may have been used more heavily for connection during a time when in-person meetings were not possible may be a heavy confounder as the typical profile of heavy social media users may have differed during the COVID shutdowns.”
 

Psychiatrist: Balance benefits of social media with mental health risks

The current study was likely conducted before the recent news on “hidden” Facebook data and the implications that Facebook knew it was contributing to worsened mental health in teens, particularly around self-esteem, Jessica “Jessi” Gold, MD, a psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.

“If you look more specifically at other studies, however, the data around social media and mental health is constantly varied, with some showing benefits and some showing negatives, and none conclusively suggesting either way,” said Dr. Gold, who also was not involved with the new research. “More data are needed, especially longitudinally and on a broader age group, to understand social media’s impact on mental health over time.

“It is also even more important in the wake of COVID-19, as so many people have turned to social media as a primary source of social support and connection, and are using it even more than before,” she emphasized.

In the current study, “I think the most interesting information is that, for TikTok and Snapchat, the effects seemed to be more pronounced in those older than 35 years who used social media,” said Dr. Gold.

What this study leaves unanswered is “whether people who might develop depression are simply more prone to use social media in the first place, such as to seek out social support,” Dr. Gold said. “Also, we don’t know anything about how long they are using social media or what they are using it for, which to me is important for understanding more about the nuance of the relationship with mental health and social media.”
 

Experts advise clinicians to discuss social media with patients

This new research suggests that clinicians should be talking to their patients about how social media impacts their emotional reactions, as well as their sleep, Dr. Gold said.

“Patients should be asking themselves how they are feeling when they are on social media and not using it before sleep. They should also be considering time limits and how to effectively use social media while taking care of their mental health,” she said. This conversation between clinician and patient should be had with any patient of any age, who uses social media, not only with teenagers.

“This is also a conversation about moderation, and knowing that individuals may feel they benefit from social media, that they should balance these benefits with potential mental health risks,” she said.

“Studies such as this one shed light onto why social media consumption should be at least a point of discussion with our patients,” said Dr. Dakkak.

She advised clinicians to ask and listen to patients and their families when it comes to screen time habits. “Whenever I see a patient with mood symptoms, I ask about their habits – eating, sleeping, socializing, screen time – including phone time. I ask about the family dynamics around screen time.

“I’ve added screen time to my adolescent assessment. Discussing safe use of cell phones and social media can have a significant impact on adolescent behavior and wellbeing, and parents are very thankful for the help,” she said. “This study encourages us to add screen time to the assessments we do at all adult ages, especially if mood symptoms exist,” Dr. Dakkak emphasized.
 

Suggestions for future research

Dr. Dakkak added that more areas for research include the differences in the impact of social media use on content creators versus content consumers. Also, “I would like to see research using the real data of use, the times of use, interruptions in sleep and use, possible confounding variables to include exercise, presence of intimate relationship and school/job performance.”

Given the many confounding variables, more controlled studies are needed to examine mental health outcomes in use, how long people use social media, and the impact of interventions such as time limits, Dr. Gold said.

“We can’t ignore the benefits of social media, such as helping those with social anxiety, finding peer support, and normalizing mental health, and those factors need to be studied and measured more effectively as well, she said.
 

Take-home message

It is important to recognize that the current study represents a correlation, not causality, said Dr. Gold. In addressing the issues of how social media impact mental health, “as always, the hardest thing is that many people get their news from social media, and often get social support from social media, so there has to be a balance of not removing social media completely, but of helping people see how it affects their mental health and how to find balance.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to control for all potential confounders, the inability to assess the nature of social media use, and the lack of dose-response data, the researchers noted. Although the surveys in the current study were not specific to COVID-19, the effects of social media on depression may be specific to the content, and the findings may not generalize beyond the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Approximately two-thirds (66%) of the study participants identified as female, and 76% as White; 11% as Black; 6% as Asian; 5% as Hispanic; and 2% as American Indian or Alaska Native, Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian, or other.

The National Institute of Mental Health provided a grant for the study to Dr. Pelis, who disclosed consulting fees from various companies and equity in Psy Therapeutics. The study’s lead author also serves as associate editor for JAMA Network Open, but was not involved in the decision process for publication of this study. Dr. Gold disclosed conducting a conference for Johnson & Johnson about social media and health care workers, and was on the advisory council.

The negative emotions stemming from teens’ involvement with social media have been grabbing the headlines. But adults may also be experiencing depression because of their use of social media, suggests a new study.

Use of social media has been linked to increased anxiety and depression, as well as reduced well-being in adolescents and young adults, but similar associations in older adults have not been well studied, and longitudinal data are lacking, Ron H. Perlis, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their paper, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

To examine the association between social media use and depressive symptoms in older adults, the researchers reviewed data from 13 waves of an internet survey conducted each month between May 2020 and May 2021. The survey respondents included individuals aged 18 years and older, with a mean age of 56 years.

In the study the researchers analyzed responses from 5,395 individuals aged 18 years and older, with a mean age of 56 years. The study participants had minimal or no depressive symptoms at baseline, according to scores on the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

Overall, 8.9% of the respondents reported a worsening of 5 points or more on the PHQ-9 score on a follow-up survey, which was the primary outcome. Participants who reported using social media platforms Snapchat, Facebook, or TikTok were significantly more likely to report increased depressive symptoms, compared with those who did not report use of social media. The fully adjusted odds ratio was largest for Snapchat (aOR, 1.53), followed by Facebook (aOR, 1.42), and TikTok (aOR, 1.39).

Incorporating recent television and internet news terms, such as COVID-19, changed the association for Snapchat, for which the aOR decreased from 1.53 to 1.12 when news source terms were included in the survey. TikTok and Facebook associations remained similar.

When the results were further stratified by age, use of TikTok and Snapchat was associated with depressive symptoms in those aged 35 years and older, but not in those younger than 35 years. However, the opposite pattern emerged for Facebook; use was associated with depressive symptoms for individuals younger than 35 years, but not in those aged 35 years and older (aOR, 2.60 vs. aOR, 1.12).

The association between increased self-reported depressive symptoms and use of certain social media platforms was not impacted by baseline social support or face-to-face interactions, the researchers noted.
 

Family physician was surprised results weren’t more significant

In the current study, “I was honestly surprised the results weren’t more significant,” Mary Ann Dakkak, MD, of Boston University said in an interview. “That said, social media uses during the COVID pandemic may have been a necessary social outlet and form of connection for many people who were otherwise isolated.”

To still see a significant increase in depression when social media could have been a positive force may suggest a heavier impact during “normal” times, she added.

“It is not surprising that what we see in youth is shown among adults,” noted Dr. Dakkak, who was not involved with this study. “I always tell my patients that what is good for their children is good for the adults too, and vice versa.

“We expect to see outcomes of this on youth and adults who have been more isolated, who have used more screen time for learning, work, connection and boredom, in the near future,” she said. “The complex nature of why social media may have been used more heavily for connection during a time when in-person meetings were not possible may be a heavy confounder as the typical profile of heavy social media users may have differed during the COVID shutdowns.”
 

Psychiatrist: Balance benefits of social media with mental health risks

The current study was likely conducted before the recent news on “hidden” Facebook data and the implications that Facebook knew it was contributing to worsened mental health in teens, particularly around self-esteem, Jessica “Jessi” Gold, MD, a psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.

“If you look more specifically at other studies, however, the data around social media and mental health is constantly varied, with some showing benefits and some showing negatives, and none conclusively suggesting either way,” said Dr. Gold, who also was not involved with the new research. “More data are needed, especially longitudinally and on a broader age group, to understand social media’s impact on mental health over time.

“It is also even more important in the wake of COVID-19, as so many people have turned to social media as a primary source of social support and connection, and are using it even more than before,” she emphasized.

In the current study, “I think the most interesting information is that, for TikTok and Snapchat, the effects seemed to be more pronounced in those older than 35 years who used social media,” said Dr. Gold.

What this study leaves unanswered is “whether people who might develop depression are simply more prone to use social media in the first place, such as to seek out social support,” Dr. Gold said. “Also, we don’t know anything about how long they are using social media or what they are using it for, which to me is important for understanding more about the nuance of the relationship with mental health and social media.”
 

Experts advise clinicians to discuss social media with patients

This new research suggests that clinicians should be talking to their patients about how social media impacts their emotional reactions, as well as their sleep, Dr. Gold said.

“Patients should be asking themselves how they are feeling when they are on social media and not using it before sleep. They should also be considering time limits and how to effectively use social media while taking care of their mental health,” she said. This conversation between clinician and patient should be had with any patient of any age, who uses social media, not only with teenagers.

“This is also a conversation about moderation, and knowing that individuals may feel they benefit from social media, that they should balance these benefits with potential mental health risks,” she said.

“Studies such as this one shed light onto why social media consumption should be at least a point of discussion with our patients,” said Dr. Dakkak.

She advised clinicians to ask and listen to patients and their families when it comes to screen time habits. “Whenever I see a patient with mood symptoms, I ask about their habits – eating, sleeping, socializing, screen time – including phone time. I ask about the family dynamics around screen time.

“I’ve added screen time to my adolescent assessment. Discussing safe use of cell phones and social media can have a significant impact on adolescent behavior and wellbeing, and parents are very thankful for the help,” she said. “This study encourages us to add screen time to the assessments we do at all adult ages, especially if mood symptoms exist,” Dr. Dakkak emphasized.
 

Suggestions for future research

Dr. Dakkak added that more areas for research include the differences in the impact of social media use on content creators versus content consumers. Also, “I would like to see research using the real data of use, the times of use, interruptions in sleep and use, possible confounding variables to include exercise, presence of intimate relationship and school/job performance.”

Given the many confounding variables, more controlled studies are needed to examine mental health outcomes in use, how long people use social media, and the impact of interventions such as time limits, Dr. Gold said.

“We can’t ignore the benefits of social media, such as helping those with social anxiety, finding peer support, and normalizing mental health, and those factors need to be studied and measured more effectively as well, she said.
 

Take-home message

It is important to recognize that the current study represents a correlation, not causality, said Dr. Gold. In addressing the issues of how social media impact mental health, “as always, the hardest thing is that many people get their news from social media, and often get social support from social media, so there has to be a balance of not removing social media completely, but of helping people see how it affects their mental health and how to find balance.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to control for all potential confounders, the inability to assess the nature of social media use, and the lack of dose-response data, the researchers noted. Although the surveys in the current study were not specific to COVID-19, the effects of social media on depression may be specific to the content, and the findings may not generalize beyond the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Approximately two-thirds (66%) of the study participants identified as female, and 76% as White; 11% as Black; 6% as Asian; 5% as Hispanic; and 2% as American Indian or Alaska Native, Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian, or other.

The National Institute of Mental Health provided a grant for the study to Dr. Pelis, who disclosed consulting fees from various companies and equity in Psy Therapeutics. The study’s lead author also serves as associate editor for JAMA Network Open, but was not involved in the decision process for publication of this study. Dr. Gold disclosed conducting a conference for Johnson & Johnson about social media and health care workers, and was on the advisory council.

The negative emotions stemming from teens’ involvement with social media have been grabbing the headlines. But adults may also be experiencing depression because of their use of social media, suggests a new study.

Use of social media has been linked to increased anxiety and depression, as well as reduced well-being in adolescents and young adults, but similar associations in older adults have not been well studied, and longitudinal data are lacking, Ron H. Perlis, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their paper, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

To examine the association between social media use and depressive symptoms in older adults, the researchers reviewed data from 13 waves of an internet survey conducted each month between May 2020 and May 2021. The survey respondents included individuals aged 18 years and older, with a mean age of 56 years.

In the study the researchers analyzed responses from 5,395 individuals aged 18 years and older, with a mean age of 56 years. The study participants had minimal or no depressive symptoms at baseline, according to scores on the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

Overall, 8.9% of the respondents reported a worsening of 5 points or more on the PHQ-9 score on a follow-up survey, which was the primary outcome. Participants who reported using social media platforms Snapchat, Facebook, or TikTok were significantly more likely to report increased depressive symptoms, compared with those who did not report use of social media. The fully adjusted odds ratio was largest for Snapchat (aOR, 1.53), followed by Facebook (aOR, 1.42), and TikTok (aOR, 1.39).

Incorporating recent television and internet news terms, such as COVID-19, changed the association for Snapchat, for which the aOR decreased from 1.53 to 1.12 when news source terms were included in the survey. TikTok and Facebook associations remained similar.

When the results were further stratified by age, use of TikTok and Snapchat was associated with depressive symptoms in those aged 35 years and older, but not in those younger than 35 years. However, the opposite pattern emerged for Facebook; use was associated with depressive symptoms for individuals younger than 35 years, but not in those aged 35 years and older (aOR, 2.60 vs. aOR, 1.12).

The association between increased self-reported depressive symptoms and use of certain social media platforms was not impacted by baseline social support or face-to-face interactions, the researchers noted.
 

Family physician was surprised results weren’t more significant

In the current study, “I was honestly surprised the results weren’t more significant,” Mary Ann Dakkak, MD, of Boston University said in an interview. “That said, social media uses during the COVID pandemic may have been a necessary social outlet and form of connection for many people who were otherwise isolated.”

To still see a significant increase in depression when social media could have been a positive force may suggest a heavier impact during “normal” times, she added.

“It is not surprising that what we see in youth is shown among adults,” noted Dr. Dakkak, who was not involved with this study. “I always tell my patients that what is good for their children is good for the adults too, and vice versa.

“We expect to see outcomes of this on youth and adults who have been more isolated, who have used more screen time for learning, work, connection and boredom, in the near future,” she said. “The complex nature of why social media may have been used more heavily for connection during a time when in-person meetings were not possible may be a heavy confounder as the typical profile of heavy social media users may have differed during the COVID shutdowns.”
 

Psychiatrist: Balance benefits of social media with mental health risks

The current study was likely conducted before the recent news on “hidden” Facebook data and the implications that Facebook knew it was contributing to worsened mental health in teens, particularly around self-esteem, Jessica “Jessi” Gold, MD, a psychiatrist at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.

“If you look more specifically at other studies, however, the data around social media and mental health is constantly varied, with some showing benefits and some showing negatives, and none conclusively suggesting either way,” said Dr. Gold, who also was not involved with the new research. “More data are needed, especially longitudinally and on a broader age group, to understand social media’s impact on mental health over time.

“It is also even more important in the wake of COVID-19, as so many people have turned to social media as a primary source of social support and connection, and are using it even more than before,” she emphasized.

In the current study, “I think the most interesting information is that, for TikTok and Snapchat, the effects seemed to be more pronounced in those older than 35 years who used social media,” said Dr. Gold.

What this study leaves unanswered is “whether people who might develop depression are simply more prone to use social media in the first place, such as to seek out social support,” Dr. Gold said. “Also, we don’t know anything about how long they are using social media or what they are using it for, which to me is important for understanding more about the nuance of the relationship with mental health and social media.”
 

Experts advise clinicians to discuss social media with patients

This new research suggests that clinicians should be talking to their patients about how social media impacts their emotional reactions, as well as their sleep, Dr. Gold said.

“Patients should be asking themselves how they are feeling when they are on social media and not using it before sleep. They should also be considering time limits and how to effectively use social media while taking care of their mental health,” she said. This conversation between clinician and patient should be had with any patient of any age, who uses social media, not only with teenagers.

“This is also a conversation about moderation, and knowing that individuals may feel they benefit from social media, that they should balance these benefits with potential mental health risks,” she said.

“Studies such as this one shed light onto why social media consumption should be at least a point of discussion with our patients,” said Dr. Dakkak.

She advised clinicians to ask and listen to patients and their families when it comes to screen time habits. “Whenever I see a patient with mood symptoms, I ask about their habits – eating, sleeping, socializing, screen time – including phone time. I ask about the family dynamics around screen time.

“I’ve added screen time to my adolescent assessment. Discussing safe use of cell phones and social media can have a significant impact on adolescent behavior and wellbeing, and parents are very thankful for the help,” she said. “This study encourages us to add screen time to the assessments we do at all adult ages, especially if mood symptoms exist,” Dr. Dakkak emphasized.
 

Suggestions for future research

Dr. Dakkak added that more areas for research include the differences in the impact of social media use on content creators versus content consumers. Also, “I would like to see research using the real data of use, the times of use, interruptions in sleep and use, possible confounding variables to include exercise, presence of intimate relationship and school/job performance.”

Given the many confounding variables, more controlled studies are needed to examine mental health outcomes in use, how long people use social media, and the impact of interventions such as time limits, Dr. Gold said.

“We can’t ignore the benefits of social media, such as helping those with social anxiety, finding peer support, and normalizing mental health, and those factors need to be studied and measured more effectively as well, she said.
 

Take-home message

It is important to recognize that the current study represents a correlation, not causality, said Dr. Gold. In addressing the issues of how social media impact mental health, “as always, the hardest thing is that many people get their news from social media, and often get social support from social media, so there has to be a balance of not removing social media completely, but of helping people see how it affects their mental health and how to find balance.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to control for all potential confounders, the inability to assess the nature of social media use, and the lack of dose-response data, the researchers noted. Although the surveys in the current study were not specific to COVID-19, the effects of social media on depression may be specific to the content, and the findings may not generalize beyond the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Approximately two-thirds (66%) of the study participants identified as female, and 76% as White; 11% as Black; 6% as Asian; 5% as Hispanic; and 2% as American Indian or Alaska Native, Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian, or other.

The National Institute of Mental Health provided a grant for the study to Dr. Pelis, who disclosed consulting fees from various companies and equity in Psy Therapeutics. The study’s lead author also serves as associate editor for JAMA Network Open, but was not involved in the decision process for publication of this study. Dr. Gold disclosed conducting a conference for Johnson & Johnson about social media and health care workers, and was on the advisory council.

For the last 25 years, my colleagues have spent midday on Wednesdays at clinical rounds as a group – a time spent reviewing cases in perinatal psychiatry and important new scientific findings in the literature that inform patient care. At the start of the pandemic, my colleague Marlene Freeman, MD, and I started Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health to open our rounds to colleagues involved in multiple aspects of perinatal psychiatric care.

In my last column of 2021, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on some of what we have learned from 19 months of virtual rounding as a community of clinicians during the pandemic.

Telemedicine

Telemedicine allows us to see into the homes, relationships, and environments of our pregnant and postpartum women in a way we could never have imagined. It’s an opportunity to follow patients closely and intervene sooner rather than later, which might have been constrained by pre–COVID-19 typical scheduled office appointments. Telemedicine also gives us a clearer sense of some of the issues faced by underserved and marginalized populations of patients as we look to increase outreach to those groups.

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy

We now know much more about the potential for COVID-19 to cause complications during pregnancy than we did earlier in the pandemic. Although there may be a variety of factors fueling whether those in the general population decide to get vaccinated or not, there is no ambiguity in the message from our colleagues in obstetrics about the importance of vaccination for pregnant and postpartum women.

Bipolar disorder

Appropriate treatment for the spectrum of subtypes of bipolar disorder during pregnancy in the postpartum period is a frequent topic of discussion that colleagues raise. The pandemic has kindled clinical worsening for women with mood and anxiety disorders presumably driven by a host of factors ranging from shifts in medication adherence to sleep dysregulation to name just a few. Bipolar II disorder is underdiagnosed, yet there’s a growing appreciation of the morbidity associated with this subtype of bipolar disorder, which probably equals that of other groups on the bipolar spectrum such as those with bipolar I disorder.

Sustaining emotional well-being for bipolar women during pregnancy has never been more important than during the pandemic since psychiatric illness during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of risk for postpartum psychiatric disorder and the literature demonstrates that bipolar women are at particular risk for postpartum mood disorder. Historically, treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy was particularly problematic for clinicians and patients deciding about potential use of pharmacotherapy because options were finite; some treatments were known teratogens (valproate and to a far less extent lithium) and other newer treatments for bipolar disorder had sparse reproductive safety data (second-generation antipsychotics).

The message today is we have tools to safely treat bipolar disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period not available 10 years ago. Lithium is likely underused and can be safely used during pregnancy; we have vast data on the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar disorder. Clinicians should also know that lamotrigine is safe to use for pregnant women with bipolar disorder and the data show no increased risk for major malformations associated with first trimester exposure. In the case of atypical antipsychotics, which increasingly are used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, the take-home message is our comfort level using these medicines during pregnancy is growing given more data supporting that atypical antipsychotics are not major teratogens.

We’ve also learned polytherapy is the rule, not the exception. As my colleague Adele Viguera, MD, recently referenced in Virtual Rounds: Polytherapy is a small price to pay when the other side is sustaining euthymia in bipolar disorder.

What we’ve learned about treating perinatal mood disorder is it takes a village of clinicians and resources to treat and mitigate risk for recurrence. Nothing is more important than either ensuring or recapturing maternal euthymia. The flip side is a recent report that maternal self-harm/suicide is the leading cause of death in the first year postpartum. It is a charge to the medical community at large to screen for maternal psychiatric illness and, more importantly, to refer patients and ensure they receive adequate care during the postpartum period.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety and insomnia have been prevalent during the pandemic. Pregnancy-associated and postpartum anxiety have been underappreciated in lieu of focusing on perinatal depression, and we lack consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment of perinatal anxiety. Nonpharmacologic interventions have been extremely helpful for women whose anxiety is mild to moderate or as an adjunct to pharmacologic intervention for patients with more severe anxiety disorders.

Robust data on untreated anxiety during pregnancy suggest it leads to adverse outcomes. The reproductive safety rules above for depression also apply for anxiety. Here, we find a multimodal approach, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic, optimizes treatment for that population.

Clinicians have asked about other medicines many women take to treat anxiety including gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and benzodiazepines. Because of concerns about dependence and about using benzodiazepines during pregnancy, hydroxyzine is frequently used despite sparse reproductive safety data. Data on the effectiveness of hydroxyzine is even smaller and tends to be incomplete for patients with more moderate to severe anxiety.

Our comfort level in our center is greater for using benzodiazepines in patients who are clearly not at risk for substance use disorder because particularly when used with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, we find it optimizes treatment, mitigates symptoms, and attenuates suffering.
 

Insomnia

For insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) has the most data for effectiveness. Pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin and benzodiazepines are also frequently used as therapies for insomnia.

Concern about treating insomnia by perinatal psychiatrists comes from the knowledge that insomnia is so often comorbid with anxiety and depression. Psychiatrists must consider the possibility that complaints of insomnia are part of an underlying mood or anxiety disorder; it would be unfortunate to miss the underlying illness and only treat just symptoms of insomnia. That being said, circumscribed insomnia is not uncommon during pregnancy and needs to be managed accordingly.
 

Postpartum psychosis

It’s been noteworthy the extent to which rare cases of postpartum psychosis have been presented in our Virtual Round meetings during the pandemic. As discussed previously, postpartum psychosis is one of the most serious illnesses we treat in reproductive psychiatry.

The debate as to whether postpartum psychosis is a discrete circumscribed illness or an illness that recurs over time won’t be answered without better longitudinal data. What we can say is there is no role, particularly during the pandemic, for outpatient management of postpartum psychosis. The waxing and waning of psychotic symptoms, while reassuring when patients are compensated, are of great concern when patients are psychotic and not in a safe environment.

While there are no consensus guidelines for postpartum psychosis treatment, the data support use of agents such as lithium. Growing data exist on the use of atypical antipsychotics to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and get patients functioning as quickly as possible. Resolution of postpartum psychosis may take a considerable amount of time. During the pandemic, it is critical that appropriate resources be managed before patients leave the hospital, including support by family, open communication with community-based providers, and support groups.

Nineteen months into the pandemic, it seems we’ve learned much: how to leverage technology like telemedicine, and the upsides of folding in our multidisciplinary colleagues to reduce barriers around collaboration and learn from one another to provide the best care for our shared patients.

*This column was updated on Jan. 11. 2022.
 

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

For the last 25 years, my colleagues have spent midday on Wednesdays at clinical rounds as a group – a time spent reviewing cases in perinatal psychiatry and important new scientific findings in the literature that inform patient care. At the start of the pandemic, my colleague Marlene Freeman, MD, and I started Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health to open our rounds to colleagues involved in multiple aspects of perinatal psychiatric care.

In my last column of 2021, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on some of what we have learned from 19 months of virtual rounding as a community of clinicians during the pandemic.

Telemedicine

Telemedicine allows us to see into the homes, relationships, and environments of our pregnant and postpartum women in a way we could never have imagined. It’s an opportunity to follow patients closely and intervene sooner rather than later, which might have been constrained by pre–COVID-19 typical scheduled office appointments. Telemedicine also gives us a clearer sense of some of the issues faced by underserved and marginalized populations of patients as we look to increase outreach to those groups.

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy

We now know much more about the potential for COVID-19 to cause complications during pregnancy than we did earlier in the pandemic. Although there may be a variety of factors fueling whether those in the general population decide to get vaccinated or not, there is no ambiguity in the message from our colleagues in obstetrics about the importance of vaccination for pregnant and postpartum women.

Bipolar disorder

Appropriate treatment for the spectrum of subtypes of bipolar disorder during pregnancy in the postpartum period is a frequent topic of discussion that colleagues raise. The pandemic has kindled clinical worsening for women with mood and anxiety disorders presumably driven by a host of factors ranging from shifts in medication adherence to sleep dysregulation to name just a few. Bipolar II disorder is underdiagnosed, yet there’s a growing appreciation of the morbidity associated with this subtype of bipolar disorder, which probably equals that of other groups on the bipolar spectrum such as those with bipolar I disorder.

Sustaining emotional well-being for bipolar women during pregnancy has never been more important than during the pandemic since psychiatric illness during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of risk for postpartum psychiatric disorder and the literature demonstrates that bipolar women are at particular risk for postpartum mood disorder. Historically, treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy was particularly problematic for clinicians and patients deciding about potential use of pharmacotherapy because options were finite; some treatments were known teratogens (valproate and to a far less extent lithium) and other newer treatments for bipolar disorder had sparse reproductive safety data (second-generation antipsychotics).

The message today is we have tools to safely treat bipolar disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period not available 10 years ago. Lithium is likely underused and can be safely used during pregnancy; we have vast data on the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar disorder. Clinicians should also know that lamotrigine is safe to use for pregnant women with bipolar disorder and the data show no increased risk for major malformations associated with first trimester exposure. In the case of atypical antipsychotics, which increasingly are used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, the take-home message is our comfort level using these medicines during pregnancy is growing given more data supporting that atypical antipsychotics are not major teratogens.

We’ve also learned polytherapy is the rule, not the exception. As my colleague Adele Viguera, MD, recently referenced in Virtual Rounds: Polytherapy is a small price to pay when the other side is sustaining euthymia in bipolar disorder.

What we’ve learned about treating perinatal mood disorder is it takes a village of clinicians and resources to treat and mitigate risk for recurrence. Nothing is more important than either ensuring or recapturing maternal euthymia. The flip side is a recent report that maternal self-harm/suicide is the leading cause of death in the first year postpartum. It is a charge to the medical community at large to screen for maternal psychiatric illness and, more importantly, to refer patients and ensure they receive adequate care during the postpartum period.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety and insomnia have been prevalent during the pandemic. Pregnancy-associated and postpartum anxiety have been underappreciated in lieu of focusing on perinatal depression, and we lack consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment of perinatal anxiety. Nonpharmacologic interventions have been extremely helpful for women whose anxiety is mild to moderate or as an adjunct to pharmacologic intervention for patients with more severe anxiety disorders.

Robust data on untreated anxiety during pregnancy suggest it leads to adverse outcomes. The reproductive safety rules above for depression also apply for anxiety. Here, we find a multimodal approach, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic, optimizes treatment for that population.

Clinicians have asked about other medicines many women take to treat anxiety including gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and benzodiazepines. Because of concerns about dependence and about using benzodiazepines during pregnancy, hydroxyzine is frequently used despite sparse reproductive safety data. Data on the effectiveness of hydroxyzine is even smaller and tends to be incomplete for patients with more moderate to severe anxiety.

Our comfort level in our center is greater for using benzodiazepines in patients who are clearly not at risk for substance use disorder because particularly when used with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, we find it optimizes treatment, mitigates symptoms, and attenuates suffering.
 

Insomnia

For insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) has the most data for effectiveness. Pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin and benzodiazepines are also frequently used as therapies for insomnia.

Concern about treating insomnia by perinatal psychiatrists comes from the knowledge that insomnia is so often comorbid with anxiety and depression. Psychiatrists must consider the possibility that complaints of insomnia are part of an underlying mood or anxiety disorder; it would be unfortunate to miss the underlying illness and only treat just symptoms of insomnia. That being said, circumscribed insomnia is not uncommon during pregnancy and needs to be managed accordingly.
 

Postpartum psychosis

It’s been noteworthy the extent to which rare cases of postpartum psychosis have been presented in our Virtual Round meetings during the pandemic. As discussed previously, postpartum psychosis is one of the most serious illnesses we treat in reproductive psychiatry.

The debate as to whether postpartum psychosis is a discrete circumscribed illness or an illness that recurs over time won’t be answered without better longitudinal data. What we can say is there is no role, particularly during the pandemic, for outpatient management of postpartum psychosis. The waxing and waning of psychotic symptoms, while reassuring when patients are compensated, are of great concern when patients are psychotic and not in a safe environment.

While there are no consensus guidelines for postpartum psychosis treatment, the data support use of agents such as lithium. Growing data exist on the use of atypical antipsychotics to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and get patients functioning as quickly as possible. Resolution of postpartum psychosis may take a considerable amount of time. During the pandemic, it is critical that appropriate resources be managed before patients leave the hospital, including support by family, open communication with community-based providers, and support groups.

Nineteen months into the pandemic, it seems we’ve learned much: how to leverage technology like telemedicine, and the upsides of folding in our multidisciplinary colleagues to reduce barriers around collaboration and learn from one another to provide the best care for our shared patients.

*This column was updated on Jan. 11. 2022.
 

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

For the last 25 years, my colleagues have spent midday on Wednesdays at clinical rounds as a group – a time spent reviewing cases in perinatal psychiatry and important new scientific findings in the literature that inform patient care. At the start of the pandemic, my colleague Marlene Freeman, MD, and I started Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health to open our rounds to colleagues involved in multiple aspects of perinatal psychiatric care.

In my last column of 2021, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on some of what we have learned from 19 months of virtual rounding as a community of clinicians during the pandemic.

Telemedicine

Telemedicine allows us to see into the homes, relationships, and environments of our pregnant and postpartum women in a way we could never have imagined. It’s an opportunity to follow patients closely and intervene sooner rather than later, which might have been constrained by pre–COVID-19 typical scheduled office appointments. Telemedicine also gives us a clearer sense of some of the issues faced by underserved and marginalized populations of patients as we look to increase outreach to those groups.

COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy

We now know much more about the potential for COVID-19 to cause complications during pregnancy than we did earlier in the pandemic. Although there may be a variety of factors fueling whether those in the general population decide to get vaccinated or not, there is no ambiguity in the message from our colleagues in obstetrics about the importance of vaccination for pregnant and postpartum women.

Bipolar disorder

Appropriate treatment for the spectrum of subtypes of bipolar disorder during pregnancy in the postpartum period is a frequent topic of discussion that colleagues raise. The pandemic has kindled clinical worsening for women with mood and anxiety disorders presumably driven by a host of factors ranging from shifts in medication adherence to sleep dysregulation to name just a few. Bipolar II disorder is underdiagnosed, yet there’s a growing appreciation of the morbidity associated with this subtype of bipolar disorder, which probably equals that of other groups on the bipolar spectrum such as those with bipolar I disorder.

Sustaining emotional well-being for bipolar women during pregnancy has never been more important than during the pandemic since psychiatric illness during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of risk for postpartum psychiatric disorder and the literature demonstrates that bipolar women are at particular risk for postpartum mood disorder. Historically, treatment of bipolar disorder during pregnancy was particularly problematic for clinicians and patients deciding about potential use of pharmacotherapy because options were finite; some treatments were known teratogens (valproate and to a far less extent lithium) and other newer treatments for bipolar disorder had sparse reproductive safety data (second-generation antipsychotics).

The message today is we have tools to safely treat bipolar disorder during pregnancy and the postpartum period not available 10 years ago. Lithium is likely underused and can be safely used during pregnancy; we have vast data on the effectiveness of lithium in bipolar disorder. Clinicians should also know that lamotrigine is safe to use for pregnant women with bipolar disorder and the data show no increased risk for major malformations associated with first trimester exposure. In the case of atypical antipsychotics, which increasingly are used in the treatment of bipolar disorder, the take-home message is our comfort level using these medicines during pregnancy is growing given more data supporting that atypical antipsychotics are not major teratogens.

We’ve also learned polytherapy is the rule, not the exception. As my colleague Adele Viguera, MD, recently referenced in Virtual Rounds: Polytherapy is a small price to pay when the other side is sustaining euthymia in bipolar disorder.

What we’ve learned about treating perinatal mood disorder is it takes a village of clinicians and resources to treat and mitigate risk for recurrence. Nothing is more important than either ensuring or recapturing maternal euthymia. The flip side is a recent report that maternal self-harm/suicide is the leading cause of death in the first year postpartum. It is a charge to the medical community at large to screen for maternal psychiatric illness and, more importantly, to refer patients and ensure they receive adequate care during the postpartum period.
 

Anxiety

Anxiety and insomnia have been prevalent during the pandemic. Pregnancy-associated and postpartum anxiety have been underappreciated in lieu of focusing on perinatal depression, and we lack consensus regarding the most appropriate treatment of perinatal anxiety. Nonpharmacologic interventions have been extremely helpful for women whose anxiety is mild to moderate or as an adjunct to pharmacologic intervention for patients with more severe anxiety disorders.

Robust data on untreated anxiety during pregnancy suggest it leads to adverse outcomes. The reproductive safety rules above for depression also apply for anxiety. Here, we find a multimodal approach, both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic, optimizes treatment for that population.

Clinicians have asked about other medicines many women take to treat anxiety including gabapentin, hydroxyzine, and benzodiazepines. Because of concerns about dependence and about using benzodiazepines during pregnancy, hydroxyzine is frequently used despite sparse reproductive safety data. Data on the effectiveness of hydroxyzine is even smaller and tends to be incomplete for patients with more moderate to severe anxiety.

Our comfort level in our center is greater for using benzodiazepines in patients who are clearly not at risk for substance use disorder because particularly when used with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, we find it optimizes treatment, mitigates symptoms, and attenuates suffering.
 

Insomnia

For insomnia, cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) has the most data for effectiveness. Pharmacologic interventions such as gabapentin and benzodiazepines are also frequently used as therapies for insomnia.

Concern about treating insomnia by perinatal psychiatrists comes from the knowledge that insomnia is so often comorbid with anxiety and depression. Psychiatrists must consider the possibility that complaints of insomnia are part of an underlying mood or anxiety disorder; it would be unfortunate to miss the underlying illness and only treat just symptoms of insomnia. That being said, circumscribed insomnia is not uncommon during pregnancy and needs to be managed accordingly.
 

Postpartum psychosis

It’s been noteworthy the extent to which rare cases of postpartum psychosis have been presented in our Virtual Round meetings during the pandemic. As discussed previously, postpartum psychosis is one of the most serious illnesses we treat in reproductive psychiatry.

The debate as to whether postpartum psychosis is a discrete circumscribed illness or an illness that recurs over time won’t be answered without better longitudinal data. What we can say is there is no role, particularly during the pandemic, for outpatient management of postpartum psychosis. The waxing and waning of psychotic symptoms, while reassuring when patients are compensated, are of great concern when patients are psychotic and not in a safe environment.

While there are no consensus guidelines for postpartum psychosis treatment, the data support use of agents such as lithium. Growing data exist on the use of atypical antipsychotics to ameliorate psychotic symptoms and get patients functioning as quickly as possible. Resolution of postpartum psychosis may take a considerable amount of time. During the pandemic, it is critical that appropriate resources be managed before patients leave the hospital, including support by family, open communication with community-based providers, and support groups.

Nineteen months into the pandemic, it seems we’ve learned much: how to leverage technology like telemedicine, and the upsides of folding in our multidisciplinary colleagues to reduce barriers around collaboration and learn from one another to provide the best care for our shared patients.

*This column was updated on Jan. 11. 2022.
 

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

Adding lithium to usual care does not decrease the risk of suicide-related events in those with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD) who have survived a recent suicidal event, new research shows.

The results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in veterans showed no apparent advantage of the drug in preventing self-injury, suicide attempts, or urgent hospitalization to prevent suicide.

“Lithium is an important therapy for bipolar disorders and depression subsets. Our study indicates that, in patients who are actively followed and treated in a system of care that the VA provides, simply adding lithium to their existing management, including medications, is unlikely to be effective for preventing a broad range of suicide-related events,” study investigator Ryan Ferguson, MPH, ScD, Boston Cooperative Studies Coordinating Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, told this news organization.

The study was published online JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Surprising findings

The results were somewhat surprising, Dr. Ferguson added. “Lithium showed little or no effect in our study, compared to observational data and results from previous trials. Many clinicians and practice guidelines had assumed that lithium was an effective agent in preventing suicide,” he said.

However, the authors of an accompanying editorial urge caution in concluding that lithium has no antisuicidal effects.

This “rigorously designed and conducted trial has much to teach but cannot be taken as evidence that lithium treatment is ineffective regarding suicidal risk,” write Ross Baldessarini, MD, and Leonardo Tondo, MD, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Study participants were veterans with MDD or BD receiving care at one of 29 Veterans Administration medical centers who survived a recent suicide-related event. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned to receive oral extended-release lithium carbonate starting at 600 mg/day or matching placebo for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was time to the first repeated suicide-related event, including suicide attempts, interrupted attempts, hospitalizations specifically to prevent suicide, and deaths from suicide.

The trial was stopped for futility after 519 veterans (mean age, 42.8 years; 84% male) were randomly assigned to receive lithium (n = 255) or placebo (n = 264). At 3 months, mean lithium concentrations were 0.54 mEq/L for patients with BD and 0.46 mEq/L for those with MDD.

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.55; P = .61).

A total of 127 participants (24.5%) had suicide-related outcomes – 65 in the lithium group and 62 in the placebo group. One death occurred in the lithium group and three in the placebo group. There were no unanticipated drug-related safety concerns.
 

Caveats, cautionary notes

The researchers note that the study did not reach its original recruitment goal. “One of the barriers to recruitment was the perception of many of the clinicians caring for potential participants that the effectiveness of lithium was already established; in fact, this perception was supported by the VA/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline,” they point out.

They also note that most veterans in the study had depression rather than BD, which is the most common indication for lithium use. Most also had substance use disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, or both, which could influence outcomes.

As a result of small numbers, it wasn’t possible to evaluate outcomes for patients with BD, test whether outcomes differed among patients with BD and MDD, or assess whether comorbidities attenuated the effects of lithium.

The study’s protocol increased participants’ contacts with the VA, which also may have affected outcomes, the researchers note.

In addition, high rates of attrition and low rates of substantial adherence to lithium meant only about half (48.1%) of the study population achieved target serum lithium concentrations.

Editorial writers Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo note that the low circulating concentrations of lithium and the fact that adherence to assigned treatment was considered adequate in only 17% of participants are key limitations of the study.

“In general, controlled treatment trials aimed at detecting suicide preventive effects are difficult to design, perform, and interpret,” they point out.

Evidence supporting an antisuicidal effect of lithium treatment includes nearly three dozen observational trials that have shown fewer suicides or attempts with lithium treatment, as well as “marked, temporary” increases in suicidal behavior soon after stopping lithium treatment.

Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo note the current findings “cannot be taken as evidence that lithium lacks antisuicidal effects. An ironic final note is that recruiting participants to such trials may be made difficult by an evidently prevalent belief that the question of antisuicidal effects of lithium is already settled, which it certainly is not,” they write.

Dr. Ferguson “agrees that more work needs to be done to understand the antisuicidal effect of lithium.

The study received financial and material support from a grant from the Cooperative Studies Program, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ferguson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Their editorial was supported by grants from the Bruce J. Anderson Foundation, the McLean Private Donors Fund for Psychiatric Research, and the Aretaeus Foundation of Rome.

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

Adding lithium to usual care does not decrease the risk of suicide-related events in those with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD) who have survived a recent suicidal event, new research shows.

The results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in veterans showed no apparent advantage of the drug in preventing self-injury, suicide attempts, or urgent hospitalization to prevent suicide.

“Lithium is an important therapy for bipolar disorders and depression subsets. Our study indicates that, in patients who are actively followed and treated in a system of care that the VA provides, simply adding lithium to their existing management, including medications, is unlikely to be effective for preventing a broad range of suicide-related events,” study investigator Ryan Ferguson, MPH, ScD, Boston Cooperative Studies Coordinating Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, told this news organization.

The study was published online JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Surprising findings

The results were somewhat surprising, Dr. Ferguson added. “Lithium showed little or no effect in our study, compared to observational data and results from previous trials. Many clinicians and practice guidelines had assumed that lithium was an effective agent in preventing suicide,” he said.

However, the authors of an accompanying editorial urge caution in concluding that lithium has no antisuicidal effects.

This “rigorously designed and conducted trial has much to teach but cannot be taken as evidence that lithium treatment is ineffective regarding suicidal risk,” write Ross Baldessarini, MD, and Leonardo Tondo, MD, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Study participants were veterans with MDD or BD receiving care at one of 29 Veterans Administration medical centers who survived a recent suicide-related event. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned to receive oral extended-release lithium carbonate starting at 600 mg/day or matching placebo for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was time to the first repeated suicide-related event, including suicide attempts, interrupted attempts, hospitalizations specifically to prevent suicide, and deaths from suicide.

The trial was stopped for futility after 519 veterans (mean age, 42.8 years; 84% male) were randomly assigned to receive lithium (n = 255) or placebo (n = 264). At 3 months, mean lithium concentrations were 0.54 mEq/L for patients with BD and 0.46 mEq/L for those with MDD.

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.55; P = .61).

A total of 127 participants (24.5%) had suicide-related outcomes – 65 in the lithium group and 62 in the placebo group. One death occurred in the lithium group and three in the placebo group. There were no unanticipated drug-related safety concerns.
 

Caveats, cautionary notes

The researchers note that the study did not reach its original recruitment goal. “One of the barriers to recruitment was the perception of many of the clinicians caring for potential participants that the effectiveness of lithium was already established; in fact, this perception was supported by the VA/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline,” they point out.

They also note that most veterans in the study had depression rather than BD, which is the most common indication for lithium use. Most also had substance use disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, or both, which could influence outcomes.

As a result of small numbers, it wasn’t possible to evaluate outcomes for patients with BD, test whether outcomes differed among patients with BD and MDD, or assess whether comorbidities attenuated the effects of lithium.

The study’s protocol increased participants’ contacts with the VA, which also may have affected outcomes, the researchers note.

In addition, high rates of attrition and low rates of substantial adherence to lithium meant only about half (48.1%) of the study population achieved target serum lithium concentrations.

Editorial writers Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo note that the low circulating concentrations of lithium and the fact that adherence to assigned treatment was considered adequate in only 17% of participants are key limitations of the study.

“In general, controlled treatment trials aimed at detecting suicide preventive effects are difficult to design, perform, and interpret,” they point out.

Evidence supporting an antisuicidal effect of lithium treatment includes nearly three dozen observational trials that have shown fewer suicides or attempts with lithium treatment, as well as “marked, temporary” increases in suicidal behavior soon after stopping lithium treatment.

Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo note the current findings “cannot be taken as evidence that lithium lacks antisuicidal effects. An ironic final note is that recruiting participants to such trials may be made difficult by an evidently prevalent belief that the question of antisuicidal effects of lithium is already settled, which it certainly is not,” they write.

Dr. Ferguson “agrees that more work needs to be done to understand the antisuicidal effect of lithium.

The study received financial and material support from a grant from the Cooperative Studies Program, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ferguson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Their editorial was supported by grants from the Bruce J. Anderson Foundation, the McLean Private Donors Fund for Psychiatric Research, and the Aretaeus Foundation of Rome.

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

Adding lithium to usual care does not decrease the risk of suicide-related events in those with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD) who have survived a recent suicidal event, new research shows.

The results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in veterans showed no apparent advantage of the drug in preventing self-injury, suicide attempts, or urgent hospitalization to prevent suicide.

“Lithium is an important therapy for bipolar disorders and depression subsets. Our study indicates that, in patients who are actively followed and treated in a system of care that the VA provides, simply adding lithium to their existing management, including medications, is unlikely to be effective for preventing a broad range of suicide-related events,” study investigator Ryan Ferguson, MPH, ScD, Boston Cooperative Studies Coordinating Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, told this news organization.

The study was published online JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Surprising findings

The results were somewhat surprising, Dr. Ferguson added. “Lithium showed little or no effect in our study, compared to observational data and results from previous trials. Many clinicians and practice guidelines had assumed that lithium was an effective agent in preventing suicide,” he said.

However, the authors of an accompanying editorial urge caution in concluding that lithium has no antisuicidal effects.

This “rigorously designed and conducted trial has much to teach but cannot be taken as evidence that lithium treatment is ineffective regarding suicidal risk,” write Ross Baldessarini, MD, and Leonardo Tondo, MD, department of psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Study participants were veterans with MDD or BD receiving care at one of 29 Veterans Administration medical centers who survived a recent suicide-related event. In addition to usual care, they were randomly assigned to receive oral extended-release lithium carbonate starting at 600 mg/day or matching placebo for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was time to the first repeated suicide-related event, including suicide attempts, interrupted attempts, hospitalizations specifically to prevent suicide, and deaths from suicide.

The trial was stopped for futility after 519 veterans (mean age, 42.8 years; 84% male) were randomly assigned to receive lithium (n = 255) or placebo (n = 264). At 3 months, mean lithium concentrations were 0.54 mEq/L for patients with BD and 0.46 mEq/L for those with MDD.

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.55; P = .61).

A total of 127 participants (24.5%) had suicide-related outcomes – 65 in the lithium group and 62 in the placebo group. One death occurred in the lithium group and three in the placebo group. There were no unanticipated drug-related safety concerns.
 

Caveats, cautionary notes

The researchers note that the study did not reach its original recruitment goal. “One of the barriers to recruitment was the perception of many of the clinicians caring for potential participants that the effectiveness of lithium was already established; in fact, this perception was supported by the VA/U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline,” they point out.

They also note that most veterans in the study had depression rather than BD, which is the most common indication for lithium use. Most also had substance use disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, or both, which could influence outcomes.

As a result of small numbers, it wasn’t possible to evaluate outcomes for patients with BD, test whether outcomes differed among patients with BD and MDD, or assess whether comorbidities attenuated the effects of lithium.

The study’s protocol increased participants’ contacts with the VA, which also may have affected outcomes, the researchers note.

In addition, high rates of attrition and low rates of substantial adherence to lithium meant only about half (48.1%) of the study population achieved target serum lithium concentrations.

Editorial writers Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo note that the low circulating concentrations of lithium and the fact that adherence to assigned treatment was considered adequate in only 17% of participants are key limitations of the study.

“In general, controlled treatment trials aimed at detecting suicide preventive effects are difficult to design, perform, and interpret,” they point out.

Evidence supporting an antisuicidal effect of lithium treatment includes nearly three dozen observational trials that have shown fewer suicides or attempts with lithium treatment, as well as “marked, temporary” increases in suicidal behavior soon after stopping lithium treatment.

Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo note the current findings “cannot be taken as evidence that lithium lacks antisuicidal effects. An ironic final note is that recruiting participants to such trials may be made difficult by an evidently prevalent belief that the question of antisuicidal effects of lithium is already settled, which it certainly is not,” they write.

Dr. Ferguson “agrees that more work needs to be done to understand the antisuicidal effect of lithium.

The study received financial and material support from a grant from the Cooperative Studies Program, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Ferguson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

Dr. Baldessarini and Dr. Tondo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Their editorial was supported by grants from the Bruce J. Anderson Foundation, the McLean Private Donors Fund for Psychiatric Research, and the Aretaeus Foundation of Rome.

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

Federal health officials have outlined a five-part plan to improve and protect the mental health and well-being of America’s health care workers (HCWs) and create sustainable change for the next generation of HCWs.

“It’s long past time for us to care for the people who care for all of us and address burnout in our health care workers,” U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, said during a webinar hosted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“My hope is that, going forward, we will be able to embark on this journey together to create a health care system, a health care environment, a country where we can not only provide extraordinary care to all those who need it, but where we can take good care of those who have sacrificed so much and make sure that they are well,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Burnout is not selective

There are 20 million HCWs in the United States, and no one is immune from burnout, said NIOSH Director John Howard, MD.

He noted that from June through Sept. of 2020 – the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – 93% of HCWs experienced some degree of stress, with 22% reporting moderate depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Looking at subsets of HCWs, a recent survey showed that one in five nurses contemplated leaving the profession because of insufficient staffing, intensity of workload, emotional and physical toll of the job, and lack of support, Dr. Howard noted.

Physician burnout was a significant issue even before the pandemic, with about 79% of physicians reporting burnout. In the fall of 2020, 69% reported depression and “a very alarming figure” of 13% reported having thoughts of suicide, Dr. Howard said.

Women in health care jobs are especially vulnerable to burnout; 76% of health care jobs are held by women and 64% of physicians that feel burned-out are women, according to federal data. 

“We have significant work to do in shoring up the safety and health of women in health care,” Dr. Howard said.

Mental health is also suffering among local and state public health workers. In a recent CDC survey of 26,000 of these workers, 53% reported symptoms of at least one mental health condition in the past 2 weeks.

“That is really an alarming proportion of public health workers who are as vital and essential as nurses and doctors are in our health care system,” Dr. Howard said.
 

Primary prevention approach

To tackle the burnout crisis, NIOSH plans to:

• Take a deep dive into understanding the personal, social, and economic burdens HCWs face on a daily basis.
• Assimilate the evidence and create a repository of best practices, resources, and interventions.
• Partner with key stakeholders, including the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the Joint Commission.
• Identify and adapt tools for the health care workplace that emphasize stress reduction.

NIOSH also plans to “generate awareness through a national, multidimensional social marketing campaign to get the word out about stress so health care workers don’t feel so alone,” Dr. Howard said.

This five-part plan takes a primary prevention approach to identifying and eliminating risk factors for burnout and stress, he added.

Secondary prevention, “when damage has already been done and you’re trying to save a health care worker who is suffering from a mental health issue, that’s a lot harder than taking a good look at what you can do to organizational practices that lead to health care workers’ stress and burnout,” Dr. Howard said.

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

Federal health officials have outlined a five-part plan to improve and protect the mental health and well-being of America’s health care workers (HCWs) and create sustainable change for the next generation of HCWs.

“It’s long past time for us to care for the people who care for all of us and address burnout in our health care workers,” U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, said during a webinar hosted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“My hope is that, going forward, we will be able to embark on this journey together to create a health care system, a health care environment, a country where we can not only provide extraordinary care to all those who need it, but where we can take good care of those who have sacrificed so much and make sure that they are well,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Burnout is not selective

There are 20 million HCWs in the United States, and no one is immune from burnout, said NIOSH Director John Howard, MD.

He noted that from June through Sept. of 2020 – the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – 93% of HCWs experienced some degree of stress, with 22% reporting moderate depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Looking at subsets of HCWs, a recent survey showed that one in five nurses contemplated leaving the profession because of insufficient staffing, intensity of workload, emotional and physical toll of the job, and lack of support, Dr. Howard noted.

Physician burnout was a significant issue even before the pandemic, with about 79% of physicians reporting burnout. In the fall of 2020, 69% reported depression and “a very alarming figure” of 13% reported having thoughts of suicide, Dr. Howard said.

Women in health care jobs are especially vulnerable to burnout; 76% of health care jobs are held by women and 64% of physicians that feel burned-out are women, according to federal data. 

“We have significant work to do in shoring up the safety and health of women in health care,” Dr. Howard said.

Mental health is also suffering among local and state public health workers. In a recent CDC survey of 26,000 of these workers, 53% reported symptoms of at least one mental health condition in the past 2 weeks.

“That is really an alarming proportion of public health workers who are as vital and essential as nurses and doctors are in our health care system,” Dr. Howard said.
 

Primary prevention approach

To tackle the burnout crisis, NIOSH plans to:

• Take a deep dive into understanding the personal, social, and economic burdens HCWs face on a daily basis.
• Assimilate the evidence and create a repository of best practices, resources, and interventions.
• Partner with key stakeholders, including the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the Joint Commission.
• Identify and adapt tools for the health care workplace that emphasize stress reduction.

NIOSH also plans to “generate awareness through a national, multidimensional social marketing campaign to get the word out about stress so health care workers don’t feel so alone,” Dr. Howard said.

This five-part plan takes a primary prevention approach to identifying and eliminating risk factors for burnout and stress, he added.

Secondary prevention, “when damage has already been done and you’re trying to save a health care worker who is suffering from a mental health issue, that’s a lot harder than taking a good look at what you can do to organizational practices that lead to health care workers’ stress and burnout,” Dr. Howard said.

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

Federal health officials have outlined a five-part plan to improve and protect the mental health and well-being of America’s health care workers (HCWs) and create sustainable change for the next generation of HCWs.

“It’s long past time for us to care for the people who care for all of us and address burnout in our health care workers,” U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, said during a webinar hosted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“My hope is that, going forward, we will be able to embark on this journey together to create a health care system, a health care environment, a country where we can not only provide extraordinary care to all those who need it, but where we can take good care of those who have sacrificed so much and make sure that they are well,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Burnout is not selective

There are 20 million HCWs in the United States, and no one is immune from burnout, said NIOSH Director John Howard, MD.

He noted that from June through Sept. of 2020 – the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – 93% of HCWs experienced some degree of stress, with 22% reporting moderate depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Looking at subsets of HCWs, a recent survey showed that one in five nurses contemplated leaving the profession because of insufficient staffing, intensity of workload, emotional and physical toll of the job, and lack of support, Dr. Howard noted.

Physician burnout was a significant issue even before the pandemic, with about 79% of physicians reporting burnout. In the fall of 2020, 69% reported depression and “a very alarming figure” of 13% reported having thoughts of suicide, Dr. Howard said.

Women in health care jobs are especially vulnerable to burnout; 76% of health care jobs are held by women and 64% of physicians that feel burned-out are women, according to federal data. 

“We have significant work to do in shoring up the safety and health of women in health care,” Dr. Howard said.

Mental health is also suffering among local and state public health workers. In a recent CDC survey of 26,000 of these workers, 53% reported symptoms of at least one mental health condition in the past 2 weeks.

“That is really an alarming proportion of public health workers who are as vital and essential as nurses and doctors are in our health care system,” Dr. Howard said.
 

Primary prevention approach

To tackle the burnout crisis, NIOSH plans to:

• Take a deep dive into understanding the personal, social, and economic burdens HCWs face on a daily basis.
• Assimilate the evidence and create a repository of best practices, resources, and interventions.
• Partner with key stakeholders, including the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the Joint Commission.
• Identify and adapt tools for the health care workplace that emphasize stress reduction.

NIOSH also plans to “generate awareness through a national, multidimensional social marketing campaign to get the word out about stress so health care workers don’t feel so alone,” Dr. Howard said.

This five-part plan takes a primary prevention approach to identifying and eliminating risk factors for burnout and stress, he added.

Secondary prevention, “when damage has already been done and you’re trying to save a health care worker who is suffering from a mental health issue, that’s a lot harder than taking a good look at what you can do to organizational practices that lead to health care workers’ stress and burnout,” Dr. Howard said.

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

Joel Bervell recalls leaving his hometown of Seattle for the East Coast after being accepted into Yale University.

Still getting accustomed to the big move, Mr. Bervell, who had breezed through high school with straight As, went to see his chemistry professor for advice after getting a low grade on a test.

“He took one look at me and said, ‘Oh, if you’re on the football team, you don’t need to worry about it. So many people from the football team come into the class and end up dropping out, so if you need to drop this class, you can,’ ” Mr. Bervell says.

Mr. Bervell, who is Black, was not on the football team, nor did he receive a sports scholarship of any kind.

“For that professor to make an assumption of me, which to me felt like it was based on my race, made me less likely to want to go into a science field, where I felt like I was being judged before I even had a chance to prove myself,” Mr. Bervell says.

Discrimination can lead to particularly harmful outcomes for young adults entering college or starting off their careers, according to a new University of California, Los Angeles, study.

Researchers studied health data on 1,834 Americans ages 18-28 over a 10-year span. Findings show that the more instances of discrimination they experienced – including ageism, sexism, and racism – the more likely they were to face mental and behavioral struggles, like mental illness, drug use, severe psychological distress, and poor overall health.

Mr. Bervell, now 26, says he feels lucky that growing up, he was taught healthy ways to process his feelings and emotions.

“Instead of taking that and internalizing it, I said, ‘how can I use this to prove him wrong?’” he says. “Does that mean I need to work harder or does that mean I need to find a different mentor? Surround myself with different people?”

Mr. Bervell is currently a 3rd-year medical student at Washington State University.

When he’s not at the hospital seeing patients, you can find him educating his nearly 340,000 TikTok followers on topics like racial bias in medicine.
 

Acknowledge the impact

Most Black people don’t tie psychological distress to acts of racism, according to Rheeda Walker, PhD, psychology professor at the University of Houston and author of “The Unapologetic Guide to Black Mental Health” (Oakland, Calif.: New Harbinger Publications, 2020).

Many Black people even normalize it.

“Individuals deal with it [racism] as just another thing, like paying bills, going to work, and studying for class and not as the overwhelming psychological burden that it is,” says Dr. Walker.

And despite what some may say, racial discrimination is not merely “a thing of the past,” Dr. Walker says.

“Instead, discrimination has shifted form from more overt forms of discrimination to less obvious microaggression,” she says.

It’s also critical that young adults are taught how to deal with racism to avoid the risk of “internalizing that they deserve to be mistreated, and/or that they have to work twice as hard to overcome racism,” says Dr. Walker.

“Both scenarios can escalate hopelessness and worry, psychological features of depression and anxiety, respectively,” Dr. Walker says.
 

Embrace your emotions

Known around the office as “a big teddy bear,” Frederick Herman, a mortgage loan originator based in Charlotte, Va., was coaching a newer employee on how to make sales calls, a common practice in his line of work.

He says a day or 2 days later, his manager let him know that he had made an employee “very uncomfortable” by intimidating them while they were on the phone. Mr. Herman, 29, was told to watch his “aggressive” behavior.

“I’m a bigger Black man. I’m like 6’2, 300 lbs., somewhat muscular. So, if me talking or trying to coach her came off as intimidating, then there’s nothing that I could do or say differently than I was already doing to make her not feel intimidated,” Mr. Herman says.

“If a big teddy bear is now intimidating to you, that just tells me everything I need to know.”

This wasn’t the first time Mr. Herman had been reprimanded for being “too aggressive” or “showing off” when trying to help colleagues at work.

“I’ve had other experiences at work where I may not share my ideas, or I may get super anxious,” says Mr. Herman, a Black man of Haitian descent.

It’s important to allow yourself to feel your emotions after facing acts of discrimination, says Ebony Butler, PhD, a licensed psychologist and creator of My Therapy Cards, a card deck tailored for men, women, and teens of color, with self-care and reflection prompts.

This is a practice called “self-validation” and can reduce the tendency to blame oneself for the mistreatment, says Dr. Butler.

Mr. Herman, 29, says that he recently signed up for therapy to work through his struggles with anxiety.

Relaxation techniques, like grounding and mindfulness, can also be helpful, says Dr. Butler.

“Some example ways to practice grounding are immersing oneself in nature, walking bare feet on the ground, lying on the floor, practicing slow, deep breathing, or engaging the senses,” she says.

“When we are grounded and present, we can better manage our responses and plan our action steps.”
 

Utilize unique

If you find yourself in a racially charged school or workplace setting, don’t be intimidated, says Wendy Osefo, PhD, education professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, political commentator, and television personality.

Dr. Osefo made history in 2016 as the first Black woman to earn a PhD in public affairs/community development from Rutgers University.

“Your attitude should be that, no matter how different you might be, you belong, and you earned the right to occupy this space. You’re not less qualified than others who surround you,” she says.

Dr. Ofeso is also CEO of The 1954 Equity Project, an organization that gives minority students tools to succeed in higher education – like mentorships, peer support groups, and other resources and services – all while remaining their authentic selves.

No matter how uncomfortable it might be, staying true to who you are vs. conforming to the masses pays off, says Dr. Osefo.

“Being different is unique and allows you to bring a new and fresh perspective into an environment,” she says.

“Leaning into this uniqueness builds a level of confidence that will aid in your ability to be successful.”

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

Joel Bervell recalls leaving his hometown of Seattle for the East Coast after being accepted into Yale University.

Still getting accustomed to the big move, Mr. Bervell, who had breezed through high school with straight As, went to see his chemistry professor for advice after getting a low grade on a test.

“He took one look at me and said, ‘Oh, if you’re on the football team, you don’t need to worry about it. So many people from the football team come into the class and end up dropping out, so if you need to drop this class, you can,’ ” Mr. Bervell says.

Mr. Bervell, who is Black, was not on the football team, nor did he receive a sports scholarship of any kind.

“For that professor to make an assumption of me, which to me felt like it was based on my race, made me less likely to want to go into a science field, where I felt like I was being judged before I even had a chance to prove myself,” Mr. Bervell says.

Discrimination can lead to particularly harmful outcomes for young adults entering college or starting off their careers, according to a new University of California, Los Angeles, study.

Researchers studied health data on 1,834 Americans ages 18-28 over a 10-year span. Findings show that the more instances of discrimination they experienced – including ageism, sexism, and racism – the more likely they were to face mental and behavioral struggles, like mental illness, drug use, severe psychological distress, and poor overall health.

Mr. Bervell, now 26, says he feels lucky that growing up, he was taught healthy ways to process his feelings and emotions.

“Instead of taking that and internalizing it, I said, ‘how can I use this to prove him wrong?’” he says. “Does that mean I need to work harder or does that mean I need to find a different mentor? Surround myself with different people?”

Mr. Bervell is currently a 3rd-year medical student at Washington State University.

When he’s not at the hospital seeing patients, you can find him educating his nearly 340,000 TikTok followers on topics like racial bias in medicine.
 

Acknowledge the impact

Most Black people don’t tie psychological distress to acts of racism, according to Rheeda Walker, PhD, psychology professor at the University of Houston and author of “The Unapologetic Guide to Black Mental Health” (Oakland, Calif.: New Harbinger Publications, 2020).

Many Black people even normalize it.

“Individuals deal with it [racism] as just another thing, like paying bills, going to work, and studying for class and not as the overwhelming psychological burden that it is,” says Dr. Walker.

And despite what some may say, racial discrimination is not merely “a thing of the past,” Dr. Walker says.

“Instead, discrimination has shifted form from more overt forms of discrimination to less obvious microaggression,” she says.

It’s also critical that young adults are taught how to deal with racism to avoid the risk of “internalizing that they deserve to be mistreated, and/or that they have to work twice as hard to overcome racism,” says Dr. Walker.

“Both scenarios can escalate hopelessness and worry, psychological features of depression and anxiety, respectively,” Dr. Walker says.
 

Embrace your emotions

Known around the office as “a big teddy bear,” Frederick Herman, a mortgage loan originator based in Charlotte, Va., was coaching a newer employee on how to make sales calls, a common practice in his line of work.

He says a day or 2 days later, his manager let him know that he had made an employee “very uncomfortable” by intimidating them while they were on the phone. Mr. Herman, 29, was told to watch his “aggressive” behavior.

“I’m a bigger Black man. I’m like 6’2, 300 lbs., somewhat muscular. So, if me talking or trying to coach her came off as intimidating, then there’s nothing that I could do or say differently than I was already doing to make her not feel intimidated,” Mr. Herman says.

“If a big teddy bear is now intimidating to you, that just tells me everything I need to know.”

This wasn’t the first time Mr. Herman had been reprimanded for being “too aggressive” or “showing off” when trying to help colleagues at work.

“I’ve had other experiences at work where I may not share my ideas, or I may get super anxious,” says Mr. Herman, a Black man of Haitian descent.

It’s important to allow yourself to feel your emotions after facing acts of discrimination, says Ebony Butler, PhD, a licensed psychologist and creator of My Therapy Cards, a card deck tailored for men, women, and teens of color, with self-care and reflection prompts.

This is a practice called “self-validation” and can reduce the tendency to blame oneself for the mistreatment, says Dr. Butler.

Mr. Herman, 29, says that he recently signed up for therapy to work through his struggles with anxiety.

Relaxation techniques, like grounding and mindfulness, can also be helpful, says Dr. Butler.

“Some example ways to practice grounding are immersing oneself in nature, walking bare feet on the ground, lying on the floor, practicing slow, deep breathing, or engaging the senses,” she says.

“When we are grounded and present, we can better manage our responses and plan our action steps.”
 

Utilize unique

If you find yourself in a racially charged school or workplace setting, don’t be intimidated, says Wendy Osefo, PhD, education professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, political commentator, and television personality.

Dr. Osefo made history in 2016 as the first Black woman to earn a PhD in public affairs/community development from Rutgers University.

“Your attitude should be that, no matter how different you might be, you belong, and you earned the right to occupy this space. You’re not less qualified than others who surround you,” she says.

Dr. Ofeso is also CEO of The 1954 Equity Project, an organization that gives minority students tools to succeed in higher education – like mentorships, peer support groups, and other resources and services – all while remaining their authentic selves.

No matter how uncomfortable it might be, staying true to who you are vs. conforming to the masses pays off, says Dr. Osefo.

“Being different is unique and allows you to bring a new and fresh perspective into an environment,” she says.

“Leaning into this uniqueness builds a level of confidence that will aid in your ability to be successful.”

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

Joel Bervell recalls leaving his hometown of Seattle for the East Coast after being accepted into Yale University.

Still getting accustomed to the big move, Mr. Bervell, who had breezed through high school with straight As, went to see his chemistry professor for advice after getting a low grade on a test.

“He took one look at me and said, ‘Oh, if you’re on the football team, you don’t need to worry about it. So many people from the football team come into the class and end up dropping out, so if you need to drop this class, you can,’ ” Mr. Bervell says.

Mr. Bervell, who is Black, was not on the football team, nor did he receive a sports scholarship of any kind.

“For that professor to make an assumption of me, which to me felt like it was based on my race, made me less likely to want to go into a science field, where I felt like I was being judged before I even had a chance to prove myself,” Mr. Bervell says.

Discrimination can lead to particularly harmful outcomes for young adults entering college or starting off their careers, according to a new University of California, Los Angeles, study.

Researchers studied health data on 1,834 Americans ages 18-28 over a 10-year span. Findings show that the more instances of discrimination they experienced – including ageism, sexism, and racism – the more likely they were to face mental and behavioral struggles, like mental illness, drug use, severe psychological distress, and poor overall health.

Mr. Bervell, now 26, says he feels lucky that growing up, he was taught healthy ways to process his feelings and emotions.

“Instead of taking that and internalizing it, I said, ‘how can I use this to prove him wrong?’” he says. “Does that mean I need to work harder or does that mean I need to find a different mentor? Surround myself with different people?”

Mr. Bervell is currently a 3rd-year medical student at Washington State University.

When he’s not at the hospital seeing patients, you can find him educating his nearly 340,000 TikTok followers on topics like racial bias in medicine.
 

Acknowledge the impact

Most Black people don’t tie psychological distress to acts of racism, according to Rheeda Walker, PhD, psychology professor at the University of Houston and author of “The Unapologetic Guide to Black Mental Health” (Oakland, Calif.: New Harbinger Publications, 2020).

Many Black people even normalize it.

“Individuals deal with it [racism] as just another thing, like paying bills, going to work, and studying for class and not as the overwhelming psychological burden that it is,” says Dr. Walker.

And despite what some may say, racial discrimination is not merely “a thing of the past,” Dr. Walker says.

“Instead, discrimination has shifted form from more overt forms of discrimination to less obvious microaggression,” she says.

It’s also critical that young adults are taught how to deal with racism to avoid the risk of “internalizing that they deserve to be mistreated, and/or that they have to work twice as hard to overcome racism,” says Dr. Walker.

“Both scenarios can escalate hopelessness and worry, psychological features of depression and anxiety, respectively,” Dr. Walker says.
 

Embrace your emotions

Known around the office as “a big teddy bear,” Frederick Herman, a mortgage loan originator based in Charlotte, Va., was coaching a newer employee on how to make sales calls, a common practice in his line of work.

He says a day or 2 days later, his manager let him know that he had made an employee “very uncomfortable” by intimidating them while they were on the phone. Mr. Herman, 29, was told to watch his “aggressive” behavior.

“I’m a bigger Black man. I’m like 6’2, 300 lbs., somewhat muscular. So, if me talking or trying to coach her came off as intimidating, then there’s nothing that I could do or say differently than I was already doing to make her not feel intimidated,” Mr. Herman says.

“If a big teddy bear is now intimidating to you, that just tells me everything I need to know.”

This wasn’t the first time Mr. Herman had been reprimanded for being “too aggressive” or “showing off” when trying to help colleagues at work.

“I’ve had other experiences at work where I may not share my ideas, or I may get super anxious,” says Mr. Herman, a Black man of Haitian descent.

It’s important to allow yourself to feel your emotions after facing acts of discrimination, says Ebony Butler, PhD, a licensed psychologist and creator of My Therapy Cards, a card deck tailored for men, women, and teens of color, with self-care and reflection prompts.

This is a practice called “self-validation” and can reduce the tendency to blame oneself for the mistreatment, says Dr. Butler.

Mr. Herman, 29, says that he recently signed up for therapy to work through his struggles with anxiety.

Relaxation techniques, like grounding and mindfulness, can also be helpful, says Dr. Butler.

“Some example ways to practice grounding are immersing oneself in nature, walking bare feet on the ground, lying on the floor, practicing slow, deep breathing, or engaging the senses,” she says.

“When we are grounded and present, we can better manage our responses and plan our action steps.”
 

Utilize unique

If you find yourself in a racially charged school or workplace setting, don’t be intimidated, says Wendy Osefo, PhD, education professor at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, political commentator, and television personality.

Dr. Osefo made history in 2016 as the first Black woman to earn a PhD in public affairs/community development from Rutgers University.

“Your attitude should be that, no matter how different you might be, you belong, and you earned the right to occupy this space. You’re not less qualified than others who surround you,” she says.

Dr. Ofeso is also CEO of The 1954 Equity Project, an organization that gives minority students tools to succeed in higher education – like mentorships, peer support groups, and other resources and services – all while remaining their authentic selves.

No matter how uncomfortable it might be, staying true to who you are vs. conforming to the masses pays off, says Dr. Osefo.

“Being different is unique and allows you to bring a new and fresh perspective into an environment,” she says.

“Leaning into this uniqueness builds a level of confidence that will aid in your ability to be successful.”

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

Mounting evidence suggests selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with lower COVID-19 severity.

A large analysis of health records shows patients with COVID-19 taking an SSRI were significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than a matched control group.

Data-driven approach

Investigators analyzed data from the Cerner Real World Data COVID-19 deidentified electronic health records database of 490,373 patients with COVID-19 across 87 health centers, including 3,401 patients who were prescribed SSRIs.

When compared with matched patients with COVID-19 taking SSRIs, patients taking fluoxetine were 28% less likely to die (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; adjusted P = .03) and those taking either fluoxetine or fluvoxamine were 26% less likely to die (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; adjusted P = .04) versus those not on these medications.

Patients with COVID-19 taking any kind of SSRI were 8% less likely to die than the matched controls (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; adjusted P = .03).

“We observed a statistically significant reduction in mortality of COVID-19 patients who were already taking SSRIs. This is a demonstration of a data-driven approach for identifying new uses for existing drugs,” Dr. Sirota said in an interview.

“Our study simply shows an association between SSRIs and COVID-19 outcomes and doesn’t investigate the mechanism of action of why the drugs might work. Additional clinical trials need to be carried out before these drugs can be used in patients going forward,” she cautioned.

“There is currently an open-label trial investigating fluoxetine to reduce intubation and death after COVID-19. To our knowledge, there are no phase 3 randomized controlled trials taking place or planned,” study investigator Tomiko Oskotsky, MD, with UCSF, told this news organization.

Urgent need

The current results “confirm and expand on prior findings from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies suggesting that certain SSRI antidepressants, including fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, could be beneficial against COVID-19,” Nicolas Hoertel, MD, PhD, MPH, with Paris University and Corentin-Celton Hospital, France, writes in a linked editorial.

Dr. Hoertel notes that the anti-inflammatory properties of SSRIs may underlie their potential action against COVID-19, and other potential mechanisms may include reduction in platelet aggregation, decreased mast cell degranulation, increased melatonin levels, interference with endolysosomal viral trafficking, and antioxidant activities.

“Because most of the world’s population is currently unvaccinated and the COVID-19 pandemic is still active, effective treatments of COVID-19 – especially those that are easy to use, show good tolerability, can be administered orally, and have widespread availability at low cost to allow their use in resource-poor countries – are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity,” Dr. Hoertel points out.

“In this context, short-term use of fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, if proven effective, should be considered as a potential means of reaching this goal,” he adds.

The study was supported by the Christopher Hess Research Fund and, in part, by UCSF and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sirota has reported serving as a scientific advisor at Aria Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hoertel has reported being listed as an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, filed by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and receiving consulting fees and nonfinancial support from Lundbeck.

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

Mounting evidence suggests selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with lower COVID-19 severity.

A large analysis of health records shows patients with COVID-19 taking an SSRI were significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than a matched control group.

Data-driven approach

Investigators analyzed data from the Cerner Real World Data COVID-19 deidentified electronic health records database of 490,373 patients with COVID-19 across 87 health centers, including 3,401 patients who were prescribed SSRIs.

When compared with matched patients with COVID-19 taking SSRIs, patients taking fluoxetine were 28% less likely to die (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; adjusted P = .03) and those taking either fluoxetine or fluvoxamine were 26% less likely to die (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; adjusted P = .04) versus those not on these medications.

Patients with COVID-19 taking any kind of SSRI were 8% less likely to die than the matched controls (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; adjusted P = .03).

“We observed a statistically significant reduction in mortality of COVID-19 patients who were already taking SSRIs. This is a demonstration of a data-driven approach for identifying new uses for existing drugs,” Dr. Sirota said in an interview.

“Our study simply shows an association between SSRIs and COVID-19 outcomes and doesn’t investigate the mechanism of action of why the drugs might work. Additional clinical trials need to be carried out before these drugs can be used in patients going forward,” she cautioned.

“There is currently an open-label trial investigating fluoxetine to reduce intubation and death after COVID-19. To our knowledge, there are no phase 3 randomized controlled trials taking place or planned,” study investigator Tomiko Oskotsky, MD, with UCSF, told this news organization.

Urgent need

The current results “confirm and expand on prior findings from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies suggesting that certain SSRI antidepressants, including fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, could be beneficial against COVID-19,” Nicolas Hoertel, MD, PhD, MPH, with Paris University and Corentin-Celton Hospital, France, writes in a linked editorial.

Dr. Hoertel notes that the anti-inflammatory properties of SSRIs may underlie their potential action against COVID-19, and other potential mechanisms may include reduction in platelet aggregation, decreased mast cell degranulation, increased melatonin levels, interference with endolysosomal viral trafficking, and antioxidant activities.

“Because most of the world’s population is currently unvaccinated and the COVID-19 pandemic is still active, effective treatments of COVID-19 – especially those that are easy to use, show good tolerability, can be administered orally, and have widespread availability at low cost to allow their use in resource-poor countries – are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity,” Dr. Hoertel points out.

“In this context, short-term use of fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, if proven effective, should be considered as a potential means of reaching this goal,” he adds.

The study was supported by the Christopher Hess Research Fund and, in part, by UCSF and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sirota has reported serving as a scientific advisor at Aria Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hoertel has reported being listed as an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, filed by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and receiving consulting fees and nonfinancial support from Lundbeck.

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

Mounting evidence suggests selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are associated with lower COVID-19 severity.

A large analysis of health records shows patients with COVID-19 taking an SSRI were significantly less likely to die of COVID-19 than a matched control group.

Data-driven approach

Investigators analyzed data from the Cerner Real World Data COVID-19 deidentified electronic health records database of 490,373 patients with COVID-19 across 87 health centers, including 3,401 patients who were prescribed SSRIs.

When compared with matched patients with COVID-19 taking SSRIs, patients taking fluoxetine were 28% less likely to die (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97; adjusted P = .03) and those taking either fluoxetine or fluvoxamine were 26% less likely to die (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.99; adjusted P = .04) versus those not on these medications.

Patients with COVID-19 taking any kind of SSRI were 8% less likely to die than the matched controls (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; adjusted P = .03).

“We observed a statistically significant reduction in mortality of COVID-19 patients who were already taking SSRIs. This is a demonstration of a data-driven approach for identifying new uses for existing drugs,” Dr. Sirota said in an interview.

“Our study simply shows an association between SSRIs and COVID-19 outcomes and doesn’t investigate the mechanism of action of why the drugs might work. Additional clinical trials need to be carried out before these drugs can be used in patients going forward,” she cautioned.

“There is currently an open-label trial investigating fluoxetine to reduce intubation and death after COVID-19. To our knowledge, there are no phase 3 randomized controlled trials taking place or planned,” study investigator Tomiko Oskotsky, MD, with UCSF, told this news organization.

Urgent need

The current results “confirm and expand on prior findings from observational, preclinical, and clinical studies suggesting that certain SSRI antidepressants, including fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, could be beneficial against COVID-19,” Nicolas Hoertel, MD, PhD, MPH, with Paris University and Corentin-Celton Hospital, France, writes in a linked editorial.

Dr. Hoertel notes that the anti-inflammatory properties of SSRIs may underlie their potential action against COVID-19, and other potential mechanisms may include reduction in platelet aggregation, decreased mast cell degranulation, increased melatonin levels, interference with endolysosomal viral trafficking, and antioxidant activities.

“Because most of the world’s population is currently unvaccinated and the COVID-19 pandemic is still active, effective treatments of COVID-19 – especially those that are easy to use, show good tolerability, can be administered orally, and have widespread availability at low cost to allow their use in resource-poor countries – are urgently needed to reduce COVID-19-related mortality and morbidity,” Dr. Hoertel points out.

“In this context, short-term use of fluoxetine or fluvoxamine, if proven effective, should be considered as a potential means of reaching this goal,” he adds.

The study was supported by the Christopher Hess Research Fund and, in part, by UCSF and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sirota has reported serving as a scientific advisor at Aria Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hoertel has reported being listed as an inventor on a patent application related to methods of treating COVID-19, filed by Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, and receiving consulting fees and nonfinancial support from Lundbeck.

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