Clinical Psychiatry News

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

As you all know by now, I’m always looking out for lifestyle changes that are both pleasurable and healthy. They are hard to find, especially when it comes to diet. My kids complain about this all the time: “When you say ‘healthy food,’ you just mean yucky food.” And yes, French fries are amazing, and no, we can’t have them three times a day.

So, when I saw an article claiming that olive oil reduces the risk for dementia, I was interested. I love olive oil; I cook with it all the time. But as is always the case in the world of nutritional epidemiology, we need to be careful. There are a lot of reasons to doubt the results of this study — and one reason to believe it’s true.

The study I’m talking about is “Consumption of Olive Oil and Diet Quality and Risk of Dementia-Related Death,” appearing in JAMA Network Open and following a well-trod formula in the nutritional epidemiology space.

Nearly 100,000 participants, all healthcare workers, filled out a food frequency questionnaire every 4 years with 130 questions touching on all aspects of diet: How often do you eat bananas, bacon, olive oil? Participants were followed for more than 20 years, and if they died, the cause of death was flagged as being dementia-related or not. Over that time frame there were around 38,000 deaths, of which 4751 were due to dementia.

The rest is just statistics. The authors show that those who reported consuming more olive oil were less likely to die from dementia — about 50% less likely, if you compare those who reported eating more than 7 grams of olive oil a day with those who reported eating none.
 

Is It What You Eat, or What You Don’t Eat?

And we could stop there if we wanted to; I’m sure big olive oil would be happy with that. Is there such a thing as “big olive oil”? But no, we need to dig deeper here because this study has the same problems as all nutritional epidemiology studies. Number one, no one is sitting around drinking small cups of olive oil. They consume it with other foods. And it was clear from the food frequency questionnaire that people who consumed more olive oil also consumed less red meat, more fruits and vegetables, more whole grains, more butter, and less margarine. And those are just the findings reported in the paper. I suspect that people who eat more olive oil also eat more tomatoes, for example, though data this granular aren’t shown. So, it can be really hard, in studies like this, to know for sure that it’s actually the olive oil that is helpful rather than some other constituent in the diet.

The flip side of that coin presents another issue. The food you eat is also a marker of the food you don’t eat. People who ate olive oil consumed less margarine, for example. At the time of this study, margarine was still adulterated with trans-fats, which a pretty solid evidence base suggests are really bad for your vascular system. So perhaps it’s not that olive oil is particularly good for you but that something else is bad for you. In other words, simply adding olive oil to your diet without changing anything else may not do anything.

The other major problem with studies of this sort is that people don’t consume food at random. The type of person who eats a lot of olive oil is simply different from the type of person who doesn›t. For one thing, olive oil is expensive. A 25-ounce bottle of olive oil is on sale at my local supermarket right now for $11.00. A similar-sized bottle of vegetable oil goes for $4.00.

Isn’t it interesting that food that costs more money tends to be associated with better health outcomes? (I’m looking at you, red wine.) Perhaps it’s not the food; perhaps it’s the money. We aren’t provided data on household income in this study, but we can see that the heavy olive oil users were less likely to be current smokers and they got more physical activity.

Now, the authors are aware of these limitations and do their best to account for them. In multivariable models, they adjust for other stuff in the diet, and even for income (sort of; they use census tract as a proxy for income, which is really a broad brush), and still find a significant though weakened association showing a protective effect of olive oil on dementia-related death. But still — adjustment is never perfect, and the small effect size here could definitely be due to residual confounding.
 

Evidence More Convincing

Now, I did tell you that there is one reason to believe that this study is true, but it’s not really from this study.

It’s from the PREDIMED randomized trial.

This is nutritional epidemiology I can get behind. Published in 2018, investigators in Spain randomized around 7500 participants to receive a liter of olive oil once a week vs mixed nuts, vs small nonfood gifts, the idea here being that if you have olive oil around, you’ll use it more. And people who were randomly assigned to get the olive oil had a 30% lower rate of cardiovascular events. A secondary analysis of that study found that the rate of development of mild cognitive impairment was 65% lower in those who were randomly assigned to olive oil. That’s an impressive result.

So, there might be something to this olive oil thing, but I’m not quite ready to add it to my “pleasurable things that are still good for you” list just yet. Though it does make me wonder: Can we make French fries in the stuff?
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

As you all know by now, I’m always looking out for lifestyle changes that are both pleasurable and healthy. They are hard to find, especially when it comes to diet. My kids complain about this all the time: “When you say ‘healthy food,’ you just mean yucky food.” And yes, French fries are amazing, and no, we can’t have them three times a day.

So, when I saw an article claiming that olive oil reduces the risk for dementia, I was interested. I love olive oil; I cook with it all the time. But as is always the case in the world of nutritional epidemiology, we need to be careful. There are a lot of reasons to doubt the results of this study — and one reason to believe it’s true.

The study I’m talking about is “Consumption of Olive Oil and Diet Quality and Risk of Dementia-Related Death,” appearing in JAMA Network Open and following a well-trod formula in the nutritional epidemiology space.

Nearly 100,000 participants, all healthcare workers, filled out a food frequency questionnaire every 4 years with 130 questions touching on all aspects of diet: How often do you eat bananas, bacon, olive oil? Participants were followed for more than 20 years, and if they died, the cause of death was flagged as being dementia-related or not. Over that time frame there were around 38,000 deaths, of which 4751 were due to dementia.

The rest is just statistics. The authors show that those who reported consuming more olive oil were less likely to die from dementia — about 50% less likely, if you compare those who reported eating more than 7 grams of olive oil a day with those who reported eating none.
 

Is It What You Eat, or What You Don’t Eat?

And we could stop there if we wanted to; I’m sure big olive oil would be happy with that. Is there such a thing as “big olive oil”? But no, we need to dig deeper here because this study has the same problems as all nutritional epidemiology studies. Number one, no one is sitting around drinking small cups of olive oil. They consume it with other foods. And it was clear from the food frequency questionnaire that people who consumed more olive oil also consumed less red meat, more fruits and vegetables, more whole grains, more butter, and less margarine. And those are just the findings reported in the paper. I suspect that people who eat more olive oil also eat more tomatoes, for example, though data this granular aren’t shown. So, it can be really hard, in studies like this, to know for sure that it’s actually the olive oil that is helpful rather than some other constituent in the diet.

The flip side of that coin presents another issue. The food you eat is also a marker of the food you don’t eat. People who ate olive oil consumed less margarine, for example. At the time of this study, margarine was still adulterated with trans-fats, which a pretty solid evidence base suggests are really bad for your vascular system. So perhaps it’s not that olive oil is particularly good for you but that something else is bad for you. In other words, simply adding olive oil to your diet without changing anything else may not do anything.

The other major problem with studies of this sort is that people don’t consume food at random. The type of person who eats a lot of olive oil is simply different from the type of person who doesn›t. For one thing, olive oil is expensive. A 25-ounce bottle of olive oil is on sale at my local supermarket right now for $11.00. A similar-sized bottle of vegetable oil goes for $4.00.

Isn’t it interesting that food that costs more money tends to be associated with better health outcomes? (I’m looking at you, red wine.) Perhaps it’s not the food; perhaps it’s the money. We aren’t provided data on household income in this study, but we can see that the heavy olive oil users were less likely to be current smokers and they got more physical activity.

Now, the authors are aware of these limitations and do their best to account for them. In multivariable models, they adjust for other stuff in the diet, and even for income (sort of; they use census tract as a proxy for income, which is really a broad brush), and still find a significant though weakened association showing a protective effect of olive oil on dementia-related death. But still — adjustment is never perfect, and the small effect size here could definitely be due to residual confounding.
 

Evidence More Convincing

Now, I did tell you that there is one reason to believe that this study is true, but it’s not really from this study.

It’s from the PREDIMED randomized trial.

This is nutritional epidemiology I can get behind. Published in 2018, investigators in Spain randomized around 7500 participants to receive a liter of olive oil once a week vs mixed nuts, vs small nonfood gifts, the idea here being that if you have olive oil around, you’ll use it more. And people who were randomly assigned to get the olive oil had a 30% lower rate of cardiovascular events. A secondary analysis of that study found that the rate of development of mild cognitive impairment was 65% lower in those who were randomly assigned to olive oil. That’s an impressive result.

So, there might be something to this olive oil thing, but I’m not quite ready to add it to my “pleasurable things that are still good for you” list just yet. Though it does make me wonder: Can we make French fries in the stuff?
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

As you all know by now, I’m always looking out for lifestyle changes that are both pleasurable and healthy. They are hard to find, especially when it comes to diet. My kids complain about this all the time: “When you say ‘healthy food,’ you just mean yucky food.” And yes, French fries are amazing, and no, we can’t have them three times a day.

So, when I saw an article claiming that olive oil reduces the risk for dementia, I was interested. I love olive oil; I cook with it all the time. But as is always the case in the world of nutritional epidemiology, we need to be careful. There are a lot of reasons to doubt the results of this study — and one reason to believe it’s true.

The study I’m talking about is “Consumption of Olive Oil and Diet Quality and Risk of Dementia-Related Death,” appearing in JAMA Network Open and following a well-trod formula in the nutritional epidemiology space.

Nearly 100,000 participants, all healthcare workers, filled out a food frequency questionnaire every 4 years with 130 questions touching on all aspects of diet: How often do you eat bananas, bacon, olive oil? Participants were followed for more than 20 years, and if they died, the cause of death was flagged as being dementia-related or not. Over that time frame there were around 38,000 deaths, of which 4751 were due to dementia.

The rest is just statistics. The authors show that those who reported consuming more olive oil were less likely to die from dementia — about 50% less likely, if you compare those who reported eating more than 7 grams of olive oil a day with those who reported eating none.
 

Is It What You Eat, or What You Don’t Eat?

And we could stop there if we wanted to; I’m sure big olive oil would be happy with that. Is there such a thing as “big olive oil”? But no, we need to dig deeper here because this study has the same problems as all nutritional epidemiology studies. Number one, no one is sitting around drinking small cups of olive oil. They consume it with other foods. And it was clear from the food frequency questionnaire that people who consumed more olive oil also consumed less red meat, more fruits and vegetables, more whole grains, more butter, and less margarine. And those are just the findings reported in the paper. I suspect that people who eat more olive oil also eat more tomatoes, for example, though data this granular aren’t shown. So, it can be really hard, in studies like this, to know for sure that it’s actually the olive oil that is helpful rather than some other constituent in the diet.

The flip side of that coin presents another issue. The food you eat is also a marker of the food you don’t eat. People who ate olive oil consumed less margarine, for example. At the time of this study, margarine was still adulterated with trans-fats, which a pretty solid evidence base suggests are really bad for your vascular system. So perhaps it’s not that olive oil is particularly good for you but that something else is bad for you. In other words, simply adding olive oil to your diet without changing anything else may not do anything.

The other major problem with studies of this sort is that people don’t consume food at random. The type of person who eats a lot of olive oil is simply different from the type of person who doesn›t. For one thing, olive oil is expensive. A 25-ounce bottle of olive oil is on sale at my local supermarket right now for $11.00. A similar-sized bottle of vegetable oil goes for $4.00.

Isn’t it interesting that food that costs more money tends to be associated with better health outcomes? (I’m looking at you, red wine.) Perhaps it’s not the food; perhaps it’s the money. We aren’t provided data on household income in this study, but we can see that the heavy olive oil users were less likely to be current smokers and they got more physical activity.

Now, the authors are aware of these limitations and do their best to account for them. In multivariable models, they adjust for other stuff in the diet, and even for income (sort of; they use census tract as a proxy for income, which is really a broad brush), and still find a significant though weakened association showing a protective effect of olive oil on dementia-related death. But still — adjustment is never perfect, and the small effect size here could definitely be due to residual confounding.
 

Evidence More Convincing

Now, I did tell you that there is one reason to believe that this study is true, but it’s not really from this study.

It’s from the PREDIMED randomized trial.

This is nutritional epidemiology I can get behind. Published in 2018, investigators in Spain randomized around 7500 participants to receive a liter of olive oil once a week vs mixed nuts, vs small nonfood gifts, the idea here being that if you have olive oil around, you’ll use it more. And people who were randomly assigned to get the olive oil had a 30% lower rate of cardiovascular events. A secondary analysis of that study found that the rate of development of mild cognitive impairment was 65% lower in those who were randomly assigned to olive oil. That’s an impressive result.

So, there might be something to this olive oil thing, but I’m not quite ready to add it to my “pleasurable things that are still good for you” list just yet. Though it does make me wonder: Can we make French fries in the stuff?
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medications that could have a negative effect on cognition are often used by older adults with dementia, according to data from approximately 13 million individuals presented at the annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society.

Classes of medications including anticholinergics, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and non-benzodiazepine sedatives (Z drugs) have been identified as potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in patients with dementia, according to The American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults.

The medications that could worsen dementia or cognition are known as CogPIMs, said presenting author Caroline M. Mak, a doctor of pharmacy candidate at the University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, New York.

Previous research has characterized the prevalence of use of CogPIMs, but data connecting use of CogPIMs and healthcare use are lacking, Ms. Mak said.

Ms. Mak and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from 2011 to 2015 from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a national survey with data on medication and healthcare use. The researchers included approximately 13 million survey respondents older than 65 years with dementia.

Exposure to CogPIMs was defined as filling a prescription for one or more of the CogPIMs during the study period. Population estimates of the prevalence of use of the CogPIMs were created using survey-weighted procedures, and prevalence trends were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test.

Overall, the prevalence was 15.9%, 11.5%, 7.5%, and 3.8% for use of benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and Z drugs, respectively, during the study period.

Of these, benzodiazepines showed a significant trend with an increase in prevalence from 8.9% in 2011 to 16.4% in 2015 (P = .02).

The odds of hospitalization were more than twice as likely in individuals who reported using Z drugs (odds ratio, 2.57; P = .02) based on logistic regression. In addition, exposure to antipsychotics was significantly associated with an increased rate of hospitalization based on a binomial model for incidence rate ratio (IRR, 1.51; P = .02).

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reports, and the lack of more recent data.

However, the results show that CogPIMs are often used by older adults with dementia, and antipsychotics and Z drugs could be targets for interventions to prevent harm from medication interactions and side effects, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings Highlight Need for Drug Awareness

The current study is important because of the expansion in the aging population and an increase in the number of patients with dementia, Ms. Mak said in an interview. “In both our older population and dementia patients, there are certain medication considerations that we need to take into account, and certain drugs that should be avoided if possible,” she said. Clinicians have been trying to use the Beers criteria to reduce potential medication harm, she noted. “One group of investigators (Hilmer et al.), has proposed a narrower focus on anticholinergic and sedative/hypnotic medication in the Drug Burden Index (DBI); the CogPIMs are a subset of both approaches (Beers and DBI) and represent a collection of medications that pose potential risks to our patients,” said Ms. Mak.

Continued reassessment is needed on appropriateness of anticholinergics, Z drugs, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics in older patients with dementia, she added.

“Even though the only group to have a significant increase in prevalence [of use] was the benzodiazepine group, we didn’t see a decrease in any of the other groups,” said Ms. Mak. The current research provides a benchmark for CogPIMs use that can be monitored in the future for increases or, ideally, decreases, she said.
 

Part of a Bigger Picture

The current study is part of the work of Team Alice, a national deprescribing group affiliated with the University at Buffalo that was inspired by the tragic death of Alice Brennan, triggered by preventable medication harm, Ms. Mak said in an interview. “Team Alice consists of an array of academic, primary care, health plan, and regional health information partners that have designed patient-driven interventions to reduce medication harm, especially within primary care settings,” she said. “Their mission is to save people like Alice by pursuing multiple strategies to deprescribe unsafe medication, reduce harm, and foster successful aging. By characterizing the use of CogPIMs, we can design better intervention strategies,” she said.

Although Ms. Mak was not surprised by the emergence of benzodiazepines as the most commonly used drug groups, she was surprised by the increase during the study period.

“Unfortunately, our dataset was not rich enough to include reasons for this increase,” she said. In practice, “I have seen patients getting short-term, as needed, prescriptions for a benzodiazepine to address the anxiety and/or insomnia after the loss of a loved one; this may account for a small proportion of benzodiazepine use that appears to be inappropriate because of a lack of associated appropriate diagnosis,” she noted.

Also, the findings of increased hospitalization associated with Z drugs raises concerns, Ms. Mak said. Although the findings are consistent with other research, they illustrate the need for further investigation to identify strategies to prevent this harm, she said. “Not finding associations with hospitalization related to benzodiazepine or anticholinergics was a mild surprise,” Ms. Mak said in an interview. “However, while we know that these drugs can have a negative effect on older people, the effects may not have been severe enough to result in hospitalizations,” she said.

Looking ahead, Ms. Mak said she would like to see the study rerun with a more current data set, especially with regard to benzodiazepines and antipsychotics.
 

Seek Strategies to Reduce Medication Use

The current study was notable for its community-based population and attention to hospitalizations, Shelly Gray, PharmD, a professor of pharmacy at the University of Washington School of Pharmacy, said in an interview.

“Most studies examining potentially inappropriate medications that may impair cognition have been conducted in nursing homes, while this study focuses on community dwelling older adults where most people with dementia live,” said Dr. Gray, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

In addition, “A unique aspect of this study was to examine how these medications are related to hospitalizations,” she said.

Given recent efforts to reduce use of potentially inappropriate medications in people with dementia, the increase in prevalence of use over the study period was surprising, especially for benzodiazepines, said Dr. Gray.

In clinical practice, “health care providers should continue to look for opportunities to deprescribe medications that may worsen cognition in people with dementia,” she said. However, more research is needed to examine trends in the years beyond 2015 for a more contemporary picture of medication use in this population, she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Gray had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Medications that could have a negative effect on cognition are often used by older adults with dementia, according to data from approximately 13 million individuals presented at the annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society.

Classes of medications including anticholinergics, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and non-benzodiazepine sedatives (Z drugs) have been identified as potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in patients with dementia, according to The American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults.

The medications that could worsen dementia or cognition are known as CogPIMs, said presenting author Caroline M. Mak, a doctor of pharmacy candidate at the University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, New York.

Previous research has characterized the prevalence of use of CogPIMs, but data connecting use of CogPIMs and healthcare use are lacking, Ms. Mak said.

Ms. Mak and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from 2011 to 2015 from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a national survey with data on medication and healthcare use. The researchers included approximately 13 million survey respondents older than 65 years with dementia.

Exposure to CogPIMs was defined as filling a prescription for one or more of the CogPIMs during the study period. Population estimates of the prevalence of use of the CogPIMs were created using survey-weighted procedures, and prevalence trends were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test.

Overall, the prevalence was 15.9%, 11.5%, 7.5%, and 3.8% for use of benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and Z drugs, respectively, during the study period.

Of these, benzodiazepines showed a significant trend with an increase in prevalence from 8.9% in 2011 to 16.4% in 2015 (P = .02).

The odds of hospitalization were more than twice as likely in individuals who reported using Z drugs (odds ratio, 2.57; P = .02) based on logistic regression. In addition, exposure to antipsychotics was significantly associated with an increased rate of hospitalization based on a binomial model for incidence rate ratio (IRR, 1.51; P = .02).

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reports, and the lack of more recent data.

However, the results show that CogPIMs are often used by older adults with dementia, and antipsychotics and Z drugs could be targets for interventions to prevent harm from medication interactions and side effects, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings Highlight Need for Drug Awareness

The current study is important because of the expansion in the aging population and an increase in the number of patients with dementia, Ms. Mak said in an interview. “In both our older population and dementia patients, there are certain medication considerations that we need to take into account, and certain drugs that should be avoided if possible,” she said. Clinicians have been trying to use the Beers criteria to reduce potential medication harm, she noted. “One group of investigators (Hilmer et al.), has proposed a narrower focus on anticholinergic and sedative/hypnotic medication in the Drug Burden Index (DBI); the CogPIMs are a subset of both approaches (Beers and DBI) and represent a collection of medications that pose potential risks to our patients,” said Ms. Mak.

Continued reassessment is needed on appropriateness of anticholinergics, Z drugs, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics in older patients with dementia, she added.

“Even though the only group to have a significant increase in prevalence [of use] was the benzodiazepine group, we didn’t see a decrease in any of the other groups,” said Ms. Mak. The current research provides a benchmark for CogPIMs use that can be monitored in the future for increases or, ideally, decreases, she said.
 

Part of a Bigger Picture

The current study is part of the work of Team Alice, a national deprescribing group affiliated with the University at Buffalo that was inspired by the tragic death of Alice Brennan, triggered by preventable medication harm, Ms. Mak said in an interview. “Team Alice consists of an array of academic, primary care, health plan, and regional health information partners that have designed patient-driven interventions to reduce medication harm, especially within primary care settings,” she said. “Their mission is to save people like Alice by pursuing multiple strategies to deprescribe unsafe medication, reduce harm, and foster successful aging. By characterizing the use of CogPIMs, we can design better intervention strategies,” she said.

Although Ms. Mak was not surprised by the emergence of benzodiazepines as the most commonly used drug groups, she was surprised by the increase during the study period.

“Unfortunately, our dataset was not rich enough to include reasons for this increase,” she said. In practice, “I have seen patients getting short-term, as needed, prescriptions for a benzodiazepine to address the anxiety and/or insomnia after the loss of a loved one; this may account for a small proportion of benzodiazepine use that appears to be inappropriate because of a lack of associated appropriate diagnosis,” she noted.

Also, the findings of increased hospitalization associated with Z drugs raises concerns, Ms. Mak said. Although the findings are consistent with other research, they illustrate the need for further investigation to identify strategies to prevent this harm, she said. “Not finding associations with hospitalization related to benzodiazepine or anticholinergics was a mild surprise,” Ms. Mak said in an interview. “However, while we know that these drugs can have a negative effect on older people, the effects may not have been severe enough to result in hospitalizations,” she said.

Looking ahead, Ms. Mak said she would like to see the study rerun with a more current data set, especially with regard to benzodiazepines and antipsychotics.
 

Seek Strategies to Reduce Medication Use

The current study was notable for its community-based population and attention to hospitalizations, Shelly Gray, PharmD, a professor of pharmacy at the University of Washington School of Pharmacy, said in an interview.

“Most studies examining potentially inappropriate medications that may impair cognition have been conducted in nursing homes, while this study focuses on community dwelling older adults where most people with dementia live,” said Dr. Gray, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

In addition, “A unique aspect of this study was to examine how these medications are related to hospitalizations,” she said.

Given recent efforts to reduce use of potentially inappropriate medications in people with dementia, the increase in prevalence of use over the study period was surprising, especially for benzodiazepines, said Dr. Gray.

In clinical practice, “health care providers should continue to look for opportunities to deprescribe medications that may worsen cognition in people with dementia,” she said. However, more research is needed to examine trends in the years beyond 2015 for a more contemporary picture of medication use in this population, she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Gray had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Medications that could have a negative effect on cognition are often used by older adults with dementia, according to data from approximately 13 million individuals presented at the annual meeting of the American Geriatrics Society.

Classes of medications including anticholinergics, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and non-benzodiazepine sedatives (Z drugs) have been identified as potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in patients with dementia, according to The American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults.

The medications that could worsen dementia or cognition are known as CogPIMs, said presenting author Caroline M. Mak, a doctor of pharmacy candidate at the University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, New York.

Previous research has characterized the prevalence of use of CogPIMs, but data connecting use of CogPIMs and healthcare use are lacking, Ms. Mak said.

Ms. Mak and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from 2011 to 2015 from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a national survey with data on medication and healthcare use. The researchers included approximately 13 million survey respondents older than 65 years with dementia.

Exposure to CogPIMs was defined as filling a prescription for one or more of the CogPIMs during the study period. Population estimates of the prevalence of use of the CogPIMs were created using survey-weighted procedures, and prevalence trends were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test.

Overall, the prevalence was 15.9%, 11.5%, 7.5%, and 3.8% for use of benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and Z drugs, respectively, during the study period.

Of these, benzodiazepines showed a significant trend with an increase in prevalence from 8.9% in 2011 to 16.4% in 2015 (P = .02).

The odds of hospitalization were more than twice as likely in individuals who reported using Z drugs (odds ratio, 2.57; P = .02) based on logistic regression. In addition, exposure to antipsychotics was significantly associated with an increased rate of hospitalization based on a binomial model for incidence rate ratio (IRR, 1.51; P = .02).

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design, reliance on self-reports, and the lack of more recent data.

However, the results show that CogPIMs are often used by older adults with dementia, and antipsychotics and Z drugs could be targets for interventions to prevent harm from medication interactions and side effects, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings Highlight Need for Drug Awareness

The current study is important because of the expansion in the aging population and an increase in the number of patients with dementia, Ms. Mak said in an interview. “In both our older population and dementia patients, there are certain medication considerations that we need to take into account, and certain drugs that should be avoided if possible,” she said. Clinicians have been trying to use the Beers criteria to reduce potential medication harm, she noted. “One group of investigators (Hilmer et al.), has proposed a narrower focus on anticholinergic and sedative/hypnotic medication in the Drug Burden Index (DBI); the CogPIMs are a subset of both approaches (Beers and DBI) and represent a collection of medications that pose potential risks to our patients,” said Ms. Mak.

Continued reassessment is needed on appropriateness of anticholinergics, Z drugs, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics in older patients with dementia, she added.

“Even though the only group to have a significant increase in prevalence [of use] was the benzodiazepine group, we didn’t see a decrease in any of the other groups,” said Ms. Mak. The current research provides a benchmark for CogPIMs use that can be monitored in the future for increases or, ideally, decreases, she said.
 

Part of a Bigger Picture

The current study is part of the work of Team Alice, a national deprescribing group affiliated with the University at Buffalo that was inspired by the tragic death of Alice Brennan, triggered by preventable medication harm, Ms. Mak said in an interview. “Team Alice consists of an array of academic, primary care, health plan, and regional health information partners that have designed patient-driven interventions to reduce medication harm, especially within primary care settings,” she said. “Their mission is to save people like Alice by pursuing multiple strategies to deprescribe unsafe medication, reduce harm, and foster successful aging. By characterizing the use of CogPIMs, we can design better intervention strategies,” she said.

Although Ms. Mak was not surprised by the emergence of benzodiazepines as the most commonly used drug groups, she was surprised by the increase during the study period.

“Unfortunately, our dataset was not rich enough to include reasons for this increase,” she said. In practice, “I have seen patients getting short-term, as needed, prescriptions for a benzodiazepine to address the anxiety and/or insomnia after the loss of a loved one; this may account for a small proportion of benzodiazepine use that appears to be inappropriate because of a lack of associated appropriate diagnosis,” she noted.

Also, the findings of increased hospitalization associated with Z drugs raises concerns, Ms. Mak said. Although the findings are consistent with other research, they illustrate the need for further investigation to identify strategies to prevent this harm, she said. “Not finding associations with hospitalization related to benzodiazepine or anticholinergics was a mild surprise,” Ms. Mak said in an interview. “However, while we know that these drugs can have a negative effect on older people, the effects may not have been severe enough to result in hospitalizations,” she said.

Looking ahead, Ms. Mak said she would like to see the study rerun with a more current data set, especially with regard to benzodiazepines and antipsychotics.
 

Seek Strategies to Reduce Medication Use

The current study was notable for its community-based population and attention to hospitalizations, Shelly Gray, PharmD, a professor of pharmacy at the University of Washington School of Pharmacy, said in an interview.

“Most studies examining potentially inappropriate medications that may impair cognition have been conducted in nursing homes, while this study focuses on community dwelling older adults where most people with dementia live,” said Dr. Gray, who served as a moderator for the session in which the study was presented.

In addition, “A unique aspect of this study was to examine how these medications are related to hospitalizations,” she said.

Given recent efforts to reduce use of potentially inappropriate medications in people with dementia, the increase in prevalence of use over the study period was surprising, especially for benzodiazepines, said Dr. Gray.

In clinical practice, “health care providers should continue to look for opportunities to deprescribe medications that may worsen cognition in people with dementia,” she said. However, more research is needed to examine trends in the years beyond 2015 for a more contemporary picture of medication use in this population, she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Gray had no financial conflicts to disclose.

New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.

Morbidity and Mortality

Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. The World Health Organization reported that at least 1.6 million healthy life years are lost annually in Western Europe because of traffic-related noise. Nighttime traffic noise leads to sleep fragmentation and shortening, an increase in stress hormone levels, and increased oxidative stress in the vessels and brain. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.

Consequences and Pathomechanisms

In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.

The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.

Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor

“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”

Heart Attack Outcomes

Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.

The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.

The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.

Clinical Confirmation

These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”

Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).

The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.

Mental Health Effects

Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.

Depression Risk Doubled

Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.

Fine Particulate Matter

According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”

This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.

Morbidity and Mortality

Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. The World Health Organization reported that at least 1.6 million healthy life years are lost annually in Western Europe because of traffic-related noise. Nighttime traffic noise leads to sleep fragmentation and shortening, an increase in stress hormone levels, and increased oxidative stress in the vessels and brain. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.

Consequences and Pathomechanisms

In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.

The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.

Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor

“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”

Heart Attack Outcomes

Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.

The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.

The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.

Clinical Confirmation

These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”

Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).

The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.

Mental Health Effects

Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.

Depression Risk Doubled

Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.

Fine Particulate Matter

According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”

This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.

Morbidity and Mortality

Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. The World Health Organization reported that at least 1.6 million healthy life years are lost annually in Western Europe because of traffic-related noise. Nighttime traffic noise leads to sleep fragmentation and shortening, an increase in stress hormone levels, and increased oxidative stress in the vessels and brain. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.

Consequences and Pathomechanisms

In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.

The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.

Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor

“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”

Heart Attack Outcomes

Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.

The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.

The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.

Clinical Confirmation

These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”

Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).

The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.

Mental Health Effects

Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.

Depression Risk Doubled

Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.

Fine Particulate Matter

According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”

This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Targeted video games could help reduce symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression in children and adolescents, results of a new review and meta-analysis suggested.

Although the video game–based or “gamified” digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) were associated with modest improvements in ADHD symptoms and depression, investigators found no significant benefit in the treatment of anxiety.

“The studies are showing these video games really do work, at least for ADHD and depression but maybe not for anxiety,” said Barry Bryant, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

“The results may assist clinicians as they make recommendations to patients and parents regarding the efficacy of using these video games to treat mental health conditions.”

The findings were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 Annual Meeting.
 

A Major Problem

Childhood mental illness is a “big problem,” with about 20% of children facing some mental health challenge such as ADHD, anxiety, or depression, said Dr. Bryant. Unfortunately, these youngsters typically have to wait a while to see a provider, he added.

DMHIs may be an option to consider in the meantime to help meet the increasing demand for treatment, he said.

Gamified DMHIs are like other video games, in that players advance in levels on digital platforms and are rewarded for progress. But they’re created specifically to target certain mental health conditions.

An ADHD game, for example, might involve users completing activities that require an increasing degree of attention. Games focused on depression might incorporate mindfulness and meditation practices or cognitive behavioral elements.

Experts in child psychiatry are involved in developing such games along with professionals in business and video game technology, said Dr. Bryant.

But the question is: Do these games really work?
 

Effective for ADHD, Depression

Investigators reviewed nearly 30 randomized controlled trials of gamified DMHIs as a treatment for anxiety, depression, and/or ADHD in people younger than 18 years that were published from January 1, 1990, to April 7, 2023.

The trials tested a wide variety of gamified DMHIs that fit the inclusion criteria: A control condition, a digital game intervention, sufficient data to calculate effect size, and available in English.

A meta-analysis was performed to examine the therapeutic effects of the gamified DMHIs for ADHD, depression, and anxiety. For all studies, the active treatment was compared with the control condition using Hedges’ g to measure effect size and 95% CIs.

Dr. Bryant noted there was significant heterogeneity of therapeutic effects between the studies and their corresponding gamified interventions.

The study found gamified DMHIs had a modest therapeutic effect for treating ADHD (pooled g = 0.280; P = .005) and depression (pooled g = 0.279; P = .005) in children and adolescents.

But games targeting anxiety didn’t seem to have the same positive impact (pooled g = 0.074; P = .197).

The results suggest the games “show potential and promise” for certain mental health conditions and could offer a “bridge” to accessing more traditional therapies, Dr. Bryant said.

“Maybe this is something that can help these children until they can get to see a psychiatrist, or it could be part of a comprehensive treatment plan,” he said.

The goal is to “make something that kids want to play and engage with” especially if they’re reluctant to sit in a therapist’s office.

The results provide clinicians with information they can actually use in their practices, said Dr. Bryant, adding that his team hopes to get their study published.
 

Gaining Traction

Commenting on the research, James Sherer, MD, medical director, Addiction Psychiatry, Overlook Medical Center, Atlantic Health System, said the study shows the literature supports video games, and these games “are gaining traction” in the field.

He noted the app for one such game, EndeavorRx, was one of the first to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat ADHD in young people aged 8-17 years.

EndeavorRx challenges players to chase mystic creatures, race through different worlds, and use “boosts” to problem-solve while building their own universe, according to the company website.

By being incentivized to engage in certain activities, “there’s a level of executive functioning that’s being exercised and the idea is to do that repetitively,” said Dr. Sherer.

Users and their parents report improved ADHD symptoms after playing the game. One of the studies included in the review found 73% of children who played EndeavorRx reported improvement in their attention.

The company says there have been no serious adverse events seen in any clinical trial of EndeavorRx.

Dr. Sherer noted that many child psychiatrists play some sort of video game with their young patients who may be on the autism spectrum or have a learning disability.

“That may be one of the few ways to communicate with and effectively bond with the patient,” he said.

Despite their reputation of being violent and associated with “toxic subcultures,” video games can do a lot of good and be “restorative” for patients of all ages, Dr. Sherer added.

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Targeted video games could help reduce symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression in children and adolescents, results of a new review and meta-analysis suggested.

Although the video game–based or “gamified” digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) were associated with modest improvements in ADHD symptoms and depression, investigators found no significant benefit in the treatment of anxiety.

“The studies are showing these video games really do work, at least for ADHD and depression but maybe not for anxiety,” said Barry Bryant, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

“The results may assist clinicians as they make recommendations to patients and parents regarding the efficacy of using these video games to treat mental health conditions.”

The findings were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 Annual Meeting.
 

A Major Problem

Childhood mental illness is a “big problem,” with about 20% of children facing some mental health challenge such as ADHD, anxiety, or depression, said Dr. Bryant. Unfortunately, these youngsters typically have to wait a while to see a provider, he added.

DMHIs may be an option to consider in the meantime to help meet the increasing demand for treatment, he said.

Gamified DMHIs are like other video games, in that players advance in levels on digital platforms and are rewarded for progress. But they’re created specifically to target certain mental health conditions.

An ADHD game, for example, might involve users completing activities that require an increasing degree of attention. Games focused on depression might incorporate mindfulness and meditation practices or cognitive behavioral elements.

Experts in child psychiatry are involved in developing such games along with professionals in business and video game technology, said Dr. Bryant.

But the question is: Do these games really work?
 

Effective for ADHD, Depression

Investigators reviewed nearly 30 randomized controlled trials of gamified DMHIs as a treatment for anxiety, depression, and/or ADHD in people younger than 18 years that were published from January 1, 1990, to April 7, 2023.

The trials tested a wide variety of gamified DMHIs that fit the inclusion criteria: A control condition, a digital game intervention, sufficient data to calculate effect size, and available in English.

A meta-analysis was performed to examine the therapeutic effects of the gamified DMHIs for ADHD, depression, and anxiety. For all studies, the active treatment was compared with the control condition using Hedges’ g to measure effect size and 95% CIs.

Dr. Bryant noted there was significant heterogeneity of therapeutic effects between the studies and their corresponding gamified interventions.

The study found gamified DMHIs had a modest therapeutic effect for treating ADHD (pooled g = 0.280; P = .005) and depression (pooled g = 0.279; P = .005) in children and adolescents.

But games targeting anxiety didn’t seem to have the same positive impact (pooled g = 0.074; P = .197).

The results suggest the games “show potential and promise” for certain mental health conditions and could offer a “bridge” to accessing more traditional therapies, Dr. Bryant said.

“Maybe this is something that can help these children until they can get to see a psychiatrist, or it could be part of a comprehensive treatment plan,” he said.

The goal is to “make something that kids want to play and engage with” especially if they’re reluctant to sit in a therapist’s office.

The results provide clinicians with information they can actually use in their practices, said Dr. Bryant, adding that his team hopes to get their study published.
 

Gaining Traction

Commenting on the research, James Sherer, MD, medical director, Addiction Psychiatry, Overlook Medical Center, Atlantic Health System, said the study shows the literature supports video games, and these games “are gaining traction” in the field.

He noted the app for one such game, EndeavorRx, was one of the first to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat ADHD in young people aged 8-17 years.

EndeavorRx challenges players to chase mystic creatures, race through different worlds, and use “boosts” to problem-solve while building their own universe, according to the company website.

By being incentivized to engage in certain activities, “there’s a level of executive functioning that’s being exercised and the idea is to do that repetitively,” said Dr. Sherer.

Users and their parents report improved ADHD symptoms after playing the game. One of the studies included in the review found 73% of children who played EndeavorRx reported improvement in their attention.

The company says there have been no serious adverse events seen in any clinical trial of EndeavorRx.

Dr. Sherer noted that many child psychiatrists play some sort of video game with their young patients who may be on the autism spectrum or have a learning disability.

“That may be one of the few ways to communicate with and effectively bond with the patient,” he said.

Despite their reputation of being violent and associated with “toxic subcultures,” video games can do a lot of good and be “restorative” for patients of all ages, Dr. Sherer added.

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Targeted video games could help reduce symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression in children and adolescents, results of a new review and meta-analysis suggested.

Although the video game–based or “gamified” digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) were associated with modest improvements in ADHD symptoms and depression, investigators found no significant benefit in the treatment of anxiety.

“The studies are showing these video games really do work, at least for ADHD and depression but maybe not for anxiety,” said Barry Bryant, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

“The results may assist clinicians as they make recommendations to patients and parents regarding the efficacy of using these video games to treat mental health conditions.”

The findings were presented at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 2024 Annual Meeting.
 

A Major Problem

Childhood mental illness is a “big problem,” with about 20% of children facing some mental health challenge such as ADHD, anxiety, or depression, said Dr. Bryant. Unfortunately, these youngsters typically have to wait a while to see a provider, he added.

DMHIs may be an option to consider in the meantime to help meet the increasing demand for treatment, he said.

Gamified DMHIs are like other video games, in that players advance in levels on digital platforms and are rewarded for progress. But they’re created specifically to target certain mental health conditions.

An ADHD game, for example, might involve users completing activities that require an increasing degree of attention. Games focused on depression might incorporate mindfulness and meditation practices or cognitive behavioral elements.

Experts in child psychiatry are involved in developing such games along with professionals in business and video game technology, said Dr. Bryant.

But the question is: Do these games really work?
 

Effective for ADHD, Depression

Investigators reviewed nearly 30 randomized controlled trials of gamified DMHIs as a treatment for anxiety, depression, and/or ADHD in people younger than 18 years that were published from January 1, 1990, to April 7, 2023.

The trials tested a wide variety of gamified DMHIs that fit the inclusion criteria: A control condition, a digital game intervention, sufficient data to calculate effect size, and available in English.

A meta-analysis was performed to examine the therapeutic effects of the gamified DMHIs for ADHD, depression, and anxiety. For all studies, the active treatment was compared with the control condition using Hedges’ g to measure effect size and 95% CIs.

Dr. Bryant noted there was significant heterogeneity of therapeutic effects between the studies and their corresponding gamified interventions.

The study found gamified DMHIs had a modest therapeutic effect for treating ADHD (pooled g = 0.280; P = .005) and depression (pooled g = 0.279; P = .005) in children and adolescents.

But games targeting anxiety didn’t seem to have the same positive impact (pooled g = 0.074; P = .197).

The results suggest the games “show potential and promise” for certain mental health conditions and could offer a “bridge” to accessing more traditional therapies, Dr. Bryant said.

“Maybe this is something that can help these children until they can get to see a psychiatrist, or it could be part of a comprehensive treatment plan,” he said.

The goal is to “make something that kids want to play and engage with” especially if they’re reluctant to sit in a therapist’s office.

The results provide clinicians with information they can actually use in their practices, said Dr. Bryant, adding that his team hopes to get their study published.
 

Gaining Traction

Commenting on the research, James Sherer, MD, medical director, Addiction Psychiatry, Overlook Medical Center, Atlantic Health System, said the study shows the literature supports video games, and these games “are gaining traction” in the field.

He noted the app for one such game, EndeavorRx, was one of the first to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat ADHD in young people aged 8-17 years.

EndeavorRx challenges players to chase mystic creatures, race through different worlds, and use “boosts” to problem-solve while building their own universe, according to the company website.

By being incentivized to engage in certain activities, “there’s a level of executive functioning that’s being exercised and the idea is to do that repetitively,” said Dr. Sherer.

Users and their parents report improved ADHD symptoms after playing the game. One of the studies included in the review found 73% of children who played EndeavorRx reported improvement in their attention.

The company says there have been no serious adverse events seen in any clinical trial of EndeavorRx.

Dr. Sherer noted that many child psychiatrists play some sort of video game with their young patients who may be on the autism spectrum or have a learning disability.

“That may be one of the few ways to communicate with and effectively bond with the patient,” he said.

Despite their reputation of being violent and associated with “toxic subcultures,” video games can do a lot of good and be “restorative” for patients of all ages, Dr. Sherer added.

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans. 

He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live. 

Rural areas have about one tenth of the specialists that urban areas do, and 65% of rural communities do not have enough primary care doctors, according to federal data. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott. 

He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said. 

Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years. 

Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas

Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt. 

He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas. 

“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said. 

Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”

He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.

Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily. 

“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.

When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit. 

“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said. 

But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.

“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans. 

He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live. 

Rural areas have about one tenth of the specialists that urban areas do, and 65% of rural communities do not have enough primary care doctors, according to federal data. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott. 

He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said. 

Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years. 

Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas

Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt. 

He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas. 

“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said. 

Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”

He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.

Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily. 

“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.

When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit. 

“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said. 

But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.

“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans. 

He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live. 

Rural areas have about one tenth of the specialists that urban areas do, and 65% of rural communities do not have enough primary care doctors, according to federal data. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott. 

He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said. 

Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years. 

Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas

Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt. 

He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas. 

“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said. 

Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”

He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.

Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily. 

“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.

When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit. 

“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said. 

But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.

“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By age 12 years, more than 14% of children have tried alcohol or tobacco, and religion, race, and income are the top predictors beginning to use these and other substances, new research suggests.

Aside from sociodemographic parameters, risk factors for substance use initiation include prenatal exposure to substances, peer use of alcohol and nicotine, and problematic school behavior, among other things, the study showed.

The results show certain modifiable risk factors may play a role in preventing youth from starting to use substances, said study author ReJoyce Green, PhD, research assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“If we’re designing, say, a prevention program or an early intervention program, these are things that could make a difference, so let’s make sure we’re bringing them into the conversation.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) and published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Critical Risk Factors

Use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis often begins during adolescence. One recent survey showed that 23% of 13-year-olds reported using alcohol, 17% reported vaping nicotine, and 8% reported vaping cannabis. Other research links younger age at substance use initiation to a more rapid transition to substance use disorders and higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

Previous studies examining predictors of substance use initiation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study dataset focused primarily on self-reported measures, but the current study also looked at models that include hormones and neurocognitive factors as well as neuroimaging.

This study included 6829, 9- and 10-year-olds from the ABCD Study who had never tried substances and were followed for 3 years.

A sophisticated statistical approach was used to examine 420 variables as predictors of substance use initiation. Initiation was defined as trying any nonprescribed substance by age 12 years. “That’s including a single sip of alcohol or puff of a cigarette,” said Dr. Green.

In addition to alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis, researchers looked at initiation of synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ketamine, among other substances.

Self-reported measures included demographic characteristics, self and peer involvement with substance use, parenting behaviors, mental and physical health, and culture and environmental factors.

The analytical approach used machine-learning algorithms to compare the ability of domains to identify the most critical risk factors. Magnitudes of coefficients were used to assess variable importance, with positive coefficients indicating greater likelihood of substance initiation and negative coefficients indicating lower likelihood of initiation.

By age 12 years, 14.4% of the children studied reported substance initiation. Alcohol was the substance most commonly initiated (365 individuals), followed by nicotine (94 individuals) and cannabis (40 individuals), with few or no children initiating other substances.

Both those who did and did not initiate substances were similarly aged, and most participants identified as White and non-Hispanic. But the substance-use group had a lower percentage of girls and higher percentage of White participants compared with the no-substance-use group.

The model with only self-reported data had similar accuracy in predicting substance use initiation (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67) as models that added resource-intensive measures such as neurocognitive tests and hormones (AUC, 0.67) and neuroimaging (AUC, 0.66).
 

Religious Predictors

The strongest predictors of substance use initiation were related to religion: Youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Mormonism were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.87), whereas youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Judaism were more likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.32).

The third top predictor was race: Black youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.32). This was followed by youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Islam who were also less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.25).

The research examined over 15 different religious categories, “so we really tried to be expansive,” noted Dr. Green.

It’s unclear why some religions appeared to have a protective impact when it comes to substance use initiation whereas others have the opposite effect. Future research could perhaps identify which components of religiosity affect substance use initiation. If so, these aspects could be developed and incorporated into prevention and intervention programs, said Dr. Green.

Next on the list of most important predictors was being a part of a household with an income of $12,000-$15,999; these youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.22).

Within the culture and environment domain, a history of detention or suspension was a top predictor of substance use initiation (coefficient, 0.20). Prenatal exposure to substance use was also a robust predictor in the physical health category (coefficient, 0.15).

Other predictors included: parents with less than a high school degree or GED (coefficient, -0.14), substance use availability (coefficient, 0.12), and age at baseline (coefficient, 0.12).

The study also showed that better cognitive functioning in selected domains (eg, cognitive control, attention, and language ability) is associated with a greater likelihood of substance use initiation.
 

Shaping Future Prevention

Applying these findings in clinical settings could help tailor prevention and early intervention efforts, said the authors. It might be prudent to allocate resources to collecting data related to self-, peer-, and familial-related factors, “which were more informative in predicting substance use initiation during late childhood and early adolescence in the present study,” they wrote.

Researchers will continue to track these children through to a 10-year follow-up, said Dr. Green. “I’m really curious to see if the factors we found when they were 12 and 13, such as those related to peers and family, still hold when they’re ages 17 and 18, because there’s going to be a huge amount of brain development that’s happening throughout this phase.”

The group that initiated substance use and the group that didn’t initiate substance use were not totally balanced, and sample sizes for some religious categories were small. Another study limitation was that the analytic approach didn’t account for multilevel data within the context of site and families.

Commenting on the findings, Kathleen Brady, MD, PhD, distinguished university professor and director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, said that the study is “critical and complex.” This, she said, is especially true as cannabis has become more accessible and potent, and as the federal government reportedly considers reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug (which includes highly dangerous, addictive substances with no medical use) to a Schedule III drug (which can be prescribed as a medication).

“The part that is the most frightening to me is the long-lasting effects that can happen when young people start using high-potency marijuana at an early age,” said Dr. Brady. “So, any information that we can give to parents, to teachers, to the public, and to doctors is important.”

She’s looking forward to getting more “incredibly important” information on substance use initiation as the study progresses and the teens get older. 

The study received support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By age 12 years, more than 14% of children have tried alcohol or tobacco, and religion, race, and income are the top predictors beginning to use these and other substances, new research suggests.

Aside from sociodemographic parameters, risk factors for substance use initiation include prenatal exposure to substances, peer use of alcohol and nicotine, and problematic school behavior, among other things, the study showed.

The results show certain modifiable risk factors may play a role in preventing youth from starting to use substances, said study author ReJoyce Green, PhD, research assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“If we’re designing, say, a prevention program or an early intervention program, these are things that could make a difference, so let’s make sure we’re bringing them into the conversation.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) and published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Critical Risk Factors

Use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis often begins during adolescence. One recent survey showed that 23% of 13-year-olds reported using alcohol, 17% reported vaping nicotine, and 8% reported vaping cannabis. Other research links younger age at substance use initiation to a more rapid transition to substance use disorders and higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

Previous studies examining predictors of substance use initiation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study dataset focused primarily on self-reported measures, but the current study also looked at models that include hormones and neurocognitive factors as well as neuroimaging.

This study included 6829, 9- and 10-year-olds from the ABCD Study who had never tried substances and were followed for 3 years.

A sophisticated statistical approach was used to examine 420 variables as predictors of substance use initiation. Initiation was defined as trying any nonprescribed substance by age 12 years. “That’s including a single sip of alcohol or puff of a cigarette,” said Dr. Green.

In addition to alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis, researchers looked at initiation of synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ketamine, among other substances.

Self-reported measures included demographic characteristics, self and peer involvement with substance use, parenting behaviors, mental and physical health, and culture and environmental factors.

The analytical approach used machine-learning algorithms to compare the ability of domains to identify the most critical risk factors. Magnitudes of coefficients were used to assess variable importance, with positive coefficients indicating greater likelihood of substance initiation and negative coefficients indicating lower likelihood of initiation.

By age 12 years, 14.4% of the children studied reported substance initiation. Alcohol was the substance most commonly initiated (365 individuals), followed by nicotine (94 individuals) and cannabis (40 individuals), with few or no children initiating other substances.

Both those who did and did not initiate substances were similarly aged, and most participants identified as White and non-Hispanic. But the substance-use group had a lower percentage of girls and higher percentage of White participants compared with the no-substance-use group.

The model with only self-reported data had similar accuracy in predicting substance use initiation (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67) as models that added resource-intensive measures such as neurocognitive tests and hormones (AUC, 0.67) and neuroimaging (AUC, 0.66).
 

Religious Predictors

The strongest predictors of substance use initiation were related to religion: Youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Mormonism were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.87), whereas youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Judaism were more likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.32).

The third top predictor was race: Black youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.32). This was followed by youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Islam who were also less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.25).

The research examined over 15 different religious categories, “so we really tried to be expansive,” noted Dr. Green.

It’s unclear why some religions appeared to have a protective impact when it comes to substance use initiation whereas others have the opposite effect. Future research could perhaps identify which components of religiosity affect substance use initiation. If so, these aspects could be developed and incorporated into prevention and intervention programs, said Dr. Green.

Next on the list of most important predictors was being a part of a household with an income of $12,000-$15,999; these youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.22).

Within the culture and environment domain, a history of detention or suspension was a top predictor of substance use initiation (coefficient, 0.20). Prenatal exposure to substance use was also a robust predictor in the physical health category (coefficient, 0.15).

Other predictors included: parents with less than a high school degree or GED (coefficient, -0.14), substance use availability (coefficient, 0.12), and age at baseline (coefficient, 0.12).

The study also showed that better cognitive functioning in selected domains (eg, cognitive control, attention, and language ability) is associated with a greater likelihood of substance use initiation.
 

Shaping Future Prevention

Applying these findings in clinical settings could help tailor prevention and early intervention efforts, said the authors. It might be prudent to allocate resources to collecting data related to self-, peer-, and familial-related factors, “which were more informative in predicting substance use initiation during late childhood and early adolescence in the present study,” they wrote.

Researchers will continue to track these children through to a 10-year follow-up, said Dr. Green. “I’m really curious to see if the factors we found when they were 12 and 13, such as those related to peers and family, still hold when they’re ages 17 and 18, because there’s going to be a huge amount of brain development that’s happening throughout this phase.”

The group that initiated substance use and the group that didn’t initiate substance use were not totally balanced, and sample sizes for some religious categories were small. Another study limitation was that the analytic approach didn’t account for multilevel data within the context of site and families.

Commenting on the findings, Kathleen Brady, MD, PhD, distinguished university professor and director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, said that the study is “critical and complex.” This, she said, is especially true as cannabis has become more accessible and potent, and as the federal government reportedly considers reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug (which includes highly dangerous, addictive substances with no medical use) to a Schedule III drug (which can be prescribed as a medication).

“The part that is the most frightening to me is the long-lasting effects that can happen when young people start using high-potency marijuana at an early age,” said Dr. Brady. “So, any information that we can give to parents, to teachers, to the public, and to doctors is important.”

She’s looking forward to getting more “incredibly important” information on substance use initiation as the study progresses and the teens get older. 

The study received support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By age 12 years, more than 14% of children have tried alcohol or tobacco, and religion, race, and income are the top predictors beginning to use these and other substances, new research suggests.

Aside from sociodemographic parameters, risk factors for substance use initiation include prenatal exposure to substances, peer use of alcohol and nicotine, and problematic school behavior, among other things, the study showed.

The results show certain modifiable risk factors may play a role in preventing youth from starting to use substances, said study author ReJoyce Green, PhD, research assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“If we’re designing, say, a prevention program or an early intervention program, these are things that could make a difference, so let’s make sure we’re bringing them into the conversation.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) and published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Critical Risk Factors

Use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis often begins during adolescence. One recent survey showed that 23% of 13-year-olds reported using alcohol, 17% reported vaping nicotine, and 8% reported vaping cannabis. Other research links younger age at substance use initiation to a more rapid transition to substance use disorders and higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

Previous studies examining predictors of substance use initiation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study dataset focused primarily on self-reported measures, but the current study also looked at models that include hormones and neurocognitive factors as well as neuroimaging.

This study included 6829, 9- and 10-year-olds from the ABCD Study who had never tried substances and were followed for 3 years.

A sophisticated statistical approach was used to examine 420 variables as predictors of substance use initiation. Initiation was defined as trying any nonprescribed substance by age 12 years. “That’s including a single sip of alcohol or puff of a cigarette,” said Dr. Green.

In addition to alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis, researchers looked at initiation of synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ketamine, among other substances.

Self-reported measures included demographic characteristics, self and peer involvement with substance use, parenting behaviors, mental and physical health, and culture and environmental factors.

The analytical approach used machine-learning algorithms to compare the ability of domains to identify the most critical risk factors. Magnitudes of coefficients were used to assess variable importance, with positive coefficients indicating greater likelihood of substance initiation and negative coefficients indicating lower likelihood of initiation.

By age 12 years, 14.4% of the children studied reported substance initiation. Alcohol was the substance most commonly initiated (365 individuals), followed by nicotine (94 individuals) and cannabis (40 individuals), with few or no children initiating other substances.

Both those who did and did not initiate substances were similarly aged, and most participants identified as White and non-Hispanic. But the substance-use group had a lower percentage of girls and higher percentage of White participants compared with the no-substance-use group.

The model with only self-reported data had similar accuracy in predicting substance use initiation (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67) as models that added resource-intensive measures such as neurocognitive tests and hormones (AUC, 0.67) and neuroimaging (AUC, 0.66).
 

Religious Predictors

The strongest predictors of substance use initiation were related to religion: Youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Mormonism were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.87), whereas youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Judaism were more likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.32).

The third top predictor was race: Black youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.32). This was followed by youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Islam who were also less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.25).

The research examined over 15 different religious categories, “so we really tried to be expansive,” noted Dr. Green.

It’s unclear why some religions appeared to have a protective impact when it comes to substance use initiation whereas others have the opposite effect. Future research could perhaps identify which components of religiosity affect substance use initiation. If so, these aspects could be developed and incorporated into prevention and intervention programs, said Dr. Green.

Next on the list of most important predictors was being a part of a household with an income of $12,000-$15,999; these youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.22).

Within the culture and environment domain, a history of detention or suspension was a top predictor of substance use initiation (coefficient, 0.20). Prenatal exposure to substance use was also a robust predictor in the physical health category (coefficient, 0.15).

Other predictors included: parents with less than a high school degree or GED (coefficient, -0.14), substance use availability (coefficient, 0.12), and age at baseline (coefficient, 0.12).

The study also showed that better cognitive functioning in selected domains (eg, cognitive control, attention, and language ability) is associated with a greater likelihood of substance use initiation.
 

Shaping Future Prevention

Applying these findings in clinical settings could help tailor prevention and early intervention efforts, said the authors. It might be prudent to allocate resources to collecting data related to self-, peer-, and familial-related factors, “which were more informative in predicting substance use initiation during late childhood and early adolescence in the present study,” they wrote.

Researchers will continue to track these children through to a 10-year follow-up, said Dr. Green. “I’m really curious to see if the factors we found when they were 12 and 13, such as those related to peers and family, still hold when they’re ages 17 and 18, because there’s going to be a huge amount of brain development that’s happening throughout this phase.”

The group that initiated substance use and the group that didn’t initiate substance use were not totally balanced, and sample sizes for some religious categories were small. Another study limitation was that the analytic approach didn’t account for multilevel data within the context of site and families.

Commenting on the findings, Kathleen Brady, MD, PhD, distinguished university professor and director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, said that the study is “critical and complex.” This, she said, is especially true as cannabis has become more accessible and potent, and as the federal government reportedly considers reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug (which includes highly dangerous, addictive substances with no medical use) to a Schedule III drug (which can be prescribed as a medication).

“The part that is the most frightening to me is the long-lasting effects that can happen when young people start using high-potency marijuana at an early age,” said Dr. Brady. “So, any information that we can give to parents, to teachers, to the public, and to doctors is important.”

She’s looking forward to getting more “incredibly important” information on substance use initiation as the study progresses and the teens get older. 

The study received support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.

More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.

“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.

Understanding AI can help you leverage it safely and effectively — plus “make better-informed decisions about whether or not to use it in [your] practice,” Dr. DeCamp said.

“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.

That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.

“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.

From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
 

Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers

Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:

• The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
• The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
• The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
• Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.

Make the Most of Conferences

Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.

Listen to This Podcast

The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.

To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
 

Consider a Class

Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.

More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.

“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.

Understanding AI can help you leverage it safely and effectively — plus “make better-informed decisions about whether or not to use it in [your] practice,” Dr. DeCamp said.

“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.

That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.

“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.

From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
 

Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers

Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:

• The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
• The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
• The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
• Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.

Make the Most of Conferences

Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.

Listen to This Podcast

The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.

To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
 

Consider a Class

Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.

More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.

“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.

Understanding AI can help you leverage it safely and effectively — plus “make better-informed decisions about whether or not to use it in [your] practice,” Dr. DeCamp said.

“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.

That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.

“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.

From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
 

Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers

Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:

• The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
• The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
• The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
• Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.

Make the Most of Conferences

Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.

Listen to This Podcast

The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.

To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
 

Consider a Class

Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.

Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses. 

Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial. 

This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response. 

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson. 

“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents. 

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records. 

But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.

The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
 

Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says

Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative. 

Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents. 

Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents. 

In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media. 

At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends. 

Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson. 

The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents. 

In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.

All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson. 
 

Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong. 

The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show. 

“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.

The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation. 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents. 

The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.

Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses. 

Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial. 

This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response. 

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson. 

“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents. 

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records. 

But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.

The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
 

Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says

Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative. 

Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents. 

Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents. 

In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media. 

At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends. 

Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson. 

The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents. 

In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.

All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson. 
 

Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong. 

The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show. 

“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.

The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation. 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents. 

The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.

Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses. 

Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial. 

This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response. 

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson. 

“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents. 

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records. 

But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.

The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
 

Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says

Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative. 

Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents. 

Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents. 

In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media. 

At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends. 

Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson. 

The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents. 

In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.

All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson. 
 

Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong. 

The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show. 

“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.

The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation. 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents. 

The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health distress increased disproportionately among transgender and gender-nonconforming US adults between 2014 and 2021 compared with their cisgender counterparts, a new study suggested. Investigators said the findings among an historically marginalized segment of society point to a need to address a growing inequality in mental health.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators drew on 2014-2021 US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data, using logistic and ordinary least squares regression to document temporal trends in the transgender-cisgender disparity in self-reports of the number of poor mental health days in the past month and frequent mental distress.
• They included 43 states that implemented the optional sexual orientation and gender identity module in the BRFSS.
• Outcomes included the number of poor mental health days in the past month, as well as frequent mental distress (≥ 14 poor mental health days in the past month).

TAKEAWAY:

• Even in 2014, there was a discrepancy between cisgender and transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals in the reported mean of poor mental health days (3.68 vs 5.42).
• The size of this disparity, adjusted by differences in observable characteristics, increased by 2.75 days (95% CI, 0.58-4.91) over the study period.
• The inequality in mental health status between cisgender and transgender and nonconforming adults grew from 11.4% vs 18.9% in 2014, respectively, to 14.6% vs 32.9% in 2021, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings demonstrate sizable and worsening inequities in mental health across gender identity,” the authors wrote. “Mental health and primary care providers must be prepared to address the unique psychosocial needs of gender minority adults. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need for action to reduce these disparities.”

SOURCE:

Samuel Mann, PhD, of the RAND Corporation, was the corresponding author of the study. It was published online on April 10 in the American Journal of Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Measures of mental health were derived from self-reports. In addition, data from seven states were missing because these states did not include sexual orientation and gender identity in the BRFSS. And the BRFSS does not survey people who are unhoused, incarcerated, or in group living quarters.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding was listed. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health distress increased disproportionately among transgender and gender-nonconforming US adults between 2014 and 2021 compared with their cisgender counterparts, a new study suggested. Investigators said the findings among an historically marginalized segment of society point to a need to address a growing inequality in mental health.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators drew on 2014-2021 US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data, using logistic and ordinary least squares regression to document temporal trends in the transgender-cisgender disparity in self-reports of the number of poor mental health days in the past month and frequent mental distress.
• They included 43 states that implemented the optional sexual orientation and gender identity module in the BRFSS.
• Outcomes included the number of poor mental health days in the past month, as well as frequent mental distress (≥ 14 poor mental health days in the past month).

TAKEAWAY:

• Even in 2014, there was a discrepancy between cisgender and transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals in the reported mean of poor mental health days (3.68 vs 5.42).
• The size of this disparity, adjusted by differences in observable characteristics, increased by 2.75 days (95% CI, 0.58-4.91) over the study period.
• The inequality in mental health status between cisgender and transgender and nonconforming adults grew from 11.4% vs 18.9% in 2014, respectively, to 14.6% vs 32.9% in 2021, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings demonstrate sizable and worsening inequities in mental health across gender identity,” the authors wrote. “Mental health and primary care providers must be prepared to address the unique psychosocial needs of gender minority adults. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need for action to reduce these disparities.”

SOURCE:

Samuel Mann, PhD, of the RAND Corporation, was the corresponding author of the study. It was published online on April 10 in the American Journal of Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Measures of mental health were derived from self-reports. In addition, data from seven states were missing because these states did not include sexual orientation and gender identity in the BRFSS. And the BRFSS does not survey people who are unhoused, incarcerated, or in group living quarters.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding was listed. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health distress increased disproportionately among transgender and gender-nonconforming US adults between 2014 and 2021 compared with their cisgender counterparts, a new study suggested. Investigators said the findings among an historically marginalized segment of society point to a need to address a growing inequality in mental health.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators drew on 2014-2021 US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data, using logistic and ordinary least squares regression to document temporal trends in the transgender-cisgender disparity in self-reports of the number of poor mental health days in the past month and frequent mental distress.
• They included 43 states that implemented the optional sexual orientation and gender identity module in the BRFSS.
• Outcomes included the number of poor mental health days in the past month, as well as frequent mental distress (≥ 14 poor mental health days in the past month).

TAKEAWAY:

• Even in 2014, there was a discrepancy between cisgender and transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals in the reported mean of poor mental health days (3.68 vs 5.42).
• The size of this disparity, adjusted by differences in observable characteristics, increased by 2.75 days (95% CI, 0.58-4.91) over the study period.
• The inequality in mental health status between cisgender and transgender and nonconforming adults grew from 11.4% vs 18.9% in 2014, respectively, to 14.6% vs 32.9% in 2021, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings demonstrate sizable and worsening inequities in mental health across gender identity,” the authors wrote. “Mental health and primary care providers must be prepared to address the unique psychosocial needs of gender minority adults. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need for action to reduce these disparities.”

SOURCE:

Samuel Mann, PhD, of the RAND Corporation, was the corresponding author of the study. It was published online on April 10 in the American Journal of Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Measures of mental health were derived from self-reports. In addition, data from seven states were missing because these states did not include sexual orientation and gender identity in the BRFSS. And the BRFSS does not survey people who are unhoused, incarcerated, or in group living quarters.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding was listed. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Deaths of despair — defined as midlife deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease — among African Americans surpassed the rate in White Americans in 2022, new research showed. In addition, the study also revealed that Native Americans had more than double the rate of both their Black and White counterparts that year.

These new findings, the investigators noted, counter a nearly 10-year-old narrative that was sparked by a seminal 2015 study. It showed that from 1999 to 2013 deaths of despair predominantly affected White individuals at a rate of 72.15 per 100,000 population — twice that of Black Americans.

The investigators of the 2015 study posited that such deaths in the group were linked to declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status especially in White individuals without a college degree. However, the investigators noted that data for Native Americans were not included in the 2015 study or in the many follow-up analyses the research triggered.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Racial Differences

The current investigators assessed trends by race and ethnicity in deaths of despair in the years following the 2015 study when an increase in racial and ethnic inequality were reported for numerous causes of death.

The cross-sectional study used publicly available records from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database WONDER to calculate midlife mortality in the United States from January 1999 to December 2022 to determine deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease for White, Black, and Native American individuals aged 45-55 years. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.

Results showed that deaths of despair in Black Americans (103.81 per 100,000) surpassed that of White Americans (102.63 per 100,000) in 2022. Furthermore, the rate in Black Americans tripled from 2013 to 2022 (from 36.24 to 103.81 per 100,000), with a sharp increase in such deaths from 2015 onward.

The rate for Native American and Alaska Native populations was the highest at 241.7 per 100,000 population in 2022.

It has been posited that the increase in rates of deaths of despair among White people is associated with declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status, especially among White individuals without a college degree, the authors noted. 

The initial seminal study became a focus of ongoing national discourse after results showed White individuals had the highest mortality rates from these causes at 72 per 100,000 people in 2013 — twice that of Black Americans.

They examined midlife mortality from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease between January 1999 and December 2022. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.
 

The rate of midlife deaths from alcoholic liver disease among American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (109 per 100,000) was six times the rate of White individuals (18 per 100,000) in 2022. 

Rates of midlife suicide deaths in 2022 remained elevated among Native American or Alaska Native (28 per 100,000) and White (25 per 100,000) individuals compared with Black individuals (9 per 100,000).

Increases in deaths of despair among Black and Native Americans are associated with differential access to safety resources in the context of an increasingly toxic illicit drug supply, increased rates of polysubstance use, worsening economic precarity, and stark disparities in access to mental health and substance use treatment programs, the investigators noted.

“The findings reinforce the notion that we need to invest in services that can address these issues, and ultimately, we need much more comprehensive access to low-barrier mental health care and substance use treatment in the US,” study investigator Joseph Friedman, PhD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, said in a press release. 

“We need to specifically make sure those treatments, services, and programs are implemented in a way that is accessible for communities of color and will actively work to address inequality,” Dr. Friedman added.

Potential study limitations include possible misclassification of race and ethnicity, which could underestimate observed inequalities, and the ecological design that precludes measuring causality of underlying factors, the researchers noted.

The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Deaths of despair — defined as midlife deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease — among African Americans surpassed the rate in White Americans in 2022, new research showed. In addition, the study also revealed that Native Americans had more than double the rate of both their Black and White counterparts that year.

These new findings, the investigators noted, counter a nearly 10-year-old narrative that was sparked by a seminal 2015 study. It showed that from 1999 to 2013 deaths of despair predominantly affected White individuals at a rate of 72.15 per 100,000 population — twice that of Black Americans.

The investigators of the 2015 study posited that such deaths in the group were linked to declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status especially in White individuals without a college degree. However, the investigators noted that data for Native Americans were not included in the 2015 study or in the many follow-up analyses the research triggered.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Racial Differences

The current investigators assessed trends by race and ethnicity in deaths of despair in the years following the 2015 study when an increase in racial and ethnic inequality were reported for numerous causes of death.

The cross-sectional study used publicly available records from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database WONDER to calculate midlife mortality in the United States from January 1999 to December 2022 to determine deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease for White, Black, and Native American individuals aged 45-55 years. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.

Results showed that deaths of despair in Black Americans (103.81 per 100,000) surpassed that of White Americans (102.63 per 100,000) in 2022. Furthermore, the rate in Black Americans tripled from 2013 to 2022 (from 36.24 to 103.81 per 100,000), with a sharp increase in such deaths from 2015 onward.

The rate for Native American and Alaska Native populations was the highest at 241.7 per 100,000 population in 2022.

It has been posited that the increase in rates of deaths of despair among White people is associated with declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status, especially among White individuals without a college degree, the authors noted. 

The initial seminal study became a focus of ongoing national discourse after results showed White individuals had the highest mortality rates from these causes at 72 per 100,000 people in 2013 — twice that of Black Americans.

They examined midlife mortality from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease between January 1999 and December 2022. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.
 

The rate of midlife deaths from alcoholic liver disease among American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (109 per 100,000) was six times the rate of White individuals (18 per 100,000) in 2022. 

Rates of midlife suicide deaths in 2022 remained elevated among Native American or Alaska Native (28 per 100,000) and White (25 per 100,000) individuals compared with Black individuals (9 per 100,000).

Increases in deaths of despair among Black and Native Americans are associated with differential access to safety resources in the context of an increasingly toxic illicit drug supply, increased rates of polysubstance use, worsening economic precarity, and stark disparities in access to mental health and substance use treatment programs, the investigators noted.

“The findings reinforce the notion that we need to invest in services that can address these issues, and ultimately, we need much more comprehensive access to low-barrier mental health care and substance use treatment in the US,” study investigator Joseph Friedman, PhD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, said in a press release. 

“We need to specifically make sure those treatments, services, and programs are implemented in a way that is accessible for communities of color and will actively work to address inequality,” Dr. Friedman added.

Potential study limitations include possible misclassification of race and ethnicity, which could underestimate observed inequalities, and the ecological design that precludes measuring causality of underlying factors, the researchers noted.

The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Deaths of despair — defined as midlife deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease — among African Americans surpassed the rate in White Americans in 2022, new research showed. In addition, the study also revealed that Native Americans had more than double the rate of both their Black and White counterparts that year.

These new findings, the investigators noted, counter a nearly 10-year-old narrative that was sparked by a seminal 2015 study. It showed that from 1999 to 2013 deaths of despair predominantly affected White individuals at a rate of 72.15 per 100,000 population — twice that of Black Americans.

The investigators of the 2015 study posited that such deaths in the group were linked to declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status especially in White individuals without a college degree. However, the investigators noted that data for Native Americans were not included in the 2015 study or in the many follow-up analyses the research triggered.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Racial Differences

The current investigators assessed trends by race and ethnicity in deaths of despair in the years following the 2015 study when an increase in racial and ethnic inequality were reported for numerous causes of death.

The cross-sectional study used publicly available records from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database WONDER to calculate midlife mortality in the United States from January 1999 to December 2022 to determine deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease for White, Black, and Native American individuals aged 45-55 years. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.

Results showed that deaths of despair in Black Americans (103.81 per 100,000) surpassed that of White Americans (102.63 per 100,000) in 2022. Furthermore, the rate in Black Americans tripled from 2013 to 2022 (from 36.24 to 103.81 per 100,000), with a sharp increase in such deaths from 2015 onward.

The rate for Native American and Alaska Native populations was the highest at 241.7 per 100,000 population in 2022.

It has been posited that the increase in rates of deaths of despair among White people is associated with declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status, especially among White individuals without a college degree, the authors noted. 

The initial seminal study became a focus of ongoing national discourse after results showed White individuals had the highest mortality rates from these causes at 72 per 100,000 people in 2013 — twice that of Black Americans.

They examined midlife mortality from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease between January 1999 and December 2022. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.
 

The rate of midlife deaths from alcoholic liver disease among American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (109 per 100,000) was six times the rate of White individuals (18 per 100,000) in 2022. 

Rates of midlife suicide deaths in 2022 remained elevated among Native American or Alaska Native (28 per 100,000) and White (25 per 100,000) individuals compared with Black individuals (9 per 100,000).

Increases in deaths of despair among Black and Native Americans are associated with differential access to safety resources in the context of an increasingly toxic illicit drug supply, increased rates of polysubstance use, worsening economic precarity, and stark disparities in access to mental health and substance use treatment programs, the investigators noted.

“The findings reinforce the notion that we need to invest in services that can address these issues, and ultimately, we need much more comprehensive access to low-barrier mental health care and substance use treatment in the US,” study investigator Joseph Friedman, PhD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, said in a press release. 

“We need to specifically make sure those treatments, services, and programs are implemented in a way that is accessible for communities of color and will actively work to address inequality,” Dr. Friedman added.

Potential study limitations include possible misclassification of race and ethnicity, which could underestimate observed inequalities, and the ecological design that precludes measuring causality of underlying factors, the researchers noted.

The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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