Mental Health

TOPLINE:

More physical activity in late childhood is associated with an increase in brain volume in regions involved in cognition, emotion, learning, and psychiatric illness.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used data on 1,088 children (52% girls) in the Generation R Study, a 4-year longitudinal population-based cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• At age 10 years, children and their caregivers reported on children’s level of physical activity and sports involvement.
• Investigators measured changes in participants’ brain volume via MRI at ages 10 and 14 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Every 1 additional hour per week in sports participation was associated with a 64.0-mm³ larger volume change in subcortical gray matter (P = .04).
• Every 1 additional hour per week in total physical activity was associated with a 154.0-mm³ larger volume change in total white matter (P = .02).
• Total physical activity reported by any source (P = .03) and child reports of outdoor play (P = .01) were associated with increased amygdala volume over time.
• Total physical activity reported by the children was associated with hippocampal volume increases (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity is one of the most promising environmental exposures favorably influencing health across the lifespan,” the authors write. “This study adds to prior literature by highlighting the neurodevelopmental benefits physical activity may have on the architecture of the amygdala and hippocampus.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fernando Estévez-López, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, the SPORT Research Group and CERNEP Research Center at the University of Almería (Spain), and Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online on in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only accounted for confounders at baseline, does not establish causation, and utilized unvalidated questionnaires to gather information on physical activity.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors report receiving financial support, but there was no specific funding for this study. Dr. Estévez-López reports no relevant financial conflicts. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

More physical activity in late childhood is associated with an increase in brain volume in regions involved in cognition, emotion, learning, and psychiatric illness.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used data on 1,088 children (52% girls) in the Generation R Study, a 4-year longitudinal population-based cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• At age 10 years, children and their caregivers reported on children’s level of physical activity and sports involvement.
• Investigators measured changes in participants’ brain volume via MRI at ages 10 and 14 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Every 1 additional hour per week in sports participation was associated with a 64.0-mm³ larger volume change in subcortical gray matter (P = .04).
• Every 1 additional hour per week in total physical activity was associated with a 154.0-mm³ larger volume change in total white matter (P = .02).
• Total physical activity reported by any source (P = .03) and child reports of outdoor play (P = .01) were associated with increased amygdala volume over time.
• Total physical activity reported by the children was associated with hippocampal volume increases (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity is one of the most promising environmental exposures favorably influencing health across the lifespan,” the authors write. “This study adds to prior literature by highlighting the neurodevelopmental benefits physical activity may have on the architecture of the amygdala and hippocampus.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fernando Estévez-López, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, the SPORT Research Group and CERNEP Research Center at the University of Almería (Spain), and Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online on in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only accounted for confounders at baseline, does not establish causation, and utilized unvalidated questionnaires to gather information on physical activity.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors report receiving financial support, but there was no specific funding for this study. Dr. Estévez-López reports no relevant financial conflicts. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

More physical activity in late childhood is associated with an increase in brain volume in regions involved in cognition, emotion, learning, and psychiatric illness.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used data on 1,088 children (52% girls) in the Generation R Study, a 4-year longitudinal population-based cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• At age 10 years, children and their caregivers reported on children’s level of physical activity and sports involvement.
• Investigators measured changes in participants’ brain volume via MRI at ages 10 and 14 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Every 1 additional hour per week in sports participation was associated with a 64.0-mm³ larger volume change in subcortical gray matter (P = .04).
• Every 1 additional hour per week in total physical activity was associated with a 154.0-mm³ larger volume change in total white matter (P = .02).
• Total physical activity reported by any source (P = .03) and child reports of outdoor play (P = .01) were associated with increased amygdala volume over time.
• Total physical activity reported by the children was associated with hippocampal volume increases (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity is one of the most promising environmental exposures favorably influencing health across the lifespan,” the authors write. “This study adds to prior literature by highlighting the neurodevelopmental benefits physical activity may have on the architecture of the amygdala and hippocampus.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fernando Estévez-López, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, the SPORT Research Group and CERNEP Research Center at the University of Almería (Spain), and Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online on in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only accounted for confounders at baseline, does not establish causation, and utilized unvalidated questionnaires to gather information on physical activity.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors report receiving financial support, but there was no specific funding for this study. Dr. Estévez-López reports no relevant financial conflicts. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Acute stress in peri- and postmenopausal women is associated with more depressive symptoms, while chronic stress showed greater association with memory and concentration problems, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).

“This work suggests that markers of hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activation that capture total cortisol secretion over multiple months, [such as] hair cortisol, strongly correlate with cognitive performance on attention and working memory tasks, whereas measures of more acute cortisol, [such as] salivary cortisol, may be more strongly associated with depression symptom severity and verbal learning,” Christina Metcalf, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry in the Colorado Center for Women’s Behavioral Health and Wellness at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, told attendees. “Given the associations with chronic stress, there’s a lot of potential here to increase our knowledge about how women are doing and managing stress and life stressors during this life transition,” she said.

Measuring hair cortisol more feasible

The study was conducted remotely, with participants using video conferencing to communicate with the study personnel and then completing study procedures at home, including 2 days of cognitive testing with the California Verbal Learning Test – Third Edition and the n-back and continuous performance tasks. The participants also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).

Participants with higher levels of hair cortisol and salivary cortisol also had more severe depression symptoms (P < .001). Hair cortisol was also significantly associated with attention and working memory: Women with higher levels had fewer correct answers on the 0-back and 1-back trials (P < .01) and made more mistakes on the 2-back trial (P < .001). They also scored with less specificity on the continuous performance tasks (P = .022).

Although no association existed between hair cortisol levels and verbal learning or verbal memory (P > .05), participants with higher hair cortisol did score worse on the immediate recall trials (P = .034). Salivary cortisol levels, on the other hand, showed no association with memory recall trials, attention or working memory (P > .05).

Measuring cortisol from hair samples is more feasible than using saliva samples and may offer valuable insights regarding hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activity “to consider alongside the cognitive and mental health of late peri-/early postmenopausal women,” Dr. Metcalf told attendees. The next step is to find out whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-axis axis is a modifiable biomarker that can be used to improve executive function.

The study was limited by its small population, its cross-sectional design, and the lack of covariates in the current analyses.
 

Monitor symptoms in midlife

Hadine Joffe, MD, MSc, a professor of psychiatry and executive director of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said the study findings were not surprising given how common the complaints of stress and depressive symptoms are.

“Mood changes are linked with acute, immediate cortisol levels at the same point in time, and cognitive symptoms were linked to more chronically elevated cortisol levels,” Dr. Joffe said in an interview. “Women and their providers should monitor for these challenging brain symptoms in midlife as they affect performance and quality of life and are linked with changes in the HPA axis as stress biomarkers.”

Because the study is small and has a cross-sectional design, it’s not possible to determine the direction of the associations or to make any inferences about causation, Dr. Joffe said.

“We cannot make the conclusion that stress is adversely affecting mood and cognitive performance given the design limitations. It is possible that mood and cognitive issues contributed to these stress markers,” Dr. Joffe said.“However, it is known that the experience of stress is linked with vulnerability to mood and cognitive symptoms, and also that mood and cognitive symptoms induce significant stress.”

The research was funded by the Menopause Society, Colorado University, the Ludeman Family Center for Women’s Health Research, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Aging. Dr. Metcalf had no disclosures. Dr. Joffe has received grant support from Merck, Pfizer and Sage, and has been a consultant or advisor for Bayer, Merck and Hello Therapeutics.

PHILADELPHIA – Acute stress in peri- and postmenopausal women is associated with more depressive symptoms, while chronic stress showed greater association with memory and concentration problems, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).

“This work suggests that markers of hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activation that capture total cortisol secretion over multiple months, [such as] hair cortisol, strongly correlate with cognitive performance on attention and working memory tasks, whereas measures of more acute cortisol, [such as] salivary cortisol, may be more strongly associated with depression symptom severity and verbal learning,” Christina Metcalf, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry in the Colorado Center for Women’s Behavioral Health and Wellness at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, told attendees. “Given the associations with chronic stress, there’s a lot of potential here to increase our knowledge about how women are doing and managing stress and life stressors during this life transition,” she said.

Measuring hair cortisol more feasible

The study was conducted remotely, with participants using video conferencing to communicate with the study personnel and then completing study procedures at home, including 2 days of cognitive testing with the California Verbal Learning Test – Third Edition and the n-back and continuous performance tasks. The participants also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).

Participants with higher levels of hair cortisol and salivary cortisol also had more severe depression symptoms (P < .001). Hair cortisol was also significantly associated with attention and working memory: Women with higher levels had fewer correct answers on the 0-back and 1-back trials (P < .01) and made more mistakes on the 2-back trial (P < .001). They also scored with less specificity on the continuous performance tasks (P = .022).

Although no association existed between hair cortisol levels and verbal learning or verbal memory (P > .05), participants with higher hair cortisol did score worse on the immediate recall trials (P = .034). Salivary cortisol levels, on the other hand, showed no association with memory recall trials, attention or working memory (P > .05).

Measuring cortisol from hair samples is more feasible than using saliva samples and may offer valuable insights regarding hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activity “to consider alongside the cognitive and mental health of late peri-/early postmenopausal women,” Dr. Metcalf told attendees. The next step is to find out whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-axis axis is a modifiable biomarker that can be used to improve executive function.

The study was limited by its small population, its cross-sectional design, and the lack of covariates in the current analyses.
 

Monitor symptoms in midlife

Hadine Joffe, MD, MSc, a professor of psychiatry and executive director of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said the study findings were not surprising given how common the complaints of stress and depressive symptoms are.

“Mood changes are linked with acute, immediate cortisol levels at the same point in time, and cognitive symptoms were linked to more chronically elevated cortisol levels,” Dr. Joffe said in an interview. “Women and their providers should monitor for these challenging brain symptoms in midlife as they affect performance and quality of life and are linked with changes in the HPA axis as stress biomarkers.”

Because the study is small and has a cross-sectional design, it’s not possible to determine the direction of the associations or to make any inferences about causation, Dr. Joffe said.

“We cannot make the conclusion that stress is adversely affecting mood and cognitive performance given the design limitations. It is possible that mood and cognitive issues contributed to these stress markers,” Dr. Joffe said.“However, it is known that the experience of stress is linked with vulnerability to mood and cognitive symptoms, and also that mood and cognitive symptoms induce significant stress.”

The research was funded by the Menopause Society, Colorado University, the Ludeman Family Center for Women’s Health Research, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Aging. Dr. Metcalf had no disclosures. Dr. Joffe has received grant support from Merck, Pfizer and Sage, and has been a consultant or advisor for Bayer, Merck and Hello Therapeutics.

PHILADELPHIA – Acute stress in peri- and postmenopausal women is associated with more depressive symptoms, while chronic stress showed greater association with memory and concentration problems, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).

“This work suggests that markers of hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activation that capture total cortisol secretion over multiple months, [such as] hair cortisol, strongly correlate with cognitive performance on attention and working memory tasks, whereas measures of more acute cortisol, [such as] salivary cortisol, may be more strongly associated with depression symptom severity and verbal learning,” Christina Metcalf, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry in the Colorado Center for Women’s Behavioral Health and Wellness at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, told attendees. “Given the associations with chronic stress, there’s a lot of potential here to increase our knowledge about how women are doing and managing stress and life stressors during this life transition,” she said.

Measuring hair cortisol more feasible

The study was conducted remotely, with participants using video conferencing to communicate with the study personnel and then completing study procedures at home, including 2 days of cognitive testing with the California Verbal Learning Test – Third Edition and the n-back and continuous performance tasks. The participants also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).

Participants with higher levels of hair cortisol and salivary cortisol also had more severe depression symptoms (P < .001). Hair cortisol was also significantly associated with attention and working memory: Women with higher levels had fewer correct answers on the 0-back and 1-back trials (P < .01) and made more mistakes on the 2-back trial (P < .001). They also scored with less specificity on the continuous performance tasks (P = .022).

Although no association existed between hair cortisol levels and verbal learning or verbal memory (P > .05), participants with higher hair cortisol did score worse on the immediate recall trials (P = .034). Salivary cortisol levels, on the other hand, showed no association with memory recall trials, attention or working memory (P > .05).

Measuring cortisol from hair samples is more feasible than using saliva samples and may offer valuable insights regarding hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activity “to consider alongside the cognitive and mental health of late peri-/early postmenopausal women,” Dr. Metcalf told attendees. The next step is to find out whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-axis axis is a modifiable biomarker that can be used to improve executive function.

The study was limited by its small population, its cross-sectional design, and the lack of covariates in the current analyses.
 

Monitor symptoms in midlife

Hadine Joffe, MD, MSc, a professor of psychiatry and executive director of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said the study findings were not surprising given how common the complaints of stress and depressive symptoms are.

“Mood changes are linked with acute, immediate cortisol levels at the same point in time, and cognitive symptoms were linked to more chronically elevated cortisol levels,” Dr. Joffe said in an interview. “Women and their providers should monitor for these challenging brain symptoms in midlife as they affect performance and quality of life and are linked with changes in the HPA axis as stress biomarkers.”

Because the study is small and has a cross-sectional design, it’s not possible to determine the direction of the associations or to make any inferences about causation, Dr. Joffe said.

“We cannot make the conclusion that stress is adversely affecting mood and cognitive performance given the design limitations. It is possible that mood and cognitive issues contributed to these stress markers,” Dr. Joffe said.“However, it is known that the experience of stress is linked with vulnerability to mood and cognitive symptoms, and also that mood and cognitive symptoms induce significant stress.”

The research was funded by the Menopause Society, Colorado University, the Ludeman Family Center for Women’s Health Research, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Aging. Dr. Metcalf had no disclosures. Dr. Joffe has received grant support from Merck, Pfizer and Sage, and has been a consultant or advisor for Bayer, Merck and Hello Therapeutics.

TOPLINE:

Risk of death by suicide was lower among U.S. veterans with a disability, compared with nonveterans with a disability, new data from the 2015-2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health show. Investigators speculate that veteran status may mitigate suicide risk given increased provision of disability-related care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but they acknowledge that more research is needed to confirm this theory.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study includes analysis of self-reported data collected from 2015 to 2020 from 231,000 NSDUH respondents, 9% of whom were veterans; 20% reported at least one disability.
• Respondents were asked questions about suicide, veteran status, and the number and type of disability they had, if applicable.
• Disabilities included those related to hearing, sight, and concentration, memory, decision-making, ambulation, or functional status (at home or outside the home).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 4.4% of the sample reported suicide ideation, planning, or attempt.
• Among participants with one disability, being a veteran was associated with a 43% lower risk of suicide planning (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; P = .03).
• Among those with two disabilities, veterans had a 54% lower likelihood of having a history of suicide attempt, compared with nonveterans (aOR, 0.46; P = .02).
• Compared with U.S. veterans reporting 1, 2, and ≥ 3 disabilities, U.S. veterans with no disabilities were 50%, 160%, and 127% more likely, respectively, to report suicidal ideation.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed buffering effect of veteran status among people with a disability may be reflective of characteristics of disability-related care offered through the Department of Veterans Affairs,” the authors write. “It is possible that VA services could act as a protective factor for suicide-related outcomes for veterans with disabilities by improving access, quality of care, and understanding of their disability context.”

SOURCE:

Rebecca K. Blais, PhD, of Arizona State University, Tempe, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Assessments were based on self-reported information and there was no information about disability severity, which may have influenced suicide risk among veterans and nonveterans.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Anne Kirby, PhD, received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study as well as grants from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personal fees from University of Pittsburgh outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Risk of death by suicide was lower among U.S. veterans with a disability, compared with nonveterans with a disability, new data from the 2015-2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health show. Investigators speculate that veteran status may mitigate suicide risk given increased provision of disability-related care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but they acknowledge that more research is needed to confirm this theory.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study includes analysis of self-reported data collected from 2015 to 2020 from 231,000 NSDUH respondents, 9% of whom were veterans; 20% reported at least one disability.
• Respondents were asked questions about suicide, veteran status, and the number and type of disability they had, if applicable.
• Disabilities included those related to hearing, sight, and concentration, memory, decision-making, ambulation, or functional status (at home or outside the home).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 4.4% of the sample reported suicide ideation, planning, or attempt.
• Among participants with one disability, being a veteran was associated with a 43% lower risk of suicide planning (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; P = .03).
• Among those with two disabilities, veterans had a 54% lower likelihood of having a history of suicide attempt, compared with nonveterans (aOR, 0.46; P = .02).
• Compared with U.S. veterans reporting 1, 2, and ≥ 3 disabilities, U.S. veterans with no disabilities were 50%, 160%, and 127% more likely, respectively, to report suicidal ideation.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed buffering effect of veteran status among people with a disability may be reflective of characteristics of disability-related care offered through the Department of Veterans Affairs,” the authors write. “It is possible that VA services could act as a protective factor for suicide-related outcomes for veterans with disabilities by improving access, quality of care, and understanding of their disability context.”

SOURCE:

Rebecca K. Blais, PhD, of Arizona State University, Tempe, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Assessments were based on self-reported information and there was no information about disability severity, which may have influenced suicide risk among veterans and nonveterans.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Anne Kirby, PhD, received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study as well as grants from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personal fees from University of Pittsburgh outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Risk of death by suicide was lower among U.S. veterans with a disability, compared with nonveterans with a disability, new data from the 2015-2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health show. Investigators speculate that veteran status may mitigate suicide risk given increased provision of disability-related care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, but they acknowledge that more research is needed to confirm this theory.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study includes analysis of self-reported data collected from 2015 to 2020 from 231,000 NSDUH respondents, 9% of whom were veterans; 20% reported at least one disability.
• Respondents were asked questions about suicide, veteran status, and the number and type of disability they had, if applicable.
• Disabilities included those related to hearing, sight, and concentration, memory, decision-making, ambulation, or functional status (at home or outside the home).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 4.4% of the sample reported suicide ideation, planning, or attempt.
• Among participants with one disability, being a veteran was associated with a 43% lower risk of suicide planning (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; P = .03).
• Among those with two disabilities, veterans had a 54% lower likelihood of having a history of suicide attempt, compared with nonveterans (aOR, 0.46; P = .02).
• Compared with U.S. veterans reporting 1, 2, and ≥ 3 disabilities, U.S. veterans with no disabilities were 50%, 160%, and 127% more likely, respectively, to report suicidal ideation.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed buffering effect of veteran status among people with a disability may be reflective of characteristics of disability-related care offered through the Department of Veterans Affairs,” the authors write. “It is possible that VA services could act as a protective factor for suicide-related outcomes for veterans with disabilities by improving access, quality of care, and understanding of their disability context.”

SOURCE:

Rebecca K. Blais, PhD, of Arizona State University, Tempe, led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Assessments were based on self-reported information and there was no information about disability severity, which may have influenced suicide risk among veterans and nonveterans.

DISCLOSURES:

Coauthor Anne Kirby, PhD, received grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study as well as grants from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and personal fees from University of Pittsburgh outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

WASHINGTON – Children of fathers who develop postpartum depression are more likely to experience multiple adverse childhood experiences by the time they’re 5 years old, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Paternal depression and adverse childhood experiences

The study involved an analysis of six waves of data from the Future of Families & Child Wellbeing Study, which follows a national cohort of children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The cohort includes an intentional over-representation of unmarried mothers, who make up about 75% of the overall population.

The researchers used the World Health Organization’s Composite International Diagnosis Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF) to assess fathers’ depression when their children were 1 year old. Then the researchers looked at the number of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) children had at 5 years old.

The analysis was adjusted to account for the child’s sex and the father’s age, race/ethnicity, and education as well as whether he was born inside or outside the United States. The findings were also adjusted for the whether the child’s parents were married or cohabiting, whether the child had low birth weight, whether the birth was covered by Medicaid, and whether the mother had postpartum depression.

Among the 1,933 pairs of fathers and children in the analysis, nearly half the fathers were non-Hispanic Black (48%) and more than half (64%) had a high school education or lower level of education. Medicaid paid for half the children’s births.

Nine percent of the fathers experienced depression during their child’s first year, and 70% of the children had at least one ACE at 5 years old. Two in five children (39%) had two ACEs at age 5, and 21% of children had three ACEs.

Children were twice as likely to have three ACEs at 5 years old if their father had depression during the child’s first year (adjusted odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-2.93). Paternal depression was also significantly associated with children having one ACE (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.45-3.81) and two ACES (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.35-2.63) at age 5.

The ACE with the highest association with paternal depression was the father’s absence from children’s lives (aOR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.74-4.04). In addition, children of fathers with depression had 60% greater odds of exposure to substance use (aOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.08-2.34).

Children also had greater odds of child maltreatment at age 5 if their father had depression in their child’s first year. Odds were greater for psychological maltreatment (aOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.02-2.34), neglect (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.08-2.46), and physical maltreatment (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.04-2.35). The researchers did not find any association between paternal depression and the ACEs of sexual maltreatment, maternal depression, incarceration of someone in the home, or violence toward the mother.

”We know that dads play a critical role in the family,” Dr. Schmitz said. “We as pediatricians have a really unique position with families, and we should capitalize on that opportunity to engage with fathers just like we do with mothers and postpartum depression. Hopefully by doing that, we’ll reduce hardships for children and families down the road.”

Dr. Schmitz also said it’s important for pediatricians to advocate at a policy level “to really include dads more explicitly in maternal and child health policy and advocate for better father-focused interventions from father-focused research.” She further acknowledged the stigma that exists around men’s mental health in general and the need to find out the best ways to help overcome that stigma.
 

‘Concerning’ findings may suggest a need for screening

Jason Terk, MD, a pediatrician practicing in north Texas and past president of the Texas Pediatric Society, was not surprised to see a link between depression in fathers and adversity in their children. Dr. Terk was not involved in the research but noted that the 9% rate of paternal depression seen in the study is similar to national rates of depression in U.S. adults.

“I think that the presence of paternal depression being associated with ACEs in their children in their first 5 years of life is certainly concerning and worthy of intervention for both the fathers and their children,” Dr. Terk said. “The key take-home message for clinicians who care for infants and small children is that the presence of paternal depression should increase awareness of adverse effects on those children. We need to consider screening for this at 12 months of age in much the same way we screen for maternal depression for younger infants.”

Dr. Terk noted one limitation of the study was that it didn’t suggest any specific risk factors pediatricians might look for to increase surveillance of potential depression in fathers.

“Also, unlike maternal depression, in which moms may be connected with their obstetricians if they screen positive on an Edinburgh questionnaire, we will be hard-pressed to know where to refer dads who are found to be depressed when their babies are 12 months old,” Dr. Terk said. “Screening must lead to helpful responses if the screening reveals a problem.”

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Schmitz had no disclosures. Dr. Terk has been a speaker for Sanofi on a topic unrelated to this research.

WASHINGTON – Children of fathers who develop postpartum depression are more likely to experience multiple adverse childhood experiences by the time they’re 5 years old, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Paternal depression and adverse childhood experiences

The study involved an analysis of six waves of data from the Future of Families & Child Wellbeing Study, which follows a national cohort of children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The cohort includes an intentional over-representation of unmarried mothers, who make up about 75% of the overall population.

The researchers used the World Health Organization’s Composite International Diagnosis Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF) to assess fathers’ depression when their children were 1 year old. Then the researchers looked at the number of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) children had at 5 years old.

The analysis was adjusted to account for the child’s sex and the father’s age, race/ethnicity, and education as well as whether he was born inside or outside the United States. The findings were also adjusted for the whether the child’s parents were married or cohabiting, whether the child had low birth weight, whether the birth was covered by Medicaid, and whether the mother had postpartum depression.

Among the 1,933 pairs of fathers and children in the analysis, nearly half the fathers were non-Hispanic Black (48%) and more than half (64%) had a high school education or lower level of education. Medicaid paid for half the children’s births.

Nine percent of the fathers experienced depression during their child’s first year, and 70% of the children had at least one ACE at 5 years old. Two in five children (39%) had two ACEs at age 5, and 21% of children had three ACEs.

Children were twice as likely to have three ACEs at 5 years old if their father had depression during the child’s first year (adjusted odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-2.93). Paternal depression was also significantly associated with children having one ACE (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.45-3.81) and two ACES (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.35-2.63) at age 5.

The ACE with the highest association with paternal depression was the father’s absence from children’s lives (aOR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.74-4.04). In addition, children of fathers with depression had 60% greater odds of exposure to substance use (aOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.08-2.34).

Children also had greater odds of child maltreatment at age 5 if their father had depression in their child’s first year. Odds were greater for psychological maltreatment (aOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.02-2.34), neglect (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.08-2.46), and physical maltreatment (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.04-2.35). The researchers did not find any association between paternal depression and the ACEs of sexual maltreatment, maternal depression, incarceration of someone in the home, or violence toward the mother.

”We know that dads play a critical role in the family,” Dr. Schmitz said. “We as pediatricians have a really unique position with families, and we should capitalize on that opportunity to engage with fathers just like we do with mothers and postpartum depression. Hopefully by doing that, we’ll reduce hardships for children and families down the road.”

Dr. Schmitz also said it’s important for pediatricians to advocate at a policy level “to really include dads more explicitly in maternal and child health policy and advocate for better father-focused interventions from father-focused research.” She further acknowledged the stigma that exists around men’s mental health in general and the need to find out the best ways to help overcome that stigma.
 

‘Concerning’ findings may suggest a need for screening

Jason Terk, MD, a pediatrician practicing in north Texas and past president of the Texas Pediatric Society, was not surprised to see a link between depression in fathers and adversity in their children. Dr. Terk was not involved in the research but noted that the 9% rate of paternal depression seen in the study is similar to national rates of depression in U.S. adults.

“I think that the presence of paternal depression being associated with ACEs in their children in their first 5 years of life is certainly concerning and worthy of intervention for both the fathers and their children,” Dr. Terk said. “The key take-home message for clinicians who care for infants and small children is that the presence of paternal depression should increase awareness of adverse effects on those children. We need to consider screening for this at 12 months of age in much the same way we screen for maternal depression for younger infants.”

Dr. Terk noted one limitation of the study was that it didn’t suggest any specific risk factors pediatricians might look for to increase surveillance of potential depression in fathers.

“Also, unlike maternal depression, in which moms may be connected with their obstetricians if they screen positive on an Edinburgh questionnaire, we will be hard-pressed to know where to refer dads who are found to be depressed when their babies are 12 months old,” Dr. Terk said. “Screening must lead to helpful responses if the screening reveals a problem.”

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Schmitz had no disclosures. Dr. Terk has been a speaker for Sanofi on a topic unrelated to this research.

WASHINGTON – Children of fathers who develop postpartum depression are more likely to experience multiple adverse childhood experiences by the time they’re 5 years old, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Paternal depression and adverse childhood experiences

The study involved an analysis of six waves of data from the Future of Families & Child Wellbeing Study, which follows a national cohort of children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000. The cohort includes an intentional over-representation of unmarried mothers, who make up about 75% of the overall population.

The researchers used the World Health Organization’s Composite International Diagnosis Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF) to assess fathers’ depression when their children were 1 year old. Then the researchers looked at the number of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) children had at 5 years old.

The analysis was adjusted to account for the child’s sex and the father’s age, race/ethnicity, and education as well as whether he was born inside or outside the United States. The findings were also adjusted for the whether the child’s parents were married or cohabiting, whether the child had low birth weight, whether the birth was covered by Medicaid, and whether the mother had postpartum depression.

Among the 1,933 pairs of fathers and children in the analysis, nearly half the fathers were non-Hispanic Black (48%) and more than half (64%) had a high school education or lower level of education. Medicaid paid for half the children’s births.

Nine percent of the fathers experienced depression during their child’s first year, and 70% of the children had at least one ACE at 5 years old. Two in five children (39%) had two ACEs at age 5, and 21% of children had three ACEs.

Children were twice as likely to have three ACEs at 5 years old if their father had depression during the child’s first year (adjusted odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-2.93). Paternal depression was also significantly associated with children having one ACE (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.45-3.81) and two ACES (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.35-2.63) at age 5.

The ACE with the highest association with paternal depression was the father’s absence from children’s lives (aOR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.74-4.04). In addition, children of fathers with depression had 60% greater odds of exposure to substance use (aOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.08-2.34).

Children also had greater odds of child maltreatment at age 5 if their father had depression in their child’s first year. Odds were greater for psychological maltreatment (aOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.02-2.34), neglect (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.08-2.46), and physical maltreatment (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.04-2.35). The researchers did not find any association between paternal depression and the ACEs of sexual maltreatment, maternal depression, incarceration of someone in the home, or violence toward the mother.

”We know that dads play a critical role in the family,” Dr. Schmitz said. “We as pediatricians have a really unique position with families, and we should capitalize on that opportunity to engage with fathers just like we do with mothers and postpartum depression. Hopefully by doing that, we’ll reduce hardships for children and families down the road.”

Dr. Schmitz also said it’s important for pediatricians to advocate at a policy level “to really include dads more explicitly in maternal and child health policy and advocate for better father-focused interventions from father-focused research.” She further acknowledged the stigma that exists around men’s mental health in general and the need to find out the best ways to help overcome that stigma.
 

‘Concerning’ findings may suggest a need for screening

Jason Terk, MD, a pediatrician practicing in north Texas and past president of the Texas Pediatric Society, was not surprised to see a link between depression in fathers and adversity in their children. Dr. Terk was not involved in the research but noted that the 9% rate of paternal depression seen in the study is similar to national rates of depression in U.S. adults.

“I think that the presence of paternal depression being associated with ACEs in their children in their first 5 years of life is certainly concerning and worthy of intervention for both the fathers and their children,” Dr. Terk said. “The key take-home message for clinicians who care for infants and small children is that the presence of paternal depression should increase awareness of adverse effects on those children. We need to consider screening for this at 12 months of age in much the same way we screen for maternal depression for younger infants.”

Dr. Terk noted one limitation of the study was that it didn’t suggest any specific risk factors pediatricians might look for to increase surveillance of potential depression in fathers.

“Also, unlike maternal depression, in which moms may be connected with their obstetricians if they screen positive on an Edinburgh questionnaire, we will be hard-pressed to know where to refer dads who are found to be depressed when their babies are 12 months old,” Dr. Terk said. “Screening must lead to helpful responses if the screening reveals a problem.”

The research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Dr. Schmitz had no disclosures. Dr. Terk has been a speaker for Sanofi on a topic unrelated to this research.

TOPLINE:

The use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) tripled among young adults with past-year depression, results from the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) show. The increase was especially high among young adults and those earning less than $75,000 a year.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed responses of 478,500 adult respondents to the NSDUH, a cross-sectional, in-person survey administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration between 2008 and 2019.
• Respondents were questioned about past-month and past-year LSD use and past-year depression.
• Investigators conducted statistical analysis between December 2022 and June 2023.

TAKEAWAY:

• Past-year use of LSD increased significantly more among adults with major depression, increasing from 0.5% in 2008 to 1.8% in 2019 (prevalence difference, 1.3% [95% confidence interval, 1.0%-1.6%]) compared with adults without major depression.
• This difference was particularly pronounced among young adults with depression age 34 years or younger (PD for age 18-25 years, 3.3% [95% CI, 2.5%-4.2%]; PD for age 26-34 years, 2.7% [95% CI, 1.6%-3.8%]).
• The increase was also higher among those earning less than $75,000 per year (PD for < $20,000, 1.9% [95% CI, 1.3%-2.6%]; PD for $20,000-$49,999, 1.5% [95% CI, 1.0%-2.1%]; PD for $50,000-$74,999, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.7%-2.0%]).
• Use of other hallucinogen classes either decreased or increased only among select age groups or time frames; the use of LSD consistently increased among every observed age group from 2002 to 2019.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should aim to understand the motivations for LSD use as well as the directionality between nonmedical LSD use and depression. As the evaluation of LSD as a potential psychiatric treatment continues, public health efforts to promote safe and evidence-based use of psychedelics are critical,” the investigators write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Deborah S. Hasin, PhD, of Columbia University’s department of psychiatry, New York, and published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations include the use of self-reporting measures in the NSDUH and the lack of information about motives for or doses of LSD use.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) tripled among young adults with past-year depression, results from the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) show. The increase was especially high among young adults and those earning less than $75,000 a year.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed responses of 478,500 adult respondents to the NSDUH, a cross-sectional, in-person survey administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration between 2008 and 2019.
• Respondents were questioned about past-month and past-year LSD use and past-year depression.
• Investigators conducted statistical analysis between December 2022 and June 2023.

TAKEAWAY:

• Past-year use of LSD increased significantly more among adults with major depression, increasing from 0.5% in 2008 to 1.8% in 2019 (prevalence difference, 1.3% [95% confidence interval, 1.0%-1.6%]) compared with adults without major depression.
• This difference was particularly pronounced among young adults with depression age 34 years or younger (PD for age 18-25 years, 3.3% [95% CI, 2.5%-4.2%]; PD for age 26-34 years, 2.7% [95% CI, 1.6%-3.8%]).
• The increase was also higher among those earning less than $75,000 per year (PD for < $20,000, 1.9% [95% CI, 1.3%-2.6%]; PD for $20,000-$49,999, 1.5% [95% CI, 1.0%-2.1%]; PD for $50,000-$74,999, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.7%-2.0%]).
• Use of other hallucinogen classes either decreased or increased only among select age groups or time frames; the use of LSD consistently increased among every observed age group from 2002 to 2019.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should aim to understand the motivations for LSD use as well as the directionality between nonmedical LSD use and depression. As the evaluation of LSD as a potential psychiatric treatment continues, public health efforts to promote safe and evidence-based use of psychedelics are critical,” the investigators write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Deborah S. Hasin, PhD, of Columbia University’s department of psychiatry, New York, and published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations include the use of self-reporting measures in the NSDUH and the lack of information about motives for or doses of LSD use.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) tripled among young adults with past-year depression, results from the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) show. The increase was especially high among young adults and those earning less than $75,000 a year.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators analyzed responses of 478,500 adult respondents to the NSDUH, a cross-sectional, in-person survey administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration between 2008 and 2019.
• Respondents were questioned about past-month and past-year LSD use and past-year depression.
• Investigators conducted statistical analysis between December 2022 and June 2023.

TAKEAWAY:

• Past-year use of LSD increased significantly more among adults with major depression, increasing from 0.5% in 2008 to 1.8% in 2019 (prevalence difference, 1.3% [95% confidence interval, 1.0%-1.6%]) compared with adults without major depression.
• This difference was particularly pronounced among young adults with depression age 34 years or younger (PD for age 18-25 years, 3.3% [95% CI, 2.5%-4.2%]; PD for age 26-34 years, 2.7% [95% CI, 1.6%-3.8%]).
• The increase was also higher among those earning less than $75,000 per year (PD for < $20,000, 1.9% [95% CI, 1.3%-2.6%]; PD for $20,000-$49,999, 1.5% [95% CI, 1.0%-2.1%]; PD for $50,000-$74,999, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.7%-2.0%]).
• Use of other hallucinogen classes either decreased or increased only among select age groups or time frames; the use of LSD consistently increased among every observed age group from 2002 to 2019.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future research should aim to understand the motivations for LSD use as well as the directionality between nonmedical LSD use and depression. As the evaluation of LSD as a potential psychiatric treatment continues, public health efforts to promote safe and evidence-based use of psychedelics are critical,” the investigators write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Deborah S. Hasin, PhD, of Columbia University’s department of psychiatry, New York, and published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations include the use of self-reporting measures in the NSDUH and the lack of information about motives for or doses of LSD use.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with obesity but without major depressive disorder or suicidal ideation within the previous 2 years attained meaningful weight loss with semaglutide, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline, in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.

Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.  

“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”

“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”

“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”

Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”

“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”

Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.

Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.

Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
 

36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants

Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.

However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.

The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.

Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m², or ≥27 kg/m² with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.

They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.

From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
• STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
• STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
• STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%. 

The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
• STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
• STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
• STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.

The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obesity but without major depressive disorder or suicidal ideation within the previous 2 years attained meaningful weight loss with semaglutide, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline, in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.

Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.  

“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”

“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”

“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”

Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”

“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”

Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.

Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.

Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
 

36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants

Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.

However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.

The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.

Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m², or ≥27 kg/m² with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.

They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.

From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
• STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
• STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
• STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%. 

The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
• STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
• STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
• STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.

The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obesity but without major depressive disorder or suicidal ideation within the previous 2 years attained meaningful weight loss with semaglutide, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline, in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.

Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.  

“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”

“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”

“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”

Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”

“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”

Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.

Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.

Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
 

36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants

Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.

However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.

The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.

Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m², or ≥27 kg/m² with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.

They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.

From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
• STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
• STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
• STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%. 

The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
• STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
• STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
• STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.

The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Last year, my husband and I took a 16-day road trip from Kentucky through Massachusetts to Maine. On our first morning in Boston, we exited the Park Street Station en route to Boston Common, but instead of being greeted by the aroma of molasses, we were hit full-on with a pungent, repulsive odor. “That’s skunk weed,” my husband chuckled as we stepped right into the middle of the Boston Freedom Rally, a celebration of all things cannabis.

As we boarded a hop-on-hop-off bus, we learned that this was the one week of the year that the city skips testing tour bus drivers for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “because we all test positive,” the driver quipped. As our open-air bus circled the Common, a crowd of pot enthusiasts displayed signs in support of relaxed regulation for public consumption.

The 34-year-old Boston Freedom Rally is a sign that U.S. culture has transformed forever. Mary Jane is no friend of emergency physicians nor of staff on hospital wards and offices. Health care workers should brace for the true impact of THC as its adoption by all ages rises.
 

Toking boomers and millennials

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1,808% increase in patients aged 65 or older (that is not a typo) who were there for complications from cannabis use.

The lead author said in an interview that, “older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].”

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

The full downside of any drug, legal or illegal, is largely unknown until it infiltrates the mainstream market, but these are the typical cases we see:

Let’s start with the demotivated high school honors student who dropped out of college to work at the local cinema. He stumbled and broke his clavicle outside a bar at 2 AM, but he wasn’t sure if he passed out, so a cardiology consult was requested to “rule out” arrhythmia associated with syncope. He related that his plan to become a railway conductor had been upended because he knew he would be drug tested and just couldn’t give up pot. After a normal cardiac exam, ECG, labs, a Holter, and an echocardiogram were also requested and normal at a significant cost.
 

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

One of my Midwest colleagues related her encounter with two middle-aged pot users with ventricular tachycardia (VT). These episodes coincided with potassium levels less than 3.0 mEq/L in the setting of repetitive vomiting. The QTc interval didn’t normalize despite a corrected potassium level in one patient. They were both informed that they should never smoke pot because vomiting would predictably drop their K+ levels again and prolong their QTc intervals. Then began “the circular argument,” as my friend described it. The patient claims, “I smoke pot to relieve my nausea,” to which she explains that “in many folks, pot use induces nausea.” Of course, the classic reply is, “Not me.” Predictably one of these stoners soon returned with more VT, more puking, and more hypokalemia. “Consider yourself ‘allergic’ to pot smoke,” my friend advised, but “was met with no meaningful hint of understanding or hope for transformative change,” she told me.

I’ve seen cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome several times in the past few years. It occurs in daily to weekly pot users. Very rarely, it can cause cerebral edema, but it is also associated with seizures and dehydration that can lead to hypovolemic shock and kidney failure.
 

Heart and brain harm

Then there are the young patients who for various reasons have developed heart failure. Unfortunately, some are repetitively tox screen positive with varying trifectas of methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and THC; opiates, meth, and THC; alcohol, meth, and THC; or heroin, meth, and THC. THC, the ever present and essential third leg of the stool of stupor. These unfortunate patients often need heart failure medications that they can’t afford or won’t take because illicit drug use is expensive and dulls their ability to prioritize their health. Some desperately need a heart transplant, but the necessary negative drug screen is a pipe dream.

And it’s not just the heart that is affected. There are data linking cannabis use to a higher risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. A retrospective study published in Stroke, of more than 1,000 people diagnosed with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, found that more than half of the 46 who tested positive for THC at admission developed delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), which increases the risk for disability or early death. This was after adjusting for several patient characteristics as well as recent exposure to other illicit substances; cocaine, meth, and tobacco use were not associated with DCI.
 

Natural my ...

I’m certain my anti-cannabis stance will strike a nerve with those who love their recreational THC and push for its legal sale; after all, “It’s perfectly natural.” But I counter with the fact that tornadoes, earthquakes, cyanide, and appendicitis are all natural but certainly not optimal. And what we are seeing in the vascular specialties is completely unnatural. We are treating a different mix of complications than before pot was readily accessible across several states.

Our most effective action is to educate our patients. We should encourage those who don’t currently smoke cannabis to never start and those who do to quit. People who require marijuana for improved quality of life for terminal care or true (not supposed) disorders that mainstream medicine fails should be approached with empathy and caution.

A good rule of thumb is to never breathe anything you can see. Never put anything in your body that comes off the street: Drug dealers who sell cannabis cut with fentanyl will be ecstatic to take someone’s money then merely keep scrolling when their obituary comes up.

Let’s try to reverse the rise of vascular complications, orthopedic injuries, and vomiting across America. We can start by encouraging our patients to avoid “skunk weed” and get back to the sweet smells of nature in our cities and parks.

Some details have been changed to protect the patients’ identities, but the essence of their diagnoses has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a retired clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tenn. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Last year, my husband and I took a 16-day road trip from Kentucky through Massachusetts to Maine. On our first morning in Boston, we exited the Park Street Station en route to Boston Common, but instead of being greeted by the aroma of molasses, we were hit full-on with a pungent, repulsive odor. “That’s skunk weed,” my husband chuckled as we stepped right into the middle of the Boston Freedom Rally, a celebration of all things cannabis.

As we boarded a hop-on-hop-off bus, we learned that this was the one week of the year that the city skips testing tour bus drivers for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “because we all test positive,” the driver quipped. As our open-air bus circled the Common, a crowd of pot enthusiasts displayed signs in support of relaxed regulation for public consumption.

The 34-year-old Boston Freedom Rally is a sign that U.S. culture has transformed forever. Mary Jane is no friend of emergency physicians nor of staff on hospital wards and offices. Health care workers should brace for the true impact of THC as its adoption by all ages rises.
 

Toking boomers and millennials

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1,808% increase in patients aged 65 or older (that is not a typo) who were there for complications from cannabis use.

The lead author said in an interview that, “older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].”

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

The full downside of any drug, legal or illegal, is largely unknown until it infiltrates the mainstream market, but these are the typical cases we see:

Let’s start with the demotivated high school honors student who dropped out of college to work at the local cinema. He stumbled and broke his clavicle outside a bar at 2 AM, but he wasn’t sure if he passed out, so a cardiology consult was requested to “rule out” arrhythmia associated with syncope. He related that his plan to become a railway conductor had been upended because he knew he would be drug tested and just couldn’t give up pot. After a normal cardiac exam, ECG, labs, a Holter, and an echocardiogram were also requested and normal at a significant cost.
 

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

One of my Midwest colleagues related her encounter with two middle-aged pot users with ventricular tachycardia (VT). These episodes coincided with potassium levels less than 3.0 mEq/L in the setting of repetitive vomiting. The QTc interval didn’t normalize despite a corrected potassium level in one patient. They were both informed that they should never smoke pot because vomiting would predictably drop their K+ levels again and prolong their QTc intervals. Then began “the circular argument,” as my friend described it. The patient claims, “I smoke pot to relieve my nausea,” to which she explains that “in many folks, pot use induces nausea.” Of course, the classic reply is, “Not me.” Predictably one of these stoners soon returned with more VT, more puking, and more hypokalemia. “Consider yourself ‘allergic’ to pot smoke,” my friend advised, but “was met with no meaningful hint of understanding or hope for transformative change,” she told me.

I’ve seen cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome several times in the past few years. It occurs in daily to weekly pot users. Very rarely, it can cause cerebral edema, but it is also associated with seizures and dehydration that can lead to hypovolemic shock and kidney failure.
 

Heart and brain harm

Then there are the young patients who for various reasons have developed heart failure. Unfortunately, some are repetitively tox screen positive with varying trifectas of methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and THC; opiates, meth, and THC; alcohol, meth, and THC; or heroin, meth, and THC. THC, the ever present and essential third leg of the stool of stupor. These unfortunate patients often need heart failure medications that they can’t afford or won’t take because illicit drug use is expensive and dulls their ability to prioritize their health. Some desperately need a heart transplant, but the necessary negative drug screen is a pipe dream.

And it’s not just the heart that is affected. There are data linking cannabis use to a higher risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. A retrospective study published in Stroke, of more than 1,000 people diagnosed with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, found that more than half of the 46 who tested positive for THC at admission developed delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), which increases the risk for disability or early death. This was after adjusting for several patient characteristics as well as recent exposure to other illicit substances; cocaine, meth, and tobacco use were not associated with DCI.
 

Natural my ...

I’m certain my anti-cannabis stance will strike a nerve with those who love their recreational THC and push for its legal sale; after all, “It’s perfectly natural.” But I counter with the fact that tornadoes, earthquakes, cyanide, and appendicitis are all natural but certainly not optimal. And what we are seeing in the vascular specialties is completely unnatural. We are treating a different mix of complications than before pot was readily accessible across several states.

Our most effective action is to educate our patients. We should encourage those who don’t currently smoke cannabis to never start and those who do to quit. People who require marijuana for improved quality of life for terminal care or true (not supposed) disorders that mainstream medicine fails should be approached with empathy and caution.

A good rule of thumb is to never breathe anything you can see. Never put anything in your body that comes off the street: Drug dealers who sell cannabis cut with fentanyl will be ecstatic to take someone’s money then merely keep scrolling when their obituary comes up.

Let’s try to reverse the rise of vascular complications, orthopedic injuries, and vomiting across America. We can start by encouraging our patients to avoid “skunk weed” and get back to the sweet smells of nature in our cities and parks.

Some details have been changed to protect the patients’ identities, but the essence of their diagnoses has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a retired clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tenn. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Last year, my husband and I took a 16-day road trip from Kentucky through Massachusetts to Maine. On our first morning in Boston, we exited the Park Street Station en route to Boston Common, but instead of being greeted by the aroma of molasses, we were hit full-on with a pungent, repulsive odor. “That’s skunk weed,” my husband chuckled as we stepped right into the middle of the Boston Freedom Rally, a celebration of all things cannabis.

As we boarded a hop-on-hop-off bus, we learned that this was the one week of the year that the city skips testing tour bus drivers for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), “because we all test positive,” the driver quipped. As our open-air bus circled the Common, a crowd of pot enthusiasts displayed signs in support of relaxed regulation for public consumption.

The 34-year-old Boston Freedom Rally is a sign that U.S. culture has transformed forever. Mary Jane is no friend of emergency physicians nor of staff on hospital wards and offices. Health care workers should brace for the true impact of THC as its adoption by all ages rises.
 

Toking boomers and millennials

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, looked at cannabis-related emergency department visits from all acute-care hospitals in the state from 2005 to 2019 and found an 1,808% increase in patients aged 65 or older (that is not a typo) who were there for complications from cannabis use.

The lead author said in an interview that, “older patients taking marijuana or related products may have dizziness and falls, heart palpitations, panic attacks, confusion, anxiety or worsening of underlying lung diseases, such as asthma or [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].”

A recent study from Canada suggests that commercialization has been associated with an increase in related hospitalizations, including cannabis-induced psychosis.

According to a National Study of Drug Use and Health, marijuana use in young adults reached an all-time high (pun intended) in 2021. Nearly 10% of eighth graders and 20% of 10th graders reported using marijuana this past year.

The full downside of any drug, legal or illegal, is largely unknown until it infiltrates the mainstream market, but these are the typical cases we see:

Let’s start with the demotivated high school honors student who dropped out of college to work at the local cinema. He stumbled and broke his clavicle outside a bar at 2 AM, but he wasn’t sure if he passed out, so a cardiology consult was requested to “rule out” arrhythmia associated with syncope. He related that his plan to become a railway conductor had been upended because he knew he would be drug tested and just couldn’t give up pot. After a normal cardiac exam, ECG, labs, a Holter, and an echocardiogram were also requested and normal at a significant cost.
 

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome

One of my Midwest colleagues related her encounter with two middle-aged pot users with ventricular tachycardia (VT). These episodes coincided with potassium levels less than 3.0 mEq/L in the setting of repetitive vomiting. The QTc interval didn’t normalize despite a corrected potassium level in one patient. They were both informed that they should never smoke pot because vomiting would predictably drop their K+ levels again and prolong their QTc intervals. Then began “the circular argument,” as my friend described it. The patient claims, “I smoke pot to relieve my nausea,” to which she explains that “in many folks, pot use induces nausea.” Of course, the classic reply is, “Not me.” Predictably one of these stoners soon returned with more VT, more puking, and more hypokalemia. “Consider yourself ‘allergic’ to pot smoke,” my friend advised, but “was met with no meaningful hint of understanding or hope for transformative change,” she told me.

I’ve seen cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome several times in the past few years. It occurs in daily to weekly pot users. Very rarely, it can cause cerebral edema, but it is also associated with seizures and dehydration that can lead to hypovolemic shock and kidney failure.
 

Heart and brain harm

Then there are the young patients who for various reasons have developed heart failure. Unfortunately, some are repetitively tox screen positive with varying trifectas of methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and THC; opiates, meth, and THC; alcohol, meth, and THC; or heroin, meth, and THC. THC, the ever present and essential third leg of the stool of stupor. These unfortunate patients often need heart failure medications that they can’t afford or won’t take because illicit drug use is expensive and dulls their ability to prioritize their health. Some desperately need a heart transplant, but the necessary negative drug screen is a pipe dream.

And it’s not just the heart that is affected. There are data linking cannabis use to a higher risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. A retrospective study published in Stroke, of more than 1,000 people diagnosed with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, found that more than half of the 46 who tested positive for THC at admission developed delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI), which increases the risk for disability or early death. This was after adjusting for several patient characteristics as well as recent exposure to other illicit substances; cocaine, meth, and tobacco use were not associated with DCI.
 

Natural my ...

I’m certain my anti-cannabis stance will strike a nerve with those who love their recreational THC and push for its legal sale; after all, “It’s perfectly natural.” But I counter with the fact that tornadoes, earthquakes, cyanide, and appendicitis are all natural but certainly not optimal. And what we are seeing in the vascular specialties is completely unnatural. We are treating a different mix of complications than before pot was readily accessible across several states.

Our most effective action is to educate our patients. We should encourage those who don’t currently smoke cannabis to never start and those who do to quit. People who require marijuana for improved quality of life for terminal care or true (not supposed) disorders that mainstream medicine fails should be approached with empathy and caution.

A good rule of thumb is to never breathe anything you can see. Never put anything in your body that comes off the street: Drug dealers who sell cannabis cut with fentanyl will be ecstatic to take someone’s money then merely keep scrolling when their obituary comes up.

Let’s try to reverse the rise of vascular complications, orthopedic injuries, and vomiting across America. We can start by encouraging our patients to avoid “skunk weed” and get back to the sweet smells of nature in our cities and parks.

Some details have been changed to protect the patients’ identities, but the essence of their diagnoses has been preserved.

Dr. Walton-Shirley is a retired clinical cardiologist from Nashville, Tenn. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Checking on the well-being of mothers is one of the important acknowledged aspects of primary pediatric care. “How are you doing?” directed to the child’s mother has long been considered an appropriate question. The AAP recommends several checks in the Bright Futures Guidelines, including conducting several formal screens for depression and asking about “getting time alone with your partner” as well as other supports.

But I have recently become aware of new data that changes my ideas about what we pediatricians need to be doing as part of our care for children and their families, especially in the first year: Considering the risks to the mother of dying.

Maternal mortality increased by 26.6% from 2000 to 2014 across the United States such that it is higher now than it was for our own mothers. The U.S. now has the highest rates of maternal mortality among high-income nations, especially for Black, American Indian, or Alaska Native women, those of lower socioeconomic status, and those under 18 or over 35 years old.

You may be thinking, well, that is an issue for ob.gyns. Indeed, the most common reasons for maternal death are cardiovascular: hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, deep vein thrombosis, and stroke, all usually occurring at or in the first week after birth. You may have heard about sudden unexpected heart failure from postpartum cardiomyopathy, although rare (1 in 1,000-4,000), presenting from 1 month pre birth to 5 months post delivery, which is when we may be the main clinicians seeing the mother, not the ob.gyns. This can be easily missed since it presents with shortness of breath and decreased exercise tolerance, fatigue, palpitations, and/or leg swelling. Serious eclampsia may have only symptoms of headache or abdominal pain. All of these may easily be mistaken for lingering pregnancy symptoms. But in higher income countries, such as the U.S., 38% of maternal deaths occur from 8 to 42 days after birth, the period for fatal infections as well as cardiac complications. Elevated risk for all of these causes of mortality include Black race, obesity, tobacco use, congenital heart disease, and being older than 40.

As pediatric providers, we may see mothers along with their infants as newborns in the hospital, at day 2, at 2 weeks, or even at 1-2 months after birth, potentially before their one recommended postnatal obstetric visit at 3-8 weeks. Asking the mother how she is feeling at those times should not just be a social nicety but rather an additional check for serious postnatal complications.
 

Additional concerns

But wait, it gets worse.

Did you know that the leading cause of maternal death from pregnancy up to 1 year after a birth is homicide?

Maternal perinatal mortality figures have not usually included “perinatal-associated” deaths, a maternal death attributable to a condition that is unaffected by the pregnancy and occurring within 1 year of delivery (that I will cite as perinatal henceforth). While half of maternal deaths occur during pregnancy, another half occur in the year following. There were 3.62 homicides per 100,000 live births among females who were pregnant or within 1 year postpartum, 16% more than for similarly aged nonpregnant and nonpostpartum women (3.12 deaths/100,000 population, P < .05). Homicides made up 8.4% of reported perinatal maternal deaths from all causes, with a rate of 1.7 per 100,000 live births, twice the rate of any one of the other leading causes noted above. Black women had seven times the risk of perinatal homicide as that of White women. Females under 20, many of them our own pediatric patients, had a greater than six times higher risk and those aged 20-24 had a 65% higher risk of pregnancy-associated homicide across race and ethnic groups. Homicide is most likely before 21 weeks of pregnancy, decreases in the third trimester, but increases again after birth. Two-thirds of pregnancy-associated homicide deaths occurred in the home, with the perpetrator a current or prior partner (> 59%, with 98% being male), 45%-50% were associated with reported intimate partner violence (IPV), and the most common method was a firearm (55%). Often the same women had histories of substance abuse, serious mental illness, and/or prior IPV, all risk factors for pregnancy-associated deaths, including from homicide.

Homicide? “Not the mothers in my practice,” you may say, but, if not homicide, drug-related deaths (3.68 per 100,000 person-years) and suicide (1.42 per 100,000 person-years) together comprise 18% of all maternal deaths. Non-Hispanic White women, Medicaid-insured women, and women residing in smaller cities were especially likely to die from drugs or suicide. More than half (54.3%) of perinatal suicides involve intimate partner conflict, which increases the risk ninefold. Perinatal mood disorders, affecting up to 15% of pregnant and postpartum U.S. women, is also a risk factor in substance abuse, opioid overdose death, and suicide.

And substance use has gotten more dangerous with the increase in fentanyl lacing. Pregnancy-associated deaths (4%-10% of deaths) involving opioids more than doubled between 2007 and 2016, and, although the rates are higher for Black women, the increase has been greater for non-Hispanic White women. Two-thirds of those deaths occur between 6 and 12 months postpartum, on our watch. Although many women decrease substance use during pregnancy, they may fall back into substance use (rates increase 4 times by 7-12 months after delivery) and not continue to receive treatment. Although pharmacotherapy (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine treatment) is the current standard of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) during pregnancy, nearly half receiving treatment in publicly funded centers are not receiving these medications and others may lose insurance or access to pregnancy-related treatment programs after delivery, increasing risk of relapse. Stigma, and punitive or discriminatory approaches to pregnant women with OUD (e.g., jail, removal of children) can dissuade them from participating in treatment, increasing overdose risk.

It is important to note that in more than half of the 41 deaths from violent trauma in one study (including 22 homicides), obstetrical providers knew of or suspected IPV. Also, the vast majority (74%) of those who died by drugs or suicide had made one or more emergency department or hospital visit between their delivery and death, and 39% had made three or more visits. Without knowing if anything was done in those cases, we also know that, in addition to thorough, compassionate providers, there is sometimes segmentation of responsibility, insensitivity, discrimination, racism, stigma, inequity, lack of resources, lack of access, lack of payment mechanisms, legal issues for immigrants, time constraints, and other systemic deficits that may hinder effective care for these and subsequent women.
 

Awareness and action

What should we, who are primary care pediatric providers, do about these threats to the mothers and pregnant young women we care for? Clearly, their children, our main patients, would be terribly and permanently hurt by harm coming to their mothers – the extreme adverse childhood experiences and social determinants of health to which we are already committed.

I hope this article will help alert pediatric providers to what is being published, mainly as women’s health and public health issues.

First, we need awareness of the physical symptoms that may come up in our interactions with pregnant and postpartum women so that we can educate them and expedite any indicated emergency care.

Next, we need to expand our routine screening of mothers and pregnant women from just the most impactful social determinants of health (including depression, substance use, and IPV) to include anxiety, past suicide attempts and current suicidal ideation, and the presence of firearms, early and repeatedly in the first year of the child’s life. Adults and teens are more likely to disclose risk for sensitive issues through questionnaires than through interviews, perhaps even more so when the identified patient is their child rather than themselves. Any screen can have false negatives, so asking directly when risk is suspected is important. The reason for screening could be framed as caring for the caregiver who is the most important person for the child. It could be accompanied by acknowledging that pregnancy and the first year of life can be difficult for mothers and their partners and that we want to support them and connect them to resources, if needed. When substance use disorder is acknowledged, we should prescribe and teach about Narcan for overdose. When there is IPV, we should discuss firearm removal/locking as well as counseling on a personal safety plan.

Working as part of an on-site or virtual team that includes professionals who know about community resources and can coordinate care is essential, in addition to educating about 211 for services and 988 for suicide risk.

Finally, we can advocate and vote for programs, people, and laws that support and safeguard women and families, address substance use, and reduce access to firearms.
 

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

Checking on the well-being of mothers is one of the important acknowledged aspects of primary pediatric care. “How are you doing?” directed to the child’s mother has long been considered an appropriate question. The AAP recommends several checks in the Bright Futures Guidelines, including conducting several formal screens for depression and asking about “getting time alone with your partner” as well as other supports.

But I have recently become aware of new data that changes my ideas about what we pediatricians need to be doing as part of our care for children and their families, especially in the first year: Considering the risks to the mother of dying.

Maternal mortality increased by 26.6% from 2000 to 2014 across the United States such that it is higher now than it was for our own mothers. The U.S. now has the highest rates of maternal mortality among high-income nations, especially for Black, American Indian, or Alaska Native women, those of lower socioeconomic status, and those under 18 or over 35 years old.

You may be thinking, well, that is an issue for ob.gyns. Indeed, the most common reasons for maternal death are cardiovascular: hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, deep vein thrombosis, and stroke, all usually occurring at or in the first week after birth. You may have heard about sudden unexpected heart failure from postpartum cardiomyopathy, although rare (1 in 1,000-4,000), presenting from 1 month pre birth to 5 months post delivery, which is when we may be the main clinicians seeing the mother, not the ob.gyns. This can be easily missed since it presents with shortness of breath and decreased exercise tolerance, fatigue, palpitations, and/or leg swelling. Serious eclampsia may have only symptoms of headache or abdominal pain. All of these may easily be mistaken for lingering pregnancy symptoms. But in higher income countries, such as the U.S., 38% of maternal deaths occur from 8 to 42 days after birth, the period for fatal infections as well as cardiac complications. Elevated risk for all of these causes of mortality include Black race, obesity, tobacco use, congenital heart disease, and being older than 40.

As pediatric providers, we may see mothers along with their infants as newborns in the hospital, at day 2, at 2 weeks, or even at 1-2 months after birth, potentially before their one recommended postnatal obstetric visit at 3-8 weeks. Asking the mother how she is feeling at those times should not just be a social nicety but rather an additional check for serious postnatal complications.
 

Additional concerns

But wait, it gets worse.

Did you know that the leading cause of maternal death from pregnancy up to 1 year after a birth is homicide?

Maternal perinatal mortality figures have not usually included “perinatal-associated” deaths, a maternal death attributable to a condition that is unaffected by the pregnancy and occurring within 1 year of delivery (that I will cite as perinatal henceforth). While half of maternal deaths occur during pregnancy, another half occur in the year following. There were 3.62 homicides per 100,000 live births among females who were pregnant or within 1 year postpartum, 16% more than for similarly aged nonpregnant and nonpostpartum women (3.12 deaths/100,000 population, P < .05). Homicides made up 8.4% of reported perinatal maternal deaths from all causes, with a rate of 1.7 per 100,000 live births, twice the rate of any one of the other leading causes noted above. Black women had seven times the risk of perinatal homicide as that of White women. Females under 20, many of them our own pediatric patients, had a greater than six times higher risk and those aged 20-24 had a 65% higher risk of pregnancy-associated homicide across race and ethnic groups. Homicide is most likely before 21 weeks of pregnancy, decreases in the third trimester, but increases again after birth. Two-thirds of pregnancy-associated homicide deaths occurred in the home, with the perpetrator a current or prior partner (> 59%, with 98% being male), 45%-50% were associated with reported intimate partner violence (IPV), and the most common method was a firearm (55%). Often the same women had histories of substance abuse, serious mental illness, and/or prior IPV, all risk factors for pregnancy-associated deaths, including from homicide.

Homicide? “Not the mothers in my practice,” you may say, but, if not homicide, drug-related deaths (3.68 per 100,000 person-years) and suicide (1.42 per 100,000 person-years) together comprise 18% of all maternal deaths. Non-Hispanic White women, Medicaid-insured women, and women residing in smaller cities were especially likely to die from drugs or suicide. More than half (54.3%) of perinatal suicides involve intimate partner conflict, which increases the risk ninefold. Perinatal mood disorders, affecting up to 15% of pregnant and postpartum U.S. women, is also a risk factor in substance abuse, opioid overdose death, and suicide.

And substance use has gotten more dangerous with the increase in fentanyl lacing. Pregnancy-associated deaths (4%-10% of deaths) involving opioids more than doubled between 2007 and 2016, and, although the rates are higher for Black women, the increase has been greater for non-Hispanic White women. Two-thirds of those deaths occur between 6 and 12 months postpartum, on our watch. Although many women decrease substance use during pregnancy, they may fall back into substance use (rates increase 4 times by 7-12 months after delivery) and not continue to receive treatment. Although pharmacotherapy (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine treatment) is the current standard of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) during pregnancy, nearly half receiving treatment in publicly funded centers are not receiving these medications and others may lose insurance or access to pregnancy-related treatment programs after delivery, increasing risk of relapse. Stigma, and punitive or discriminatory approaches to pregnant women with OUD (e.g., jail, removal of children) can dissuade them from participating in treatment, increasing overdose risk.

It is important to note that in more than half of the 41 deaths from violent trauma in one study (including 22 homicides), obstetrical providers knew of or suspected IPV. Also, the vast majority (74%) of those who died by drugs or suicide had made one or more emergency department or hospital visit between their delivery and death, and 39% had made three or more visits. Without knowing if anything was done in those cases, we also know that, in addition to thorough, compassionate providers, there is sometimes segmentation of responsibility, insensitivity, discrimination, racism, stigma, inequity, lack of resources, lack of access, lack of payment mechanisms, legal issues for immigrants, time constraints, and other systemic deficits that may hinder effective care for these and subsequent women.
 

Awareness and action

What should we, who are primary care pediatric providers, do about these threats to the mothers and pregnant young women we care for? Clearly, their children, our main patients, would be terribly and permanently hurt by harm coming to their mothers – the extreme adverse childhood experiences and social determinants of health to which we are already committed.

I hope this article will help alert pediatric providers to what is being published, mainly as women’s health and public health issues.

First, we need awareness of the physical symptoms that may come up in our interactions with pregnant and postpartum women so that we can educate them and expedite any indicated emergency care.

Next, we need to expand our routine screening of mothers and pregnant women from just the most impactful social determinants of health (including depression, substance use, and IPV) to include anxiety, past suicide attempts and current suicidal ideation, and the presence of firearms, early and repeatedly in the first year of the child’s life. Adults and teens are more likely to disclose risk for sensitive issues through questionnaires than through interviews, perhaps even more so when the identified patient is their child rather than themselves. Any screen can have false negatives, so asking directly when risk is suspected is important. The reason for screening could be framed as caring for the caregiver who is the most important person for the child. It could be accompanied by acknowledging that pregnancy and the first year of life can be difficult for mothers and their partners and that we want to support them and connect them to resources, if needed. When substance use disorder is acknowledged, we should prescribe and teach about Narcan for overdose. When there is IPV, we should discuss firearm removal/locking as well as counseling on a personal safety plan.

Working as part of an on-site or virtual team that includes professionals who know about community resources and can coordinate care is essential, in addition to educating about 211 for services and 988 for suicide risk.

Finally, we can advocate and vote for programs, people, and laws that support and safeguard women and families, address substance use, and reduce access to firearms.
 

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

Checking on the well-being of mothers is one of the important acknowledged aspects of primary pediatric care. “How are you doing?” directed to the child’s mother has long been considered an appropriate question. The AAP recommends several checks in the Bright Futures Guidelines, including conducting several formal screens for depression and asking about “getting time alone with your partner” as well as other supports.

But I have recently become aware of new data that changes my ideas about what we pediatricians need to be doing as part of our care for children and their families, especially in the first year: Considering the risks to the mother of dying.

Maternal mortality increased by 26.6% from 2000 to 2014 across the United States such that it is higher now than it was for our own mothers. The U.S. now has the highest rates of maternal mortality among high-income nations, especially for Black, American Indian, or Alaska Native women, those of lower socioeconomic status, and those under 18 or over 35 years old.

You may be thinking, well, that is an issue for ob.gyns. Indeed, the most common reasons for maternal death are cardiovascular: hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders, deep vein thrombosis, and stroke, all usually occurring at or in the first week after birth. You may have heard about sudden unexpected heart failure from postpartum cardiomyopathy, although rare (1 in 1,000-4,000), presenting from 1 month pre birth to 5 months post delivery, which is when we may be the main clinicians seeing the mother, not the ob.gyns. This can be easily missed since it presents with shortness of breath and decreased exercise tolerance, fatigue, palpitations, and/or leg swelling. Serious eclampsia may have only symptoms of headache or abdominal pain. All of these may easily be mistaken for lingering pregnancy symptoms. But in higher income countries, such as the U.S., 38% of maternal deaths occur from 8 to 42 days after birth, the period for fatal infections as well as cardiac complications. Elevated risk for all of these causes of mortality include Black race, obesity, tobacco use, congenital heart disease, and being older than 40.

As pediatric providers, we may see mothers along with their infants as newborns in the hospital, at day 2, at 2 weeks, or even at 1-2 months after birth, potentially before their one recommended postnatal obstetric visit at 3-8 weeks. Asking the mother how she is feeling at those times should not just be a social nicety but rather an additional check for serious postnatal complications.
 

Additional concerns

But wait, it gets worse.

Did you know that the leading cause of maternal death from pregnancy up to 1 year after a birth is homicide?

Maternal perinatal mortality figures have not usually included “perinatal-associated” deaths, a maternal death attributable to a condition that is unaffected by the pregnancy and occurring within 1 year of delivery (that I will cite as perinatal henceforth). While half of maternal deaths occur during pregnancy, another half occur in the year following. There were 3.62 homicides per 100,000 live births among females who were pregnant or within 1 year postpartum, 16% more than for similarly aged nonpregnant and nonpostpartum women (3.12 deaths/100,000 population, P < .05). Homicides made up 8.4% of reported perinatal maternal deaths from all causes, with a rate of 1.7 per 100,000 live births, twice the rate of any one of the other leading causes noted above. Black women had seven times the risk of perinatal homicide as that of White women. Females under 20, many of them our own pediatric patients, had a greater than six times higher risk and those aged 20-24 had a 65% higher risk of pregnancy-associated homicide across race and ethnic groups. Homicide is most likely before 21 weeks of pregnancy, decreases in the third trimester, but increases again after birth. Two-thirds of pregnancy-associated homicide deaths occurred in the home, with the perpetrator a current or prior partner (> 59%, with 98% being male), 45%-50% were associated with reported intimate partner violence (IPV), and the most common method was a firearm (55%). Often the same women had histories of substance abuse, serious mental illness, and/or prior IPV, all risk factors for pregnancy-associated deaths, including from homicide.

Homicide? “Not the mothers in my practice,” you may say, but, if not homicide, drug-related deaths (3.68 per 100,000 person-years) and suicide (1.42 per 100,000 person-years) together comprise 18% of all maternal deaths. Non-Hispanic White women, Medicaid-insured women, and women residing in smaller cities were especially likely to die from drugs or suicide. More than half (54.3%) of perinatal suicides involve intimate partner conflict, which increases the risk ninefold. Perinatal mood disorders, affecting up to 15% of pregnant and postpartum U.S. women, is also a risk factor in substance abuse, opioid overdose death, and suicide.

And substance use has gotten more dangerous with the increase in fentanyl lacing. Pregnancy-associated deaths (4%-10% of deaths) involving opioids more than doubled between 2007 and 2016, and, although the rates are higher for Black women, the increase has been greater for non-Hispanic White women. Two-thirds of those deaths occur between 6 and 12 months postpartum, on our watch. Although many women decrease substance use during pregnancy, they may fall back into substance use (rates increase 4 times by 7-12 months after delivery) and not continue to receive treatment. Although pharmacotherapy (e.g., methadone, buprenorphine treatment) is the current standard of care for opioid use disorder (OUD) during pregnancy, nearly half receiving treatment in publicly funded centers are not receiving these medications and others may lose insurance or access to pregnancy-related treatment programs after delivery, increasing risk of relapse. Stigma, and punitive or discriminatory approaches to pregnant women with OUD (e.g., jail, removal of children) can dissuade them from participating in treatment, increasing overdose risk.

It is important to note that in more than half of the 41 deaths from violent trauma in one study (including 22 homicides), obstetrical providers knew of or suspected IPV. Also, the vast majority (74%) of those who died by drugs or suicide had made one or more emergency department or hospital visit between their delivery and death, and 39% had made three or more visits. Without knowing if anything was done in those cases, we also know that, in addition to thorough, compassionate providers, there is sometimes segmentation of responsibility, insensitivity, discrimination, racism, stigma, inequity, lack of resources, lack of access, lack of payment mechanisms, legal issues for immigrants, time constraints, and other systemic deficits that may hinder effective care for these and subsequent women.
 

Awareness and action

What should we, who are primary care pediatric providers, do about these threats to the mothers and pregnant young women we care for? Clearly, their children, our main patients, would be terribly and permanently hurt by harm coming to their mothers – the extreme adverse childhood experiences and social determinants of health to which we are already committed.

I hope this article will help alert pediatric providers to what is being published, mainly as women’s health and public health issues.

First, we need awareness of the physical symptoms that may come up in our interactions with pregnant and postpartum women so that we can educate them and expedite any indicated emergency care.

Next, we need to expand our routine screening of mothers and pregnant women from just the most impactful social determinants of health (including depression, substance use, and IPV) to include anxiety, past suicide attempts and current suicidal ideation, and the presence of firearms, early and repeatedly in the first year of the child’s life. Adults and teens are more likely to disclose risk for sensitive issues through questionnaires than through interviews, perhaps even more so when the identified patient is their child rather than themselves. Any screen can have false negatives, so asking directly when risk is suspected is important. The reason for screening could be framed as caring for the caregiver who is the most important person for the child. It could be accompanied by acknowledging that pregnancy and the first year of life can be difficult for mothers and their partners and that we want to support them and connect them to resources, if needed. When substance use disorder is acknowledged, we should prescribe and teach about Narcan for overdose. When there is IPV, we should discuss firearm removal/locking as well as counseling on a personal safety plan.

Working as part of an on-site or virtual team that includes professionals who know about community resources and can coordinate care is essential, in addition to educating about 211 for services and 988 for suicide risk.

Finally, we can advocate and vote for programs, people, and laws that support and safeguard women and families, address substance use, and reduce access to firearms.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Solriamfetol – a medication approved for excessive daytime sleepiness caused by narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea – significantly improved symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and clinical impression of ADHD severity in a pilot study of adults with ADHD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Solriamfetol is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that shares some of the properties of current ADHD medications.
• Researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization trial of 75- or 150-mg solriamfetol in 60 adults with ADHD. For nearly all of the individuals who received solriamfetol, doses increased to 150 mg after the first week.
• The primary outcome was change in scores on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS).
• Secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale and standard measures of executive function, behavior, and sleep.

TAKEAWAY:

• By week 6, total AISRS score improved 25% for 52% of individuals to took solriamfetol, vs. 17% of those who received placebo. Total AISRS score improved 50% by week 6 in 28% of those who took solriamfetol, vs. 3.4% of those who received placebo.
• By week 6, CGI ratings of “much improved” or “very much improved” occurred in significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than those who took placebo (45% vs. 7%).
• Significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than placebo self-reported improvements in executive function (69% vs. 34%). Improvement in wakefulness was noted with solriamfetol, but that did not moderate the change in ADHD symptom burden.
• Solriamfetol was well tolerated, with no significant effect on sleep quality or blood pressure. Adverse effects that occurred at a higher rate in the treatment group than in the placebo group were typical for solriamfetol and sympathomimetic agents used for ADHD.

IN PRACTICE:

Massachusetts General Hospital

“Solriamfetol may be a safe and effective treatment for ADHD in adults. Larger studies replicating these findings could confirm the strong evidence of benefit and the tolerability of this agent as a treatment,” lead author Craig B.H. Surman, MD, director of the clinical and research program in adult ADHD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a statement.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the small sample size and short 6-week duration. More women than men received solriamfetol; it’s unclear how this could have affected the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Surman has received consultant fees, research support, and royalties from multiple companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Solriamfetol – a medication approved for excessive daytime sleepiness caused by narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea – significantly improved symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and clinical impression of ADHD severity in a pilot study of adults with ADHD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Solriamfetol is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that shares some of the properties of current ADHD medications.
• Researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization trial of 75- or 150-mg solriamfetol in 60 adults with ADHD. For nearly all of the individuals who received solriamfetol, doses increased to 150 mg after the first week.
• The primary outcome was change in scores on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS).
• Secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale and standard measures of executive function, behavior, and sleep.

TAKEAWAY:

• By week 6, total AISRS score improved 25% for 52% of individuals to took solriamfetol, vs. 17% of those who received placebo. Total AISRS score improved 50% by week 6 in 28% of those who took solriamfetol, vs. 3.4% of those who received placebo.
• By week 6, CGI ratings of “much improved” or “very much improved” occurred in significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than those who took placebo (45% vs. 7%).
• Significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than placebo self-reported improvements in executive function (69% vs. 34%). Improvement in wakefulness was noted with solriamfetol, but that did not moderate the change in ADHD symptom burden.
• Solriamfetol was well tolerated, with no significant effect on sleep quality or blood pressure. Adverse effects that occurred at a higher rate in the treatment group than in the placebo group were typical for solriamfetol and sympathomimetic agents used for ADHD.

IN PRACTICE:

Massachusetts General Hospital

“Solriamfetol may be a safe and effective treatment for ADHD in adults. Larger studies replicating these findings could confirm the strong evidence of benefit and the tolerability of this agent as a treatment,” lead author Craig B.H. Surman, MD, director of the clinical and research program in adult ADHD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a statement.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the small sample size and short 6-week duration. More women than men received solriamfetol; it’s unclear how this could have affected the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Surman has received consultant fees, research support, and royalties from multiple companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Solriamfetol – a medication approved for excessive daytime sleepiness caused by narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea – significantly improved symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and clinical impression of ADHD severity in a pilot study of adults with ADHD.

METHODOLOGY:

• Solriamfetol is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that shares some of the properties of current ADHD medications.
• Researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization trial of 75- or 150-mg solriamfetol in 60 adults with ADHD. For nearly all of the individuals who received solriamfetol, doses increased to 150 mg after the first week.
• The primary outcome was change in scores on the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS).
• Secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale and standard measures of executive function, behavior, and sleep.

TAKEAWAY:

• By week 6, total AISRS score improved 25% for 52% of individuals to took solriamfetol, vs. 17% of those who received placebo. Total AISRS score improved 50% by week 6 in 28% of those who took solriamfetol, vs. 3.4% of those who received placebo.
• By week 6, CGI ratings of “much improved” or “very much improved” occurred in significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than those who took placebo (45% vs. 7%).
• Significantly more individuals who received solriamfetol than placebo self-reported improvements in executive function (69% vs. 34%). Improvement in wakefulness was noted with solriamfetol, but that did not moderate the change in ADHD symptom burden.
• Solriamfetol was well tolerated, with no significant effect on sleep quality or blood pressure. Adverse effects that occurred at a higher rate in the treatment group than in the placebo group were typical for solriamfetol and sympathomimetic agents used for ADHD.

IN PRACTICE:

Massachusetts General Hospital

“Solriamfetol may be a safe and effective treatment for ADHD in adults. Larger studies replicating these findings could confirm the strong evidence of benefit and the tolerability of this agent as a treatment,” lead author Craig B.H. Surman, MD, director of the clinical and research program in adult ADHD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in a statement.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the small sample size and short 6-week duration. More women than men received solriamfetol; it’s unclear how this could have affected the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by Jazz Pharmaceuticals and Axsome Therapeutics. Dr. Surman has received consultant fees, research support, and royalties from multiple companies.

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

According to the CDC, the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has gone from roughly 1 in 68 children in 2010 to 1 in 36 children in 2020.¹ This is nearly a 50% increase over that 10-year period. Over the last several years, there has been evidence suggesting that increasing numbers of young people with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions identify as transgender or gender diverse.² Experts agree more careful attention must be paid to these patients.

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Clinical work with neurodivergent youth, especially those with ASD, can be complicated. This includes things such as difficulty with communication, possible concrete thinking, and obsessive interests. While earlier research has shown a higher incidence of ASD in those referred to specialized gender medical clinics, it is important to realize that not all of these youth are seeking medical care. They may be brought to the attention of a primary care pediatrician (PCP) if the child has discussed their gender identity at home. It is important that PCPs approach these young people with an open mind and address any coexisting mental health conditions. PCPs must be careful not to dismiss any gender identity concerns as another of the patient’s “obsessions”; rather, they should ensure the patient receives the appropriate mental health care that they need to explore these concerns. One challenge for PCPs is that there is a dearth of mental health professionals who have experience in working with young people who have both gender dysphoria and a neurodivergent condition.

For those clinicians who provide gender-affirming medical care to these young people, it is imperative that they have a thorough understanding of the patient’s gender identity and medical goals before starting any treatment. This may require extensive collaboration with the patient’s mental health provider. The clinician providing medical care may also choose to proceed slower with the introduction of hormones and their subsequent dosing to allow the young person time to continue discussing their effects with their mental health provider. To help clinicians, Dr. John Strang and a multidisciplinary group of collaborators developed a set of guidelines for co-occurring ASD and gender dysphoria in adolescents.³ More recently, Dr. Strang and other collaborators have also developed a questionnaire that can be used by clinicians in the care of these patients.⁴ The goal of this questionnaire is to allow the young people to “communicate their experiences and needs in a report format attuned to common autistic thinking and communication styles.”

In summary, pediatricians and those who care for children and adolescents need to be aware of the increased association between those with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions and gender dysphoria. To ensure that these young people receive optimal care, it is important to connect them to experts (if possible) in coexisting ASD and gender dysphoria. If such experts are not readily available, the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center has developed a resource for providing an affirmative approach to care for these young people.⁵ While more research is needed to better understand young people with coexisting ASD (or other neurodivergent conditions), taking an individualized approach to their care can help ensure optimal outcomes.
 

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Data & Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html.

2. Glidden D et al. Gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(1):3-14. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2015.10.003.

3. Strang JF et al. Initial clinical guidelines for co-occurring autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria or incongruence in adolescents. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2018;47(1):105-15. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1228462.

4. Strang JF et. al. The Gender-Diversity and Autism Questionnaire: A Community-Developed Clinical, Research, and Self-Advocacy Tool for Autistic Transgender and Gender-Diverse Young Adults. Autism Adulthood. 2023 Jun 1;5(2):175-90. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0002.

5. National LGBT Health Education Center. Neurodiversity & gender-diverse youth: An affirming approach to care 2020. https://www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/publication/neurodiversity-gender-diverse-youth-an-affirming-approach-to-care-2020/download

According to the CDC, the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has gone from roughly 1 in 68 children in 2010 to 1 in 36 children in 2020.¹ This is nearly a 50% increase over that 10-year period. Over the last several years, there has been evidence suggesting that increasing numbers of young people with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions identify as transgender or gender diverse.² Experts agree more careful attention must be paid to these patients.

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Clinical work with neurodivergent youth, especially those with ASD, can be complicated. This includes things such as difficulty with communication, possible concrete thinking, and obsessive interests. While earlier research has shown a higher incidence of ASD in those referred to specialized gender medical clinics, it is important to realize that not all of these youth are seeking medical care. They may be brought to the attention of a primary care pediatrician (PCP) if the child has discussed their gender identity at home. It is important that PCPs approach these young people with an open mind and address any coexisting mental health conditions. PCPs must be careful not to dismiss any gender identity concerns as another of the patient’s “obsessions”; rather, they should ensure the patient receives the appropriate mental health care that they need to explore these concerns. One challenge for PCPs is that there is a dearth of mental health professionals who have experience in working with young people who have both gender dysphoria and a neurodivergent condition.

For those clinicians who provide gender-affirming medical care to these young people, it is imperative that they have a thorough understanding of the patient’s gender identity and medical goals before starting any treatment. This may require extensive collaboration with the patient’s mental health provider. The clinician providing medical care may also choose to proceed slower with the introduction of hormones and their subsequent dosing to allow the young person time to continue discussing their effects with their mental health provider. To help clinicians, Dr. John Strang and a multidisciplinary group of collaborators developed a set of guidelines for co-occurring ASD and gender dysphoria in adolescents.³ More recently, Dr. Strang and other collaborators have also developed a questionnaire that can be used by clinicians in the care of these patients.⁴ The goal of this questionnaire is to allow the young people to “communicate their experiences and needs in a report format attuned to common autistic thinking and communication styles.”

In summary, pediatricians and those who care for children and adolescents need to be aware of the increased association between those with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions and gender dysphoria. To ensure that these young people receive optimal care, it is important to connect them to experts (if possible) in coexisting ASD and gender dysphoria. If such experts are not readily available, the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center has developed a resource for providing an affirmative approach to care for these young people.⁵ While more research is needed to better understand young people with coexisting ASD (or other neurodivergent conditions), taking an individualized approach to their care can help ensure optimal outcomes.
 

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Data & Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html.

2. Glidden D et al. Gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(1):3-14. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2015.10.003.

3. Strang JF et al. Initial clinical guidelines for co-occurring autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria or incongruence in adolescents. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2018;47(1):105-15. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1228462.

4. Strang JF et. al. The Gender-Diversity and Autism Questionnaire: A Community-Developed Clinical, Research, and Self-Advocacy Tool for Autistic Transgender and Gender-Diverse Young Adults. Autism Adulthood. 2023 Jun 1;5(2):175-90. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0002.

5. National LGBT Health Education Center. Neurodiversity & gender-diverse youth: An affirming approach to care 2020. https://www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/publication/neurodiversity-gender-diverse-youth-an-affirming-approach-to-care-2020/download

According to the CDC, the prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) has gone from roughly 1 in 68 children in 2010 to 1 in 36 children in 2020.¹ This is nearly a 50% increase over that 10-year period. Over the last several years, there has been evidence suggesting that increasing numbers of young people with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions identify as transgender or gender diverse.² Experts agree more careful attention must be paid to these patients.

UT Southwestern Medical Center

Clinical work with neurodivergent youth, especially those with ASD, can be complicated. This includes things such as difficulty with communication, possible concrete thinking, and obsessive interests. While earlier research has shown a higher incidence of ASD in those referred to specialized gender medical clinics, it is important to realize that not all of these youth are seeking medical care. They may be brought to the attention of a primary care pediatrician (PCP) if the child has discussed their gender identity at home. It is important that PCPs approach these young people with an open mind and address any coexisting mental health conditions. PCPs must be careful not to dismiss any gender identity concerns as another of the patient’s “obsessions”; rather, they should ensure the patient receives the appropriate mental health care that they need to explore these concerns. One challenge for PCPs is that there is a dearth of mental health professionals who have experience in working with young people who have both gender dysphoria and a neurodivergent condition.

For those clinicians who provide gender-affirming medical care to these young people, it is imperative that they have a thorough understanding of the patient’s gender identity and medical goals before starting any treatment. This may require extensive collaboration with the patient’s mental health provider. The clinician providing medical care may also choose to proceed slower with the introduction of hormones and their subsequent dosing to allow the young person time to continue discussing their effects with their mental health provider. To help clinicians, Dr. John Strang and a multidisciplinary group of collaborators developed a set of guidelines for co-occurring ASD and gender dysphoria in adolescents.³ More recently, Dr. Strang and other collaborators have also developed a questionnaire that can be used by clinicians in the care of these patients.⁴ The goal of this questionnaire is to allow the young people to “communicate their experiences and needs in a report format attuned to common autistic thinking and communication styles.”

In summary, pediatricians and those who care for children and adolescents need to be aware of the increased association between those with ASD or other neurodivergent conditions and gender dysphoria. To ensure that these young people receive optimal care, it is important to connect them to experts (if possible) in coexisting ASD and gender dysphoria. If such experts are not readily available, the National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center has developed a resource for providing an affirmative approach to care for these young people.⁵ While more research is needed to better understand young people with coexisting ASD (or other neurodivergent conditions), taking an individualized approach to their care can help ensure optimal outcomes.
 

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Data & Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html.

2. Glidden D et al. Gender dysphoria and autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of the literature. Sex Med Rev. 2016;4(1):3-14. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2015.10.003.

3. Strang JF et al. Initial clinical guidelines for co-occurring autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria or incongruence in adolescents. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2018;47(1):105-15. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1228462.

4. Strang JF et. al. The Gender-Diversity and Autism Questionnaire: A Community-Developed Clinical, Research, and Self-Advocacy Tool for Autistic Transgender and Gender-Diverse Young Adults. Autism Adulthood. 2023 Jun 1;5(2):175-90. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0002.

5. National LGBT Health Education Center. Neurodiversity & gender-diverse youth: An affirming approach to care 2020. https://www.lgbtqiahealtheducation.org/publication/neurodiversity-gender-diverse-youth-an-affirming-approach-to-care-2020/download