User login
When the X-Waiver gets X’ed: Implications for hospitalists
There are two pandemics permeating the United States: COVID-19 and addiction. To date, more than 468,000 people have died from COVID-19 in the U.S. In the 12-month period ending in May 2020, over 80,000 died from a drug related cause – the highest number ever recorded in a year. Many of these deaths involved opioids.
COVID-19 has worsened outcomes for people with addiction. There is less access to treatment, increased isolation, and worsening psychosocial and economic stressors. These factors may drive new, increased, or more risky substance use and return to use for people in recovery. As hospitalists, we have been responders in both COVID-19 and our country’s worsening overdose and addiction crisis.
In December 2020’s Journal of Hospital Medicine article “Converging Crises: Caring for hospitalized adults with substance use disorder in the time of COVID-19”, Dr. Honora Englander and her coauthors called on hospitalists to actively engage patients with substance use disorders during hospitalization. The article highlights the colliding crises of addiction and COVID-19 and provides eight practical approaches for hospitalists to address substance use disorders during the pandemic, including initiating buprenorphine for opioid withdrawal and prescribing it for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment.
Buprenorphine effectively treats opioid withdrawal, reduces OUD-related mortality, and decreases hospital readmissions related to OUD. To prescribe buprenorphine for OUD in the outpatient setting or on hospital discharge, providers need an X-Waiver. The X-Waiver is a result of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act 2000 (DATA 2000), which was enacted in 2000. It permits physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for OUD treatment after an 8-hour training. In 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act extended buprenorphine prescribing to physician assistants (PAs) and advanced-practice nurses (APNs). However, PAs and APNs are required to complete a 24-hour training to receive the waiver.
On Jan. 14, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration announced it was removing the X-Waiver training previously required for physicians to prescribe this life-saving medication. However, on Jan. 20, 2021, the Biden administration froze the training requirement removal pending a 60-day review. The excitement about the waiver’s eradication further dampened on Jan. 25, when the plan was halted due to procedural factors coupled with the concern that HHS may not have the authority to void requirements mandated by Congress.
Many of us continue to be hopeful that the X-Waiver will soon be gone. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has committed to working with federal agencies to increase access to buprenorphine. The Biden administration also committed to addressing our country’s addiction crisis, including a plan to “make effective prevention, treatment, and recovery services available to all, including through a $125 billion federal investment.”
Despite the pause on HHS’s recent attempt to “X the X-Waiver,” we now have renewed attention and interest in this critical issue and an opportunity for greater and longer-lasting legislative impact. SHM supports that Congress repeal the legislative requirement for buprenorphine training dictated by DATA 2000 so that it cannot be rolled back by future administrations. To further increase access to buprenorphine treatment, the training requirement should be removed for all providers who care for individuals with OUD.
The X-Waiver has been a barrier to hospitalist adoption of this critical, life-saving medication. HHS’s stance to nix the waiver, though fleeting, should be interpreted as an urgent call to the medical community, including us as hospitalists, to learn about buprenorphine with the many resources available (see table 1). As hospital medicine providers, we can order buprenorphine for patients with OUD during hospitalization. It is discharge prescriptions that have been limited to providers with an X-Waiver.
What can we do now to prepare for the eventual X-Waiver training removal? We can start by educating ourselves with the resources listed in table 1. Those of us who are already buprenorphine champions could lead trainings in our home institutions. In a future without the waiver there will be more flexibility to develop hospitalist-focused buprenorphine trainings, as the previous ones were geared for outpatient providers. Hospitalist organizations could support hospitalist-specific buprenorphine trainings and extend the models to include additional medications for addiction.
There is a large body of evidence regarding buprenorphine’s safety and efficacy in OUD treatment. With a worsening overdose crisis, there have been increasing opioid-related hospitalizations. When new medications for diabetes, hypertension, or DVT treatment become available, as hospitalists we incorporate them into our toolbox. As buprenorphine becomes more accessible, we can be leaders in further adopting it (and other substance use disorder medications while we are at it) as our standard of care for people with OUD.
Dr. Bottner is a physician assistant in the Division of Hospital Medicine at Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin and director of the hospital’s Buprenorphine Team. Dr. Martin is a board-certified addiction medicine physician and hospitalist at University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Addiction Care Team at San Francisco General Hospital. Dr. Bottner and Dr. Martin colead the SHM Substance Use Disorder Special Interest Group.
There are two pandemics permeating the United States: COVID-19 and addiction. To date, more than 468,000 people have died from COVID-19 in the U.S. In the 12-month period ending in May 2020, over 80,000 died from a drug related cause – the highest number ever recorded in a year. Many of these deaths involved opioids.
COVID-19 has worsened outcomes for people with addiction. There is less access to treatment, increased isolation, and worsening psychosocial and economic stressors. These factors may drive new, increased, or more risky substance use and return to use for people in recovery. As hospitalists, we have been responders in both COVID-19 and our country’s worsening overdose and addiction crisis.
In December 2020’s Journal of Hospital Medicine article “Converging Crises: Caring for hospitalized adults with substance use disorder in the time of COVID-19”, Dr. Honora Englander and her coauthors called on hospitalists to actively engage patients with substance use disorders during hospitalization. The article highlights the colliding crises of addiction and COVID-19 and provides eight practical approaches for hospitalists to address substance use disorders during the pandemic, including initiating buprenorphine for opioid withdrawal and prescribing it for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment.
Buprenorphine effectively treats opioid withdrawal, reduces OUD-related mortality, and decreases hospital readmissions related to OUD. To prescribe buprenorphine for OUD in the outpatient setting or on hospital discharge, providers need an X-Waiver. The X-Waiver is a result of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act 2000 (DATA 2000), which was enacted in 2000. It permits physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for OUD treatment after an 8-hour training. In 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act extended buprenorphine prescribing to physician assistants (PAs) and advanced-practice nurses (APNs). However, PAs and APNs are required to complete a 24-hour training to receive the waiver.
On Jan. 14, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration announced it was removing the X-Waiver training previously required for physicians to prescribe this life-saving medication. However, on Jan. 20, 2021, the Biden administration froze the training requirement removal pending a 60-day review. The excitement about the waiver’s eradication further dampened on Jan. 25, when the plan was halted due to procedural factors coupled with the concern that HHS may not have the authority to void requirements mandated by Congress.
Many of us continue to be hopeful that the X-Waiver will soon be gone. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has committed to working with federal agencies to increase access to buprenorphine. The Biden administration also committed to addressing our country’s addiction crisis, including a plan to “make effective prevention, treatment, and recovery services available to all, including through a $125 billion federal investment.”
Despite the pause on HHS’s recent attempt to “X the X-Waiver,” we now have renewed attention and interest in this critical issue and an opportunity for greater and longer-lasting legislative impact. SHM supports that Congress repeal the legislative requirement for buprenorphine training dictated by DATA 2000 so that it cannot be rolled back by future administrations. To further increase access to buprenorphine treatment, the training requirement should be removed for all providers who care for individuals with OUD.
The X-Waiver has been a barrier to hospitalist adoption of this critical, life-saving medication. HHS’s stance to nix the waiver, though fleeting, should be interpreted as an urgent call to the medical community, including us as hospitalists, to learn about buprenorphine with the many resources available (see table 1). As hospital medicine providers, we can order buprenorphine for patients with OUD during hospitalization. It is discharge prescriptions that have been limited to providers with an X-Waiver.
What can we do now to prepare for the eventual X-Waiver training removal? We can start by educating ourselves with the resources listed in table 1. Those of us who are already buprenorphine champions could lead trainings in our home institutions. In a future without the waiver there will be more flexibility to develop hospitalist-focused buprenorphine trainings, as the previous ones were geared for outpatient providers. Hospitalist organizations could support hospitalist-specific buprenorphine trainings and extend the models to include additional medications for addiction.
There is a large body of evidence regarding buprenorphine’s safety and efficacy in OUD treatment. With a worsening overdose crisis, there have been increasing opioid-related hospitalizations. When new medications for diabetes, hypertension, or DVT treatment become available, as hospitalists we incorporate them into our toolbox. As buprenorphine becomes more accessible, we can be leaders in further adopting it (and other substance use disorder medications while we are at it) as our standard of care for people with OUD.
Dr. Bottner is a physician assistant in the Division of Hospital Medicine at Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin and director of the hospital’s Buprenorphine Team. Dr. Martin is a board-certified addiction medicine physician and hospitalist at University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Addiction Care Team at San Francisco General Hospital. Dr. Bottner and Dr. Martin colead the SHM Substance Use Disorder Special Interest Group.
There are two pandemics permeating the United States: COVID-19 and addiction. To date, more than 468,000 people have died from COVID-19 in the U.S. In the 12-month period ending in May 2020, over 80,000 died from a drug related cause – the highest number ever recorded in a year. Many of these deaths involved opioids.
COVID-19 has worsened outcomes for people with addiction. There is less access to treatment, increased isolation, and worsening psychosocial and economic stressors. These factors may drive new, increased, or more risky substance use and return to use for people in recovery. As hospitalists, we have been responders in both COVID-19 and our country’s worsening overdose and addiction crisis.
In December 2020’s Journal of Hospital Medicine article “Converging Crises: Caring for hospitalized adults with substance use disorder in the time of COVID-19”, Dr. Honora Englander and her coauthors called on hospitalists to actively engage patients with substance use disorders during hospitalization. The article highlights the colliding crises of addiction and COVID-19 and provides eight practical approaches for hospitalists to address substance use disorders during the pandemic, including initiating buprenorphine for opioid withdrawal and prescribing it for opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment.
Buprenorphine effectively treats opioid withdrawal, reduces OUD-related mortality, and decreases hospital readmissions related to OUD. To prescribe buprenorphine for OUD in the outpatient setting or on hospital discharge, providers need an X-Waiver. The X-Waiver is a result of the Drug Addiction Treatment Act 2000 (DATA 2000), which was enacted in 2000. It permits physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for OUD treatment after an 8-hour training. In 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act extended buprenorphine prescribing to physician assistants (PAs) and advanced-practice nurses (APNs). However, PAs and APNs are required to complete a 24-hour training to receive the waiver.
On Jan. 14, 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration announced it was removing the X-Waiver training previously required for physicians to prescribe this life-saving medication. However, on Jan. 20, 2021, the Biden administration froze the training requirement removal pending a 60-day review. The excitement about the waiver’s eradication further dampened on Jan. 25, when the plan was halted due to procedural factors coupled with the concern that HHS may not have the authority to void requirements mandated by Congress.
Many of us continue to be hopeful that the X-Waiver will soon be gone. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has committed to working with federal agencies to increase access to buprenorphine. The Biden administration also committed to addressing our country’s addiction crisis, including a plan to “make effective prevention, treatment, and recovery services available to all, including through a $125 billion federal investment.”
Despite the pause on HHS’s recent attempt to “X the X-Waiver,” we now have renewed attention and interest in this critical issue and an opportunity for greater and longer-lasting legislative impact. SHM supports that Congress repeal the legislative requirement for buprenorphine training dictated by DATA 2000 so that it cannot be rolled back by future administrations. To further increase access to buprenorphine treatment, the training requirement should be removed for all providers who care for individuals with OUD.
The X-Waiver has been a barrier to hospitalist adoption of this critical, life-saving medication. HHS’s stance to nix the waiver, though fleeting, should be interpreted as an urgent call to the medical community, including us as hospitalists, to learn about buprenorphine with the many resources available (see table 1). As hospital medicine providers, we can order buprenorphine for patients with OUD during hospitalization. It is discharge prescriptions that have been limited to providers with an X-Waiver.
What can we do now to prepare for the eventual X-Waiver training removal? We can start by educating ourselves with the resources listed in table 1. Those of us who are already buprenorphine champions could lead trainings in our home institutions. In a future without the waiver there will be more flexibility to develop hospitalist-focused buprenorphine trainings, as the previous ones were geared for outpatient providers. Hospitalist organizations could support hospitalist-specific buprenorphine trainings and extend the models to include additional medications for addiction.
There is a large body of evidence regarding buprenorphine’s safety and efficacy in OUD treatment. With a worsening overdose crisis, there have been increasing opioid-related hospitalizations. When new medications for diabetes, hypertension, or DVT treatment become available, as hospitalists we incorporate them into our toolbox. As buprenorphine becomes more accessible, we can be leaders in further adopting it (and other substance use disorder medications while we are at it) as our standard of care for people with OUD.
Dr. Bottner is a physician assistant in the Division of Hospital Medicine at Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin and director of the hospital’s Buprenorphine Team. Dr. Martin is a board-certified addiction medicine physician and hospitalist at University of California, San Francisco, and director of the Addiction Care Team at San Francisco General Hospital. Dr. Bottner and Dr. Martin colead the SHM Substance Use Disorder Special Interest Group.
The importance of family acceptance for LGBTQ youth
It is well established that LGBTQ individuals experience more health disparities compared with their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts. In general, LGBTQ adolescents and young adults have higher levels of depression, suicide attempts, and substance use than those of their heterosexual peers. However, a key protective factor is family acceptance and support. By encouraging families to modify and change behaviors that are experienced by their LGBTQ children as rejecting and to engage in supportive and affirming behaviors, providers can help families to decrease risk and promote healthy outcomes for LGBTQ youth and young adults. 
We all know that a supportive family can make a difference for any child, but this is especially true for LGBTQ youth and is critical during a pandemic when young people are confined with families and separated from peers and supportive adults outside the home. Several research studies show that family support can improve outcomes related to suicide, depression, homelessness, drug use, and HIV in LGBTQ young people. Family acceptance improves health outcomes, while rejection undermines family relationships and worsens both health and other serious outcomes such as homelessness and placement in custodial care. Pediatricians can help their patients by educating parents and caregivers with LGBTQ children about the critical role of family support – both those who see themselves as accepting and those who believe that being gay or transgender is wrong and are struggling with parenting a child who identifies as LGBTQ or who is gender diverse.
The Family Acceptance Project (FAP) at San Francisco State University conducted the first research on LGBTQ youth and families, developed the first evidence-informed family support model, and has published a range of studies and evidence-based resources that demonstrate the harm caused by family rejection, validate the importance of family acceptance, and provide guidance to increase family support. FAP’s research found that parents and caregivers that engage in rejecting behaviors are typically motivated by care and concern and by trying to protect their children from harm. They believe such behaviors will help their LGBTQ children fit in, have a good life, meet cultural and religious expectations, and be respected by others.1 FAP’s research identified and measured more than 50 rejecting behaviors that parents and caregivers use to respond to their LGBTQ children. Some of these commonly expressed rejecting behaviors include ridiculing and making disparaging comments about their child and other LGBTQ people; excluding them from family activities; blaming their child when others mistreat them because they are LGBTQ; blocking access to LGBTQ resources including friends, support groups, and activities; and trying to change their child’s sexual orientation and gender identity.2 LGBTQ youth experience these and other such behaviors as hurtful, harmful, and traumatic and may feel that they need to hide or repress their identity which can affect their self-esteem, increase isolation, depression, and risky behaviors.3 Providers working with families of LGBTQ youth should focus on shared goals, such as reducing risk and having a happy, healthy child. Most parents love their children and fear for their well-being. However, many are uninformed about their child’s gender identity and sexual orientation and don’t know how to nurture and support them.
In FAP’s initial study, LGB young people who reported higher levels of family rejection had substantially higher rates of attempted suicide, depression, illegal drug use, and unprotected sex.4 These rates were even more significant among Latino gay and bisexual men.4 Those who are rejected by family are less likely to want to have a family or to be parents themselves5 and have lower educational and income levels.6
To reduce risk, pediatricians should ask LGBTQ patients about family rejecting behaviors and help parents and caregivers to identify and understand the effect of such behaviors to reduce health risks and conflict that can lead to running away, expulsion, and removal from the home. Even decreasing rejecting behaviors to moderate levels can significantly improve negative outcomes.5
Caitlin Ryan, PhD, and her team also identified and measured more than 50 family accepting behaviors that help protect against risk and promote well-being. They found that young adults who experience high levels of family acceptance during adolescence report significantly higher levels of self-esteem, social support, and general health with much lower levels of depression, suicidality, and substance abuse.7 Family accepting and supportive behaviors include talking with the child about their LGBTQ identity; advocating for their LGBTQ child when others mistreat them; requiring other family members to treat their LGBTQ child with respect; and supporting their child’s gender identity.5 FAP has developed an evidence-informed family support model and multilingual educational resources for families, providers, youth and religious leaders to decrease rejection and increase family support. These are available in print copies and for download at familyproject.sfsu.edu.
In addition, Dr. Ryan and colleagues1,4,8 recommend the following guidance for providers:
- Ask LGBTQ adolescents about family reactions to their sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression, and refer to LGBTQ community support programs and for supportive counseling, as needed.
- Identify LGBTQ community support programs and online resources to educate parents about how to help their children. Parents need culturally relevant peer support to help decrease rejection and increase family support.
- Advise parents that negative reactions to their adolescent’s LGBTQ identity may negatively impact their child’s health and mental health while supportive and affirming reactions promote well-being.
- Advise parents and caregivers to modify and change family rejecting behaviors that increase their child’s risk for suicide, depression, substance abuse ,and risky sexual behaviors.
- Expand anticipatory guidance to include information on the need for support and the link between family rejection and negative health problems.
- Provide guidance on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of normative child development during well-baby and early childhood care.
- Use FAP’s multilingual family education booklets and Healthy Futures poster series in family and patient education and provide these materials in clinical and community settings. FAP’s Healthy Futures posters include a poster guidance, a version on family acceptance, a version on family rejection and a family acceptance version for conservative families and settings. They are available in camera-ready art in four sizes in English and Spanish and are forthcoming in five Asian languages: familyproject.sfsu.edu/poster.
Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
Resources
• Family Acceptance Project – consultation and training; evidence-based educational materials for families, providers, religious leaders and youth.
• PFLAG – peer support for parents and friends with LGBTQ children in all states and several other countries.
References
1. Ryan C. Generating a revolution in prevention, wellness & care for LGBT children & youth. Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review. 2014;23(2):331-44.
2. Ryan C. Healthy Futures Poster Series – Family Accepting & Rejecting Behaviors That Impact LGBTQ Children’s Health & Well-Being. In: Family Acceptance Project Marian Wright Edelman Institute SFSU, ed. San Francisco, CA2019.
3. Ryan C. Family Acceptance Project: Culturally grounded framework for supporting LGBTQ children and youth. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatr. 2019;58(10):S58-9.
4. Ryan C et al. Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in White and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics. 2009;123(1):346-52.
5. Ryan C. Supportive families, healthy children: Helping families with lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender children. In: Family Acceptance Project Marian Wright Edelman Institute SFSU, ed. San Francisco, CA2009.
6. Ryan C et al. Parent-initiated sexual orientation change efforts with LGBT adolescents: Implications for young adult mental health and adjustment. J Homosexuality. 2020;67(2):159-73.
7. Ryan C et al. Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nursing. 2010;23(4):205-13. 8. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. A Practitioner’s Guide: Helping Families to Support Their LGBT Children. In: Administration SAaMhS, ed. Vol PEP14-LGBTKIDS. Rockville, MD: HHS Publication; 2014.
It is well established that LGBTQ individuals experience more health disparities compared with their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts. In general, LGBTQ adolescents and young adults have higher levels of depression, suicide attempts, and substance use than those of their heterosexual peers. However, a key protective factor is family acceptance and support. By encouraging families to modify and change behaviors that are experienced by their LGBTQ children as rejecting and to engage in supportive and affirming behaviors, providers can help families to decrease risk and promote healthy outcomes for LGBTQ youth and young adults.
We all know that a supportive family can make a difference for any child, but this is especially true for LGBTQ youth and is critical during a pandemic when young people are confined with families and separated from peers and supportive adults outside the home. Several research studies show that family support can improve outcomes related to suicide, depression, homelessness, drug use, and HIV in LGBTQ young people. Family acceptance improves health outcomes, while rejection undermines family relationships and worsens both health and other serious outcomes such as homelessness and placement in custodial care. Pediatricians can help their patients by educating parents and caregivers with LGBTQ children about the critical role of family support – both those who see themselves as accepting and those who believe that being gay or transgender is wrong and are struggling with parenting a child who identifies as LGBTQ or who is gender diverse.
The Family Acceptance Project (FAP) at San Francisco State University conducted the first research on LGBTQ youth and families, developed the first evidence-informed family support model, and has published a range of studies and evidence-based resources that demonstrate the harm caused by family rejection, validate the importance of family acceptance, and provide guidance to increase family support. FAP’s research found that parents and caregivers that engage in rejecting behaviors are typically motivated by care and concern and by trying to protect their children from harm. They believe such behaviors will help their LGBTQ children fit in, have a good life, meet cultural and religious expectations, and be respected by others.1 FAP’s research identified and measured more than 50 rejecting behaviors that parents and caregivers use to respond to their LGBTQ children. Some of these commonly expressed rejecting behaviors include ridiculing and making disparaging comments about their child and other LGBTQ people; excluding them from family activities; blaming their child when others mistreat them because they are LGBTQ; blocking access to LGBTQ resources including friends, support groups, and activities; and trying to change their child’s sexual orientation and gender identity.2 LGBTQ youth experience these and other such behaviors as hurtful, harmful, and traumatic and may feel that they need to hide or repress their identity which can affect their self-esteem, increase isolation, depression, and risky behaviors.3 Providers working with families of LGBTQ youth should focus on shared goals, such as reducing risk and having a happy, healthy child. Most parents love their children and fear for their well-being. However, many are uninformed about their child’s gender identity and sexual orientation and don’t know how to nurture and support them.
In FAP’s initial study, LGB young people who reported higher levels of family rejection had substantially higher rates of attempted suicide, depression, illegal drug use, and unprotected sex.4 These rates were even more significant among Latino gay and bisexual men.4 Those who are rejected by family are less likely to want to have a family or to be parents themselves5 and have lower educational and income levels.6
To reduce risk, pediatricians should ask LGBTQ patients about family rejecting behaviors and help parents and caregivers to identify and understand the effect of such behaviors to reduce health risks and conflict that can lead to running away, expulsion, and removal from the home. Even decreasing rejecting behaviors to moderate levels can significantly improve negative outcomes.5
Caitlin Ryan, PhD, and her team also identified and measured more than 50 family accepting behaviors that help protect against risk and promote well-being. They found that young adults who experience high levels of family acceptance during adolescence report significantly higher levels of self-esteem, social support, and general health with much lower levels of depression, suicidality, and substance abuse.7 Family accepting and supportive behaviors include talking with the child about their LGBTQ identity; advocating for their LGBTQ child when others mistreat them; requiring other family members to treat their LGBTQ child with respect; and supporting their child’s gender identity.5 FAP has developed an evidence-informed family support model and multilingual educational resources for families, providers, youth and religious leaders to decrease rejection and increase family support. These are available in print copies and for download at familyproject.sfsu.edu.
In addition, Dr. Ryan and colleagues1,4,8 recommend the following guidance for providers:
- Ask LGBTQ adolescents about family reactions to their sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression, and refer to LGBTQ community support programs and for supportive counseling, as needed.
- Identify LGBTQ community support programs and online resources to educate parents about how to help their children. Parents need culturally relevant peer support to help decrease rejection and increase family support.
- Advise parents that negative reactions to their adolescent’s LGBTQ identity may negatively impact their child’s health and mental health while supportive and affirming reactions promote well-being.
- Advise parents and caregivers to modify and change family rejecting behaviors that increase their child’s risk for suicide, depression, substance abuse ,and risky sexual behaviors.
- Expand anticipatory guidance to include information on the need for support and the link between family rejection and negative health problems.
- Provide guidance on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of normative child development during well-baby and early childhood care.
- Use FAP’s multilingual family education booklets and Healthy Futures poster series in family and patient education and provide these materials in clinical and community settings. FAP’s Healthy Futures posters include a poster guidance, a version on family acceptance, a version on family rejection and a family acceptance version for conservative families and settings. They are available in camera-ready art in four sizes in English and Spanish and are forthcoming in five Asian languages: familyproject.sfsu.edu/poster.
Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
Resources
• Family Acceptance Project – consultation and training; evidence-based educational materials for families, providers, religious leaders and youth.
• PFLAG – peer support for parents and friends with LGBTQ children in all states and several other countries.
References
1. Ryan C. Generating a revolution in prevention, wellness & care for LGBT children & youth. Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review. 2014;23(2):331-44.
2. Ryan C. Healthy Futures Poster Series – Family Accepting & Rejecting Behaviors That Impact LGBTQ Children’s Health & Well-Being. In: Family Acceptance Project Marian Wright Edelman Institute SFSU, ed. San Francisco, CA2019.
3. Ryan C. Family Acceptance Project: Culturally grounded framework for supporting LGBTQ children and youth. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatr. 2019;58(10):S58-9.
4. Ryan C et al. Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in White and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics. 2009;123(1):346-52.
5. Ryan C. Supportive families, healthy children: Helping families with lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender children. In: Family Acceptance Project Marian Wright Edelman Institute SFSU, ed. San Francisco, CA2009.
6. Ryan C et al. Parent-initiated sexual orientation change efforts with LGBT adolescents: Implications for young adult mental health and adjustment. J Homosexuality. 2020;67(2):159-73.
7. Ryan C et al. Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nursing. 2010;23(4):205-13. 8. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. A Practitioner’s Guide: Helping Families to Support Their LGBT Children. In: Administration SAaMhS, ed. Vol PEP14-LGBTKIDS. Rockville, MD: HHS Publication; 2014.
It is well established that LGBTQ individuals experience more health disparities compared with their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts. In general, LGBTQ adolescents and young adults have higher levels of depression, suicide attempts, and substance use than those of their heterosexual peers. However, a key protective factor is family acceptance and support. By encouraging families to modify and change behaviors that are experienced by their LGBTQ children as rejecting and to engage in supportive and affirming behaviors, providers can help families to decrease risk and promote healthy outcomes for LGBTQ youth and young adults.
We all know that a supportive family can make a difference for any child, but this is especially true for LGBTQ youth and is critical during a pandemic when young people are confined with families and separated from peers and supportive adults outside the home. Several research studies show that family support can improve outcomes related to suicide, depression, homelessness, drug use, and HIV in LGBTQ young people. Family acceptance improves health outcomes, while rejection undermines family relationships and worsens both health and other serious outcomes such as homelessness and placement in custodial care. Pediatricians can help their patients by educating parents and caregivers with LGBTQ children about the critical role of family support – both those who see themselves as accepting and those who believe that being gay or transgender is wrong and are struggling with parenting a child who identifies as LGBTQ or who is gender diverse.
The Family Acceptance Project (FAP) at San Francisco State University conducted the first research on LGBTQ youth and families, developed the first evidence-informed family support model, and has published a range of studies and evidence-based resources that demonstrate the harm caused by family rejection, validate the importance of family acceptance, and provide guidance to increase family support. FAP’s research found that parents and caregivers that engage in rejecting behaviors are typically motivated by care and concern and by trying to protect their children from harm. They believe such behaviors will help their LGBTQ children fit in, have a good life, meet cultural and religious expectations, and be respected by others.1 FAP’s research identified and measured more than 50 rejecting behaviors that parents and caregivers use to respond to their LGBTQ children. Some of these commonly expressed rejecting behaviors include ridiculing and making disparaging comments about their child and other LGBTQ people; excluding them from family activities; blaming their child when others mistreat them because they are LGBTQ; blocking access to LGBTQ resources including friends, support groups, and activities; and trying to change their child’s sexual orientation and gender identity.2 LGBTQ youth experience these and other such behaviors as hurtful, harmful, and traumatic and may feel that they need to hide or repress their identity which can affect their self-esteem, increase isolation, depression, and risky behaviors.3 Providers working with families of LGBTQ youth should focus on shared goals, such as reducing risk and having a happy, healthy child. Most parents love their children and fear for their well-being. However, many are uninformed about their child’s gender identity and sexual orientation and don’t know how to nurture and support them.
In FAP’s initial study, LGB young people who reported higher levels of family rejection had substantially higher rates of attempted suicide, depression, illegal drug use, and unprotected sex.4 These rates were even more significant among Latino gay and bisexual men.4 Those who are rejected by family are less likely to want to have a family or to be parents themselves5 and have lower educational and income levels.6
To reduce risk, pediatricians should ask LGBTQ patients about family rejecting behaviors and help parents and caregivers to identify and understand the effect of such behaviors to reduce health risks and conflict that can lead to running away, expulsion, and removal from the home. Even decreasing rejecting behaviors to moderate levels can significantly improve negative outcomes.5
Caitlin Ryan, PhD, and her team also identified and measured more than 50 family accepting behaviors that help protect against risk and promote well-being. They found that young adults who experience high levels of family acceptance during adolescence report significantly higher levels of self-esteem, social support, and general health with much lower levels of depression, suicidality, and substance abuse.7 Family accepting and supportive behaviors include talking with the child about their LGBTQ identity; advocating for their LGBTQ child when others mistreat them; requiring other family members to treat their LGBTQ child with respect; and supporting their child’s gender identity.5 FAP has developed an evidence-informed family support model and multilingual educational resources for families, providers, youth and religious leaders to decrease rejection and increase family support. These are available in print copies and for download at familyproject.sfsu.edu.
In addition, Dr. Ryan and colleagues1,4,8 recommend the following guidance for providers:
- Ask LGBTQ adolescents about family reactions to their sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression, and refer to LGBTQ community support programs and for supportive counseling, as needed.
- Identify LGBTQ community support programs and online resources to educate parents about how to help their children. Parents need culturally relevant peer support to help decrease rejection and increase family support.
- Advise parents that negative reactions to their adolescent’s LGBTQ identity may negatively impact their child’s health and mental health while supportive and affirming reactions promote well-being.
- Advise parents and caregivers to modify and change family rejecting behaviors that increase their child’s risk for suicide, depression, substance abuse ,and risky sexual behaviors.
- Expand anticipatory guidance to include information on the need for support and the link between family rejection and negative health problems.
- Provide guidance on sexual orientation and gender identity as part of normative child development during well-baby and early childhood care.
- Use FAP’s multilingual family education booklets and Healthy Futures poster series in family and patient education and provide these materials in clinical and community settings. FAP’s Healthy Futures posters include a poster guidance, a version on family acceptance, a version on family rejection and a family acceptance version for conservative families and settings. They are available in camera-ready art in four sizes in English and Spanish and are forthcoming in five Asian languages: familyproject.sfsu.edu/poster.
Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
Resources
• Family Acceptance Project – consultation and training; evidence-based educational materials for families, providers, religious leaders and youth.
• PFLAG – peer support for parents and friends with LGBTQ children in all states and several other countries.
References
1. Ryan C. Generating a revolution in prevention, wellness & care for LGBT children & youth. Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review. 2014;23(2):331-44.
2. Ryan C. Healthy Futures Poster Series – Family Accepting & Rejecting Behaviors That Impact LGBTQ Children’s Health & Well-Being. In: Family Acceptance Project Marian Wright Edelman Institute SFSU, ed. San Francisco, CA2019.
3. Ryan C. Family Acceptance Project: Culturally grounded framework for supporting LGBTQ children and youth. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatr. 2019;58(10):S58-9.
4. Ryan C et al. Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in White and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics. 2009;123(1):346-52.
5. Ryan C. Supportive families, healthy children: Helping families with lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender children. In: Family Acceptance Project Marian Wright Edelman Institute SFSU, ed. San Francisco, CA2009.
6. Ryan C et al. Parent-initiated sexual orientation change efforts with LGBT adolescents: Implications for young adult mental health and adjustment. J Homosexuality. 2020;67(2):159-73.
7. Ryan C et al. Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nursing. 2010;23(4):205-13. 8. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. A Practitioner’s Guide: Helping Families to Support Their LGBT Children. In: Administration SAaMhS, ed. Vol PEP14-LGBTKIDS. Rockville, MD: HHS Publication; 2014.
Child ‘Mis’behavior – What’s ‘mis’ing?
“What kind of parent are you? Why don’t you straighten him out!” rants the woman being jostled in the grocery store by your patient. “Easy for you to say,” thinks your patient’s frazzled and now insulted parent.
Blaming the parent for an out-of-control child has historically been a common refrain of neighbors, relatives, and even strangers. But considering child behavior as resulting from both parent and child factors is central to the current transactional model of child development. In this model, mismatch of the parent’s and child’s response patterns is seen as setting them up for chronically rough interactions around parent requests/demands. A parent escalating quickly from a briefly stated request to a tirade may create more tension paired with an anxious child who takes time to act, for example. Once a parent (and ultimately the child) recognize patterns in what leads to conflict, they can become more proactive in predicting and negotiating these situations. Ross Greene, PhD, explains this in his book “The Explosive Child,” calling the method Collaborative Problem Solving (now Collaborative & Proactive Solutions or CPS).
While there are general principles parents can use to modify what they consider “mis”behaviors, these methods often do not account for the “missing” skills of the individual child (and parent) predisposing to those “mis”takes. Thinking of misbehaviors as being because of a kind of “learning disability” in the child rather than willful defiance can help cool off interactions by instead focusing on solving the underlying problem.
What kinds of “gaps in skills” set a child up for defiant or explosive reactions? If you think about what features of children, and parent-child relationships are associated with harmonious interactions this becomes evident. Children over 3 who are patient, easygoing, flexible or adaptable, and good at transitions and problem-solving can delay gratification and tolerate frustration, regulate their emotions, explain their desires, and multitask. They are better at reading the parent’s needs and intent and tend to interpret requests as positive or at least neutral and are more likely to comply with parent requests without a fuss.
What? No kid you know is great at all of these? These skills, at best variable, develop with maturation. Some are part of temperament, considered normal variation in personality. For example, so-called difficult temperament includes low adaptability, high-intensity reactions, low regularity, tendency to withdraw, and negative mood. But in the extreme, weaknesses in these skills are core to or comorbid with diagnosable mental health disorders. Defiance and irritable responses are criteria for oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and less severe categories called aggressive/oppositional problem or variation. ODD is often found in children diagnosed with ADHD (65%), Tourette’s (15%-65%), depression (70% if severe), bipolar disorder (85%), OCD, anxiety (45%), autism, and language-processing disorders (55%), or trauma. These conditions variably include lower emotion regulation, poorer executive functioning including poor task shifting and impulsivity, obsessiveness, lower expressive and receptive communication skills, and less social awareness that facilitates harmonious problem solving.
The basic components of the CPS approach to addressing parent-child conflict sound intuitive but defining them clearly is important when families are stuck. There are three levels of plans. If the problem is an emergency or nonnegotiable, e.g., child hurting the cat, it may call for Plan A – parent-imposed solutions, sometimes with consequences or rewards. As children mature, Plan A should be used less frequently. If solving the problem is not a top life priority, Plan C – postponing action, may be appropriate. Plan C highlights that behavior change is a long-term project and “picking your fights” is important.
The biggest value of CPS for resolving behavior problems comes from intermediate Plan B. In Plan B the first step of problem solving for parents facing child defiance or upset is to empathically and nonjudgmentally figure out the child’s concern. Questions such as “I’ve noticed that when I remind you that it is trash night you start shouting. What’s up with that?” then patiently asking about the who, what, where, and when of their concern and checking to ensure understanding. Specificity is important as well as noting times when the reaction occurs or not.
Once the child’s concern is clear, e.g., feeling that the demand to take out the trash now interrupts his games during the only time his friends are online, the parents should echo the child’s concern then express their own concern about how the behavior is affecting them and others, potentially including the child; e.g., mother is so upset by the shouting that she can’t sleep, and worry that the child is not learning responsibility, and then checking for child understanding.
Finally, the parent invites brainstorming for a solution that addresses both of their concerns, first asking the child for suggestions, aiming for a strategy that is realistic and specific. Children reluctant to make suggestions may need more time and the parent may be wondering “if there is a way for both of our concerns to be addressed.” Solutions chosen are then tried for several weeks, success tracked, and needed changes negotiated.
For parents, using a collaborative approach to dealing with their child’s behavior takes skills they may not have at the moment, or ever. Especially under the stresses of COVID-19 lockdown, taking a step back from an encounter to consider lack of a skill to turn off the video game promptly when a Zoom meeting starts is challenging. Parents may also genetically share the child’s predisposing ADHD, anxiety, depression, OCD, or weakness in communication or social sensitivity.
Sometimes part of the solution for a conflict is for the parent to reduce expectations. This requires understanding and accepting the child’s cognitive or emotional limitations. Reducing expectations is ideally done before a request rather than by giving in after it, which reinforces protests. For authoritarian adults rigid in their belief that parents are boss, changing expectations can be tough and can feel like losing control or failing as a leader. One benefit of working with a CPS coach (see livesinthebalance.org or ThinkKids.org) is to help parents identify their own limitations.
Predicting the types of demands that tend to create conflict, such as to act immediately or be flexible about options, allows parents to prioritize those requests for calmer moments or when there is more time for discussion. Reviewing a checklist of common gaps in skills and creating a list of expectations and triggers that are difficult for the child helps the family be more proactive in developing solutions. Authors of CPS have validated a checklist of skill deficits, “Thinking Skills Inventory,” to facilitate detection of gaps that is educational plus useful for planning specific solutions.
CPS has been shown in randomized trials with both parent groups and in home counseling to be as effective as Parent Training in reducing oppositional behavior and reducing maternal stress, with effects lasting even longer.
CPS Plan B notably has no reward or punishment components as it assumes the child wants to behave acceptably but can’t; has the “will but not the skill.” When skill deficits are worked around the child is satisfied with complying and pleasing the parents. The idea of a “function” of the misbehavior for the child of gaining attention or reward or avoiding consequences is reinterpreted as serving to communicate the problem the child is having trouble in meeting the parent’s demand. When the parent understands and helps the child solve the problem his/her misbehavior is no longer needed. A benefit of the communication and mutual problem solving used in CPS is on not only improving behavior but empowering parents and children, building parental empathy, and improving child skills.
Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication is as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Reference
Greene RW et al. A transactional model of oppositional behavior: Underpinnings of the Collaborative Problem Solving approach. J Psychosom Res. 2003;55(1):67-75.
“What kind of parent are you? Why don’t you straighten him out!” rants the woman being jostled in the grocery store by your patient. “Easy for you to say,” thinks your patient’s frazzled and now insulted parent.
Blaming the parent for an out-of-control child has historically been a common refrain of neighbors, relatives, and even strangers. But considering child behavior as resulting from both parent and child factors is central to the current transactional model of child development. In this model, mismatch of the parent’s and child’s response patterns is seen as setting them up for chronically rough interactions around parent requests/demands. A parent escalating quickly from a briefly stated request to a tirade may create more tension paired with an anxious child who takes time to act, for example. Once a parent (and ultimately the child) recognize patterns in what leads to conflict, they can become more proactive in predicting and negotiating these situations. Ross Greene, PhD, explains this in his book “The Explosive Child,” calling the method Collaborative Problem Solving (now Collaborative & Proactive Solutions or CPS).
While there are general principles parents can use to modify what they consider “mis”behaviors, these methods often do not account for the “missing” skills of the individual child (and parent) predisposing to those “mis”takes. Thinking of misbehaviors as being because of a kind of “learning disability” in the child rather than willful defiance can help cool off interactions by instead focusing on solving the underlying problem.
What kinds of “gaps in skills” set a child up for defiant or explosive reactions? If you think about what features of children, and parent-child relationships are associated with harmonious interactions this becomes evident. Children over 3 who are patient, easygoing, flexible or adaptable, and good at transitions and problem-solving can delay gratification and tolerate frustration, regulate their emotions, explain their desires, and multitask. They are better at reading the parent’s needs and intent and tend to interpret requests as positive or at least neutral and are more likely to comply with parent requests without a fuss.
What? No kid you know is great at all of these? These skills, at best variable, develop with maturation. Some are part of temperament, considered normal variation in personality. For example, so-called difficult temperament includes low adaptability, high-intensity reactions, low regularity, tendency to withdraw, and negative mood. But in the extreme, weaknesses in these skills are core to or comorbid with diagnosable mental health disorders. Defiance and irritable responses are criteria for oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and less severe categories called aggressive/oppositional problem or variation. ODD is often found in children diagnosed with ADHD (65%), Tourette’s (15%-65%), depression (70% if severe), bipolar disorder (85%), OCD, anxiety (45%), autism, and language-processing disorders (55%), or trauma. These conditions variably include lower emotion regulation, poorer executive functioning including poor task shifting and impulsivity, obsessiveness, lower expressive and receptive communication skills, and less social awareness that facilitates harmonious problem solving.
The basic components of the CPS approach to addressing parent-child conflict sound intuitive but defining them clearly is important when families are stuck. There are three levels of plans. If the problem is an emergency or nonnegotiable, e.g., child hurting the cat, it may call for Plan A – parent-imposed solutions, sometimes with consequences or rewards. As children mature, Plan A should be used less frequently. If solving the problem is not a top life priority, Plan C – postponing action, may be appropriate. Plan C highlights that behavior change is a long-term project and “picking your fights” is important.
The biggest value of CPS for resolving behavior problems comes from intermediate Plan B. In Plan B the first step of problem solving for parents facing child defiance or upset is to empathically and nonjudgmentally figure out the child’s concern. Questions such as “I’ve noticed that when I remind you that it is trash night you start shouting. What’s up with that?” then patiently asking about the who, what, where, and when of their concern and checking to ensure understanding. Specificity is important as well as noting times when the reaction occurs or not.
Once the child’s concern is clear, e.g., feeling that the demand to take out the trash now interrupts his games during the only time his friends are online, the parents should echo the child’s concern then express their own concern about how the behavior is affecting them and others, potentially including the child; e.g., mother is so upset by the shouting that she can’t sleep, and worry that the child is not learning responsibility, and then checking for child understanding.
Finally, the parent invites brainstorming for a solution that addresses both of their concerns, first asking the child for suggestions, aiming for a strategy that is realistic and specific. Children reluctant to make suggestions may need more time and the parent may be wondering “if there is a way for both of our concerns to be addressed.” Solutions chosen are then tried for several weeks, success tracked, and needed changes negotiated.
For parents, using a collaborative approach to dealing with their child’s behavior takes skills they may not have at the moment, or ever. Especially under the stresses of COVID-19 lockdown, taking a step back from an encounter to consider lack of a skill to turn off the video game promptly when a Zoom meeting starts is challenging. Parents may also genetically share the child’s predisposing ADHD, anxiety, depression, OCD, or weakness in communication or social sensitivity.
Sometimes part of the solution for a conflict is for the parent to reduce expectations. This requires understanding and accepting the child’s cognitive or emotional limitations. Reducing expectations is ideally done before a request rather than by giving in after it, which reinforces protests. For authoritarian adults rigid in their belief that parents are boss, changing expectations can be tough and can feel like losing control or failing as a leader. One benefit of working with a CPS coach (see livesinthebalance.org or ThinkKids.org) is to help parents identify their own limitations.
Predicting the types of demands that tend to create conflict, such as to act immediately or be flexible about options, allows parents to prioritize those requests for calmer moments or when there is more time for discussion. Reviewing a checklist of common gaps in skills and creating a list of expectations and triggers that are difficult for the child helps the family be more proactive in developing solutions. Authors of CPS have validated a checklist of skill deficits, “Thinking Skills Inventory,” to facilitate detection of gaps that is educational plus useful for planning specific solutions.
CPS has been shown in randomized trials with both parent groups and in home counseling to be as effective as Parent Training in reducing oppositional behavior and reducing maternal stress, with effects lasting even longer.
CPS Plan B notably has no reward or punishment components as it assumes the child wants to behave acceptably but can’t; has the “will but not the skill.” When skill deficits are worked around the child is satisfied with complying and pleasing the parents. The idea of a “function” of the misbehavior for the child of gaining attention or reward or avoiding consequences is reinterpreted as serving to communicate the problem the child is having trouble in meeting the parent’s demand. When the parent understands and helps the child solve the problem his/her misbehavior is no longer needed. A benefit of the communication and mutual problem solving used in CPS is on not only improving behavior but empowering parents and children, building parental empathy, and improving child skills.
Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication is as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Reference
Greene RW et al. A transactional model of oppositional behavior: Underpinnings of the Collaborative Problem Solving approach. J Psychosom Res. 2003;55(1):67-75.
“What kind of parent are you? Why don’t you straighten him out!” rants the woman being jostled in the grocery store by your patient. “Easy for you to say,” thinks your patient’s frazzled and now insulted parent.
Blaming the parent for an out-of-control child has historically been a common refrain of neighbors, relatives, and even strangers. But considering child behavior as resulting from both parent and child factors is central to the current transactional model of child development. In this model, mismatch of the parent’s and child’s response patterns is seen as setting them up for chronically rough interactions around parent requests/demands. A parent escalating quickly from a briefly stated request to a tirade may create more tension paired with an anxious child who takes time to act, for example. Once a parent (and ultimately the child) recognize patterns in what leads to conflict, they can become more proactive in predicting and negotiating these situations. Ross Greene, PhD, explains this in his book “The Explosive Child,” calling the method Collaborative Problem Solving (now Collaborative & Proactive Solutions or CPS).
While there are general principles parents can use to modify what they consider “mis”behaviors, these methods often do not account for the “missing” skills of the individual child (and parent) predisposing to those “mis”takes. Thinking of misbehaviors as being because of a kind of “learning disability” in the child rather than willful defiance can help cool off interactions by instead focusing on solving the underlying problem.
What kinds of “gaps in skills” set a child up for defiant or explosive reactions? If you think about what features of children, and parent-child relationships are associated with harmonious interactions this becomes evident. Children over 3 who are patient, easygoing, flexible or adaptable, and good at transitions and problem-solving can delay gratification and tolerate frustration, regulate their emotions, explain their desires, and multitask. They are better at reading the parent’s needs and intent and tend to interpret requests as positive or at least neutral and are more likely to comply with parent requests without a fuss.
What? No kid you know is great at all of these? These skills, at best variable, develop with maturation. Some are part of temperament, considered normal variation in personality. For example, so-called difficult temperament includes low adaptability, high-intensity reactions, low regularity, tendency to withdraw, and negative mood. But in the extreme, weaknesses in these skills are core to or comorbid with diagnosable mental health disorders. Defiance and irritable responses are criteria for oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and less severe categories called aggressive/oppositional problem or variation. ODD is often found in children diagnosed with ADHD (65%), Tourette’s (15%-65%), depression (70% if severe), bipolar disorder (85%), OCD, anxiety (45%), autism, and language-processing disorders (55%), or trauma. These conditions variably include lower emotion regulation, poorer executive functioning including poor task shifting and impulsivity, obsessiveness, lower expressive and receptive communication skills, and less social awareness that facilitates harmonious problem solving.
The basic components of the CPS approach to addressing parent-child conflict sound intuitive but defining them clearly is important when families are stuck. There are three levels of plans. If the problem is an emergency or nonnegotiable, e.g., child hurting the cat, it may call for Plan A – parent-imposed solutions, sometimes with consequences or rewards. As children mature, Plan A should be used less frequently. If solving the problem is not a top life priority, Plan C – postponing action, may be appropriate. Plan C highlights that behavior change is a long-term project and “picking your fights” is important.
The biggest value of CPS for resolving behavior problems comes from intermediate Plan B. In Plan B the first step of problem solving for parents facing child defiance or upset is to empathically and nonjudgmentally figure out the child’s concern. Questions such as “I’ve noticed that when I remind you that it is trash night you start shouting. What’s up with that?” then patiently asking about the who, what, where, and when of their concern and checking to ensure understanding. Specificity is important as well as noting times when the reaction occurs or not.
Once the child’s concern is clear, e.g., feeling that the demand to take out the trash now interrupts his games during the only time his friends are online, the parents should echo the child’s concern then express their own concern about how the behavior is affecting them and others, potentially including the child; e.g., mother is so upset by the shouting that she can’t sleep, and worry that the child is not learning responsibility, and then checking for child understanding.
Finally, the parent invites brainstorming for a solution that addresses both of their concerns, first asking the child for suggestions, aiming for a strategy that is realistic and specific. Children reluctant to make suggestions may need more time and the parent may be wondering “if there is a way for both of our concerns to be addressed.” Solutions chosen are then tried for several weeks, success tracked, and needed changes negotiated.
For parents, using a collaborative approach to dealing with their child’s behavior takes skills they may not have at the moment, or ever. Especially under the stresses of COVID-19 lockdown, taking a step back from an encounter to consider lack of a skill to turn off the video game promptly when a Zoom meeting starts is challenging. Parents may also genetically share the child’s predisposing ADHD, anxiety, depression, OCD, or weakness in communication or social sensitivity.
Sometimes part of the solution for a conflict is for the parent to reduce expectations. This requires understanding and accepting the child’s cognitive or emotional limitations. Reducing expectations is ideally done before a request rather than by giving in after it, which reinforces protests. For authoritarian adults rigid in their belief that parents are boss, changing expectations can be tough and can feel like losing control or failing as a leader. One benefit of working with a CPS coach (see livesinthebalance.org or ThinkKids.org) is to help parents identify their own limitations.
Predicting the types of demands that tend to create conflict, such as to act immediately or be flexible about options, allows parents to prioritize those requests for calmer moments or when there is more time for discussion. Reviewing a checklist of common gaps in skills and creating a list of expectations and triggers that are difficult for the child helps the family be more proactive in developing solutions. Authors of CPS have validated a checklist of skill deficits, “Thinking Skills Inventory,” to facilitate detection of gaps that is educational plus useful for planning specific solutions.
CPS has been shown in randomized trials with both parent groups and in home counseling to be as effective as Parent Training in reducing oppositional behavior and reducing maternal stress, with effects lasting even longer.
CPS Plan B notably has no reward or punishment components as it assumes the child wants to behave acceptably but can’t; has the “will but not the skill.” When skill deficits are worked around the child is satisfied with complying and pleasing the parents. The idea of a “function” of the misbehavior for the child of gaining attention or reward or avoiding consequences is reinterpreted as serving to communicate the problem the child is having trouble in meeting the parent’s demand. When the parent understands and helps the child solve the problem his/her misbehavior is no longer needed. A benefit of the communication and mutual problem solving used in CPS is on not only improving behavior but empowering parents and children, building parental empathy, and improving child skills.
Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She has no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication is as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Reference
Greene RW et al. A transactional model of oppositional behavior: Underpinnings of the Collaborative Problem Solving approach. J Psychosom Res. 2003;55(1):67-75.
COVID-19: Helping patients overcome what might feel like an existential crisis
Way back in the spring of last year, I wrote about a pandemic of posttraumatic stress disorder that would descend upon us because of COVID-19. At the time, we were told that, by summer – June or July 2020 – all the steps we needed to take to stay ahead of the virus, including remaining socially distant, and yes, even wearing masks, would be over. Life would get back to normal.
Little did we know that a national plan for our safety, including making sure that we had enough masks and PPE, would not be forthcoming, and that so many thousands of Americans would perish, leaving millions of distraught families and friends.
So many people are suffering. Mothers, for example, are struggling to balance remote schooling with additional child care and domestic work. More than 2 million women left the U.S. workforce last year between February 2020 and October 2020, according to a report by the National Women’s Law Center. Even before COVID-19, loneliness among young adults was considered a domestic epidemic – and the social isolation forced by the pandemic has worsened those trends, research shows. These trends are creating so much more anxiety, depression, despair, and yes, even PTSD. As mental health professionals, we have a lot of work to do in educating people about coping skills and in providing treatments when appropriate.
Experiences take on new meaning
One day a friend and professional colleague called me, and he sounded quite distraught. He had not been able to reach his primary care physician and thought that, as a physician, I might have some insights about his symptoms. He began telling me that something really strange was happening whenever he walked around outside with his mask on. He couldn’t breathe with it on, he told me. In addition, his eyes teared up, his nose started running, and his eyeglasses fogged up so much that he couldn’t see where he was going. He was really anxious, nervous, and felt a great sense of despair – and disorientation. He did not fully understand what was happening and didn’t know whether those disorienting symptoms were mask-related or whether he was incubating some yet undiagnosed illness.
I addressed his concerns in the moment by assuring him that I, too, had been experiencing similar challenges with fogged-up glasses and a runny nose; many people were experiencing some of the same things. I explained that even I had called an allergist to find out whether I might be allergic to some component in the mask and whether he had seen those symptoms in his practice.
Albeit, those issues tied to masks are relatively minor, compared with the enormous psychological toll this pandemic has taken on some people. But it’s clear that different people suffer different effects in light of the marked changes in life and lifestyles caused by the pandemic.
‘It’s something else’
Two people I know, both professionals, recently told me that in their social lives they constantly feel tired and anxious, and that their concentration has diminished. They worry more about their futures, they told me separately. (They don’t know each other.) They reported going through daily life “like being on automatic.” Both said they were far too irritable and reported feeling that social isolation had dulled their thinking.
They said they were not depressed; “it’s something else.” I reassured them both that this would pass with time and suggested that they work at not socially isolating – to the extent that they can – during the pandemic. I also encouraged them to get vaccinated and to talk with a professional if their malaise was altering their level of functioning.
So far, more than 475,000 people in the United States have died of COVID-19, and thousands continue to suffer. People are saying goodbye to loved ones on iPads, and watching news stories about hospitals at overcapacity and refrigeration units storing bodies. Meanwhile, health care workers, many of whom are putting their lives and those of their families at risk, are reporting increased levels of burnout – and moral injury.
Value of relaxation techniques
We know that the latest mitigation measures advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must continue during the COVID-19 vaccination process. The new CDC guidelines on the value of double masking make sense and should be followed. However, even as we learn more about the virus and how to stop its spread, we must recognize that social distancing is not the same as social isolation. We must continue to do what we can to maintain social relationships and keep open the lines of communication, including the use of virtual tools. I am pleased to see the growth of telemedicine during the pandemic. When applicable, telemedicine allows greater medical and mental health care without the stress of travel and the risk of exposure to more people than necessary.
, whether it’s hypnosis, mindfulness, transcendental meditation, or deep breathing exercises. For the more advanced therapies, guided imagery can help patients develop a sense of calm and equanimity.
For those who are not skilled in relaxation techniques, YouTube offers some excellent programs that teach relaxation and mindfulness. Another thing I do is talk regularly with people I know and sometimes with people I know I’ll disagree with – just to keep my brain active. I also try to learn new things in my spare time to establish new brain pathways and stay mentally active.
The pain and grief tied to the pandemic are unlike anything we’ve ever experienced. Our training as psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health care professionals makes us all uniquely suited to assist patients as they process these traumatic times. We must step forward and do so.
Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
Way back in the spring of last year, I wrote about a pandemic of posttraumatic stress disorder that would descend upon us because of COVID-19. At the time, we were told that, by summer – June or July 2020 – all the steps we needed to take to stay ahead of the virus, including remaining socially distant, and yes, even wearing masks, would be over. Life would get back to normal.
Little did we know that a national plan for our safety, including making sure that we had enough masks and PPE, would not be forthcoming, and that so many thousands of Americans would perish, leaving millions of distraught families and friends.
So many people are suffering. Mothers, for example, are struggling to balance remote schooling with additional child care and domestic work. More than 2 million women left the U.S. workforce last year between February 2020 and October 2020, according to a report by the National Women’s Law Center. Even before COVID-19, loneliness among young adults was considered a domestic epidemic – and the social isolation forced by the pandemic has worsened those trends, research shows. These trends are creating so much more anxiety, depression, despair, and yes, even PTSD. As mental health professionals, we have a lot of work to do in educating people about coping skills and in providing treatments when appropriate.
Experiences take on new meaning
One day a friend and professional colleague called me, and he sounded quite distraught. He had not been able to reach his primary care physician and thought that, as a physician, I might have some insights about his symptoms. He began telling me that something really strange was happening whenever he walked around outside with his mask on. He couldn’t breathe with it on, he told me. In addition, his eyes teared up, his nose started running, and his eyeglasses fogged up so much that he couldn’t see where he was going. He was really anxious, nervous, and felt a great sense of despair – and disorientation. He did not fully understand what was happening and didn’t know whether those disorienting symptoms were mask-related or whether he was incubating some yet undiagnosed illness.
I addressed his concerns in the moment by assuring him that I, too, had been experiencing similar challenges with fogged-up glasses and a runny nose; many people were experiencing some of the same things. I explained that even I had called an allergist to find out whether I might be allergic to some component in the mask and whether he had seen those symptoms in his practice.
Albeit, those issues tied to masks are relatively minor, compared with the enormous psychological toll this pandemic has taken on some people. But it’s clear that different people suffer different effects in light of the marked changes in life and lifestyles caused by the pandemic.
‘It’s something else’
Two people I know, both professionals, recently told me that in their social lives they constantly feel tired and anxious, and that their concentration has diminished. They worry more about their futures, they told me separately. (They don’t know each other.) They reported going through daily life “like being on automatic.” Both said they were far too irritable and reported feeling that social isolation had dulled their thinking.
They said they were not depressed; “it’s something else.” I reassured them both that this would pass with time and suggested that they work at not socially isolating – to the extent that they can – during the pandemic. I also encouraged them to get vaccinated and to talk with a professional if their malaise was altering their level of functioning.
So far, more than 475,000 people in the United States have died of COVID-19, and thousands continue to suffer. People are saying goodbye to loved ones on iPads, and watching news stories about hospitals at overcapacity and refrigeration units storing bodies. Meanwhile, health care workers, many of whom are putting their lives and those of their families at risk, are reporting increased levels of burnout – and moral injury.
Value of relaxation techniques
We know that the latest mitigation measures advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must continue during the COVID-19 vaccination process. The new CDC guidelines on the value of double masking make sense and should be followed. However, even as we learn more about the virus and how to stop its spread, we must recognize that social distancing is not the same as social isolation. We must continue to do what we can to maintain social relationships and keep open the lines of communication, including the use of virtual tools. I am pleased to see the growth of telemedicine during the pandemic. When applicable, telemedicine allows greater medical and mental health care without the stress of travel and the risk of exposure to more people than necessary.
, whether it’s hypnosis, mindfulness, transcendental meditation, or deep breathing exercises. For the more advanced therapies, guided imagery can help patients develop a sense of calm and equanimity.
For those who are not skilled in relaxation techniques, YouTube offers some excellent programs that teach relaxation and mindfulness. Another thing I do is talk regularly with people I know and sometimes with people I know I’ll disagree with – just to keep my brain active. I also try to learn new things in my spare time to establish new brain pathways and stay mentally active.
The pain and grief tied to the pandemic are unlike anything we’ve ever experienced. Our training as psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health care professionals makes us all uniquely suited to assist patients as they process these traumatic times. We must step forward and do so.
Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
Way back in the spring of last year, I wrote about a pandemic of posttraumatic stress disorder that would descend upon us because of COVID-19. At the time, we were told that, by summer – June or July 2020 – all the steps we needed to take to stay ahead of the virus, including remaining socially distant, and yes, even wearing masks, would be over. Life would get back to normal.
Little did we know that a national plan for our safety, including making sure that we had enough masks and PPE, would not be forthcoming, and that so many thousands of Americans would perish, leaving millions of distraught families and friends.
So many people are suffering. Mothers, for example, are struggling to balance remote schooling with additional child care and domestic work. More than 2 million women left the U.S. workforce last year between February 2020 and October 2020, according to a report by the National Women’s Law Center. Even before COVID-19, loneliness among young adults was considered a domestic epidemic – and the social isolation forced by the pandemic has worsened those trends, research shows. These trends are creating so much more anxiety, depression, despair, and yes, even PTSD. As mental health professionals, we have a lot of work to do in educating people about coping skills and in providing treatments when appropriate.
Experiences take on new meaning
One day a friend and professional colleague called me, and he sounded quite distraught. He had not been able to reach his primary care physician and thought that, as a physician, I might have some insights about his symptoms. He began telling me that something really strange was happening whenever he walked around outside with his mask on. He couldn’t breathe with it on, he told me. In addition, his eyes teared up, his nose started running, and his eyeglasses fogged up so much that he couldn’t see where he was going. He was really anxious, nervous, and felt a great sense of despair – and disorientation. He did not fully understand what was happening and didn’t know whether those disorienting symptoms were mask-related or whether he was incubating some yet undiagnosed illness.
I addressed his concerns in the moment by assuring him that I, too, had been experiencing similar challenges with fogged-up glasses and a runny nose; many people were experiencing some of the same things. I explained that even I had called an allergist to find out whether I might be allergic to some component in the mask and whether he had seen those symptoms in his practice.
Albeit, those issues tied to masks are relatively minor, compared with the enormous psychological toll this pandemic has taken on some people. But it’s clear that different people suffer different effects in light of the marked changes in life and lifestyles caused by the pandemic.
‘It’s something else’
Two people I know, both professionals, recently told me that in their social lives they constantly feel tired and anxious, and that their concentration has diminished. They worry more about their futures, they told me separately. (They don’t know each other.) They reported going through daily life “like being on automatic.” Both said they were far too irritable and reported feeling that social isolation had dulled their thinking.
They said they were not depressed; “it’s something else.” I reassured them both that this would pass with time and suggested that they work at not socially isolating – to the extent that they can – during the pandemic. I also encouraged them to get vaccinated and to talk with a professional if their malaise was altering their level of functioning.
So far, more than 475,000 people in the United States have died of COVID-19, and thousands continue to suffer. People are saying goodbye to loved ones on iPads, and watching news stories about hospitals at overcapacity and refrigeration units storing bodies. Meanwhile, health care workers, many of whom are putting their lives and those of their families at risk, are reporting increased levels of burnout – and moral injury.
Value of relaxation techniques
We know that the latest mitigation measures advised by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must continue during the COVID-19 vaccination process. The new CDC guidelines on the value of double masking make sense and should be followed. However, even as we learn more about the virus and how to stop its spread, we must recognize that social distancing is not the same as social isolation. We must continue to do what we can to maintain social relationships and keep open the lines of communication, including the use of virtual tools. I am pleased to see the growth of telemedicine during the pandemic. When applicable, telemedicine allows greater medical and mental health care without the stress of travel and the risk of exposure to more people than necessary.
, whether it’s hypnosis, mindfulness, transcendental meditation, or deep breathing exercises. For the more advanced therapies, guided imagery can help patients develop a sense of calm and equanimity.
For those who are not skilled in relaxation techniques, YouTube offers some excellent programs that teach relaxation and mindfulness. Another thing I do is talk regularly with people I know and sometimes with people I know I’ll disagree with – just to keep my brain active. I also try to learn new things in my spare time to establish new brain pathways and stay mentally active.
The pain and grief tied to the pandemic are unlike anything we’ve ever experienced. Our training as psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health care professionals makes us all uniquely suited to assist patients as they process these traumatic times. We must step forward and do so.
Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
State of the evidence: Treatment-resistant depression in children and adolescents
Case
Max was a 17-year-old boy and avid video gamer who, predating COVID-19, was within a major depressive episode and continued to meet criteria through the duration of COVID-19 quarantine. He lives with his mother, who is a single mom and is working hard in a variety of jobs through the pandemic. Max had little motivation to engage in sports or other activities, and despite doing well enough in school, he spent much of his days escaping into video games and social media, where his friends communicated and bonded the most. He has had very little response to complete trials of two different selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and the off-label attempts at a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and bupropion augmentation of an SSRI, as extrapolated by his pediatrician from adult data on treatment-resistant depression. He had ongoing supportive psychotherapy and his mother and pediatrician were wary of changing that relationship, as they were just happy he would engage at all. His shy nature made him very wary of attending any programs or groups. He had no other diagnosis including anxiety, substance abuse disorder, or learning disorder.
Case discussion
As a child and adolescent psychiatrist embedded in primary care practices, I (like you) am seeing more and more parents, children, and families struggling with depression through the course of this unprecedented and challenging year.
Max presented to me with his mother at the request of his primary care physician because within the course of many medication trials, it had been over 6 months of persistent symptoms without an end in sight for him, his family, or his primary care provider (PCP).
His diagnosis was treatment-resistant depression and his PCP was grasping at adult strategies to manage this all with additional psychopharmacology. As a consulting child-and-adolescent psychiatrist in primary care, how could I help the PCP? I too worry if there is anything that I can do to shift depression once standard treatments fail, and when the idea of engaging in behavioral activation or other pro-health activities is just too much for a depressed adolescent to bear. I weigh that with what is known about the evidence, and the good data driving us beyond medication solutions. I often find that it can be helpful to reiterate the following points to providers and families.
First, what to know about depression in kids
Depression looks different at different ages in children. In school-aged children, it’s widely known that irritability or psychosomatic symptoms (frequent headaches and stomach aches) can be the first preverbal signs of an emerging anxiety and depressive disorder in children. In adolescents, one would maybe expect more typical melancholic adult-like symptoms of depression; however, there is mounting evidence that adolescents actually present with more classically “atypical symptoms” of depression (low motivation, weight gain, escapism to sleep or video games, as with Max) with less persistence across setting (home, work, school) compared with adults (“Diagnosing Depression in Children and Adolescents” by Glen R. Elliott, PhD, MD, from The Carlat Child Psychiatry Report, November 2015, Antidepressant Use in Children).In addition, major life stressors (the breakup of a romantic relationship, failing a class, bullying) can be perceived as more permanent, and suicidal thinking can be acute and lethal in these contexts. With Max, it was accepted by all who were supporting him that he was struggling with depression, which is the first step in managing this well.
The idea of the designated patient
Often left out in a discussion of pediatric patients is the family. As a designated patient, much of our focus is on improving the symptoms of the patient in front of us. Parents direct their gaze at the child as the one with the condition who needs support. First following identification of depression, I find that a reframe of a diagnosis can be useful. Family systems theory approaches a child with a depression diagnosis, and says, that if one family member changes, even in a small way, a family as a system is forced to change. With a sense of an external locus of control, we often are left with a patient and parent feeling stuck. To provide a reorientation to the parents, ask how they are feeling. Can they get treatment for depression knowing the biology of the condition or consider making behavioral changes of their own and as a family? Can they consider family psychotherapy so they can cope better and break some cycles of maladaptive engagement shared across a family? These kinds of reorientations can be useful to shift the idea of treatment from the designated patient (the child) and medication options (limited data for kids who aren’t responding to them) to a family approach. Making the depression management strategy a family affair can help the entire family shift from seeing the only option as medications or interventions exclusively directed at a child. The Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families at the University of Vermont Medical Center has many pioneering developments in addressing family-based approaches to mental health concerns in the pediatric population, and can serve as a source of inspiration for this shift in discussing depression.
Practical strategies for the pediatrician
Medications can be useful for treating child and adolescent depression, but there is also strong evidence for psychotherapy, working with the child’s school and family, and different forms of behavioral activation (exercise, mindfulness, yoga, and other positive activities). Medications, if one is looking at standard of care treatment and Food and Drug Administration approval exclusively, is limited in scope and should not be the only intervention considered, as described in the case above.
In “The Use of Medication in Treating Childhood and Adolescent Depression: Information for Patients and Families,” which is a practical guide prepared by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, it is noted that Prozac and Lexapro are approved medications, as follows:
- Antidepressant medications can be effective in relieving the symptoms of depression for some children and adolescents. One antidepressant – fluoxetine, or Prozac – a medicine in the category of SSRIs, has been approved by the FDA for treating depression in children 8 years of age and older. Escitalopram, or Lexapro, has also been approved by the FDA for treating adolescents 12 years of age and older.
- About “60 percent of children and adolescents will respond to initial treatment with medication,” which leaves many children needing further interventions. “Of those who don’t [respond], a significant number may respond to another medication but also may respond to the addition of a form of psychotherapy called cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).”
It is common, as in the case above, that a connection with a therapist or support is valued over the specific modality even if it’s not showing improvement or outcomes. It is important to consider CBT as a form of evidence-based treatment for children with depression and to cite the famous “Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (TADS)” funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, published in 2004, that shows the following findings: “After 12 weeks of treatment, 71 percent of the patients who received the combination of medication and CBT were much improved.” In looking at the group that does not improve with medications alone, adolescents in particular can have more gains with the addition of CBT.
Tracking progress, little by little
Often we reflexively ask parents of depressed children: Are they better? And we ask the child: How do you feel? It can be difficult for parents to reflect on that, or see progress or gains from appointment to appointment. I suggest trying to use structured measures and tools to frame a discussion with progress on medication and treatment such as what is available at the Mood Treatment Center website.I also suggest apps such as Mood Kit,which is for mood tracking with some CBT exercises in addition to behavioral activation strategies for children and parents. It can be useful to have families take some ownership of tracking their moods and what may be playing into them. In particular with the pandemic, we can reflect on how much isolation or socialization, activities, sleep, eating habits, and exercise can affect us and make corresponding behavioral changes as a family to improve our own coping. Depression itself can be like glasses clouding one’s vision in gray, and that can also cloud one’s review of progress. When we hear comments such as “nothing gets better” from a child or parent, it may be helpful to try to track any contributing factors to a persistent low mood and acknowledge any slow and steady progress.
In summary, we can strive as providers to maximize our approach to depression in children and adolescents beyond the limited FDA-approved medications, or extrapolating adult data to children. If we emphasize the evidence-based practice of CBT and other interventions in addition to encouraging a tracking and review of outcomes measures with parents and families, we can empower them to make meaningful change in both perspectives and behaviors that can perpetuate depressive states.
Dr. Pawlowski is an adult, adolescent, and child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont Medical Center and assistant professor of psychiatry at the Larner College of Medicine at UVM in Burlington.
Case
Max was a 17-year-old boy and avid video gamer who, predating COVID-19, was within a major depressive episode and continued to meet criteria through the duration of COVID-19 quarantine. He lives with his mother, who is a single mom and is working hard in a variety of jobs through the pandemic. Max had little motivation to engage in sports or other activities, and despite doing well enough in school, he spent much of his days escaping into video games and social media, where his friends communicated and bonded the most. He has had very little response to complete trials of two different selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and the off-label attempts at a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and bupropion augmentation of an SSRI, as extrapolated by his pediatrician from adult data on treatment-resistant depression. He had ongoing supportive psychotherapy and his mother and pediatrician were wary of changing that relationship, as they were just happy he would engage at all. His shy nature made him very wary of attending any programs or groups. He had no other diagnosis including anxiety, substance abuse disorder, or learning disorder.
Case discussion
As a child and adolescent psychiatrist embedded in primary care practices, I (like you) am seeing more and more parents, children, and families struggling with depression through the course of this unprecedented and challenging year.
Max presented to me with his mother at the request of his primary care physician because within the course of many medication trials, it had been over 6 months of persistent symptoms without an end in sight for him, his family, or his primary care provider (PCP).
His diagnosis was treatment-resistant depression and his PCP was grasping at adult strategies to manage this all with additional psychopharmacology. As a consulting child-and-adolescent psychiatrist in primary care, how could I help the PCP? I too worry if there is anything that I can do to shift depression once standard treatments fail, and when the idea of engaging in behavioral activation or other pro-health activities is just too much for a depressed adolescent to bear. I weigh that with what is known about the evidence, and the good data driving us beyond medication solutions. I often find that it can be helpful to reiterate the following points to providers and families.
First, what to know about depression in kids
Depression looks different at different ages in children. In school-aged children, it’s widely known that irritability or psychosomatic symptoms (frequent headaches and stomach aches) can be the first preverbal signs of an emerging anxiety and depressive disorder in children. In adolescents, one would maybe expect more typical melancholic adult-like symptoms of depression; however, there is mounting evidence that adolescents actually present with more classically “atypical symptoms” of depression (low motivation, weight gain, escapism to sleep or video games, as with Max) with less persistence across setting (home, work, school) compared with adults (“Diagnosing Depression in Children and Adolescents” by Glen R. Elliott, PhD, MD, from The Carlat Child Psychiatry Report, November 2015, Antidepressant Use in Children).In addition, major life stressors (the breakup of a romantic relationship, failing a class, bullying) can be perceived as more permanent, and suicidal thinking can be acute and lethal in these contexts. With Max, it was accepted by all who were supporting him that he was struggling with depression, which is the first step in managing this well.
The idea of the designated patient
Often left out in a discussion of pediatric patients is the family. As a designated patient, much of our focus is on improving the symptoms of the patient in front of us. Parents direct their gaze at the child as the one with the condition who needs support. First following identification of depression, I find that a reframe of a diagnosis can be useful. Family systems theory approaches a child with a depression diagnosis, and says, that if one family member changes, even in a small way, a family as a system is forced to change. With a sense of an external locus of control, we often are left with a patient and parent feeling stuck. To provide a reorientation to the parents, ask how they are feeling. Can they get treatment for depression knowing the biology of the condition or consider making behavioral changes of their own and as a family? Can they consider family psychotherapy so they can cope better and break some cycles of maladaptive engagement shared across a family? These kinds of reorientations can be useful to shift the idea of treatment from the designated patient (the child) and medication options (limited data for kids who aren’t responding to them) to a family approach. Making the depression management strategy a family affair can help the entire family shift from seeing the only option as medications or interventions exclusively directed at a child. The Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families at the University of Vermont Medical Center has many pioneering developments in addressing family-based approaches to mental health concerns in the pediatric population, and can serve as a source of inspiration for this shift in discussing depression.
Practical strategies for the pediatrician
Medications can be useful for treating child and adolescent depression, but there is also strong evidence for psychotherapy, working with the child’s school and family, and different forms of behavioral activation (exercise, mindfulness, yoga, and other positive activities). Medications, if one is looking at standard of care treatment and Food and Drug Administration approval exclusively, is limited in scope and should not be the only intervention considered, as described in the case above.
In “The Use of Medication in Treating Childhood and Adolescent Depression: Information for Patients and Families,” which is a practical guide prepared by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, it is noted that Prozac and Lexapro are approved medications, as follows:
- Antidepressant medications can be effective in relieving the symptoms of depression for some children and adolescents. One antidepressant – fluoxetine, or Prozac – a medicine in the category of SSRIs, has been approved by the FDA for treating depression in children 8 years of age and older. Escitalopram, or Lexapro, has also been approved by the FDA for treating adolescents 12 years of age and older.
- About “60 percent of children and adolescents will respond to initial treatment with medication,” which leaves many children needing further interventions. “Of those who don’t [respond], a significant number may respond to another medication but also may respond to the addition of a form of psychotherapy called cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).”
It is common, as in the case above, that a connection with a therapist or support is valued over the specific modality even if it’s not showing improvement or outcomes. It is important to consider CBT as a form of evidence-based treatment for children with depression and to cite the famous “Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (TADS)” funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, published in 2004, that shows the following findings: “After 12 weeks of treatment, 71 percent of the patients who received the combination of medication and CBT were much improved.” In looking at the group that does not improve with medications alone, adolescents in particular can have more gains with the addition of CBT.
Tracking progress, little by little
Often we reflexively ask parents of depressed children: Are they better? And we ask the child: How do you feel? It can be difficult for parents to reflect on that, or see progress or gains from appointment to appointment. I suggest trying to use structured measures and tools to frame a discussion with progress on medication and treatment such as what is available at the Mood Treatment Center website.I also suggest apps such as Mood Kit,which is for mood tracking with some CBT exercises in addition to behavioral activation strategies for children and parents. It can be useful to have families take some ownership of tracking their moods and what may be playing into them. In particular with the pandemic, we can reflect on how much isolation or socialization, activities, sleep, eating habits, and exercise can affect us and make corresponding behavioral changes as a family to improve our own coping. Depression itself can be like glasses clouding one’s vision in gray, and that can also cloud one’s review of progress. When we hear comments such as “nothing gets better” from a child or parent, it may be helpful to try to track any contributing factors to a persistent low mood and acknowledge any slow and steady progress.
In summary, we can strive as providers to maximize our approach to depression in children and adolescents beyond the limited FDA-approved medications, or extrapolating adult data to children. If we emphasize the evidence-based practice of CBT and other interventions in addition to encouraging a tracking and review of outcomes measures with parents and families, we can empower them to make meaningful change in both perspectives and behaviors that can perpetuate depressive states.
Dr. Pawlowski is an adult, adolescent, and child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont Medical Center and assistant professor of psychiatry at the Larner College of Medicine at UVM in Burlington.
Case
Max was a 17-year-old boy and avid video gamer who, predating COVID-19, was within a major depressive episode and continued to meet criteria through the duration of COVID-19 quarantine. He lives with his mother, who is a single mom and is working hard in a variety of jobs through the pandemic. Max had little motivation to engage in sports or other activities, and despite doing well enough in school, he spent much of his days escaping into video games and social media, where his friends communicated and bonded the most. He has had very little response to complete trials of two different selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and the off-label attempts at a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor and bupropion augmentation of an SSRI, as extrapolated by his pediatrician from adult data on treatment-resistant depression. He had ongoing supportive psychotherapy and his mother and pediatrician were wary of changing that relationship, as they were just happy he would engage at all. His shy nature made him very wary of attending any programs or groups. He had no other diagnosis including anxiety, substance abuse disorder, or learning disorder.
Case discussion
As a child and adolescent psychiatrist embedded in primary care practices, I (like you) am seeing more and more parents, children, and families struggling with depression through the course of this unprecedented and challenging year.
Max presented to me with his mother at the request of his primary care physician because within the course of many medication trials, it had been over 6 months of persistent symptoms without an end in sight for him, his family, or his primary care provider (PCP).
His diagnosis was treatment-resistant depression and his PCP was grasping at adult strategies to manage this all with additional psychopharmacology. As a consulting child-and-adolescent psychiatrist in primary care, how could I help the PCP? I too worry if there is anything that I can do to shift depression once standard treatments fail, and when the idea of engaging in behavioral activation or other pro-health activities is just too much for a depressed adolescent to bear. I weigh that with what is known about the evidence, and the good data driving us beyond medication solutions. I often find that it can be helpful to reiterate the following points to providers and families.
First, what to know about depression in kids
Depression looks different at different ages in children. In school-aged children, it’s widely known that irritability or psychosomatic symptoms (frequent headaches and stomach aches) can be the first preverbal signs of an emerging anxiety and depressive disorder in children. In adolescents, one would maybe expect more typical melancholic adult-like symptoms of depression; however, there is mounting evidence that adolescents actually present with more classically “atypical symptoms” of depression (low motivation, weight gain, escapism to sleep or video games, as with Max) with less persistence across setting (home, work, school) compared with adults (“Diagnosing Depression in Children and Adolescents” by Glen R. Elliott, PhD, MD, from The Carlat Child Psychiatry Report, November 2015, Antidepressant Use in Children).In addition, major life stressors (the breakup of a romantic relationship, failing a class, bullying) can be perceived as more permanent, and suicidal thinking can be acute and lethal in these contexts. With Max, it was accepted by all who were supporting him that he was struggling with depression, which is the first step in managing this well.
The idea of the designated patient
Often left out in a discussion of pediatric patients is the family. As a designated patient, much of our focus is on improving the symptoms of the patient in front of us. Parents direct their gaze at the child as the one with the condition who needs support. First following identification of depression, I find that a reframe of a diagnosis can be useful. Family systems theory approaches a child with a depression diagnosis, and says, that if one family member changes, even in a small way, a family as a system is forced to change. With a sense of an external locus of control, we often are left with a patient and parent feeling stuck. To provide a reorientation to the parents, ask how they are feeling. Can they get treatment for depression knowing the biology of the condition or consider making behavioral changes of their own and as a family? Can they consider family psychotherapy so they can cope better and break some cycles of maladaptive engagement shared across a family? These kinds of reorientations can be useful to shift the idea of treatment from the designated patient (the child) and medication options (limited data for kids who aren’t responding to them) to a family approach. Making the depression management strategy a family affair can help the entire family shift from seeing the only option as medications or interventions exclusively directed at a child. The Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families at the University of Vermont Medical Center has many pioneering developments in addressing family-based approaches to mental health concerns in the pediatric population, and can serve as a source of inspiration for this shift in discussing depression.
Practical strategies for the pediatrician
Medications can be useful for treating child and adolescent depression, but there is also strong evidence for psychotherapy, working with the child’s school and family, and different forms of behavioral activation (exercise, mindfulness, yoga, and other positive activities). Medications, if one is looking at standard of care treatment and Food and Drug Administration approval exclusively, is limited in scope and should not be the only intervention considered, as described in the case above.
In “The Use of Medication in Treating Childhood and Adolescent Depression: Information for Patients and Families,” which is a practical guide prepared by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, it is noted that Prozac and Lexapro are approved medications, as follows:
- Antidepressant medications can be effective in relieving the symptoms of depression for some children and adolescents. One antidepressant – fluoxetine, or Prozac – a medicine in the category of SSRIs, has been approved by the FDA for treating depression in children 8 years of age and older. Escitalopram, or Lexapro, has also been approved by the FDA for treating adolescents 12 years of age and older.
- About “60 percent of children and adolescents will respond to initial treatment with medication,” which leaves many children needing further interventions. “Of those who don’t [respond], a significant number may respond to another medication but also may respond to the addition of a form of psychotherapy called cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).”
It is common, as in the case above, that a connection with a therapist or support is valued over the specific modality even if it’s not showing improvement or outcomes. It is important to consider CBT as a form of evidence-based treatment for children with depression and to cite the famous “Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study (TADS)” funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, published in 2004, that shows the following findings: “After 12 weeks of treatment, 71 percent of the patients who received the combination of medication and CBT were much improved.” In looking at the group that does not improve with medications alone, adolescents in particular can have more gains with the addition of CBT.
Tracking progress, little by little
Often we reflexively ask parents of depressed children: Are they better? And we ask the child: How do you feel? It can be difficult for parents to reflect on that, or see progress or gains from appointment to appointment. I suggest trying to use structured measures and tools to frame a discussion with progress on medication and treatment such as what is available at the Mood Treatment Center website.I also suggest apps such as Mood Kit,which is for mood tracking with some CBT exercises in addition to behavioral activation strategies for children and parents. It can be useful to have families take some ownership of tracking their moods and what may be playing into them. In particular with the pandemic, we can reflect on how much isolation or socialization, activities, sleep, eating habits, and exercise can affect us and make corresponding behavioral changes as a family to improve our own coping. Depression itself can be like glasses clouding one’s vision in gray, and that can also cloud one’s review of progress. When we hear comments such as “nothing gets better” from a child or parent, it may be helpful to try to track any contributing factors to a persistent low mood and acknowledge any slow and steady progress.
In summary, we can strive as providers to maximize our approach to depression in children and adolescents beyond the limited FDA-approved medications, or extrapolating adult data to children. If we emphasize the evidence-based practice of CBT and other interventions in addition to encouraging a tracking and review of outcomes measures with parents and families, we can empower them to make meaningful change in both perspectives and behaviors that can perpetuate depressive states.
Dr. Pawlowski is an adult, adolescent, and child psychiatrist at the University of Vermont Medical Center and assistant professor of psychiatry at the Larner College of Medicine at UVM in Burlington.
Antidepressants may scupper efficacy of MDMA for PTSD
Pooled data from four phase 2 trials reveal that patients with recent SSRI exposure were significantly more likely to continue to meet PTSD diagnostic criteria after methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted psychotherapy than their peers who had not recently taken SSRIs.
Although preliminary, the findings have implications for clinical practice if MDMA-assisted psychotherapy is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Allison Feduccia, PhD, study coauthor and founder of the education platform Psychedelic.Support, said in an interview.
“As psychedelic medicines become available, it’s going to be important that we try to understand what factors impact the response rate and if there are ways that we can improve the treatment outcomes. Allowing for a longer period for tapering completely off SSRIs before initiating MDMA sessions might increase the effectiveness of MDMA,” Dr. Feduccia said.
The study was published online Nov. 20, 2020, in Psychopharmacology (doi: 10.1007/s00213-020-05710-w).
Reduced response
The primary mechanism of action of MDMA involves the same reuptake transporters that are targeted by antidepressant medications commonly prescribed for PTSD. These medications include SSRIs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), NRIs, and norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitors (NDRIs).
Prior research shows that, when MDMA is coadministered with a reuptake inhibitor, subjective and psychological effects of the therapy are attenuated.
The researchers sought to determine whether or not recent tapering off of an antidepressant that targets the same primary binding sites as MDMA would affect treatment response. They analyzed data on 50 adults who underwent two sessions of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in phase 2 clinical trials.
For 16 of these patients, SSRI therapy was tapered off prior to the MDMA sessions. For 34 patients, SSRI therapy was not tapered off, because the patients had not been taking the medication at the time of initial study screening (nontaper group).
The taper protocols specified that medications be tapered gradually over a period of weeks to minimize withdrawal symptoms and for them to be discontinued at least five half-lives of each drug prior to MDMA administration.
Demographics, baseline PTSD, and depression severity were similar between the taper and the nontaper groups. Participants in the studies had chronic PTSD (symptoms lasting >6 months). Severity scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM IV (CAPS-IV) were at least 50.
After MDMA-assisted psychotherapy, the nontaper group had significantly lower (better) CAPS-IV total scores, compared with the taper group (mean, 45.7 vs. 70.3; P = .009).
About two-thirds (63.6%) of the nontaper group no longer met PTSD criteria after MDMA-assisted therapy, compared with only 25% of those in the taper group.
The nontaper group also had lower depression symptom severity scores on the Beck Depression Inventory–II, compared with the taper group (mean, 12.7 vs. 22.6; P = .010).
“Another really interesting” observation, said Dr. Feduccia, is that the expected increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure following MDMA administration were reduced in the taper group, compared with the nontaper group.
“This suggests that MDMA didn’t have the same physiological response in individuals who tapered SSRIs. This should be followed up,” she said.
The investigators offerred several potential mechanisms for the negative effect of recent SSRI use on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD.
These include the down-regulation of binding sites (serotonin, dopamine, and/or norepinephrine) related to SSRI use, reduced MDMA treatment-relevant increases in blood pressure in patients with recent SSRI use, and the possibility that withdrawal symptoms from SSRIs may reduce the effectiveness of MDMA psychotherapy.
Important clinical implications
In a comment, Steven R. Thorp, PhD, professor at Alliant International University, San Diego, said the findings are “very interesting” and likely “not well known.”
“There has been great interest in MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in recent years, and if this finding is replicated, it will have important implications for that research,” Dr. Thorp said.
“Although psychotherapy is often preferred by clients with PTSD, compared to medications, and typically shows efficacy that is as strong or stronger (and longer lasting) than medications, many individuals with PTSD are provided with medication only,” Dr. Thorp noted.
“This study suggests that, in addition to the other potential disadvantages of medications (e.g., cost, side effects, potential for addiction), those who take SSRIs, SNRIs, NRIs, and NDRIs for PTSD may also benefit less from MDMA-assisted psychotherapy,” Dr. Thorp added.
The four phase 2 studies used in the analysis were sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Feduccia received salary support for full-time employment with MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Thorp disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pooled data from four phase 2 trials reveal that patients with recent SSRI exposure were significantly more likely to continue to meet PTSD diagnostic criteria after methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted psychotherapy than their peers who had not recently taken SSRIs.
Although preliminary, the findings have implications for clinical practice if MDMA-assisted psychotherapy is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Allison Feduccia, PhD, study coauthor and founder of the education platform Psychedelic.Support, said in an interview.
“As psychedelic medicines become available, it’s going to be important that we try to understand what factors impact the response rate and if there are ways that we can improve the treatment outcomes. Allowing for a longer period for tapering completely off SSRIs before initiating MDMA sessions might increase the effectiveness of MDMA,” Dr. Feduccia said.
The study was published online Nov. 20, 2020, in Psychopharmacology (doi: 10.1007/s00213-020-05710-w).
Reduced response
The primary mechanism of action of MDMA involves the same reuptake transporters that are targeted by antidepressant medications commonly prescribed for PTSD. These medications include SSRIs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), NRIs, and norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitors (NDRIs).
Prior research shows that, when MDMA is coadministered with a reuptake inhibitor, subjective and psychological effects of the therapy are attenuated.
The researchers sought to determine whether or not recent tapering off of an antidepressant that targets the same primary binding sites as MDMA would affect treatment response. They analyzed data on 50 adults who underwent two sessions of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in phase 2 clinical trials.
For 16 of these patients, SSRI therapy was tapered off prior to the MDMA sessions. For 34 patients, SSRI therapy was not tapered off, because the patients had not been taking the medication at the time of initial study screening (nontaper group).
The taper protocols specified that medications be tapered gradually over a period of weeks to minimize withdrawal symptoms and for them to be discontinued at least five half-lives of each drug prior to MDMA administration.
Demographics, baseline PTSD, and depression severity were similar between the taper and the nontaper groups. Participants in the studies had chronic PTSD (symptoms lasting >6 months). Severity scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM IV (CAPS-IV) were at least 50.
After MDMA-assisted psychotherapy, the nontaper group had significantly lower (better) CAPS-IV total scores, compared with the taper group (mean, 45.7 vs. 70.3; P = .009).
About two-thirds (63.6%) of the nontaper group no longer met PTSD criteria after MDMA-assisted therapy, compared with only 25% of those in the taper group.
The nontaper group also had lower depression symptom severity scores on the Beck Depression Inventory–II, compared with the taper group (mean, 12.7 vs. 22.6; P = .010).
“Another really interesting” observation, said Dr. Feduccia, is that the expected increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure following MDMA administration were reduced in the taper group, compared with the nontaper group.
“This suggests that MDMA didn’t have the same physiological response in individuals who tapered SSRIs. This should be followed up,” she said.
The investigators offerred several potential mechanisms for the negative effect of recent SSRI use on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD.
These include the down-regulation of binding sites (serotonin, dopamine, and/or norepinephrine) related to SSRI use, reduced MDMA treatment-relevant increases in blood pressure in patients with recent SSRI use, and the possibility that withdrawal symptoms from SSRIs may reduce the effectiveness of MDMA psychotherapy.
Important clinical implications
In a comment, Steven R. Thorp, PhD, professor at Alliant International University, San Diego, said the findings are “very interesting” and likely “not well known.”
“There has been great interest in MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in recent years, and if this finding is replicated, it will have important implications for that research,” Dr. Thorp said.
“Although psychotherapy is often preferred by clients with PTSD, compared to medications, and typically shows efficacy that is as strong or stronger (and longer lasting) than medications, many individuals with PTSD are provided with medication only,” Dr. Thorp noted.
“This study suggests that, in addition to the other potential disadvantages of medications (e.g., cost, side effects, potential for addiction), those who take SSRIs, SNRIs, NRIs, and NDRIs for PTSD may also benefit less from MDMA-assisted psychotherapy,” Dr. Thorp added.
The four phase 2 studies used in the analysis were sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Feduccia received salary support for full-time employment with MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Thorp disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pooled data from four phase 2 trials reveal that patients with recent SSRI exposure were significantly more likely to continue to meet PTSD diagnostic criteria after methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted psychotherapy than their peers who had not recently taken SSRIs.
Although preliminary, the findings have implications for clinical practice if MDMA-assisted psychotherapy is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, Allison Feduccia, PhD, study coauthor and founder of the education platform Psychedelic.Support, said in an interview.
“As psychedelic medicines become available, it’s going to be important that we try to understand what factors impact the response rate and if there are ways that we can improve the treatment outcomes. Allowing for a longer period for tapering completely off SSRIs before initiating MDMA sessions might increase the effectiveness of MDMA,” Dr. Feduccia said.
The study was published online Nov. 20, 2020, in Psychopharmacology (doi: 10.1007/s00213-020-05710-w).
Reduced response
The primary mechanism of action of MDMA involves the same reuptake transporters that are targeted by antidepressant medications commonly prescribed for PTSD. These medications include SSRIs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), NRIs, and norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitors (NDRIs).
Prior research shows that, when MDMA is coadministered with a reuptake inhibitor, subjective and psychological effects of the therapy are attenuated.
The researchers sought to determine whether or not recent tapering off of an antidepressant that targets the same primary binding sites as MDMA would affect treatment response. They analyzed data on 50 adults who underwent two sessions of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in phase 2 clinical trials.
For 16 of these patients, SSRI therapy was tapered off prior to the MDMA sessions. For 34 patients, SSRI therapy was not tapered off, because the patients had not been taking the medication at the time of initial study screening (nontaper group).
The taper protocols specified that medications be tapered gradually over a period of weeks to minimize withdrawal symptoms and for them to be discontinued at least five half-lives of each drug prior to MDMA administration.
Demographics, baseline PTSD, and depression severity were similar between the taper and the nontaper groups. Participants in the studies had chronic PTSD (symptoms lasting >6 months). Severity scores on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM IV (CAPS-IV) were at least 50.
After MDMA-assisted psychotherapy, the nontaper group had significantly lower (better) CAPS-IV total scores, compared with the taper group (mean, 45.7 vs. 70.3; P = .009).
About two-thirds (63.6%) of the nontaper group no longer met PTSD criteria after MDMA-assisted therapy, compared with only 25% of those in the taper group.
The nontaper group also had lower depression symptom severity scores on the Beck Depression Inventory–II, compared with the taper group (mean, 12.7 vs. 22.6; P = .010).
“Another really interesting” observation, said Dr. Feduccia, is that the expected increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure following MDMA administration were reduced in the taper group, compared with the nontaper group.
“This suggests that MDMA didn’t have the same physiological response in individuals who tapered SSRIs. This should be followed up,” she said.
The investigators offerred several potential mechanisms for the negative effect of recent SSRI use on MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD.
These include the down-regulation of binding sites (serotonin, dopamine, and/or norepinephrine) related to SSRI use, reduced MDMA treatment-relevant increases in blood pressure in patients with recent SSRI use, and the possibility that withdrawal symptoms from SSRIs may reduce the effectiveness of MDMA psychotherapy.
Important clinical implications
In a comment, Steven R. Thorp, PhD, professor at Alliant International University, San Diego, said the findings are “very interesting” and likely “not well known.”
“There has been great interest in MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in recent years, and if this finding is replicated, it will have important implications for that research,” Dr. Thorp said.
“Although psychotherapy is often preferred by clients with PTSD, compared to medications, and typically shows efficacy that is as strong or stronger (and longer lasting) than medications, many individuals with PTSD are provided with medication only,” Dr. Thorp noted.
“This study suggests that, in addition to the other potential disadvantages of medications (e.g., cost, side effects, potential for addiction), those who take SSRIs, SNRIs, NRIs, and NDRIs for PTSD may also benefit less from MDMA-assisted psychotherapy,” Dr. Thorp added.
The four phase 2 studies used in the analysis were sponsored by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, a nonprofit organization. Dr. Feduccia received salary support for full-time employment with MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Thorp disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Psychiatrist recounts haunting ordeal with an anonymous stalker
Looking back on his experience of being stalked by a former patient for nearly 1 year, William J. Newman, MD, regrets not reaching out to colleagues about the patient boundary violations earlier than he did.
“My mindset was: ‘Maybe I did something wrong that created this,’ ” Dr. Newman, professor and interim chair of psychiatry at Saint Louis University, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “That’s a common theme among victims of stalking, being kind of embarrassed and not wanting to share it with other people.”
Dr. Newman’s ordeal began in August 2014, when the first of several threatening emails messages were sent to his account at the University of California, Davis, where he held a faculty post and worked on the teaching service at the Sacramento Mental Health Treatment Center, a county hospital that serves mainly uninsured or underinsured populations. The messages always contained a nonspecific email recipient name and the first wasn’t terribly worrisome, Dr. Newman said. It basically read (profanities excluded): “What is wrong with you? Leave me alone. All I want is some privacy.”
About 3 months later, he received another message in a similar writing pattern, but the name of the sender was “god devil,” which raised a red flag to him. “Once you start to get religious concepts, people are compelled to commit acts when they believe they’re doing so beyond the laws of the land and are doing so for a religious purpose,” said Dr. Newman, who is immediate past president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
The content of the message contained the first name of a coworker and phrasing inferring suicide, which gave Dr. Newman a hint that it was someone he had cared for at the mental health treatment center, “but as anybody who has worked on a busy inpatient service can tell you, you encounter several suicidal patients, and this didn’t really narrow it down,” he said. “This told me the person had presented after a suicide attempt. In some ways, that made me a little more concerned, because because they don’t really worry about the consequences of being shot by law enforcement or dying in an attack.”
Dr. Newman contacted the university’s information technology team, which was able to trace all messages to an IP address from a computer located at a downtown branch of the public library, which had surveillance video. Armed with this information, he contacted the Sacramento Police Department to see if they would help. He had “what I can only describe as an unsatisfying and somewhat condescending conversation with an officer, who said: ‘Sir, we can’t just go around asking people questions without knowing they did something wrong. There’s nothing we’re going to do.’ ”
Between November 2014 and May 2015, Dr. Newman continued to receive periodic messages from the individual of varied length and intensity.
“Some messages were more disorganized and difficult to follow, while others were very intense and pointed about my imminent death,” he recalled. “I started to ignore these messages as much as possible, tried to put my head in the sand and move forward.”
However, one phrase contained in a message read “you won’t even recognize me,” which gave Dr. Newman pause. “It highlighted the idea that because I don’t know who this is, they could walk up to me on the sidewalk, and I would have no idea, which in its own right is somewhat terrorizing.”
At this point, he contacted the police again, telling them he was fearful for his imminent safety. He also met with his department chair and administrators, who helped Dr. Newman develop a plan to enter and exit the hospital at different times. Then, in May 2015, the stalker sent Dr. Newman another email message threatening not only his life, but the lives of his colleagues at the hospital.
“This was viewed as a terroristic threat, because [it inferred that] other people were going to be shot other than just me,” he said.
After this, Dr. Newman’s administrators contacted the police about the threat, who identified the individual through video surveillance footage at the public library and began to search for him. It was a patient who had been on testosterone and previously had sent similar messages to another mental health provider in town and wound up showing up at that person’s office with a loaded firearm.
“At that point, the police were called to the scene, picked the individual up, and took him to a local emergency room where he was placed on an involuntary 5150 psychiatric hold,” he said. “It was frustrating to me that this was very much minimized and kind of put to the side.”
Once he learned the stalker’s name, Dr. Newman had no recollection of the individual. “The patient had presented after a carbon monoxide overdose, had been sent to a local emergency room and came to my service,” he said. “It was a very nonconfrontational hospitalization, nothing out of the ordinary.”
At this point, the stalker was still at large, so Dr. Newman wrote farewell notes to his wife, children, and loved ones, “just in case,” he said. “I had those tucked away. That wasn’t an overly pleasant experience.” He also lived away from his family outside of Sacramento while police searched for his stalker.
In late May 2015, police located and arrested the individual, and Dr. Newman began a series of conversations with the District Attorney’s office. “They told me there were seven terroristic threat charges that had been levied. They said they were taking this very seriously and [that the case] would be going to trial.” About 1 year later, after Dr. Newman’s move to Missouri, the District Attorney indicated that there would be a court trial and that Dr. Newman would be asked to serve as a fact witness. “I gave them all the information I had, talked to investigators, and the process was moving along for about a year to the point that they had an anticipated trial date,” he said. About 1 year later, he received an automated phone message which stated that the individual had been released from jail. He called the District Attorney to ask what happened.
“He said the judge didn’t really want to deal with this [case] anymore, and accepted a plea with time served and released him,” Dr. Newman said. “That was the outcome of the situation.”
According to a 1997 study of 100 stalking victims, 94% made major lifestyle changes after their ordeal, 82% modified usual activities, 73% increased security measures, 70% curtailed social outings, 53% decreased/stopped work or school, and 39% relocated. “You do change a lot of what you do and how you do it in your life when you’ve had this experience, especially when it’s been a chronic experience for months or years,” said Dr. Newman, who is also medical director of adult psychiatric inpatient services for Saint Louis University. “To this day I get antsy any time I think about the story or prepare to talk about it. It remains uncomfortable even 6 years later, even without an ongoing direct threat at this point.”
The physiological impact of chronic stalking also takes its toll. The body releases adrenaline and cortisol as part of the fight or flight response, while chronic stress “is when you feel an increased stress response and have adrenaline and cortisol elevated for an extended period of time,” he said. “There are negative impacts in terms of increased inflammation in the body and in the brain. I have spoken to several professionals who have been stalked by former patients. Commonly, they have been diagnosed in the period after that with an autoimmune illness or a cancer. Less than a year after my stalking situation ended, I was diagnosed with a metastatic cancer and had to start chemotherapy. I would not at all be surprised that those things are highly related to one another.”
When patient boundary violations start to become problematic or worrisome, Dr. Newman advised reaching out to colleagues and law enforcement for help. “Don’t let it go on insidiously for an extended period of time,” he said. “I think that was the biggest lesson I learned.”
He reported having no financial disclosures.
Looking back on his experience of being stalked by a former patient for nearly 1 year, William J. Newman, MD, regrets not reaching out to colleagues about the patient boundary violations earlier than he did.
“My mindset was: ‘Maybe I did something wrong that created this,’ ” Dr. Newman, professor and interim chair of psychiatry at Saint Louis University, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “That’s a common theme among victims of stalking, being kind of embarrassed and not wanting to share it with other people.”
Dr. Newman’s ordeal began in August 2014, when the first of several threatening emails messages were sent to his account at the University of California, Davis, where he held a faculty post and worked on the teaching service at the Sacramento Mental Health Treatment Center, a county hospital that serves mainly uninsured or underinsured populations. The messages always contained a nonspecific email recipient name and the first wasn’t terribly worrisome, Dr. Newman said. It basically read (profanities excluded): “What is wrong with you? Leave me alone. All I want is some privacy.”
About 3 months later, he received another message in a similar writing pattern, but the name of the sender was “god devil,” which raised a red flag to him. “Once you start to get religious concepts, people are compelled to commit acts when they believe they’re doing so beyond the laws of the land and are doing so for a religious purpose,” said Dr. Newman, who is immediate past president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
The content of the message contained the first name of a coworker and phrasing inferring suicide, which gave Dr. Newman a hint that it was someone he had cared for at the mental health treatment center, “but as anybody who has worked on a busy inpatient service can tell you, you encounter several suicidal patients, and this didn’t really narrow it down,” he said. “This told me the person had presented after a suicide attempt. In some ways, that made me a little more concerned, because because they don’t really worry about the consequences of being shot by law enforcement or dying in an attack.”
Dr. Newman contacted the university’s information technology team, which was able to trace all messages to an IP address from a computer located at a downtown branch of the public library, which had surveillance video. Armed with this information, he contacted the Sacramento Police Department to see if they would help. He had “what I can only describe as an unsatisfying and somewhat condescending conversation with an officer, who said: ‘Sir, we can’t just go around asking people questions without knowing they did something wrong. There’s nothing we’re going to do.’ ”
Between November 2014 and May 2015, Dr. Newman continued to receive periodic messages from the individual of varied length and intensity.
“Some messages were more disorganized and difficult to follow, while others were very intense and pointed about my imminent death,” he recalled. “I started to ignore these messages as much as possible, tried to put my head in the sand and move forward.”
However, one phrase contained in a message read “you won’t even recognize me,” which gave Dr. Newman pause. “It highlighted the idea that because I don’t know who this is, they could walk up to me on the sidewalk, and I would have no idea, which in its own right is somewhat terrorizing.”
At this point, he contacted the police again, telling them he was fearful for his imminent safety. He also met with his department chair and administrators, who helped Dr. Newman develop a plan to enter and exit the hospital at different times. Then, in May 2015, the stalker sent Dr. Newman another email message threatening not only his life, but the lives of his colleagues at the hospital.
“This was viewed as a terroristic threat, because [it inferred that] other people were going to be shot other than just me,” he said.
After this, Dr. Newman’s administrators contacted the police about the threat, who identified the individual through video surveillance footage at the public library and began to search for him. It was a patient who had been on testosterone and previously had sent similar messages to another mental health provider in town and wound up showing up at that person’s office with a loaded firearm.
“At that point, the police were called to the scene, picked the individual up, and took him to a local emergency room where he was placed on an involuntary 5150 psychiatric hold,” he said. “It was frustrating to me that this was very much minimized and kind of put to the side.”
Once he learned the stalker’s name, Dr. Newman had no recollection of the individual. “The patient had presented after a carbon monoxide overdose, had been sent to a local emergency room and came to my service,” he said. “It was a very nonconfrontational hospitalization, nothing out of the ordinary.”
At this point, the stalker was still at large, so Dr. Newman wrote farewell notes to his wife, children, and loved ones, “just in case,” he said. “I had those tucked away. That wasn’t an overly pleasant experience.” He also lived away from his family outside of Sacramento while police searched for his stalker.
In late May 2015, police located and arrested the individual, and Dr. Newman began a series of conversations with the District Attorney’s office. “They told me there were seven terroristic threat charges that had been levied. They said they were taking this very seriously and [that the case] would be going to trial.” About 1 year later, after Dr. Newman’s move to Missouri, the District Attorney indicated that there would be a court trial and that Dr. Newman would be asked to serve as a fact witness. “I gave them all the information I had, talked to investigators, and the process was moving along for about a year to the point that they had an anticipated trial date,” he said. About 1 year later, he received an automated phone message which stated that the individual had been released from jail. He called the District Attorney to ask what happened.
“He said the judge didn’t really want to deal with this [case] anymore, and accepted a plea with time served and released him,” Dr. Newman said. “That was the outcome of the situation.”
According to a 1997 study of 100 stalking victims, 94% made major lifestyle changes after their ordeal, 82% modified usual activities, 73% increased security measures, 70% curtailed social outings, 53% decreased/stopped work or school, and 39% relocated. “You do change a lot of what you do and how you do it in your life when you’ve had this experience, especially when it’s been a chronic experience for months or years,” said Dr. Newman, who is also medical director of adult psychiatric inpatient services for Saint Louis University. “To this day I get antsy any time I think about the story or prepare to talk about it. It remains uncomfortable even 6 years later, even without an ongoing direct threat at this point.”
The physiological impact of chronic stalking also takes its toll. The body releases adrenaline and cortisol as part of the fight or flight response, while chronic stress “is when you feel an increased stress response and have adrenaline and cortisol elevated for an extended period of time,” he said. “There are negative impacts in terms of increased inflammation in the body and in the brain. I have spoken to several professionals who have been stalked by former patients. Commonly, they have been diagnosed in the period after that with an autoimmune illness or a cancer. Less than a year after my stalking situation ended, I was diagnosed with a metastatic cancer and had to start chemotherapy. I would not at all be surprised that those things are highly related to one another.”
When patient boundary violations start to become problematic or worrisome, Dr. Newman advised reaching out to colleagues and law enforcement for help. “Don’t let it go on insidiously for an extended period of time,” he said. “I think that was the biggest lesson I learned.”
He reported having no financial disclosures.
Looking back on his experience of being stalked by a former patient for nearly 1 year, William J. Newman, MD, regrets not reaching out to colleagues about the patient boundary violations earlier than he did.
“My mindset was: ‘Maybe I did something wrong that created this,’ ” Dr. Newman, professor and interim chair of psychiatry at Saint Louis University, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “That’s a common theme among victims of stalking, being kind of embarrassed and not wanting to share it with other people.”
Dr. Newman’s ordeal began in August 2014, when the first of several threatening emails messages were sent to his account at the University of California, Davis, where he held a faculty post and worked on the teaching service at the Sacramento Mental Health Treatment Center, a county hospital that serves mainly uninsured or underinsured populations. The messages always contained a nonspecific email recipient name and the first wasn’t terribly worrisome, Dr. Newman said. It basically read (profanities excluded): “What is wrong with you? Leave me alone. All I want is some privacy.”
About 3 months later, he received another message in a similar writing pattern, but the name of the sender was “god devil,” which raised a red flag to him. “Once you start to get religious concepts, people are compelled to commit acts when they believe they’re doing so beyond the laws of the land and are doing so for a religious purpose,” said Dr. Newman, who is immediate past president of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
The content of the message contained the first name of a coworker and phrasing inferring suicide, which gave Dr. Newman a hint that it was someone he had cared for at the mental health treatment center, “but as anybody who has worked on a busy inpatient service can tell you, you encounter several suicidal patients, and this didn’t really narrow it down,” he said. “This told me the person had presented after a suicide attempt. In some ways, that made me a little more concerned, because because they don’t really worry about the consequences of being shot by law enforcement or dying in an attack.”
Dr. Newman contacted the university’s information technology team, which was able to trace all messages to an IP address from a computer located at a downtown branch of the public library, which had surveillance video. Armed with this information, he contacted the Sacramento Police Department to see if they would help. He had “what I can only describe as an unsatisfying and somewhat condescending conversation with an officer, who said: ‘Sir, we can’t just go around asking people questions without knowing they did something wrong. There’s nothing we’re going to do.’ ”
Between November 2014 and May 2015, Dr. Newman continued to receive periodic messages from the individual of varied length and intensity.
“Some messages were more disorganized and difficult to follow, while others were very intense and pointed about my imminent death,” he recalled. “I started to ignore these messages as much as possible, tried to put my head in the sand and move forward.”
However, one phrase contained in a message read “you won’t even recognize me,” which gave Dr. Newman pause. “It highlighted the idea that because I don’t know who this is, they could walk up to me on the sidewalk, and I would have no idea, which in its own right is somewhat terrorizing.”
At this point, he contacted the police again, telling them he was fearful for his imminent safety. He also met with his department chair and administrators, who helped Dr. Newman develop a plan to enter and exit the hospital at different times. Then, in May 2015, the stalker sent Dr. Newman another email message threatening not only his life, but the lives of his colleagues at the hospital.
“This was viewed as a terroristic threat, because [it inferred that] other people were going to be shot other than just me,” he said.
After this, Dr. Newman’s administrators contacted the police about the threat, who identified the individual through video surveillance footage at the public library and began to search for him. It was a patient who had been on testosterone and previously had sent similar messages to another mental health provider in town and wound up showing up at that person’s office with a loaded firearm.
“At that point, the police were called to the scene, picked the individual up, and took him to a local emergency room where he was placed on an involuntary 5150 psychiatric hold,” he said. “It was frustrating to me that this was very much minimized and kind of put to the side.”
Once he learned the stalker’s name, Dr. Newman had no recollection of the individual. “The patient had presented after a carbon monoxide overdose, had been sent to a local emergency room and came to my service,” he said. “It was a very nonconfrontational hospitalization, nothing out of the ordinary.”
At this point, the stalker was still at large, so Dr. Newman wrote farewell notes to his wife, children, and loved ones, “just in case,” he said. “I had those tucked away. That wasn’t an overly pleasant experience.” He also lived away from his family outside of Sacramento while police searched for his stalker.
In late May 2015, police located and arrested the individual, and Dr. Newman began a series of conversations with the District Attorney’s office. “They told me there were seven terroristic threat charges that had been levied. They said they were taking this very seriously and [that the case] would be going to trial.” About 1 year later, after Dr. Newman’s move to Missouri, the District Attorney indicated that there would be a court trial and that Dr. Newman would be asked to serve as a fact witness. “I gave them all the information I had, talked to investigators, and the process was moving along for about a year to the point that they had an anticipated trial date,” he said. About 1 year later, he received an automated phone message which stated that the individual had been released from jail. He called the District Attorney to ask what happened.
“He said the judge didn’t really want to deal with this [case] anymore, and accepted a plea with time served and released him,” Dr. Newman said. “That was the outcome of the situation.”
According to a 1997 study of 100 stalking victims, 94% made major lifestyle changes after their ordeal, 82% modified usual activities, 73% increased security measures, 70% curtailed social outings, 53% decreased/stopped work or school, and 39% relocated. “You do change a lot of what you do and how you do it in your life when you’ve had this experience, especially when it’s been a chronic experience for months or years,” said Dr. Newman, who is also medical director of adult psychiatric inpatient services for Saint Louis University. “To this day I get antsy any time I think about the story or prepare to talk about it. It remains uncomfortable even 6 years later, even without an ongoing direct threat at this point.”
The physiological impact of chronic stalking also takes its toll. The body releases adrenaline and cortisol as part of the fight or flight response, while chronic stress “is when you feel an increased stress response and have adrenaline and cortisol elevated for an extended period of time,” he said. “There are negative impacts in terms of increased inflammation in the body and in the brain. I have spoken to several professionals who have been stalked by former patients. Commonly, they have been diagnosed in the period after that with an autoimmune illness or a cancer. Less than a year after my stalking situation ended, I was diagnosed with a metastatic cancer and had to start chemotherapy. I would not at all be surprised that those things are highly related to one another.”
When patient boundary violations start to become problematic or worrisome, Dr. Newman advised reaching out to colleagues and law enforcement for help. “Don’t let it go on insidiously for an extended period of time,” he said. “I think that was the biggest lesson I learned.”
He reported having no financial disclosures.
FROM NPA 2021
Brain connectivity patterns reliably identify ADHD
Functional brain connectivity patterns are a stable biomarker of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, new research suggests.
By applying a machine-learning approach to brain-imaging data, investigators were able to identify with 99% accuracy the adult study participants who had been diagnosed with ADHD in childhood.
“Even though the symptoms of ADHD may be less apparent in adulthood, the brain-wiring signature seems to be persistent,” study investigator Christopher McNorgan, PhD, of the department of psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo told this news organization.
The findings were published online Dec. 17, 2020, in Frontiers of Psychology.
Deep-learning neural networks
The researchers analyzed archived functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and behavioral data for 80 adults (mean age, 24 years; 64 male). Of these participants, 55 were diagnosed with ADHD in childhood and 25 were not.
The fMRI data were obtained during a response inhibition task that tested the individual’s ability to not respond automatically; for example, not saying “Simon Says” after someone else makes the comment.
The behavioral data included scores on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), which is used to measure impulsivity and risk taking.
“Usually, but not always, people with ADHD make riskier choices on this task,” Dr. McNorgan noted.
The investigators measured the amount of interconnectedness among different brain regions during the response inhibition task, which was repeated four times.
Patterns of interconnectivity were then fed into a deep-learning neural network that learned which patterns belonged to the ADHD group vs. those without ADHD (control group) and which patterns belonged to the high vs. low scorers on the IGT.
Caveats, cautionary notes
“The trained models are then tested on brain patterns they had never seen before, and we found the models would make the correct ADHD diagnosis and could tell apart the high and low scorers on the IGT 99% of the time,” Dr. McNorgan reported.
“The trained classifiers make predictions by calculating probabilities, and the neural networks learned how each of the brain connections contributes towards the final classification probability. We identified the set of brain connections that had the greatest influence on these probability calculations,” he noted.
Because the network classified both ADHD diagnosis and gambling task performance, the researchers were able to distinguish between connections that predicted ADHD when gambling performance was poor, as is typical for patients with ADHD, and those predicting ADHD when gambling performance was uncharacteristically good.
While more work is needed, the findings have potential clinical relevance, Dr. McNorgan said.
“ADHD can be difficult to diagnose reliably. If expense wasn’t an issue, fMRI may be able to help make diagnosis more reliable and objective,” he added.
However, because individuals with ADHD have different behavioral profiles, such as scoring atypically well on the IGT, additional studies using this approach may help identify brain networks “that are more or less active in those with ADHD that show a particular diagnostic trait,” he said.
“This could help inform what treatments might be more effective for those individuals,” Dr. McNorgan said.
Of course, he added, “clinicians’ diagnostic expertise is still required, as I would not base an ADHD diagnosis solely on the results of a single brain scan.”
No cross-validation
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Vince Calhoun, PhD, neuroscientist and founding director of the Center for Translational Research in Neuroimaging and Data Science, Atlanta, a joint effort between Georgia State, Georgia Tech, and Emory University, noted some study limitations.
One cautionary note is that the investigators “appear to select relevant regions to include in the model based on activation to the task, then computed the predictions using the subset of regions that showed strong activation. The issue is this was done on the same data, so there was no cross-validation of this ‘feature selection’ step,” said Dr. Calhoun, who was not involved with the research. “This is a type of circularity which can lead to inflated accuracies,” he added.
Dr. Calhoun also noted that “multiple ADHD classification studies” have reported accuracies above 90%. In addition, there were only 80 participants in the current dataset.
“That’s relatively small for making strong claims about high accuracies as has been reported elsewhere,” he said.
Dr. McNorgan and Dr. Calhoun have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Functional brain connectivity patterns are a stable biomarker of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, new research suggests.
By applying a machine-learning approach to brain-imaging data, investigators were able to identify with 99% accuracy the adult study participants who had been diagnosed with ADHD in childhood.
“Even though the symptoms of ADHD may be less apparent in adulthood, the brain-wiring signature seems to be persistent,” study investigator Christopher McNorgan, PhD, of the department of psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo told this news organization.
The findings were published online Dec. 17, 2020, in Frontiers of Psychology.
Deep-learning neural networks
The researchers analyzed archived functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and behavioral data for 80 adults (mean age, 24 years; 64 male). Of these participants, 55 were diagnosed with ADHD in childhood and 25 were not.
The fMRI data were obtained during a response inhibition task that tested the individual’s ability to not respond automatically; for example, not saying “Simon Says” after someone else makes the comment.
The behavioral data included scores on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), which is used to measure impulsivity and risk taking.
“Usually, but not always, people with ADHD make riskier choices on this task,” Dr. McNorgan noted.
The investigators measured the amount of interconnectedness among different brain regions during the response inhibition task, which was repeated four times.
Patterns of interconnectivity were then fed into a deep-learning neural network that learned which patterns belonged to the ADHD group vs. those without ADHD (control group) and which patterns belonged to the high vs. low scorers on the IGT.
Caveats, cautionary notes
“The trained models are then tested on brain patterns they had never seen before, and we found the models would make the correct ADHD diagnosis and could tell apart the high and low scorers on the IGT 99% of the time,” Dr. McNorgan reported.
“The trained classifiers make predictions by calculating probabilities, and the neural networks learned how each of the brain connections contributes towards the final classification probability. We identified the set of brain connections that had the greatest influence on these probability calculations,” he noted.
Because the network classified both ADHD diagnosis and gambling task performance, the researchers were able to distinguish between connections that predicted ADHD when gambling performance was poor, as is typical for patients with ADHD, and those predicting ADHD when gambling performance was uncharacteristically good.
While more work is needed, the findings have potential clinical relevance, Dr. McNorgan said.
“ADHD can be difficult to diagnose reliably. If expense wasn’t an issue, fMRI may be able to help make diagnosis more reliable and objective,” he added.
However, because individuals with ADHD have different behavioral profiles, such as scoring atypically well on the IGT, additional studies using this approach may help identify brain networks “that are more or less active in those with ADHD that show a particular diagnostic trait,” he said.
“This could help inform what treatments might be more effective for those individuals,” Dr. McNorgan said.
Of course, he added, “clinicians’ diagnostic expertise is still required, as I would not base an ADHD diagnosis solely on the results of a single brain scan.”
No cross-validation
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Vince Calhoun, PhD, neuroscientist and founding director of the Center for Translational Research in Neuroimaging and Data Science, Atlanta, a joint effort between Georgia State, Georgia Tech, and Emory University, noted some study limitations.
One cautionary note is that the investigators “appear to select relevant regions to include in the model based on activation to the task, then computed the predictions using the subset of regions that showed strong activation. The issue is this was done on the same data, so there was no cross-validation of this ‘feature selection’ step,” said Dr. Calhoun, who was not involved with the research. “This is a type of circularity which can lead to inflated accuracies,” he added.
Dr. Calhoun also noted that “multiple ADHD classification studies” have reported accuracies above 90%. In addition, there were only 80 participants in the current dataset.
“That’s relatively small for making strong claims about high accuracies as has been reported elsewhere,” he said.
Dr. McNorgan and Dr. Calhoun have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Functional brain connectivity patterns are a stable biomarker of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, new research suggests.
By applying a machine-learning approach to brain-imaging data, investigators were able to identify with 99% accuracy the adult study participants who had been diagnosed with ADHD in childhood.
“Even though the symptoms of ADHD may be less apparent in adulthood, the brain-wiring signature seems to be persistent,” study investigator Christopher McNorgan, PhD, of the department of psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo told this news organization.
The findings were published online Dec. 17, 2020, in Frontiers of Psychology.
Deep-learning neural networks
The researchers analyzed archived functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and behavioral data for 80 adults (mean age, 24 years; 64 male). Of these participants, 55 were diagnosed with ADHD in childhood and 25 were not.
The fMRI data were obtained during a response inhibition task that tested the individual’s ability to not respond automatically; for example, not saying “Simon Says” after someone else makes the comment.
The behavioral data included scores on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), which is used to measure impulsivity and risk taking.
“Usually, but not always, people with ADHD make riskier choices on this task,” Dr. McNorgan noted.
The investigators measured the amount of interconnectedness among different brain regions during the response inhibition task, which was repeated four times.
Patterns of interconnectivity were then fed into a deep-learning neural network that learned which patterns belonged to the ADHD group vs. those without ADHD (control group) and which patterns belonged to the high vs. low scorers on the IGT.
Caveats, cautionary notes
“The trained models are then tested on brain patterns they had never seen before, and we found the models would make the correct ADHD diagnosis and could tell apart the high and low scorers on the IGT 99% of the time,” Dr. McNorgan reported.
“The trained classifiers make predictions by calculating probabilities, and the neural networks learned how each of the brain connections contributes towards the final classification probability. We identified the set of brain connections that had the greatest influence on these probability calculations,” he noted.
Because the network classified both ADHD diagnosis and gambling task performance, the researchers were able to distinguish between connections that predicted ADHD when gambling performance was poor, as is typical for patients with ADHD, and those predicting ADHD when gambling performance was uncharacteristically good.
While more work is needed, the findings have potential clinical relevance, Dr. McNorgan said.
“ADHD can be difficult to diagnose reliably. If expense wasn’t an issue, fMRI may be able to help make diagnosis more reliable and objective,” he added.
However, because individuals with ADHD have different behavioral profiles, such as scoring atypically well on the IGT, additional studies using this approach may help identify brain networks “that are more or less active in those with ADHD that show a particular diagnostic trait,” he said.
“This could help inform what treatments might be more effective for those individuals,” Dr. McNorgan said.
Of course, he added, “clinicians’ diagnostic expertise is still required, as I would not base an ADHD diagnosis solely on the results of a single brain scan.”
No cross-validation
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Vince Calhoun, PhD, neuroscientist and founding director of the Center for Translational Research in Neuroimaging and Data Science, Atlanta, a joint effort between Georgia State, Georgia Tech, and Emory University, noted some study limitations.
One cautionary note is that the investigators “appear to select relevant regions to include in the model based on activation to the task, then computed the predictions using the subset of regions that showed strong activation. The issue is this was done on the same data, so there was no cross-validation of this ‘feature selection’ step,” said Dr. Calhoun, who was not involved with the research. “This is a type of circularity which can lead to inflated accuracies,” he added.
Dr. Calhoun also noted that “multiple ADHD classification studies” have reported accuracies above 90%. In addition, there were only 80 participants in the current dataset.
“That’s relatively small for making strong claims about high accuracies as has been reported elsewhere,” he said.
Dr. McNorgan and Dr. Calhoun have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccine may blunt effects of deadly synthetic opioids
New experimental vaccines could stop the worst effects of synthetic fentanyl and carfentanil, two drugs that have been major drivers of the opioid epidemic in the United States, according to a new study published in ACS Chemical Biology on Feb. 3, 2021.
During several experiments in mice, the vaccines prevented respiratory depression, which is the main cause of overdose deaths. The vaccines also reduced the amount of drug that was distributed to the brain. Once in the brain, synthetic opioids prompt the body to slow down breathing, and when too much of the drug is consumed, breathing can stop.
“Synthetic opioids are not only extremely deadly but also addictive and easy to manufacture, making them a formidable public health threat, especially when the coronavirus crisis is negatively impacting mental health,” Kim Janda, PhD, a chemist at Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., who developed the vaccines, said in a statement.
Fentanyl is up to 100 times stronger than morphine, and carfentanil, which is often used by veterinarians to sedate large animals such as elephants, is up to 10,000 times stronger than morphine. Carfentanil isn’t as well-known as a street drug, but it’s being used more often as an additive in heroin and cocaine.
“We’ve shown it is possible to prevent these unnecessary deaths by eliciting antibodies that stop the drug from reaching the brain,” he said.
The vaccines could be used in emergency situations to treat overdoses and as a therapy for those with substance abuse disorders, Dr. Janda said. In addition, the vaccines could protect military officers who are exposed to opioids as chemical weapons, and they may also help opioid-sniffing police dogs to train for the job.
The vaccines are still in the early stages of testing, but looking at the latest data “brings us hope that this approach will work to treat a number of opioid-related maladies,” Dr. Janda said.
In December, the CDC reported that more than 81,000 drug overdose deaths happened in the United States between May 2019 and May 2020, which was the highest number ever recorded in a 12-month period. Synthetic opioids, particularly illegally created fentanyl, were to blame.
“Unfortunately, currently battling a pandemic,” Dr. Janda said. “We look forward to continuing our vaccine research and translating it to the clinic, where we can begin to make an impact on the opioid crisis.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New experimental vaccines could stop the worst effects of synthetic fentanyl and carfentanil, two drugs that have been major drivers of the opioid epidemic in the United States, according to a new study published in ACS Chemical Biology on Feb. 3, 2021.
During several experiments in mice, the vaccines prevented respiratory depression, which is the main cause of overdose deaths. The vaccines also reduced the amount of drug that was distributed to the brain. Once in the brain, synthetic opioids prompt the body to slow down breathing, and when too much of the drug is consumed, breathing can stop.
“Synthetic opioids are not only extremely deadly but also addictive and easy to manufacture, making them a formidable public health threat, especially when the coronavirus crisis is negatively impacting mental health,” Kim Janda, PhD, a chemist at Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., who developed the vaccines, said in a statement.
Fentanyl is up to 100 times stronger than morphine, and carfentanil, which is often used by veterinarians to sedate large animals such as elephants, is up to 10,000 times stronger than morphine. Carfentanil isn’t as well-known as a street drug, but it’s being used more often as an additive in heroin and cocaine.
“We’ve shown it is possible to prevent these unnecessary deaths by eliciting antibodies that stop the drug from reaching the brain,” he said.
The vaccines could be used in emergency situations to treat overdoses and as a therapy for those with substance abuse disorders, Dr. Janda said. In addition, the vaccines could protect military officers who are exposed to opioids as chemical weapons, and they may also help opioid-sniffing police dogs to train for the job.
The vaccines are still in the early stages of testing, but looking at the latest data “brings us hope that this approach will work to treat a number of opioid-related maladies,” Dr. Janda said.
In December, the CDC reported that more than 81,000 drug overdose deaths happened in the United States between May 2019 and May 2020, which was the highest number ever recorded in a 12-month period. Synthetic opioids, particularly illegally created fentanyl, were to blame.
“Unfortunately, currently battling a pandemic,” Dr. Janda said. “We look forward to continuing our vaccine research and translating it to the clinic, where we can begin to make an impact on the opioid crisis.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New experimental vaccines could stop the worst effects of synthetic fentanyl and carfentanil, two drugs that have been major drivers of the opioid epidemic in the United States, according to a new study published in ACS Chemical Biology on Feb. 3, 2021.
During several experiments in mice, the vaccines prevented respiratory depression, which is the main cause of overdose deaths. The vaccines also reduced the amount of drug that was distributed to the brain. Once in the brain, synthetic opioids prompt the body to slow down breathing, and when too much of the drug is consumed, breathing can stop.
“Synthetic opioids are not only extremely deadly but also addictive and easy to manufacture, making them a formidable public health threat, especially when the coronavirus crisis is negatively impacting mental health,” Kim Janda, PhD, a chemist at Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., who developed the vaccines, said in a statement.
Fentanyl is up to 100 times stronger than morphine, and carfentanil, which is often used by veterinarians to sedate large animals such as elephants, is up to 10,000 times stronger than morphine. Carfentanil isn’t as well-known as a street drug, but it’s being used more often as an additive in heroin and cocaine.
“We’ve shown it is possible to prevent these unnecessary deaths by eliciting antibodies that stop the drug from reaching the brain,” he said.
The vaccines could be used in emergency situations to treat overdoses and as a therapy for those with substance abuse disorders, Dr. Janda said. In addition, the vaccines could protect military officers who are exposed to opioids as chemical weapons, and they may also help opioid-sniffing police dogs to train for the job.
The vaccines are still in the early stages of testing, but looking at the latest data “brings us hope that this approach will work to treat a number of opioid-related maladies,” Dr. Janda said.
In December, the CDC reported that more than 81,000 drug overdose deaths happened in the United States between May 2019 and May 2020, which was the highest number ever recorded in a 12-month period. Synthetic opioids, particularly illegally created fentanyl, were to blame.
“Unfortunately, currently battling a pandemic,” Dr. Janda said. “We look forward to continuing our vaccine research and translating it to the clinic, where we can begin to make an impact on the opioid crisis.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Puppy love: Is losing a pet too hard for children?
The big news in the Wilkoff household is that Marilyn and I will be celebrating the arrival of a granddog into our nuclear family. Our younger daughter and her husband will be welcoming into their home a golden retriever puppy the first week in March. This may not seem like big news to some families and is certainly a step down on the priority list to the arrival of the four grandchildren that we already claim on our resume. But, you must understand that no one in our family has ever owned a dog.
Although my wife’s family had a dog, she apparently never really bonded with the canine. My pleas and occasional whining from our three children to get a dog were always met with my wife’s concerns about cleanliness and hygiene. We did have an antisocial cat who lived under a bed in the guest room or in the basement. His passing after 16 years when the kids were in college was not an event marked with any emotion beyond relief.
I think I harbored an unspoken concern about how I and our children might respond emotionally and psychologically to the inevitable death of what would likely have become our family’s best friend. Dispatching a belly-up goldfish after a month or two is small potatoes compared to putting down a tail-wagging, frisbee-catching, four-footed member of the family.
It turns out that my concerns about the mental health of our children may not have been unfounded. A recently published study from the Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital found that children who had experienced the death of a loved pet were more likely to exhibit symptoms of psychopathology than were those who had loved a pet who was still alive (Crawford et al. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1007/s00787-020-01594-5). The observed effect of the loss was more pronounced in boys. There was also no statistical difference between the psychopathology symptoms of those children who had loved and lost and those children who had never loved a pet.
By the time I left for college I had grown up with five different dogs. I had endured the loss of sweet Mary, the boxer, when we moved to a small apartment and had to send her to a “farm.” I had watched 2-year-old Blackie experience a seizure that heralded his fatal bout with distemper. I shared the struggle with my parents as we made the decision to send my much loved inveterate car chasing “Butch” back to the pound.
However, I survived these losses and wonder whether they in some way prepared me for some of the emotional challenges that would come later in life. This study from Harvard sampled only children from birth to age 8 years. For those of us in primary care a more interesting study might be one that looked for any long-term associations between pet loss as a young child with adolescent and adult mental health. With the surge in pet ownership that has surfaced during the pandemic, there should be an abundance of clinical material to mine. The Harvard researchers’ findings should make us aware of the potential for psychopathology in a child who has suffered the loss of a pet. Each family must decide whether the plusses of pet ownership are worth the risk. However, I side with Tennyson who said it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
The big news in the Wilkoff household is that Marilyn and I will be celebrating the arrival of a granddog into our nuclear family. Our younger daughter and her husband will be welcoming into their home a golden retriever puppy the first week in March. This may not seem like big news to some families and is certainly a step down on the priority list to the arrival of the four grandchildren that we already claim on our resume. But, you must understand that no one in our family has ever owned a dog.
Although my wife’s family had a dog, she apparently never really bonded with the canine. My pleas and occasional whining from our three children to get a dog were always met with my wife’s concerns about cleanliness and hygiene. We did have an antisocial cat who lived under a bed in the guest room or in the basement. His passing after 16 years when the kids were in college was not an event marked with any emotion beyond relief.
I think I harbored an unspoken concern about how I and our children might respond emotionally and psychologically to the inevitable death of what would likely have become our family’s best friend. Dispatching a belly-up goldfish after a month or two is small potatoes compared to putting down a tail-wagging, frisbee-catching, four-footed member of the family.
It turns out that my concerns about the mental health of our children may not have been unfounded. A recently published study from the Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital found that children who had experienced the death of a loved pet were more likely to exhibit symptoms of psychopathology than were those who had loved a pet who was still alive (Crawford et al. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1007/s00787-020-01594-5). The observed effect of the loss was more pronounced in boys. There was also no statistical difference between the psychopathology symptoms of those children who had loved and lost and those children who had never loved a pet.
By the time I left for college I had grown up with five different dogs. I had endured the loss of sweet Mary, the boxer, when we moved to a small apartment and had to send her to a “farm.” I had watched 2-year-old Blackie experience a seizure that heralded his fatal bout with distemper. I shared the struggle with my parents as we made the decision to send my much loved inveterate car chasing “Butch” back to the pound.
However, I survived these losses and wonder whether they in some way prepared me for some of the emotional challenges that would come later in life. This study from Harvard sampled only children from birth to age 8 years. For those of us in primary care a more interesting study might be one that looked for any long-term associations between pet loss as a young child with adolescent and adult mental health. With the surge in pet ownership that has surfaced during the pandemic, there should be an abundance of clinical material to mine. The Harvard researchers’ findings should make us aware of the potential for psychopathology in a child who has suffered the loss of a pet. Each family must decide whether the plusses of pet ownership are worth the risk. However, I side with Tennyson who said it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
The big news in the Wilkoff household is that Marilyn and I will be celebrating the arrival of a granddog into our nuclear family. Our younger daughter and her husband will be welcoming into their home a golden retriever puppy the first week in March. This may not seem like big news to some families and is certainly a step down on the priority list to the arrival of the four grandchildren that we already claim on our resume. But, you must understand that no one in our family has ever owned a dog.
Although my wife’s family had a dog, she apparently never really bonded with the canine. My pleas and occasional whining from our three children to get a dog were always met with my wife’s concerns about cleanliness and hygiene. We did have an antisocial cat who lived under a bed in the guest room or in the basement. His passing after 16 years when the kids were in college was not an event marked with any emotion beyond relief.
I think I harbored an unspoken concern about how I and our children might respond emotionally and psychologically to the inevitable death of what would likely have become our family’s best friend. Dispatching a belly-up goldfish after a month or two is small potatoes compared to putting down a tail-wagging, frisbee-catching, four-footed member of the family.
It turns out that my concerns about the mental health of our children may not have been unfounded. A recently published study from the Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital found that children who had experienced the death of a loved pet were more likely to exhibit symptoms of psychopathology than were those who had loved a pet who was still alive (Crawford et al. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020 Sep 10. doi: 10.1007/s00787-020-01594-5). The observed effect of the loss was more pronounced in boys. There was also no statistical difference between the psychopathology symptoms of those children who had loved and lost and those children who had never loved a pet.
By the time I left for college I had grown up with five different dogs. I had endured the loss of sweet Mary, the boxer, when we moved to a small apartment and had to send her to a “farm.” I had watched 2-year-old Blackie experience a seizure that heralded his fatal bout with distemper. I shared the struggle with my parents as we made the decision to send my much loved inveterate car chasing “Butch” back to the pound.
However, I survived these losses and wonder whether they in some way prepared me for some of the emotional challenges that would come later in life. This study from Harvard sampled only children from birth to age 8 years. For those of us in primary care a more interesting study might be one that looked for any long-term associations between pet loss as a young child with adolescent and adult mental health. With the surge in pet ownership that has surfaced during the pandemic, there should be an abundance of clinical material to mine. The Harvard researchers’ findings should make us aware of the potential for psychopathology in a child who has suffered the loss of a pet. Each family must decide whether the plusses of pet ownership are worth the risk. However, I side with Tennyson who said it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.