Mental Health

You read “thoughts of being better off dead” on your next patient’s PHQ-9 screen results and break into a sweat. After eliciting the teen’s realistic suicide plan and intent you send him to the ED with his parent for crisis mental health evaluation. When you call the family that evening to follow-up you hear that he was discharged with a “mental health counseling” appointment next week.

Have you done enough to prevent this child from dying at his own hand? I imagine that this haunts you as it does me. It is terrifying to know that, of youth with suicidal ideation, over one-third attempt suicide, most within 1-2 years, and 20%-40% do so without having had a plan.

We now know that certain kinds of psychotherapy have evidence for preventing subsequent suicide in teens at high risk due to suicidal ideation and past attempts. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has the best evidence including its subtypes for youth with relevant histories: for both suicide and substance use (integrated, or I-CBT), trauma focused (TF-CBT), traumatic grief (CTG-CBT), and CBT-I, for the potent risk factor of insomnia. The other treatment shown to reduce risk is dialectical behavioral therapy–adolescent (DBT-A) focused on strengthening skills in interpersonal effectiveness, mindfulness, distress tolerance, and emotion regulation adapted to youth by adding family therapy and multifamily skills training. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) adapted for suicidal and self-harming adolescents (IPT-SA) also has evidence.

Some school programs have shown moderate efficacy, for example (IPT-A-IN) addresses the social and interpersonal context, and Youth Aware of Mental Health, a school curriculum to increase knowledge, help-seeking, and ways of coping with depression and suicidal behavior, that cut suicide attempts by half.

You may be able to recommend, refer to, or check to see if a youth can be provided one of the above therapies with best evidence but getting any counseling at all can be hard and some, especially minority families may decline formal interventions. Any therapy – CBT, DBT, or IPT – acceptable to the youth and family can be helpful. You can often determine if the key components are being provided by asking the teen what they are working on in therapy.

It is clear that checking in regularly with teens who have been through a suicide crisis is crucial to ensure that they continue in therapy long and consistently enough, that the family is involved in treatment, and that they are taught emotion regulation, distress tolerance, and safety planning. Warm, consistent parenting, good parent-child communication, and monitoring are protective factors but also skills that can be boosted to reduce future risk of suicide. When there is family dysfunction, conflict, or weak relationships, getting help for family relationships such as through attachment-based family therapy (ABFT) or family cognitive behavioral therapy is a priority. When bereavement or parental depression is contributing to youth suicidal thoughts, addressing these specifically can reduce suicide risk.

Sometimes family members, even with counseling, are not the best supporters for a teen in pain. When youths nominated their own support team to be informed about risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment plans and to stay in contact weekly there was a 6.6-fold lower risk of death than for nonsupported youth.

But how much of this evidence-based intervention can you ensure from your position in primary care? Refer if you can but regular supportive contacts alone reduce risk so you, trusted staff, school counselors, or even the now more available teletherapists may help. You can work with your patient to fill out a written commitment-to-safety plan (e.g. U. Colorado, CHADIS) of strategies they can use when having suicidal thoughts such as self-distractions, problem-solving, listing things they are looking forward to, things to do to get their mind off suicidal thoughts, and selecting support people to understand their situation with whom to be in regular contact. Any plan needs to take into account how understanding, supportive, and available the family is, factors you are most likely to be able to judge from your ongoing relationship, but that immediate risk may change. Contact within 48 hours, check-in within 1-2 weeks, and provision of crisis hotline information are essential actions.

Recommending home safety is part of routine anticipatory guidance but reduction of lethal means is essential in these cases. Guns are the most lethal method of suicide but discussing safe gun storage has been shown to be more effective than arguing in vain for gun removal. Medication overdose, a common means, can be reduced by not prescribing tricyclics (ineffective and more lethal), and advising parents to lock up all household medications.

You can ask about and coach teens on how to avoid the hazards of participating in online discussion groups, bullying, and cyberbullying (with risk for both perpetrator and victim), all risk factors for suicide. Managing insomnia can improve depression and is within your skills. While pediatricians can’t treat the suicide risk factors of family poverty, unemployment, or loss of culture/identity, we can refer affected families to community resources.

Repeated suicide screens can help but are imperfect, so listen to the child or parent for risk signs such as the youth having self-reported worthlessness, low self-esteem, speaking negatively about self, anhedonia, or poor emotion regulation. Children with impulsive aggression, often familial, are at special risk of suicide. This trait, while more common in ADHD, is not confined to that condition. You can help by optimizing medical management of impulsivity, when appropriate.

Most youth who attempt suicide have one or more mental health diagnoses, particularly major depressive disorder (MDD), eating disorder, ADHD, conduct, or intermittent explosive disorder. When MDD is comorbid with anxiety, suicides increase 9.5-fold. Children on the autism spectrum are more likely to have been bullied and eight times more likely to commit suicide. LGBTQ youth are five times more often bullied and are at high risk for suicide. The more common issues of school failure or substance use also confer risk. While we do our best caring for children with these conditions we may not be thinking about, screening, or monitoring for their suicide risk. It may be important for us to explain that, despite black-box warnings, rates of SSRI prescribing for depression are inversely related to suicides.

Child maltreatment is the highest risk factor for suicide (population attributed risk, or PAR, 9.6%-14.5%), particularly sexual misuse. All together, adverse childhood experiences have a PAR for suicide of 80%. Continuity allows you to monitor for developmental times when distress from past experiences often reemerges, e.g., puberty, dating onset, or divorce. Getting consent and sharing these highly sensitive but potentially triggering factors as well as prior diagnoses with a newly assigned therapist can be helpful to prioritize treatments to prevent a suicide attempt, because they may be difficult to elicit and timeliness is essential.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

Brent DA. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;58(1):25-35.

Cha CB et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018;59(4):460-82.

You read “thoughts of being better off dead” on your next patient’s PHQ-9 screen results and break into a sweat. After eliciting the teen’s realistic suicide plan and intent you send him to the ED with his parent for crisis mental health evaluation. When you call the family that evening to follow-up you hear that he was discharged with a “mental health counseling” appointment next week.

Have you done enough to prevent this child from dying at his own hand? I imagine that this haunts you as it does me. It is terrifying to know that, of youth with suicidal ideation, over one-third attempt suicide, most within 1-2 years, and 20%-40% do so without having had a plan.

We now know that certain kinds of psychotherapy have evidence for preventing subsequent suicide in teens at high risk due to suicidal ideation and past attempts. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has the best evidence including its subtypes for youth with relevant histories: for both suicide and substance use (integrated, or I-CBT), trauma focused (TF-CBT), traumatic grief (CTG-CBT), and CBT-I, for the potent risk factor of insomnia. The other treatment shown to reduce risk is dialectical behavioral therapy–adolescent (DBT-A) focused on strengthening skills in interpersonal effectiveness, mindfulness, distress tolerance, and emotion regulation adapted to youth by adding family therapy and multifamily skills training. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) adapted for suicidal and self-harming adolescents (IPT-SA) also has evidence.

Some school programs have shown moderate efficacy, for example (IPT-A-IN) addresses the social and interpersonal context, and Youth Aware of Mental Health, a school curriculum to increase knowledge, help-seeking, and ways of coping with depression and suicidal behavior, that cut suicide attempts by half.

You may be able to recommend, refer to, or check to see if a youth can be provided one of the above therapies with best evidence but getting any counseling at all can be hard and some, especially minority families may decline formal interventions. Any therapy – CBT, DBT, or IPT – acceptable to the youth and family can be helpful. You can often determine if the key components are being provided by asking the teen what they are working on in therapy.

It is clear that checking in regularly with teens who have been through a suicide crisis is crucial to ensure that they continue in therapy long and consistently enough, that the family is involved in treatment, and that they are taught emotion regulation, distress tolerance, and safety planning. Warm, consistent parenting, good parent-child communication, and monitoring are protective factors but also skills that can be boosted to reduce future risk of suicide. When there is family dysfunction, conflict, or weak relationships, getting help for family relationships such as through attachment-based family therapy (ABFT) or family cognitive behavioral therapy is a priority. When bereavement or parental depression is contributing to youth suicidal thoughts, addressing these specifically can reduce suicide risk.

Sometimes family members, even with counseling, are not the best supporters for a teen in pain. When youths nominated their own support team to be informed about risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment plans and to stay in contact weekly there was a 6.6-fold lower risk of death than for nonsupported youth.

But how much of this evidence-based intervention can you ensure from your position in primary care? Refer if you can but regular supportive contacts alone reduce risk so you, trusted staff, school counselors, or even the now more available teletherapists may help. You can work with your patient to fill out a written commitment-to-safety plan (e.g. U. Colorado, CHADIS) of strategies they can use when having suicidal thoughts such as self-distractions, problem-solving, listing things they are looking forward to, things to do to get their mind off suicidal thoughts, and selecting support people to understand their situation with whom to be in regular contact. Any plan needs to take into account how understanding, supportive, and available the family is, factors you are most likely to be able to judge from your ongoing relationship, but that immediate risk may change. Contact within 48 hours, check-in within 1-2 weeks, and provision of crisis hotline information are essential actions.

Recommending home safety is part of routine anticipatory guidance but reduction of lethal means is essential in these cases. Guns are the most lethal method of suicide but discussing safe gun storage has been shown to be more effective than arguing in vain for gun removal. Medication overdose, a common means, can be reduced by not prescribing tricyclics (ineffective and more lethal), and advising parents to lock up all household medications.

You can ask about and coach teens on how to avoid the hazards of participating in online discussion groups, bullying, and cyberbullying (with risk for both perpetrator and victim), all risk factors for suicide. Managing insomnia can improve depression and is within your skills. While pediatricians can’t treat the suicide risk factors of family poverty, unemployment, or loss of culture/identity, we can refer affected families to community resources.

Repeated suicide screens can help but are imperfect, so listen to the child or parent for risk signs such as the youth having self-reported worthlessness, low self-esteem, speaking negatively about self, anhedonia, or poor emotion regulation. Children with impulsive aggression, often familial, are at special risk of suicide. This trait, while more common in ADHD, is not confined to that condition. You can help by optimizing medical management of impulsivity, when appropriate.

Most youth who attempt suicide have one or more mental health diagnoses, particularly major depressive disorder (MDD), eating disorder, ADHD, conduct, or intermittent explosive disorder. When MDD is comorbid with anxiety, suicides increase 9.5-fold. Children on the autism spectrum are more likely to have been bullied and eight times more likely to commit suicide. LGBTQ youth are five times more often bullied and are at high risk for suicide. The more common issues of school failure or substance use also confer risk. While we do our best caring for children with these conditions we may not be thinking about, screening, or monitoring for their suicide risk. It may be important for us to explain that, despite black-box warnings, rates of SSRI prescribing for depression are inversely related to suicides.

Child maltreatment is the highest risk factor for suicide (population attributed risk, or PAR, 9.6%-14.5%), particularly sexual misuse. All together, adverse childhood experiences have a PAR for suicide of 80%. Continuity allows you to monitor for developmental times when distress from past experiences often reemerges, e.g., puberty, dating onset, or divorce. Getting consent and sharing these highly sensitive but potentially triggering factors as well as prior diagnoses with a newly assigned therapist can be helpful to prioritize treatments to prevent a suicide attempt, because they may be difficult to elicit and timeliness is essential.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

Brent DA. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;58(1):25-35.

Cha CB et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018;59(4):460-82.

You read “thoughts of being better off dead” on your next patient’s PHQ-9 screen results and break into a sweat. After eliciting the teen’s realistic suicide plan and intent you send him to the ED with his parent for crisis mental health evaluation. When you call the family that evening to follow-up you hear that he was discharged with a “mental health counseling” appointment next week.

Have you done enough to prevent this child from dying at his own hand? I imagine that this haunts you as it does me. It is terrifying to know that, of youth with suicidal ideation, over one-third attempt suicide, most within 1-2 years, and 20%-40% do so without having had a plan.

We now know that certain kinds of psychotherapy have evidence for preventing subsequent suicide in teens at high risk due to suicidal ideation and past attempts. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has the best evidence including its subtypes for youth with relevant histories: for both suicide and substance use (integrated, or I-CBT), trauma focused (TF-CBT), traumatic grief (CTG-CBT), and CBT-I, for the potent risk factor of insomnia. The other treatment shown to reduce risk is dialectical behavioral therapy–adolescent (DBT-A) focused on strengthening skills in interpersonal effectiveness, mindfulness, distress tolerance, and emotion regulation adapted to youth by adding family therapy and multifamily skills training. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) adapted for suicidal and self-harming adolescents (IPT-SA) also has evidence.

Some school programs have shown moderate efficacy, for example (IPT-A-IN) addresses the social and interpersonal context, and Youth Aware of Mental Health, a school curriculum to increase knowledge, help-seeking, and ways of coping with depression and suicidal behavior, that cut suicide attempts by half.

You may be able to recommend, refer to, or check to see if a youth can be provided one of the above therapies with best evidence but getting any counseling at all can be hard and some, especially minority families may decline formal interventions. Any therapy – CBT, DBT, or IPT – acceptable to the youth and family can be helpful. You can often determine if the key components are being provided by asking the teen what they are working on in therapy.

It is clear that checking in regularly with teens who have been through a suicide crisis is crucial to ensure that they continue in therapy long and consistently enough, that the family is involved in treatment, and that they are taught emotion regulation, distress tolerance, and safety planning. Warm, consistent parenting, good parent-child communication, and monitoring are protective factors but also skills that can be boosted to reduce future risk of suicide. When there is family dysfunction, conflict, or weak relationships, getting help for family relationships such as through attachment-based family therapy (ABFT) or family cognitive behavioral therapy is a priority. When bereavement or parental depression is contributing to youth suicidal thoughts, addressing these specifically can reduce suicide risk.

Sometimes family members, even with counseling, are not the best supporters for a teen in pain. When youths nominated their own support team to be informed about risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment plans and to stay in contact weekly there was a 6.6-fold lower risk of death than for nonsupported youth.

But how much of this evidence-based intervention can you ensure from your position in primary care? Refer if you can but regular supportive contacts alone reduce risk so you, trusted staff, school counselors, or even the now more available teletherapists may help. You can work with your patient to fill out a written commitment-to-safety plan (e.g. U. Colorado, CHADIS) of strategies they can use when having suicidal thoughts such as self-distractions, problem-solving, listing things they are looking forward to, things to do to get their mind off suicidal thoughts, and selecting support people to understand their situation with whom to be in regular contact. Any plan needs to take into account how understanding, supportive, and available the family is, factors you are most likely to be able to judge from your ongoing relationship, but that immediate risk may change. Contact within 48 hours, check-in within 1-2 weeks, and provision of crisis hotline information are essential actions.

Recommending home safety is part of routine anticipatory guidance but reduction of lethal means is essential in these cases. Guns are the most lethal method of suicide but discussing safe gun storage has been shown to be more effective than arguing in vain for gun removal. Medication overdose, a common means, can be reduced by not prescribing tricyclics (ineffective and more lethal), and advising parents to lock up all household medications.

You can ask about and coach teens on how to avoid the hazards of participating in online discussion groups, bullying, and cyberbullying (with risk for both perpetrator and victim), all risk factors for suicide. Managing insomnia can improve depression and is within your skills. While pediatricians can’t treat the suicide risk factors of family poverty, unemployment, or loss of culture/identity, we can refer affected families to community resources.

Repeated suicide screens can help but are imperfect, so listen to the child or parent for risk signs such as the youth having self-reported worthlessness, low self-esteem, speaking negatively about self, anhedonia, or poor emotion regulation. Children with impulsive aggression, often familial, are at special risk of suicide. This trait, while more common in ADHD, is not confined to that condition. You can help by optimizing medical management of impulsivity, when appropriate.

Most youth who attempt suicide have one or more mental health diagnoses, particularly major depressive disorder (MDD), eating disorder, ADHD, conduct, or intermittent explosive disorder. When MDD is comorbid with anxiety, suicides increase 9.5-fold. Children on the autism spectrum are more likely to have been bullied and eight times more likely to commit suicide. LGBTQ youth are five times more often bullied and are at high risk for suicide. The more common issues of school failure or substance use also confer risk. While we do our best caring for children with these conditions we may not be thinking about, screening, or monitoring for their suicide risk. It may be important for us to explain that, despite black-box warnings, rates of SSRI prescribing for depression are inversely related to suicides.

Child maltreatment is the highest risk factor for suicide (population attributed risk, or PAR, 9.6%-14.5%), particularly sexual misuse. All together, adverse childhood experiences have a PAR for suicide of 80%. Continuity allows you to monitor for developmental times when distress from past experiences often reemerges, e.g., puberty, dating onset, or divorce. Getting consent and sharing these highly sensitive but potentially triggering factors as well as prior diagnoses with a newly assigned therapist can be helpful to prioritize treatments to prevent a suicide attempt, because they may be difficult to elicit and timeliness is essential.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

References

Brent DA. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;58(1):25-35.

Cha CB et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018;59(4):460-82.

Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.

MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.

MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Growing interest

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.

The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.

In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.

The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.

Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
 

‘Dramatic improvement’

Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.

The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.

Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”

Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”

In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
 

Carefully controlled

Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.

In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.

Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.

There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.

The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”

However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
 

‘On the right track’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”

“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.

He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”

The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.

The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.

MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.

MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Growing interest

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.

The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.

In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.

The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.

Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
 

‘Dramatic improvement’

Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.

The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.

Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”

Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”

In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
 

Carefully controlled

Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.

In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.

Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.

There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.

The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”

However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
 

‘On the right track’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”

“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.

He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”

The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.

The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) to integrative psychotherapy may significantly improve symptoms and well-being for patients with severe posttraumatic stress disorder, including those with the dissociative subtype, new research suggests.

MAPP1 is the first phase 3 randomized controlled trial of MDMA-assisted therapy in this population. Participants who received the active treatment showed greater improvement in PTSD symptoms, mood, and empathy in comparison with participants who received placebo.

MDMA was “extremely effective, particularly for a subpopulation that ordinarily does not respond well to conventional treatment,” study coinvestigator Bessel van der Kolk, MD, professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Growing interest

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in the potential of MDMA for the treatment of PTSD, particularly because failure rates with most available evidence-based treatments have been relatively high.

As previously reported by this news organization, in 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the trial design of Dr. van der Kolk’s and colleagues’ MAPP1 study after granting MDMA breakthrough designation.

The MAPP1 investigators assessed 90 patients with PTSD (mean age, 41 years; 77% White; 66% women) from 50 sites. For the majority of patients (84%), trauma history was developmental. “In other words, trauma [occurred] very early in life, usually at the hands of their own caregivers,” Dr. van der Kolk noted.

In addition, 18% of the patients were veterans, and 12% had combat exposure. The average duration of PTSD before enrollment was 18 years. All patients underwent screening and three preparatory psychotherapy sessions at enrollment.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive MDMA 80 mg or 120 mg (n = 46) or placebo (n = 44) followed by three integrative psychotherapy sessions lasting a total of 8 hours. A supplemental dose of 40 or 60 mg of MDMA could be administered from 1.5 to 2 hours after the first dose.

The patients stayed in the laboratory on the evening of the treatment session and attended a debriefing the next morning. The session was repeated a month later and again a month after that. In between, patients had telephone contact with the raters, who were blinded to the treatment received.

Follow-up assessments were conducted 2 months after the third treatment session and again at 12 months. The primary outcome measure was change in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM 5 (CAPS-5) score from baseline.
 

‘Dramatic improvement’

Results showed that both the MDMA and placebo groups experienced a statistically significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, “but MDMA had a dramatically significant improvement, with an effect size of over 0.9,” Dr. van der Kolk said.

The MDMA group also reported enhanced mood and well-being, increased responsiveness to emotional and sensory stimuli, a greater sense of closeness to other people, and a greater feeling of empathy.

Patients also reported having heightened openness, “and clearly the issue of empathy for themselves and others was a very large part of the process,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“But for me, the most interesting part of the study is that the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale had no effect,” he noted. In other words, “the amount of childhood adverse experiences did not predict outcomes, which was very surprising because usually those patients are very treatment resistant.”

Dr. van der Kolk added that the dissociative subtype of PTSD was first described in the DSM-5 and that patients are “notoriously unresponsive to most unconventional treatments.”

In the current study, 13 patients met the criteria for the subtype, and investigators found they “did better than people with classical PTSD,” Dr. van der Kolk said. He added that this is a “very, very important finding.”
 

Carefully controlled

Overall, 82% of patients reported a significant improvement by the end of the study; 56% reported that they no longer had PTSD.

In addition, 67% of patients no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD. These included patients who had crossed over to active treatment from the placebo group.

Eleven patients (12%) experienced relapse by 12 months; in nine of the cases, this was due to the presence of additional stressors.

There were “very few adverse side effects” during the study, Dr. van der Kolk noted. In addition, “there were really no serious mental side effects,” despite the patients’ “opening up so much very painful material,” he added.

The most common adverse events among the MDMA group were muscle tightness (63%), decreased appetite (52%), nausea (30%), hyperhidrosis (20%), and feeling cold (20%). These effects were “quite small [and] the sort of side effects you would expect in response to an amphetamine substance like MDMA,” said Dr. van der Kolk.

“An important reason why we think the side effect profile is so good is because the study was extremely carefully done, very carefully controlled,” he added. “There was a great deal of support, [and] we paid an enormous amount of attention to creating a very safe context in which this drug was being used.”

However, he expressed concern that “as people see the very good results, they may skimp a little bit on the creation of the context and not have as careful a psychotherapy protocol as we had here.”
 

‘On the right track’

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Nutt, MD, PhD, Edmond J. Safra Professor of Neuropsychopharmacology, Imperial College London, said the results are proof that the investigators’ “earlier smaller trials of MDMA were on the right track.”

“This larger and multicenter trial shows that MDMA therapy can be broadened into newer research groups, which augurs well for the much larger rollout that will be required once it gets a license,” said Dr. Nutt, who was not involved with the research.

He added, “the prior evidence of the safety of MDMA has [now] been confirmed.”

The study represents an “important step in the path to the clinical use of MDMA for PTSD,” Dr. Nutt said.

The study was sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The investigators and Dr. Nutt have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) has released new global telemedicine guidelines.

Prompted by the worldwide explosion of interest in telepsychiatry driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines emphasize the need for international collaboration in psychiatry.

“Global teamwork is the light at the end of the tunnel” of the current crisis, lead author Davor Mucic, MD, The Little Prince Treatment Center, Copenhagen, told meeting attendees.

“Now is the time to build a user-friendly digital health care system that can better meet the inevitable future challenges,” Dr. Mucic said. “The hope is that WPA’s global guidelines for telepsychiatry can help us to move forward.”

The guidelines, which also address concerns over data security and device intercompatibility, were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Breaking down barriers

Although telepsychiatry has been around since 1959, only with the rapid technologic advances of the past decade has it become available to the majority of psychiatric patients, Dr. Mucic noted.

“Unfortunately, regulatory constraints, in combination with clinicians’ concerns, kept telepsychiatry from being widely adopted and implemented prior to the current COVID-19 pandemic,” he added.

Concerns have been with regard to data safety, reimbursement for consultations, quality of care, lack of technical experience, and difficulties in changing routines.

For many clinicians, the pandemic was the “first time they used telepsychiatry, and very few have received training in how to do it,” Dr. Mucic said.

He pointed out that guidelines are available in the United States, Canada, Australia, and India, including the 2018 Best Practices in Videoconferencing-Based Telemental Health, released by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Mucic noted that because these documents are relevant and useful, clinicians may wonder, “Why do we need another set of guidelines?”

He explained that the current WPA guidelines outline universal recommendations that apply “regardless of local or regional regulations.” Therefore, they can be used just as easily in low- and middle-income countries as in countries where telepsychiatry is already established.
 

A new paradigm

Similar to other guidelines, the WPA’s guidelines discuss legal and regulatory requirements, informed consent, billing and reimbursement, patient selection, clinician training, the clinical setting, and more.

However, what makes the new document “so new and special” is that it opens the door to “some new and previously undiscussed aspects of telepsychiatry ... that are capable of changing the whole delivery of mental health care,” Dr. Mucic said.

The first of these new aspects is in regard to cross-cultural telepsychiatry. The goal is to eliminate the need for interpreters or competency in a different language for patients who do not speak the host country’s language by connecting them remotely with a bilingual health care professional who shares their cultural or ethnic background.

This “ethnic matching” model may lead to a “more precise and detailed symptomatology,” the authors note. They add that minimizing the risk for misinterpretation and misunderstanding can enable better diagnosis and treatment.

The second area highlighted by Dr. Mucic is in regard to international telepsychiatry; the technology could be used to obtain a second opinion from colleagues who share the relevant cultural and linguistic background.

“Further, international expertise may be brought via [telepsychiatry] to local health workers as a part of education, supervision, and scientific collaboration,” he said.

“The hope is the guidelines will pave the way for improved international collaboration, not only by clinicians but also by policymakers.”
 

A blended future?

Also at EPA 2021, two experts debated whether the COVID-19 pandemic represented a turning point for e-health in psychiatry.

Taking the pro stance, Heleen Riper, PhD, professor of eMental-Health at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, argued that the future is likely to blend face-to-face interaction with video conferencing.

She believes that to maintain current progress, the focus should be on treatment personalization, engagement, and improvement, rather than cost-effectiveness.

Hans-Jürgen Möller, MD, professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, argued against the idea that e-health represented a turning point in psychiatry. He noted that a survey of German psychotherapists indicated that there have been a number of drawbacks to video sessions during the pandemic.

Cautious optimism

Session chair Judit Simon, MD, DPhil, professor of health economics, Medical University of Vienna, asked the debaters whether video interventions will continue to replace in-person interventions once the pandemic is over or whether things will return to “where we were prepandemic.”

Dr. Riper said she did not believe that clinicians will return completely to in-patient practice. However, she emphasized the need for training and the development of new skills to improve the therapeutic relationship with patients.

Although Dr. Riper believes there is still a need for in-person doctor/patient interactions, “we will never get back to the pre-COVID phase, both in terms of diagnostics and treatment,” she said.

Dr. Möller added that although he has “some reservations” regarding the adoption of technologies by older patients and the lack of long-term data on telepsychiatry, he partially shares Dr. Riper’s optimism.

He suggested that there is an opportunity in psychiatry to use video conferencing for multidisciplinary team meetings similar to those seen in oncology.

This would allow discussion of patient diagnosis and treatment and would enable experts in mental health to help clinicians in other specialties. For example, it could help a general practitioner differentiate between depression and a depressive phase of schizophrenia, Dr. Riper said.

The presenters have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) has released new global telemedicine guidelines.

Prompted by the worldwide explosion of interest in telepsychiatry driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines emphasize the need for international collaboration in psychiatry.

“Global teamwork is the light at the end of the tunnel” of the current crisis, lead author Davor Mucic, MD, The Little Prince Treatment Center, Copenhagen, told meeting attendees.

“Now is the time to build a user-friendly digital health care system that can better meet the inevitable future challenges,” Dr. Mucic said. “The hope is that WPA’s global guidelines for telepsychiatry can help us to move forward.”

The guidelines, which also address concerns over data security and device intercompatibility, were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Breaking down barriers

Although telepsychiatry has been around since 1959, only with the rapid technologic advances of the past decade has it become available to the majority of psychiatric patients, Dr. Mucic noted.

“Unfortunately, regulatory constraints, in combination with clinicians’ concerns, kept telepsychiatry from being widely adopted and implemented prior to the current COVID-19 pandemic,” he added.

Concerns have been with regard to data safety, reimbursement for consultations, quality of care, lack of technical experience, and difficulties in changing routines.

For many clinicians, the pandemic was the “first time they used telepsychiatry, and very few have received training in how to do it,” Dr. Mucic said.

He pointed out that guidelines are available in the United States, Canada, Australia, and India, including the 2018 Best Practices in Videoconferencing-Based Telemental Health, released by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Mucic noted that because these documents are relevant and useful, clinicians may wonder, “Why do we need another set of guidelines?”

He explained that the current WPA guidelines outline universal recommendations that apply “regardless of local or regional regulations.” Therefore, they can be used just as easily in low- and middle-income countries as in countries where telepsychiatry is already established.
 

A new paradigm

Similar to other guidelines, the WPA’s guidelines discuss legal and regulatory requirements, informed consent, billing and reimbursement, patient selection, clinician training, the clinical setting, and more.

However, what makes the new document “so new and special” is that it opens the door to “some new and previously undiscussed aspects of telepsychiatry ... that are capable of changing the whole delivery of mental health care,” Dr. Mucic said.

The first of these new aspects is in regard to cross-cultural telepsychiatry. The goal is to eliminate the need for interpreters or competency in a different language for patients who do not speak the host country’s language by connecting them remotely with a bilingual health care professional who shares their cultural or ethnic background.

This “ethnic matching” model may lead to a “more precise and detailed symptomatology,” the authors note. They add that minimizing the risk for misinterpretation and misunderstanding can enable better diagnosis and treatment.

The second area highlighted by Dr. Mucic is in regard to international telepsychiatry; the technology could be used to obtain a second opinion from colleagues who share the relevant cultural and linguistic background.

“Further, international expertise may be brought via [telepsychiatry] to local health workers as a part of education, supervision, and scientific collaboration,” he said.

“The hope is the guidelines will pave the way for improved international collaboration, not only by clinicians but also by policymakers.”
 

A blended future?

Also at EPA 2021, two experts debated whether the COVID-19 pandemic represented a turning point for e-health in psychiatry.

Taking the pro stance, Heleen Riper, PhD, professor of eMental-Health at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, argued that the future is likely to blend face-to-face interaction with video conferencing.

She believes that to maintain current progress, the focus should be on treatment personalization, engagement, and improvement, rather than cost-effectiveness.

Hans-Jürgen Möller, MD, professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, argued against the idea that e-health represented a turning point in psychiatry. He noted that a survey of German psychotherapists indicated that there have been a number of drawbacks to video sessions during the pandemic.

Cautious optimism

Session chair Judit Simon, MD, DPhil, professor of health economics, Medical University of Vienna, asked the debaters whether video interventions will continue to replace in-person interventions once the pandemic is over or whether things will return to “where we were prepandemic.”

Dr. Riper said she did not believe that clinicians will return completely to in-patient practice. However, she emphasized the need for training and the development of new skills to improve the therapeutic relationship with patients.

Although Dr. Riper believes there is still a need for in-person doctor/patient interactions, “we will never get back to the pre-COVID phase, both in terms of diagnostics and treatment,” she said.

Dr. Möller added that although he has “some reservations” regarding the adoption of technologies by older patients and the lack of long-term data on telepsychiatry, he partially shares Dr. Riper’s optimism.

He suggested that there is an opportunity in psychiatry to use video conferencing for multidisciplinary team meetings similar to those seen in oncology.

This would allow discussion of patient diagnosis and treatment and would enable experts in mental health to help clinicians in other specialties. For example, it could help a general practitioner differentiate between depression and a depressive phase of schizophrenia, Dr. Riper said.

The presenters have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Psychiatric Association (WPA) has released new global telemedicine guidelines.

Prompted by the worldwide explosion of interest in telepsychiatry driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines emphasize the need for international collaboration in psychiatry.

“Global teamwork is the light at the end of the tunnel” of the current crisis, lead author Davor Mucic, MD, The Little Prince Treatment Center, Copenhagen, told meeting attendees.

“Now is the time to build a user-friendly digital health care system that can better meet the inevitable future challenges,” Dr. Mucic said. “The hope is that WPA’s global guidelines for telepsychiatry can help us to move forward.”

The guidelines, which also address concerns over data security and device intercompatibility, were presented at the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2021 Congress.
 

Breaking down barriers

Although telepsychiatry has been around since 1959, only with the rapid technologic advances of the past decade has it become available to the majority of psychiatric patients, Dr. Mucic noted.

“Unfortunately, regulatory constraints, in combination with clinicians’ concerns, kept telepsychiatry from being widely adopted and implemented prior to the current COVID-19 pandemic,” he added.

Concerns have been with regard to data safety, reimbursement for consultations, quality of care, lack of technical experience, and difficulties in changing routines.

For many clinicians, the pandemic was the “first time they used telepsychiatry, and very few have received training in how to do it,” Dr. Mucic said.

He pointed out that guidelines are available in the United States, Canada, Australia, and India, including the 2018 Best Practices in Videoconferencing-Based Telemental Health, released by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Telemedicine Association.

Dr. Mucic noted that because these documents are relevant and useful, clinicians may wonder, “Why do we need another set of guidelines?”

He explained that the current WPA guidelines outline universal recommendations that apply “regardless of local or regional regulations.” Therefore, they can be used just as easily in low- and middle-income countries as in countries where telepsychiatry is already established.
 

A new paradigm

Similar to other guidelines, the WPA’s guidelines discuss legal and regulatory requirements, informed consent, billing and reimbursement, patient selection, clinician training, the clinical setting, and more.

However, what makes the new document “so new and special” is that it opens the door to “some new and previously undiscussed aspects of telepsychiatry ... that are capable of changing the whole delivery of mental health care,” Dr. Mucic said.

The first of these new aspects is in regard to cross-cultural telepsychiatry. The goal is to eliminate the need for interpreters or competency in a different language for patients who do not speak the host country’s language by connecting them remotely with a bilingual health care professional who shares their cultural or ethnic background.

This “ethnic matching” model may lead to a “more precise and detailed symptomatology,” the authors note. They add that minimizing the risk for misinterpretation and misunderstanding can enable better diagnosis and treatment.

The second area highlighted by Dr. Mucic is in regard to international telepsychiatry; the technology could be used to obtain a second opinion from colleagues who share the relevant cultural and linguistic background.

“Further, international expertise may be brought via [telepsychiatry] to local health workers as a part of education, supervision, and scientific collaboration,” he said.

“The hope is the guidelines will pave the way for improved international collaboration, not only by clinicians but also by policymakers.”
 

A blended future?

Also at EPA 2021, two experts debated whether the COVID-19 pandemic represented a turning point for e-health in psychiatry.

Taking the pro stance, Heleen Riper, PhD, professor of eMental-Health at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, argued that the future is likely to blend face-to-face interaction with video conferencing.

She believes that to maintain current progress, the focus should be on treatment personalization, engagement, and improvement, rather than cost-effectiveness.

Hans-Jürgen Möller, MD, professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, argued against the idea that e-health represented a turning point in psychiatry. He noted that a survey of German psychotherapists indicated that there have been a number of drawbacks to video sessions during the pandemic.

Cautious optimism

Session chair Judit Simon, MD, DPhil, professor of health economics, Medical University of Vienna, asked the debaters whether video interventions will continue to replace in-person interventions once the pandemic is over or whether things will return to “where we were prepandemic.”

Dr. Riper said she did not believe that clinicians will return completely to in-patient practice. However, she emphasized the need for training and the development of new skills to improve the therapeutic relationship with patients.

Although Dr. Riper believes there is still a need for in-person doctor/patient interactions, “we will never get back to the pre-COVID phase, both in terms of diagnostics and treatment,” she said.

Dr. Möller added that although he has “some reservations” regarding the adoption of technologies by older patients and the lack of long-term data on telepsychiatry, he partially shares Dr. Riper’s optimism.

He suggested that there is an opportunity in psychiatry to use video conferencing for multidisciplinary team meetings similar to those seen in oncology.

This would allow discussion of patient diagnosis and treatment and would enable experts in mental health to help clinicians in other specialties. For example, it could help a general practitioner differentiate between depression and a depressive phase of schizophrenia, Dr. Riper said.

The presenters have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s been more than a year since we came face to face with an unprecedented, unrelenting pandemic. Determined to overcome, determined to forge ahead, we worked tirelessly.

Drazen Zigic/Getty Images

Hours upon hours, days upon days, months upon months. Hoping for recovery while facing the devastation of death. We were praised, and lauded as heroes as we pleaded for essential protective gear and urged our communities to think critically, act responsibly, and distance safely. From the cities to small towns, we answered the call. Leaving long-practiced specialties, reassigned from our practices and training, we worked together uncertain of the future, but committed to safeguarding our present. Through sacrifice we toiled, leaving our families to protect against contagion, wading through halls of the sick and fighting against the threat of death.

Beginning at the beginning

Addressing these issues starts with training. As a new cohort of eager students enters medical/osteopathic school, the focus should lie not only on foundations of medicine and brute memorization of copious information but also on self-care, wellness checks, and group morale. The same emphasis placed upon patient care and advocacy must also be extended toward ensuring that the next generation of physicians will understand the importance of caring for themselves as much as they care for others.

In the same manner, past stereotypes of ruthless, cut-throat, competition must also evolve. Although the spirit of hard work and perseverance is essential, the manner it propagates is just as important. Aggressive questioning, myriad testing, rigid hierarchies, blind obedience, and ego inflation may separate the pack, but it also reinforces individualism and isolation. Students may shield their internal turmoil behind a mask. The mask of the Super Doctor.

However, as the pandemic has shown, even the most durable of masks will eventually fail. So how do we recognize and accept that help is needed? How do we access support? First, it is vital to acknowledge that there is no shame in asking for help. It is both surprising and reassuring that many of us have been there, an unspoken band of brothers and sisters. Second, remember the acronym for depressive symptoms SIGECAPS (sleep, interest, guilt, energy, concentration, appetite, psychomotor, suicide). Remember that these symptoms may develop gradually or feel sudden and overwhelming. Know that mood lability, tearfulness, and isolation may also be present but confused and disregarded as normal consequences of school, residency, or life as a physician. Third, recognize common behavioral changes associated with anxiety, such as irritability, avoidance, and physical symptoms, including headache, muscle aches, joint pain, GI discomfort, palpitations, and insomnia. Last, reach out to colleagues who have suddenly or gradually withdrawn. Schedule frequent check-ins for one another and do not be afraid to admit that you are human. There is no shame in vulnerability but there is bravery and strength.

If you are in school or residency training, reach out to health centers, training directors, supervisors, family and/or friends. Whether you are an early career physician or amid a decades-long career, connect with your peers, reach out to junior members, offer and accept support. Anonymous hotlines, listservs, email groups, virtual meetings, texts, and phone calls also provide opportunities for wellness checks, pep talks, or venting sessions. All are important. In the case where more specialized help is needed, contact your primary care physician, reach out to colleagues in mental health, contact the Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800 273-8255. Know there is help; you are not alone.

In these unprecedented and uncertain times, remember the African proverb “It takes a village.” To ask for help reveals strength and fortitude. The more we advocate for ourselves and one another, the more we will prevail and shed the myth of infallibility.

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

It’s been more than a year since we came face to face with an unprecedented, unrelenting pandemic. Determined to overcome, determined to forge ahead, we worked tirelessly.

Drazen Zigic/Getty Images

Hours upon hours, days upon days, months upon months. Hoping for recovery while facing the devastation of death. We were praised, and lauded as heroes as we pleaded for essential protective gear and urged our communities to think critically, act responsibly, and distance safely. From the cities to small towns, we answered the call. Leaving long-practiced specialties, reassigned from our practices and training, we worked together uncertain of the future, but committed to safeguarding our present. Through sacrifice we toiled, leaving our families to protect against contagion, wading through halls of the sick and fighting against the threat of death.

Beginning at the beginning

Addressing these issues starts with training. As a new cohort of eager students enters medical/osteopathic school, the focus should lie not only on foundations of medicine and brute memorization of copious information but also on self-care, wellness checks, and group morale. The same emphasis placed upon patient care and advocacy must also be extended toward ensuring that the next generation of physicians will understand the importance of caring for themselves as much as they care for others.

In the same manner, past stereotypes of ruthless, cut-throat, competition must also evolve. Although the spirit of hard work and perseverance is essential, the manner it propagates is just as important. Aggressive questioning, myriad testing, rigid hierarchies, blind obedience, and ego inflation may separate the pack, but it also reinforces individualism and isolation. Students may shield their internal turmoil behind a mask. The mask of the Super Doctor.

However, as the pandemic has shown, even the most durable of masks will eventually fail. So how do we recognize and accept that help is needed? How do we access support? First, it is vital to acknowledge that there is no shame in asking for help. It is both surprising and reassuring that many of us have been there, an unspoken band of brothers and sisters. Second, remember the acronym for depressive symptoms SIGECAPS (sleep, interest, guilt, energy, concentration, appetite, psychomotor, suicide). Remember that these symptoms may develop gradually or feel sudden and overwhelming. Know that mood lability, tearfulness, and isolation may also be present but confused and disregarded as normal consequences of school, residency, or life as a physician. Third, recognize common behavioral changes associated with anxiety, such as irritability, avoidance, and physical symptoms, including headache, muscle aches, joint pain, GI discomfort, palpitations, and insomnia. Last, reach out to colleagues who have suddenly or gradually withdrawn. Schedule frequent check-ins for one another and do not be afraid to admit that you are human. There is no shame in vulnerability but there is bravery and strength.

If you are in school or residency training, reach out to health centers, training directors, supervisors, family and/or friends. Whether you are an early career physician or amid a decades-long career, connect with your peers, reach out to junior members, offer and accept support. Anonymous hotlines, listservs, email groups, virtual meetings, texts, and phone calls also provide opportunities for wellness checks, pep talks, or venting sessions. All are important. In the case where more specialized help is needed, contact your primary care physician, reach out to colleagues in mental health, contact the Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800 273-8255. Know there is help; you are not alone.

In these unprecedented and uncertain times, remember the African proverb “It takes a village.” To ask for help reveals strength and fortitude. The more we advocate for ourselves and one another, the more we will prevail and shed the myth of infallibility.

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

It’s been more than a year since we came face to face with an unprecedented, unrelenting pandemic. Determined to overcome, determined to forge ahead, we worked tirelessly.

Drazen Zigic/Getty Images

Hours upon hours, days upon days, months upon months. Hoping for recovery while facing the devastation of death. We were praised, and lauded as heroes as we pleaded for essential protective gear and urged our communities to think critically, act responsibly, and distance safely. From the cities to small towns, we answered the call. Leaving long-practiced specialties, reassigned from our practices and training, we worked together uncertain of the future, but committed to safeguarding our present. Through sacrifice we toiled, leaving our families to protect against contagion, wading through halls of the sick and fighting against the threat of death.

Beginning at the beginning

Addressing these issues starts with training. As a new cohort of eager students enters medical/osteopathic school, the focus should lie not only on foundations of medicine and brute memorization of copious information but also on self-care, wellness checks, and group morale. The same emphasis placed upon patient care and advocacy must also be extended toward ensuring that the next generation of physicians will understand the importance of caring for themselves as much as they care for others.

In the same manner, past stereotypes of ruthless, cut-throat, competition must also evolve. Although the spirit of hard work and perseverance is essential, the manner it propagates is just as important. Aggressive questioning, myriad testing, rigid hierarchies, blind obedience, and ego inflation may separate the pack, but it also reinforces individualism and isolation. Students may shield their internal turmoil behind a mask. The mask of the Super Doctor.

However, as the pandemic has shown, even the most durable of masks will eventually fail. So how do we recognize and accept that help is needed? How do we access support? First, it is vital to acknowledge that there is no shame in asking for help. It is both surprising and reassuring that many of us have been there, an unspoken band of brothers and sisters. Second, remember the acronym for depressive symptoms SIGECAPS (sleep, interest, guilt, energy, concentration, appetite, psychomotor, suicide). Remember that these symptoms may develop gradually or feel sudden and overwhelming. Know that mood lability, tearfulness, and isolation may also be present but confused and disregarded as normal consequences of school, residency, or life as a physician. Third, recognize common behavioral changes associated with anxiety, such as irritability, avoidance, and physical symptoms, including headache, muscle aches, joint pain, GI discomfort, palpitations, and insomnia. Last, reach out to colleagues who have suddenly or gradually withdrawn. Schedule frequent check-ins for one another and do not be afraid to admit that you are human. There is no shame in vulnerability but there is bravery and strength.

If you are in school or residency training, reach out to health centers, training directors, supervisors, family and/or friends. Whether you are an early career physician or amid a decades-long career, connect with your peers, reach out to junior members, offer and accept support. Anonymous hotlines, listservs, email groups, virtual meetings, texts, and phone calls also provide opportunities for wellness checks, pep talks, or venting sessions. All are important. In the case where more specialized help is needed, contact your primary care physician, reach out to colleagues in mental health, contact the Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800 273-8255. Know there is help; you are not alone.

In these unprecedented and uncertain times, remember the African proverb “It takes a village.” To ask for help reveals strength and fortitude. The more we advocate for ourselves and one another, the more we will prevail and shed the myth of infallibility.

Dr. Thomas is a board-certified adult psychiatrist with an interest in chronic illness, women’s behavioral health, and minority mental health. She currently practices in North Kingstown and East Providence, R.I. She has no conflicts of interest.

“Mom, Dad: I’m gay.” Saying these words can be difficult for anyone but especially for adolescents and young adults. The process of coming out is one filled with anticipation, angst, and hopefully relief. However, this process is not a one-time event but rather something that LGBTQ adolescents and young adults have to face every time they meet someone new or are placed in a new situation. They have to decide if that new person can be trusted with their very personal information.

Coming out is a process that begins months to years before the adolescent or young adult utters the words above. The first step in the coming out process is accepting one’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This period of time can be somewhat tumultuous, filled with a mix of emotions ranging from fear to excitement. The adolescent or young adult may need support in coming to terms with who they are as their authentic self. This can take the role of a therapist, a trusted friend, or a trusted family member. There may even be times that the adolescent or young adult’s physician is the only person that they are out to besides their friends. Therefore, you can play a very important role in helping your adolescent and young adult patients as they navigate the journey of coming out.

One of the most important ways that physicians can help adolescents and young adults is to spend time alone with them at as many visits as you can. This gives the patient the time to discuss confidential matters with you, including their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. It is possible that the chronic abdominal pain that your adolescent patient is experiencing may not represent an organic abdominal problem but could represent a manifestation of anxiety because that patient is afraid of his/her parent(s) finding out that he/she identifies as LGBTQ. If one of your patients comes out to you, it is important that you validate for your patient that they are normal as who they are. In addition, you can thank your patient for trusting you with that information and let them know that you are there to support them in whatever way they feel appropriate. Just as important is that you work with the adolescent on a plan for their other concerns that respects their right to privacy in regard to their gender identity and/or sexual orientation.

The adolescent or young adult should always be in control of who knows about their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. Ideally, they should also always be the one who shares that information with others. Many times, parents may react positively to finding out that their child identifies as LGBTQ and want to share that information with their friends or family members. Alternatively, the parent could use the patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity negatively against them to their family and/or friends. As the physician, you can help counsel the family that it should always be their child who gets to share that information and when it is shared.

So how can you support your LGBTQ patients as they navigate the coming out process? First, when you find out from your patient that they identify as LGBTQ, ensure that you ask them who knows about their identity. This prevents inadvertent disclosures to the parent/guardian when the patient is not ready for them to know. Second, discuss with the patient if he/she needs any resources related to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This includes things such as the names of local LGBTQ youth organizations or the phone number for the Trevor Project suicide hotline, for example. Third, ensure that your office and staff are a welcoming and affirmative environment for your patients. A 2017 survey by the Human Rights Campaign found that only 8% of transgender or gender-diverse adolescents and young adults were out to all of their physicians and only 5% of LGB adolescents and young adults were out to all of their physicians.¹ This is likely because of past negative experiences these patients have had with previous physicians. A 2017 study from the Center for American Progress found that 8% of LGB patients and 29% of transgender or gender-diverse patients said that a doctor or health care provider had refused to see them because of their actual or perceived identity.² Lastly, you could offer to help facilitate a discussion between the patient and his/her parents in relation to his/her sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

In summary, pediatricians can play an important role in the coming out process of their LGBTQ patients. Your office is an important source of support for the physical and mental health of these patients as they navigate this journey. You can also be a strong advocate for these patients to their parents and families. I think that we all can agree that our patients deserve better than only feeling comfortable to be out to 5%-8% of their physicians.

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas. Contact him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1. Human Rights Campaign 2018 LGBTQ Youth Report.

2. Mirza SA and Rooney C. “Discrimination prevents LGBTQ people from accessing health care.” Center for American Progress. 2018 Jan 18.

“Mom, Dad: I’m gay.” Saying these words can be difficult for anyone but especially for adolescents and young adults. The process of coming out is one filled with anticipation, angst, and hopefully relief. However, this process is not a one-time event but rather something that LGBTQ adolescents and young adults have to face every time they meet someone new or are placed in a new situation. They have to decide if that new person can be trusted with their very personal information.

Coming out is a process that begins months to years before the adolescent or young adult utters the words above. The first step in the coming out process is accepting one’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This period of time can be somewhat tumultuous, filled with a mix of emotions ranging from fear to excitement. The adolescent or young adult may need support in coming to terms with who they are as their authentic self. This can take the role of a therapist, a trusted friend, or a trusted family member. There may even be times that the adolescent or young adult’s physician is the only person that they are out to besides their friends. Therefore, you can play a very important role in helping your adolescent and young adult patients as they navigate the journey of coming out.

One of the most important ways that physicians can help adolescents and young adults is to spend time alone with them at as many visits as you can. This gives the patient the time to discuss confidential matters with you, including their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. It is possible that the chronic abdominal pain that your adolescent patient is experiencing may not represent an organic abdominal problem but could represent a manifestation of anxiety because that patient is afraid of his/her parent(s) finding out that he/she identifies as LGBTQ. If one of your patients comes out to you, it is important that you validate for your patient that they are normal as who they are. In addition, you can thank your patient for trusting you with that information and let them know that you are there to support them in whatever way they feel appropriate. Just as important is that you work with the adolescent on a plan for their other concerns that respects their right to privacy in regard to their gender identity and/or sexual orientation.

The adolescent or young adult should always be in control of who knows about their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. Ideally, they should also always be the one who shares that information with others. Many times, parents may react positively to finding out that their child identifies as LGBTQ and want to share that information with their friends or family members. Alternatively, the parent could use the patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity negatively against them to their family and/or friends. As the physician, you can help counsel the family that it should always be their child who gets to share that information and when it is shared.

So how can you support your LGBTQ patients as they navigate the coming out process? First, when you find out from your patient that they identify as LGBTQ, ensure that you ask them who knows about their identity. This prevents inadvertent disclosures to the parent/guardian when the patient is not ready for them to know. Second, discuss with the patient if he/she needs any resources related to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This includes things such as the names of local LGBTQ youth organizations or the phone number for the Trevor Project suicide hotline, for example. Third, ensure that your office and staff are a welcoming and affirmative environment for your patients. A 2017 survey by the Human Rights Campaign found that only 8% of transgender or gender-diverse adolescents and young adults were out to all of their physicians and only 5% of LGB adolescents and young adults were out to all of their physicians.¹ This is likely because of past negative experiences these patients have had with previous physicians. A 2017 study from the Center for American Progress found that 8% of LGB patients and 29% of transgender or gender-diverse patients said that a doctor or health care provider had refused to see them because of their actual or perceived identity.² Lastly, you could offer to help facilitate a discussion between the patient and his/her parents in relation to his/her sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

In summary, pediatricians can play an important role in the coming out process of their LGBTQ patients. Your office is an important source of support for the physical and mental health of these patients as they navigate this journey. You can also be a strong advocate for these patients to their parents and families. I think that we all can agree that our patients deserve better than only feeling comfortable to be out to 5%-8% of their physicians.

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas. Contact him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1. Human Rights Campaign 2018 LGBTQ Youth Report.

2. Mirza SA and Rooney C. “Discrimination prevents LGBTQ people from accessing health care.” Center for American Progress. 2018 Jan 18.

“Mom, Dad: I’m gay.” Saying these words can be difficult for anyone but especially for adolescents and young adults. The process of coming out is one filled with anticipation, angst, and hopefully relief. However, this process is not a one-time event but rather something that LGBTQ adolescents and young adults have to face every time they meet someone new or are placed in a new situation. They have to decide if that new person can be trusted with their very personal information.

Coming out is a process that begins months to years before the adolescent or young adult utters the words above. The first step in the coming out process is accepting one’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This period of time can be somewhat tumultuous, filled with a mix of emotions ranging from fear to excitement. The adolescent or young adult may need support in coming to terms with who they are as their authentic self. This can take the role of a therapist, a trusted friend, or a trusted family member. There may even be times that the adolescent or young adult’s physician is the only person that they are out to besides their friends. Therefore, you can play a very important role in helping your adolescent and young adult patients as they navigate the journey of coming out.

One of the most important ways that physicians can help adolescents and young adults is to spend time alone with them at as many visits as you can. This gives the patient the time to discuss confidential matters with you, including their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. It is possible that the chronic abdominal pain that your adolescent patient is experiencing may not represent an organic abdominal problem but could represent a manifestation of anxiety because that patient is afraid of his/her parent(s) finding out that he/she identifies as LGBTQ. If one of your patients comes out to you, it is important that you validate for your patient that they are normal as who they are. In addition, you can thank your patient for trusting you with that information and let them know that you are there to support them in whatever way they feel appropriate. Just as important is that you work with the adolescent on a plan for their other concerns that respects their right to privacy in regard to their gender identity and/or sexual orientation.

The adolescent or young adult should always be in control of who knows about their gender identity and/or sexual orientation. Ideally, they should also always be the one who shares that information with others. Many times, parents may react positively to finding out that their child identifies as LGBTQ and want to share that information with their friends or family members. Alternatively, the parent could use the patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity negatively against them to their family and/or friends. As the physician, you can help counsel the family that it should always be their child who gets to share that information and when it is shared.

So how can you support your LGBTQ patients as they navigate the coming out process? First, when you find out from your patient that they identify as LGBTQ, ensure that you ask them who knows about their identity. This prevents inadvertent disclosures to the parent/guardian when the patient is not ready for them to know. Second, discuss with the patient if he/she needs any resources related to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. This includes things such as the names of local LGBTQ youth organizations or the phone number for the Trevor Project suicide hotline, for example. Third, ensure that your office and staff are a welcoming and affirmative environment for your patients. A 2017 survey by the Human Rights Campaign found that only 8% of transgender or gender-diverse adolescents and young adults were out to all of their physicians and only 5% of LGB adolescents and young adults were out to all of their physicians.¹ This is likely because of past negative experiences these patients have had with previous physicians. A 2017 study from the Center for American Progress found that 8% of LGB patients and 29% of transgender or gender-diverse patients said that a doctor or health care provider had refused to see them because of their actual or perceived identity.² Lastly, you could offer to help facilitate a discussion between the patient and his/her parents in relation to his/her sexual orientation and/or gender identity.

In summary, pediatricians can play an important role in the coming out process of their LGBTQ patients. Your office is an important source of support for the physical and mental health of these patients as they navigate this journey. You can also be a strong advocate for these patients to their parents and families. I think that we all can agree that our patients deserve better than only feeling comfortable to be out to 5%-8% of their physicians.

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas. Contact him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
 

References

1. Human Rights Campaign 2018 LGBTQ Youth Report.

2. Mirza SA and Rooney C. “Discrimination prevents LGBTQ people from accessing health care.” Center for American Progress. 2018 Jan 18.

Separation anxiety plays a substantial role in suicidality in patients with mood and anxiety disorders, new research suggests.

Results of a study that included 500 outpatients with mood or anxiety disorders showed adult separation anxiety disorder (ASAD) was more frequent in patients with suicidal thoughts versus those who did not have the disorder. In addition, depression and separation anxiety also significantly predicted lifetime suicide risk.

“This study indicates a substantial role of separation anxiety in predicting suicidal thoughts, both as state-related symptoms ... and as longitudinal dimension symptoms,” say the investigators, led by Stefano Pini, MD, of the department of clinical and experimental medicine, section of psychiatry, University of Pisa (Italy).

“Greater understanding of the influence of separation anxiety in patients with affective disorders may encourage personalized interventions for reducing suicide risk,” they add.

The study was published in the March/April issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Frequently underdiagnosed

The authors describe a “close link between suicidal behaviors and interpersonal difficulties extending beyond the traditional approach of comprehending suicide as a phenomenon mainly related to depression.”

Previous research indicates that insecure adult attachment style might be associated with a greater likelihood of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and there might be an association between individual abnormal attachment sensitivity and suicide.

“Suicidal ideation or suicide attempts may be associated with disturbances in attachment, which may lead not only to a devastating experience of losing the feeling of interdependence and closeness but also to a rejection of life itself,” the authors suggest.

ASAD may be a “key factor” in understanding the relationship between individual attachment sensitivity to separation and suicidality.

An ASAD diagnosis was traditionally reserved for children and adolescents, but DSM-5 expanded the diagnosis to include adults over 18 years of age because research had “found a later onset to be common,” spanning the life course, even in the absence of a history of separation anxiety in childhood.

“Separation anxiety is an important clinical dimension, often with roots in childhood, but likely to manifest across the lifespan,” the authors note, adding that it is “frequently underdiagnosed.”

The relationship between ASAD and suicidality has not been explored extensively, so the researchers set out to examine the association.

The study included 509 consecutively recruited adult psychiatric outpatients with mood or anxiety disorders as a principle diagnosis.

Participants completed an array of scales, including item 3 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), which measures suicidality, as well as the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR), a questionnaire evaluating lifetime suicidal symptoms.

Three scales were used to measure separation anxiety disorder: The Structured Interview for Separation Anxiety Symptoms in Adulthood/Childhood (SCI-SAS-A/C); the Separation Anxiety Symptom Inventory (SASI); and the Adult Separation Anxiety Scale (ASA-27).
 

Waxing and waning

Of the total sample, 215 patients were diagnosed with separation anxiety disorder (mean age at onset 15 years). Of the total sample, 19.9% scored ≥ 1 on the HDRS item 3, indicating the presence of suicidality.

Patients with suicidal thoughts more frequently experienced ASAD, compared with those without suicidal thoughts (53.6% vs. 39.6%, respectively, P = .01).

“All measures of adult as well as childhood separation anxiety were significantly elevated in the group of patients with current suicidality, based on HDRS item 3,” the authors report.

Logistic regression found that ASAD, major depression, bipolar I, and bipolar II disorders all predicted suicidal thoughts.

A linear regression model found that depression (P = .001) and ASA-27 separation anxiety (P = .001) significantly predicted lifetime suicide risk, based on the MOODS-SR scale.

In addition, “mediation analysis showed that, besides a direct effect, there is also an indirect effect of depression severity on the MOODS-SR suicidality score through the ASA-27 score, indicating that separation anxiety may act as an important mediating factor in the relationship between depression and suicidality,” the authors state.

The authors observe that separation anxiety “is an important clinical dimension, often with roots in childhood, but likely to wax and wane across the lifespan and even to manifest for the first time during adulthood.”
 

Treatment target?

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Megan Rogers, PhD, postdoctoral research fellow, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, said the findings “point to symptoms of separation anxiety as a potential indicator of suicidal ideation, and should these findings be replicated and extended through longitudinal research, it suggests that symptoms of separation anxiety may be a relevant treatment target in certain populations to mitigate suicide risk.”

Dr. Rogers, who is the student division director at the American Association of Suicidology and was not involved with the study, said she thinks that studies of suicide have focused more on “individual symptoms of separation anxiety, such as excessive worry about loved ones or distress when anticipating separation from loved ones, rather than on separation anxiety as a categorical diagnosis.”

However, the study has an important take-home message for practicing clinicians, Dr. Rogers said. “In individuals with separation anxiety disorders, particularly those with comorbid mood conditions, it may be worth conducting a more thorough assessment of suicide risk, given the possibility of elevated suicidality in these patients.”

The study was supported in part by the German Research Foundation and the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di la Spezia. The authors and Dr. Rogers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Separation anxiety plays a substantial role in suicidality in patients with mood and anxiety disorders, new research suggests.

Results of a study that included 500 outpatients with mood or anxiety disorders showed adult separation anxiety disorder (ASAD) was more frequent in patients with suicidal thoughts versus those who did not have the disorder. In addition, depression and separation anxiety also significantly predicted lifetime suicide risk.

“This study indicates a substantial role of separation anxiety in predicting suicidal thoughts, both as state-related symptoms ... and as longitudinal dimension symptoms,” say the investigators, led by Stefano Pini, MD, of the department of clinical and experimental medicine, section of psychiatry, University of Pisa (Italy).

“Greater understanding of the influence of separation anxiety in patients with affective disorders may encourage personalized interventions for reducing suicide risk,” they add.

The study was published in the March/April issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Frequently underdiagnosed

The authors describe a “close link between suicidal behaviors and interpersonal difficulties extending beyond the traditional approach of comprehending suicide as a phenomenon mainly related to depression.”

Previous research indicates that insecure adult attachment style might be associated with a greater likelihood of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and there might be an association between individual abnormal attachment sensitivity and suicide.

“Suicidal ideation or suicide attempts may be associated with disturbances in attachment, which may lead not only to a devastating experience of losing the feeling of interdependence and closeness but also to a rejection of life itself,” the authors suggest.

ASAD may be a “key factor” in understanding the relationship between individual attachment sensitivity to separation and suicidality.

An ASAD diagnosis was traditionally reserved for children and adolescents, but DSM-5 expanded the diagnosis to include adults over 18 years of age because research had “found a later onset to be common,” spanning the life course, even in the absence of a history of separation anxiety in childhood.

“Separation anxiety is an important clinical dimension, often with roots in childhood, but likely to manifest across the lifespan,” the authors note, adding that it is “frequently underdiagnosed.”

The relationship between ASAD and suicidality has not been explored extensively, so the researchers set out to examine the association.

The study included 509 consecutively recruited adult psychiatric outpatients with mood or anxiety disorders as a principle diagnosis.

Participants completed an array of scales, including item 3 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), which measures suicidality, as well as the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR), a questionnaire evaluating lifetime suicidal symptoms.

Three scales were used to measure separation anxiety disorder: The Structured Interview for Separation Anxiety Symptoms in Adulthood/Childhood (SCI-SAS-A/C); the Separation Anxiety Symptom Inventory (SASI); and the Adult Separation Anxiety Scale (ASA-27).
 

Waxing and waning

Of the total sample, 215 patients were diagnosed with separation anxiety disorder (mean age at onset 15 years). Of the total sample, 19.9% scored ≥ 1 on the HDRS item 3, indicating the presence of suicidality.

Patients with suicidal thoughts more frequently experienced ASAD, compared with those without suicidal thoughts (53.6% vs. 39.6%, respectively, P = .01).

“All measures of adult as well as childhood separation anxiety were significantly elevated in the group of patients with current suicidality, based on HDRS item 3,” the authors report.

Logistic regression found that ASAD, major depression, bipolar I, and bipolar II disorders all predicted suicidal thoughts.

A linear regression model found that depression (P = .001) and ASA-27 separation anxiety (P = .001) significantly predicted lifetime suicide risk, based on the MOODS-SR scale.

In addition, “mediation analysis showed that, besides a direct effect, there is also an indirect effect of depression severity on the MOODS-SR suicidality score through the ASA-27 score, indicating that separation anxiety may act as an important mediating factor in the relationship between depression and suicidality,” the authors state.

The authors observe that separation anxiety “is an important clinical dimension, often with roots in childhood, but likely to wax and wane across the lifespan and even to manifest for the first time during adulthood.”
 

Treatment target?

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Megan Rogers, PhD, postdoctoral research fellow, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, said the findings “point to symptoms of separation anxiety as a potential indicator of suicidal ideation, and should these findings be replicated and extended through longitudinal research, it suggests that symptoms of separation anxiety may be a relevant treatment target in certain populations to mitigate suicide risk.”

Dr. Rogers, who is the student division director at the American Association of Suicidology and was not involved with the study, said she thinks that studies of suicide have focused more on “individual symptoms of separation anxiety, such as excessive worry about loved ones or distress when anticipating separation from loved ones, rather than on separation anxiety as a categorical diagnosis.”

However, the study has an important take-home message for practicing clinicians, Dr. Rogers said. “In individuals with separation anxiety disorders, particularly those with comorbid mood conditions, it may be worth conducting a more thorough assessment of suicide risk, given the possibility of elevated suicidality in these patients.”

The study was supported in part by the German Research Foundation and the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di la Spezia. The authors and Dr. Rogers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Separation anxiety plays a substantial role in suicidality in patients with mood and anxiety disorders, new research suggests.

Results of a study that included 500 outpatients with mood or anxiety disorders showed adult separation anxiety disorder (ASAD) was more frequent in patients with suicidal thoughts versus those who did not have the disorder. In addition, depression and separation anxiety also significantly predicted lifetime suicide risk.

“This study indicates a substantial role of separation anxiety in predicting suicidal thoughts, both as state-related symptoms ... and as longitudinal dimension symptoms,” say the investigators, led by Stefano Pini, MD, of the department of clinical and experimental medicine, section of psychiatry, University of Pisa (Italy).

“Greater understanding of the influence of separation anxiety in patients with affective disorders may encourage personalized interventions for reducing suicide risk,” they add.

The study was published in the March/April issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Frequently underdiagnosed

The authors describe a “close link between suicidal behaviors and interpersonal difficulties extending beyond the traditional approach of comprehending suicide as a phenomenon mainly related to depression.”

Previous research indicates that insecure adult attachment style might be associated with a greater likelihood of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and there might be an association between individual abnormal attachment sensitivity and suicide.

“Suicidal ideation or suicide attempts may be associated with disturbances in attachment, which may lead not only to a devastating experience of losing the feeling of interdependence and closeness but also to a rejection of life itself,” the authors suggest.

ASAD may be a “key factor” in understanding the relationship between individual attachment sensitivity to separation and suicidality.

An ASAD diagnosis was traditionally reserved for children and adolescents, but DSM-5 expanded the diagnosis to include adults over 18 years of age because research had “found a later onset to be common,” spanning the life course, even in the absence of a history of separation anxiety in childhood.

“Separation anxiety is an important clinical dimension, often with roots in childhood, but likely to manifest across the lifespan,” the authors note, adding that it is “frequently underdiagnosed.”

The relationship between ASAD and suicidality has not been explored extensively, so the researchers set out to examine the association.

The study included 509 consecutively recruited adult psychiatric outpatients with mood or anxiety disorders as a principle diagnosis.

Participants completed an array of scales, including item 3 on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), which measures suicidality, as well as the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR), a questionnaire evaluating lifetime suicidal symptoms.

Three scales were used to measure separation anxiety disorder: The Structured Interview for Separation Anxiety Symptoms in Adulthood/Childhood (SCI-SAS-A/C); the Separation Anxiety Symptom Inventory (SASI); and the Adult Separation Anxiety Scale (ASA-27).
 

Waxing and waning

Of the total sample, 215 patients were diagnosed with separation anxiety disorder (mean age at onset 15 years). Of the total sample, 19.9% scored ≥ 1 on the HDRS item 3, indicating the presence of suicidality.

Patients with suicidal thoughts more frequently experienced ASAD, compared with those without suicidal thoughts (53.6% vs. 39.6%, respectively, P = .01).

“All measures of adult as well as childhood separation anxiety were significantly elevated in the group of patients with current suicidality, based on HDRS item 3,” the authors report.

Logistic regression found that ASAD, major depression, bipolar I, and bipolar II disorders all predicted suicidal thoughts.

A linear regression model found that depression (P = .001) and ASA-27 separation anxiety (P = .001) significantly predicted lifetime suicide risk, based on the MOODS-SR scale.

In addition, “mediation analysis showed that, besides a direct effect, there is also an indirect effect of depression severity on the MOODS-SR suicidality score through the ASA-27 score, indicating that separation anxiety may act as an important mediating factor in the relationship between depression and suicidality,” the authors state.

The authors observe that separation anxiety “is an important clinical dimension, often with roots in childhood, but likely to wax and wane across the lifespan and even to manifest for the first time during adulthood.”
 

Treatment target?

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Megan Rogers, PhD, postdoctoral research fellow, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, said the findings “point to symptoms of separation anxiety as a potential indicator of suicidal ideation, and should these findings be replicated and extended through longitudinal research, it suggests that symptoms of separation anxiety may be a relevant treatment target in certain populations to mitigate suicide risk.”

Dr. Rogers, who is the student division director at the American Association of Suicidology and was not involved with the study, said she thinks that studies of suicide have focused more on “individual symptoms of separation anxiety, such as excessive worry about loved ones or distress when anticipating separation from loved ones, rather than on separation anxiety as a categorical diagnosis.”

However, the study has an important take-home message for practicing clinicians, Dr. Rogers said. “In individuals with separation anxiety disorders, particularly those with comorbid mood conditions, it may be worth conducting a more thorough assessment of suicide risk, given the possibility of elevated suicidality in these patients.”

The study was supported in part by the German Research Foundation and the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di la Spezia. The authors and Dr. Rogers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Reading the excellent article on urine drug screening by Drs. Hayes and Fox reminds me of 2 important aspects of primary care: (1) Diagnosing and treating patients with drug addiction is an important service we provide, and (2) interpreting laboratory tests requires training, skill, and clinical judgment.

Drs. Hayes and Fox describe the proper use of urine drug testing in the management of patients for whom we prescribe opioids, whether for chronic pain or for addiction treatment. Combining a review of the literature with their own professional experience treating these patients, Drs. Hayes and Fox highlight the potential pitfalls in interpreting urine drug screening results and admonish us to use good clinical judgment in applying those results to patient care. They emphasize the need to avoid racial bias and blaming the patient.

Use of cheap street fentanyl, rather than prescription drugs, accounts for nearly all of the increase in opioid overdose deaths.

This article is very timely because, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the opioid epidemic has continued unabated. The most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics shows that the estimated number of opioid overdose deaths increased by a whopping 32%, from 47,772 for the 1-year period ending August 2019 to 62,972 for the 1-year period ending August 2020.¹ Although this increase began in fall 2019, there can be little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic is partly responsible. A positive sign, however, is that opioid prescribing in the United States is trending downward, reaching its lowest level in 14 years in 2019.² In fact, use of cheap street fentanyl, rather than prescription drugs, accounts for nearly all of the increase in opioid overdose deaths.¹

Despite this positive news, the number of deaths associated with opioid use remains sobering. The statistics continue to underscore the fact that there simply are not enough addiction treatment centers to manage all of those who need and want help. All primary care physicians are eligible to prescribe suboxone to treat patients with opioid addiction—a treatment that can be highly effective in reducing the use of street opioids and, therefore, reducing deaths from overdose. Fewer than 10% of primary care physicians prescribed suboxone in 2017.³ I hope that more of you will take the required training and become involved in assisting your patients who struggle with opioid addiction.

Reading the excellent article on urine drug screening by Drs. Hayes and Fox reminds me of 2 important aspects of primary care: (1) Diagnosing and treating patients with drug addiction is an important service we provide, and (2) interpreting laboratory tests requires training, skill, and clinical judgment.

Drs. Hayes and Fox describe the proper use of urine drug testing in the management of patients for whom we prescribe opioids, whether for chronic pain or for addiction treatment. Combining a review of the literature with their own professional experience treating these patients, Drs. Hayes and Fox highlight the potential pitfalls in interpreting urine drug screening results and admonish us to use good clinical judgment in applying those results to patient care. They emphasize the need to avoid racial bias and blaming the patient.

Use of cheap street fentanyl, rather than prescription drugs, accounts for nearly all of the increase in opioid overdose deaths.

This article is very timely because, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the opioid epidemic has continued unabated. The most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics shows that the estimated number of opioid overdose deaths increased by a whopping 32%, from 47,772 for the 1-year period ending August 2019 to 62,972 for the 1-year period ending August 2020.¹ Although this increase began in fall 2019, there can be little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic is partly responsible. A positive sign, however, is that opioid prescribing in the United States is trending downward, reaching its lowest level in 14 years in 2019.² In fact, use of cheap street fentanyl, rather than prescription drugs, accounts for nearly all of the increase in opioid overdose deaths.¹

Despite this positive news, the number of deaths associated with opioid use remains sobering. The statistics continue to underscore the fact that there simply are not enough addiction treatment centers to manage all of those who need and want help. All primary care physicians are eligible to prescribe suboxone to treat patients with opioid addiction—a treatment that can be highly effective in reducing the use of street opioids and, therefore, reducing deaths from overdose. Fewer than 10% of primary care physicians prescribed suboxone in 2017.³ I hope that more of you will take the required training and become involved in assisting your patients who struggle with opioid addiction.

Reading the excellent article on urine drug screening by Drs. Hayes and Fox reminds me of 2 important aspects of primary care: (1) Diagnosing and treating patients with drug addiction is an important service we provide, and (2) interpreting laboratory tests requires training, skill, and clinical judgment.

Drs. Hayes and Fox describe the proper use of urine drug testing in the management of patients for whom we prescribe opioids, whether for chronic pain or for addiction treatment. Combining a review of the literature with their own professional experience treating these patients, Drs. Hayes and Fox highlight the potential pitfalls in interpreting urine drug screening results and admonish us to use good clinical judgment in applying those results to patient care. They emphasize the need to avoid racial bias and blaming the patient.

Use of cheap street fentanyl, rather than prescription drugs, accounts for nearly all of the increase in opioid overdose deaths.

This article is very timely because, amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the opioid epidemic has continued unabated. The most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics shows that the estimated number of opioid overdose deaths increased by a whopping 32%, from 47,772 for the 1-year period ending August 2019 to 62,972 for the 1-year period ending August 2020.¹ Although this increase began in fall 2019, there can be little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic is partly responsible. A positive sign, however, is that opioid prescribing in the United States is trending downward, reaching its lowest level in 14 years in 2019.² In fact, use of cheap street fentanyl, rather than prescription drugs, accounts for nearly all of the increase in opioid overdose deaths.¹

Despite this positive news, the number of deaths associated with opioid use remains sobering. The statistics continue to underscore the fact that there simply are not enough addiction treatment centers to manage all of those who need and want help. All primary care physicians are eligible to prescribe suboxone to treat patients with opioid addiction—a treatment that can be highly effective in reducing the use of street opioids and, therefore, reducing deaths from overdose. Fewer than 10% of primary care physicians prescribed suboxone in 2017.³ I hope that more of you will take the required training and become involved in assisting your patients who struggle with opioid addiction.

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

Daniel G. Amen, MD, is an American psychiatrist well-known for his eponymous clinics, television appearances, and series of books on mental health. One of his latest books, “The End of Mental Illness,” summarizes many of his views on the causes of and treatments for mental illnesses.

Courtesy Tyndale House Publishers

Dr. Amen’s approaches – such as his advocacy for the widespread use of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging – are somewhat controversial and at times fall outside the mainstream of current psychiatric thought. So does “The End of Mental Illness” contain anything of value to the average practicing psychiatrist? (It should be noted that I listened to this as an audiobook and took notes as I listened. This does limit my ability to directly quote portions of the text, but I believe my notes are reliable.)

Dr. Weber is physician lead in the department of psychiatry at Intermountain Healthcare Budge Clinic, Logan (Utah) Psychiatry. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12). doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27909.

2. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2014;27:358-63.

3. BMJ 2014. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5205.

4. Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Mar 1;175:232-41.

5. Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 1;173:575-87.

6. Current Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;17(2):22-7.

Daniel G. Amen, MD, is an American psychiatrist well-known for his eponymous clinics, television appearances, and series of books on mental health. One of his latest books, “The End of Mental Illness,” summarizes many of his views on the causes of and treatments for mental illnesses.

Courtesy Tyndale House Publishers

Dr. Amen’s approaches – such as his advocacy for the widespread use of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging – are somewhat controversial and at times fall outside the mainstream of current psychiatric thought. So does “The End of Mental Illness” contain anything of value to the average practicing psychiatrist? (It should be noted that I listened to this as an audiobook and took notes as I listened. This does limit my ability to directly quote portions of the text, but I believe my notes are reliable.)

Dr. Weber is physician lead in the department of psychiatry at Intermountain Healthcare Budge Clinic, Logan (Utah) Psychiatry. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12). doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27909.

2. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2014;27:358-63.

3. BMJ 2014. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5205.

4. Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Mar 1;175:232-41.

5. Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 1;173:575-87.

6. Current Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;17(2):22-7.

Daniel G. Amen, MD, is an American psychiatrist well-known for his eponymous clinics, television appearances, and series of books on mental health. One of his latest books, “The End of Mental Illness,” summarizes many of his views on the causes of and treatments for mental illnesses.

Courtesy Tyndale House Publishers

Dr. Amen’s approaches – such as his advocacy for the widespread use of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging – are somewhat controversial and at times fall outside the mainstream of current psychiatric thought. So does “The End of Mental Illness” contain anything of value to the average practicing psychiatrist? (It should be noted that I listened to this as an audiobook and took notes as I listened. This does limit my ability to directly quote portions of the text, but I believe my notes are reliable.)

Dr. Weber is physician lead in the department of psychiatry at Intermountain Healthcare Budge Clinic, Logan (Utah) Psychiatry. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

References

1. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12). doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27909.

2. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2014;27:358-63.

3. BMJ 2014. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5205.

4. Am J Psychiatry. 2018 Mar 1;175:232-41.

5. Am J Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 1;173:575-87.

6. Current Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;17(2):22-7.

In April 2020, I pledged to focus my editorials on the pandemic. In subsequent editorials I renewed that intention. And it is a promise I have kept during the long plague year for all my editorials. When I announced my plan to write solely on COVID-19, my astute editor asked me, “How are you going to know when to stop?” I reminded myself of his question as I sat down to write each month and never arrived at a satisfactory answer. Nor do I have an answer now for why I am asking readers to release me from my vow—except for the somewhat trivial reason that a year seems enough. Is there more to say about the pandemic? Yes, there is so much more that needs to be discovered and unraveled, contemplated and analyzed; no doubt oceans of print and electronic pages will wash over us in the coming decade from thousands of scientists and journalists commenting on the topic of this public health crisis.²

Nevertheless, I have run the gauntlet of salient subjects within my wheelhouse: The plague year of editorials opened with a primer on public health ethics; the May column studied the duty to care for health care professionals in the midst of the first surge of virus; June examined the controversy around remdesivir and hydroxcholoroquine as medicine frantically sought some way to treat the sick; in July, I took a lighter look at the “Dog Days” of COVID-19 staring my Labrador Retriever mix, Reed, snoozing on his couch on the patio; August celebrated the amazing outreach of the US Department of Defense, US Public Health Service, and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in service to the community; September discussed the adverse effects of the prolonged pandemic on the human psyche and some positive ways of handling the stress; October lamented the exponential rise in substance misuse as human beings struggled to manage the emotional toll of the pandemic; in December, COVID-19 was the sole subject of my annual Best and Worst ethics column; the new year saw the emergency use authorizations of the first and second vaccines and the editorial laid out the critical challenges for vaccination; in February my esteemed colleague Anita Tarzian joined me in an article explaining the ethical approach to vaccine allocation developed by the VA.^3-12

A reader might aptly ask whether I am laying down the COVID-19 gauntlet because I believe the pandemic is over and done with us. The news is full of pundits opining when things will return to normal (if that ever existed or will again) and soothsayers divining the signs of the plague’s end.¹³ What I think is that we are more than done with the pandemic and unfortunately that may be the central cause of its perpetuation; which brings me to Daniel Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year.¹

Defoe is better known to most of us if at all from modern films of his best-seller Robinson Crusoe. Yet A Journal of the Plague Year and other books about epidemics have become popular reading as we seek clues to the mystery of how to affirm life amid a death-dealing infectious disease.¹⁴ There is even an emerging lockdown literature genre. (Before anyone asks, I am in no way so pretentious as to suggest my columns should be included in that scholarly body of work).

Defoe’s book chronicles the last episode of the bubonic plague that afflicted London in 1665 and claimed 100,000 lives. Defoe was only 5 years old when the epidemic devastated one of the greatest cities in Europe. In 1772 he published what one recent reviewer called “a fascinating record of trying to cope with the capital’s last plague.”¹⁵ Defoe presciently documented the central reason I think the pandemic may not end anytime soon despite the increasing success of vaccination, at least in the United States. “But the Case was this...that the infection was propagated insensibly, and by such Persons, as were not visibly infected, who neither knew who they infected, or who they were infected by.”¹

Ignorance and apathy are not confined to the streets of 17th century England: We see state after state lift restrictions prematurely, guaranteeing the scientists prediction that the wave now hitting Europe could again breach our shores. Defoe wrote long before germ theory and the ascendancy of public health, yet he knew that the inability or unwillingness to stick close to home kept the plague circulating. “And here I must observe again, that this Necessity of going out of our Houses to buy Provisions, was in a Great Measure the Ruin of the whole City, for the people catch’d the Distemper, on those Occasions, one of another...”¹ While provisions may equate to food for many, for others necessities include going to bars, dining inside restaurants, and working out at gyms—all are natural laboratories for the spread and mutation of COVID-19 into variants against which physicians warn that the vaccine may not offer protection.

Defoe’s insights were at least in part due to his distance from the horror of the plague, which enabled him to study it with both empathy and objectivity, critical thinking, and creative observation. Similarly, it is time to take a brief breathing space from the pandemic as the central preoccupation of our existence: not just for me but for all of us to the extent possible given that unlike Defoe’s epoch it is still very much our reality. Even a few moments imagining a world without COVID-19 or more accurately one where it is under some reasonable control can help us reconceive how we want to live in it.

Can we use that luminal period to reenvision society along the lines Defoe idealistically drew even while we contribute to the collective search for the Holy Grail of herd immunity? During this second plague year, in coming editorials and in my own small circle of concern I will try to take a different less frustrated, embittered view of our lives scarred as they may be. It is only such a reorientation of perspectives in the shadow of so much death and suffering that can give us the energy and empathy to wear masks, go only where we must, follow public health measures and direction, and persuade the hesitant to be vaccinated so this truly is the last plague year at least for a long, quiet while.

In April 2020, I pledged to focus my editorials on the pandemic. In subsequent editorials I renewed that intention. And it is a promise I have kept during the long plague year for all my editorials. When I announced my plan to write solely on COVID-19, my astute editor asked me, “How are you going to know when to stop?” I reminded myself of his question as I sat down to write each month and never arrived at a satisfactory answer. Nor do I have an answer now for why I am asking readers to release me from my vow—except for the somewhat trivial reason that a year seems enough. Is there more to say about the pandemic? Yes, there is so much more that needs to be discovered and unraveled, contemplated and analyzed; no doubt oceans of print and electronic pages will wash over us in the coming decade from thousands of scientists and journalists commenting on the topic of this public health crisis.²

Nevertheless, I have run the gauntlet of salient subjects within my wheelhouse: The plague year of editorials opened with a primer on public health ethics; the May column studied the duty to care for health care professionals in the midst of the first surge of virus; June examined the controversy around remdesivir and hydroxcholoroquine as medicine frantically sought some way to treat the sick; in July, I took a lighter look at the “Dog Days” of COVID-19 staring my Labrador Retriever mix, Reed, snoozing on his couch on the patio; August celebrated the amazing outreach of the US Department of Defense, US Public Health Service, and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in service to the community; September discussed the adverse effects of the prolonged pandemic on the human psyche and some positive ways of handling the stress; October lamented the exponential rise in substance misuse as human beings struggled to manage the emotional toll of the pandemic; in December, COVID-19 was the sole subject of my annual Best and Worst ethics column; the new year saw the emergency use authorizations of the first and second vaccines and the editorial laid out the critical challenges for vaccination; in February my esteemed colleague Anita Tarzian joined me in an article explaining the ethical approach to vaccine allocation developed by the VA.^3-12

A reader might aptly ask whether I am laying down the COVID-19 gauntlet because I believe the pandemic is over and done with us. The news is full of pundits opining when things will return to normal (if that ever existed or will again) and soothsayers divining the signs of the plague’s end.¹³ What I think is that we are more than done with the pandemic and unfortunately that may be the central cause of its perpetuation; which brings me to Daniel Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year.¹

Defoe is better known to most of us if at all from modern films of his best-seller Robinson Crusoe. Yet A Journal of the Plague Year and other books about epidemics have become popular reading as we seek clues to the mystery of how to affirm life amid a death-dealing infectious disease.¹⁴ There is even an emerging lockdown literature genre. (Before anyone asks, I am in no way so pretentious as to suggest my columns should be included in that scholarly body of work).

Defoe’s book chronicles the last episode of the bubonic plague that afflicted London in 1665 and claimed 100,000 lives. Defoe was only 5 years old when the epidemic devastated one of the greatest cities in Europe. In 1772 he published what one recent reviewer called “a fascinating record of trying to cope with the capital’s last plague.”¹⁵ Defoe presciently documented the central reason I think the pandemic may not end anytime soon despite the increasing success of vaccination, at least in the United States. “But the Case was this...that the infection was propagated insensibly, and by such Persons, as were not visibly infected, who neither knew who they infected, or who they were infected by.”¹

Ignorance and apathy are not confined to the streets of 17th century England: We see state after state lift restrictions prematurely, guaranteeing the scientists prediction that the wave now hitting Europe could again breach our shores. Defoe wrote long before germ theory and the ascendancy of public health, yet he knew that the inability or unwillingness to stick close to home kept the plague circulating. “And here I must observe again, that this Necessity of going out of our Houses to buy Provisions, was in a Great Measure the Ruin of the whole City, for the people catch’d the Distemper, on those Occasions, one of another...”¹ While provisions may equate to food for many, for others necessities include going to bars, dining inside restaurants, and working out at gyms—all are natural laboratories for the spread and mutation of COVID-19 into variants against which physicians warn that the vaccine may not offer protection.

Defoe’s insights were at least in part due to his distance from the horror of the plague, which enabled him to study it with both empathy and objectivity, critical thinking, and creative observation. Similarly, it is time to take a brief breathing space from the pandemic as the central preoccupation of our existence: not just for me but for all of us to the extent possible given that unlike Defoe’s epoch it is still very much our reality. Even a few moments imagining a world without COVID-19 or more accurately one where it is under some reasonable control can help us reconceive how we want to live in it.

Can we use that luminal period to reenvision society along the lines Defoe idealistically drew even while we contribute to the collective search for the Holy Grail of herd immunity? During this second plague year, in coming editorials and in my own small circle of concern I will try to take a different less frustrated, embittered view of our lives scarred as they may be. It is only such a reorientation of perspectives in the shadow of so much death and suffering that can give us the energy and empathy to wear masks, go only where we must, follow public health measures and direction, and persuade the hesitant to be vaccinated so this truly is the last plague year at least for a long, quiet while.

In April 2020, I pledged to focus my editorials on the pandemic. In subsequent editorials I renewed that intention. And it is a promise I have kept during the long plague year for all my editorials. When I announced my plan to write solely on COVID-19, my astute editor asked me, “How are you going to know when to stop?” I reminded myself of his question as I sat down to write each month and never arrived at a satisfactory answer. Nor do I have an answer now for why I am asking readers to release me from my vow—except for the somewhat trivial reason that a year seems enough. Is there more to say about the pandemic? Yes, there is so much more that needs to be discovered and unraveled, contemplated and analyzed; no doubt oceans of print and electronic pages will wash over us in the coming decade from thousands of scientists and journalists commenting on the topic of this public health crisis.²

Nevertheless, I have run the gauntlet of salient subjects within my wheelhouse: The plague year of editorials opened with a primer on public health ethics; the May column studied the duty to care for health care professionals in the midst of the first surge of virus; June examined the controversy around remdesivir and hydroxcholoroquine as medicine frantically sought some way to treat the sick; in July, I took a lighter look at the “Dog Days” of COVID-19 staring my Labrador Retriever mix, Reed, snoozing on his couch on the patio; August celebrated the amazing outreach of the US Department of Defense, US Public Health Service, and US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in service to the community; September discussed the adverse effects of the prolonged pandemic on the human psyche and some positive ways of handling the stress; October lamented the exponential rise in substance misuse as human beings struggled to manage the emotional toll of the pandemic; in December, COVID-19 was the sole subject of my annual Best and Worst ethics column; the new year saw the emergency use authorizations of the first and second vaccines and the editorial laid out the critical challenges for vaccination; in February my esteemed colleague Anita Tarzian joined me in an article explaining the ethical approach to vaccine allocation developed by the VA.^3-12

A reader might aptly ask whether I am laying down the COVID-19 gauntlet because I believe the pandemic is over and done with us. The news is full of pundits opining when things will return to normal (if that ever existed or will again) and soothsayers divining the signs of the plague’s end.¹³ What I think is that we are more than done with the pandemic and unfortunately that may be the central cause of its perpetuation; which brings me to Daniel Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year.¹

Defoe is better known to most of us if at all from modern films of his best-seller Robinson Crusoe. Yet A Journal of the Plague Year and other books about epidemics have become popular reading as we seek clues to the mystery of how to affirm life amid a death-dealing infectious disease.¹⁴ There is even an emerging lockdown literature genre. (Before anyone asks, I am in no way so pretentious as to suggest my columns should be included in that scholarly body of work).

Defoe’s book chronicles the last episode of the bubonic plague that afflicted London in 1665 and claimed 100,000 lives. Defoe was only 5 years old when the epidemic devastated one of the greatest cities in Europe. In 1772 he published what one recent reviewer called “a fascinating record of trying to cope with the capital’s last plague.”¹⁵ Defoe presciently documented the central reason I think the pandemic may not end anytime soon despite the increasing success of vaccination, at least in the United States. “But the Case was this...that the infection was propagated insensibly, and by such Persons, as were not visibly infected, who neither knew who they infected, or who they were infected by.”¹

Ignorance and apathy are not confined to the streets of 17th century England: We see state after state lift restrictions prematurely, guaranteeing the scientists prediction that the wave now hitting Europe could again breach our shores. Defoe wrote long before germ theory and the ascendancy of public health, yet he knew that the inability or unwillingness to stick close to home kept the plague circulating. “And here I must observe again, that this Necessity of going out of our Houses to buy Provisions, was in a Great Measure the Ruin of the whole City, for the people catch’d the Distemper, on those Occasions, one of another...”¹ While provisions may equate to food for many, for others necessities include going to bars, dining inside restaurants, and working out at gyms—all are natural laboratories for the spread and mutation of COVID-19 into variants against which physicians warn that the vaccine may not offer protection.

Defoe’s insights were at least in part due to his distance from the horror of the plague, which enabled him to study it with both empathy and objectivity, critical thinking, and creative observation. Similarly, it is time to take a brief breathing space from the pandemic as the central preoccupation of our existence: not just for me but for all of us to the extent possible given that unlike Defoe’s epoch it is still very much our reality. Even a few moments imagining a world without COVID-19 or more accurately one where it is under some reasonable control can help us reconceive how we want to live in it.

Can we use that luminal period to reenvision society along the lines Defoe idealistically drew even while we contribute to the collective search for the Holy Grail of herd immunity? During this second plague year, in coming editorials and in my own small circle of concern I will try to take a different less frustrated, embittered view of our lives scarred as they may be. It is only such a reorientation of perspectives in the shadow of so much death and suffering that can give us the energy and empathy to wear masks, go only where we must, follow public health measures and direction, and persuade the hesitant to be vaccinated so this truly is the last plague year at least for a long, quiet while.