User login
Noninvasive brain stimulation promising for COVID-related smell loss
Noninvasive brain stimulation may help restore a sense of smell in patients with chronic anosmia or hyposmia related to COVID-19, early research suggests.
Results of a small, double-blind, sham-controlled study showed anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (A-tDCS) combined with olfactory training (OT) provided notable and durable improvement in seven patients with persistent COVID-19–related hyposmia or anosmia.
“We are proud and very excited about these results. Although seven patients is a small sample, it is still notable,” lead investigator Fabio Bandini, MD, head of the department of neurology, ASL 3 Genovese, Genoa, Italy, said in an interview.
tDCS is cheap, safe, accessible, and very easy to administer. It has been used in rehabilitative treatment for 15 years, but this is the first time it has been used for this kind of problem, Dr. Bandini added.
The study was published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.
First study of its kind
Approximately 1% of patients with COVID will suffer from long-term smell loss, and given the widespread global impact of COVID, this represents a substantial number who have experienced or will potentially experience chronic smell loss because of the disease.
Loss of smell associated with COVID may last anywhere from 15 to 180 days after a SAR-CoV-2 infection, the researchers noted. Research suggests there is central nervous system involvement in COVID anosmia, mostly in the orbitofrontal cortex – the neural substrate for conscious olfactory perception.
“Smell loss has important consequences in everyday life for food, for hazards, for socialization. Usually, you recover from smell loss after 2 or 3 months, but after 6 months, that is considered permanent,” said Dr. Bandini.
Some research has pointed to the activation of the orbital frontal cortex for control of olfactory perception, so Dr. Bandini and colleagues wanted to explore whether stimulating this area could improve smell disturbances in post-COVID patients.
The study included seven consecutive patients with hyposmia or anosmia from COVID-19 lasting at least 6 months and who had a score of less than 12 on the Sniffin’ Sticks identification subtest. Exclusion criteria included severe mood disorder, rhinologic diseases, epilepsy, and sensitive scalp. No medications for alleviating olfactory symptoms were permitted.
Patients’ smell performances were assessed immediately prior to stimulation (t0) and rated on a scale of 0-10, with a score of 0 indicating a complete loss of smell and a score of 10 indicating a full sense of smell as the subjective measure. Sniffin’ Sticks, a validated test that assesses smell threshold, discrimination, and validation, was used as an objective measure.
In the 20-minute OT session, patients had to sniff 10 odors (rose, eucalyptus, lemon, star anise, rosemary, strawberry, coconut, vanilla, pine tree, and bergamot) in a random order for 10 seconds each then were asked to identify the smell and rate its intensity. The training was applied once in each session.
A-tDCS or sham-transcranial direct current stimulation (S-tDCS) was administered at the same time. In the active stimulation the anode was placed over the left prefrontal cortex because the orbitofrontal cortex is not directly accessible by A-tDCS.
The patients participated in olfactory training with S-tDCS for the first 2 weeks. In the second 2 weeks of the study, they received OT with A-tDCS.
The order of sham and A-tDCS stimulation was not counterbalanced to avoid potential carryover effects if A-tDCS had been applied first. The patients and assessors collecting the data were blinded.
The smell assessment was repeated immediately after S-tDCS (t1), A-tDCS (t2) and 3 months from the end of stimulation (t3), using the same odors and the same order of the first assessment.
The Wilcoxon test was used to compare each assessment (t1, t2, and t3) with baseline, indicating a two-sided alpha less than 0.05, which was considered statistically significant.
Both the subjective and objective measures showed a statistically significant improvement at t2 and t3, with average measurements doubled or even tripled, compared with t0 and t1. In addition, all patients demonstrated notable improvement in smell performance.
This study, said Dr. Bandini, is the first to use A-tDCS to treat patients with persistent smell loss due to COVID. Not only did the results show significant improvement in all study participants, compared with baseline but the beneficial effect lasted up to 3 months after treatment, demonstrating a durable effect.
Dr. Bandini noted that the study’s small sample size is a major limitation of the research so he hopes to enlarge it in future research testing A-tDCS for COVID-related smell loss and work toward providing this therapy on an outpatient basis.
Encouraging results offer new hope
Commenting on the research, Cheng-Ying Ho, MD, associate professor of pathology at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described the study as “interesting and encouraging.
“Even though there is a small percentage of patients that suffer persistent smell loss from COVID, it’s still a large number of people who have smell dysfunction and are unable to recover.”
“So far, there is no treatment for COVID-related or viral infection–related smell loss. The only thing that can be done is olfactory training, but the effect is very limited. There is no drug or other type of therapy for smell loss so far,” said Dr. Ho, whose areas of expertise include neuromuscular pathology, pediatric neuropathology, and neuropathology of infectious diseases.
“Even though it’s a small study with only seven patients, the results are very encouraging. After 2 weeks of stimulation, almost all had smell recovery that lasted several months. The weakness of the study is that they didn’t have a control group. The next step would be to expand the study to include more participants and have an adequate control group that received the sham stimuli to see if their results still stand when they have more participants.
“This very encouraging and relatively noninvasive treatment modality can give patients with smell loss some hope that this therapy can help them recover their sense of smell to some degree. The study seems to suggest that either the tDCS can stimulate nerve regrowth or that it actually can correct the rewiring of the brain,” added Dr. Ho.
The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No competing interests were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Noninvasive brain stimulation may help restore a sense of smell in patients with chronic anosmia or hyposmia related to COVID-19, early research suggests.
Results of a small, double-blind, sham-controlled study showed anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (A-tDCS) combined with olfactory training (OT) provided notable and durable improvement in seven patients with persistent COVID-19–related hyposmia or anosmia.
“We are proud and very excited about these results. Although seven patients is a small sample, it is still notable,” lead investigator Fabio Bandini, MD, head of the department of neurology, ASL 3 Genovese, Genoa, Italy, said in an interview.
tDCS is cheap, safe, accessible, and very easy to administer. It has been used in rehabilitative treatment for 15 years, but this is the first time it has been used for this kind of problem, Dr. Bandini added.
The study was published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.
First study of its kind
Approximately 1% of patients with COVID will suffer from long-term smell loss, and given the widespread global impact of COVID, this represents a substantial number who have experienced or will potentially experience chronic smell loss because of the disease.
Loss of smell associated with COVID may last anywhere from 15 to 180 days after a SAR-CoV-2 infection, the researchers noted. Research suggests there is central nervous system involvement in COVID anosmia, mostly in the orbitofrontal cortex – the neural substrate for conscious olfactory perception.
“Smell loss has important consequences in everyday life for food, for hazards, for socialization. Usually, you recover from smell loss after 2 or 3 months, but after 6 months, that is considered permanent,” said Dr. Bandini.
Some research has pointed to the activation of the orbital frontal cortex for control of olfactory perception, so Dr. Bandini and colleagues wanted to explore whether stimulating this area could improve smell disturbances in post-COVID patients.
The study included seven consecutive patients with hyposmia or anosmia from COVID-19 lasting at least 6 months and who had a score of less than 12 on the Sniffin’ Sticks identification subtest. Exclusion criteria included severe mood disorder, rhinologic diseases, epilepsy, and sensitive scalp. No medications for alleviating olfactory symptoms were permitted.
Patients’ smell performances were assessed immediately prior to stimulation (t0) and rated on a scale of 0-10, with a score of 0 indicating a complete loss of smell and a score of 10 indicating a full sense of smell as the subjective measure. Sniffin’ Sticks, a validated test that assesses smell threshold, discrimination, and validation, was used as an objective measure.
In the 20-minute OT session, patients had to sniff 10 odors (rose, eucalyptus, lemon, star anise, rosemary, strawberry, coconut, vanilla, pine tree, and bergamot) in a random order for 10 seconds each then were asked to identify the smell and rate its intensity. The training was applied once in each session.
A-tDCS or sham-transcranial direct current stimulation (S-tDCS) was administered at the same time. In the active stimulation the anode was placed over the left prefrontal cortex because the orbitofrontal cortex is not directly accessible by A-tDCS.
The patients participated in olfactory training with S-tDCS for the first 2 weeks. In the second 2 weeks of the study, they received OT with A-tDCS.
The order of sham and A-tDCS stimulation was not counterbalanced to avoid potential carryover effects if A-tDCS had been applied first. The patients and assessors collecting the data were blinded.
The smell assessment was repeated immediately after S-tDCS (t1), A-tDCS (t2) and 3 months from the end of stimulation (t3), using the same odors and the same order of the first assessment.
The Wilcoxon test was used to compare each assessment (t1, t2, and t3) with baseline, indicating a two-sided alpha less than 0.05, which was considered statistically significant.
Both the subjective and objective measures showed a statistically significant improvement at t2 and t3, with average measurements doubled or even tripled, compared with t0 and t1. In addition, all patients demonstrated notable improvement in smell performance.
This study, said Dr. Bandini, is the first to use A-tDCS to treat patients with persistent smell loss due to COVID. Not only did the results show significant improvement in all study participants, compared with baseline but the beneficial effect lasted up to 3 months after treatment, demonstrating a durable effect.
Dr. Bandini noted that the study’s small sample size is a major limitation of the research so he hopes to enlarge it in future research testing A-tDCS for COVID-related smell loss and work toward providing this therapy on an outpatient basis.
Encouraging results offer new hope
Commenting on the research, Cheng-Ying Ho, MD, associate professor of pathology at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described the study as “interesting and encouraging.
“Even though there is a small percentage of patients that suffer persistent smell loss from COVID, it’s still a large number of people who have smell dysfunction and are unable to recover.”
“So far, there is no treatment for COVID-related or viral infection–related smell loss. The only thing that can be done is olfactory training, but the effect is very limited. There is no drug or other type of therapy for smell loss so far,” said Dr. Ho, whose areas of expertise include neuromuscular pathology, pediatric neuropathology, and neuropathology of infectious diseases.
“Even though it’s a small study with only seven patients, the results are very encouraging. After 2 weeks of stimulation, almost all had smell recovery that lasted several months. The weakness of the study is that they didn’t have a control group. The next step would be to expand the study to include more participants and have an adequate control group that received the sham stimuli to see if their results still stand when they have more participants.
“This very encouraging and relatively noninvasive treatment modality can give patients with smell loss some hope that this therapy can help them recover their sense of smell to some degree. The study seems to suggest that either the tDCS can stimulate nerve regrowth or that it actually can correct the rewiring of the brain,” added Dr. Ho.
The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No competing interests were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Noninvasive brain stimulation may help restore a sense of smell in patients with chronic anosmia or hyposmia related to COVID-19, early research suggests.
Results of a small, double-blind, sham-controlled study showed anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (A-tDCS) combined with olfactory training (OT) provided notable and durable improvement in seven patients with persistent COVID-19–related hyposmia or anosmia.
“We are proud and very excited about these results. Although seven patients is a small sample, it is still notable,” lead investigator Fabio Bandini, MD, head of the department of neurology, ASL 3 Genovese, Genoa, Italy, said in an interview.
tDCS is cheap, safe, accessible, and very easy to administer. It has been used in rehabilitative treatment for 15 years, but this is the first time it has been used for this kind of problem, Dr. Bandini added.
The study was published online in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry.
First study of its kind
Approximately 1% of patients with COVID will suffer from long-term smell loss, and given the widespread global impact of COVID, this represents a substantial number who have experienced or will potentially experience chronic smell loss because of the disease.
Loss of smell associated with COVID may last anywhere from 15 to 180 days after a SAR-CoV-2 infection, the researchers noted. Research suggests there is central nervous system involvement in COVID anosmia, mostly in the orbitofrontal cortex – the neural substrate for conscious olfactory perception.
“Smell loss has important consequences in everyday life for food, for hazards, for socialization. Usually, you recover from smell loss after 2 or 3 months, but after 6 months, that is considered permanent,” said Dr. Bandini.
Some research has pointed to the activation of the orbital frontal cortex for control of olfactory perception, so Dr. Bandini and colleagues wanted to explore whether stimulating this area could improve smell disturbances in post-COVID patients.
The study included seven consecutive patients with hyposmia or anosmia from COVID-19 lasting at least 6 months and who had a score of less than 12 on the Sniffin’ Sticks identification subtest. Exclusion criteria included severe mood disorder, rhinologic diseases, epilepsy, and sensitive scalp. No medications for alleviating olfactory symptoms were permitted.
Patients’ smell performances were assessed immediately prior to stimulation (t0) and rated on a scale of 0-10, with a score of 0 indicating a complete loss of smell and a score of 10 indicating a full sense of smell as the subjective measure. Sniffin’ Sticks, a validated test that assesses smell threshold, discrimination, and validation, was used as an objective measure.
In the 20-minute OT session, patients had to sniff 10 odors (rose, eucalyptus, lemon, star anise, rosemary, strawberry, coconut, vanilla, pine tree, and bergamot) in a random order for 10 seconds each then were asked to identify the smell and rate its intensity. The training was applied once in each session.
A-tDCS or sham-transcranial direct current stimulation (S-tDCS) was administered at the same time. In the active stimulation the anode was placed over the left prefrontal cortex because the orbitofrontal cortex is not directly accessible by A-tDCS.
The patients participated in olfactory training with S-tDCS for the first 2 weeks. In the second 2 weeks of the study, they received OT with A-tDCS.
The order of sham and A-tDCS stimulation was not counterbalanced to avoid potential carryover effects if A-tDCS had been applied first. The patients and assessors collecting the data were blinded.
The smell assessment was repeated immediately after S-tDCS (t1), A-tDCS (t2) and 3 months from the end of stimulation (t3), using the same odors and the same order of the first assessment.
The Wilcoxon test was used to compare each assessment (t1, t2, and t3) with baseline, indicating a two-sided alpha less than 0.05, which was considered statistically significant.
Both the subjective and objective measures showed a statistically significant improvement at t2 and t3, with average measurements doubled or even tripled, compared with t0 and t1. In addition, all patients demonstrated notable improvement in smell performance.
This study, said Dr. Bandini, is the first to use A-tDCS to treat patients with persistent smell loss due to COVID. Not only did the results show significant improvement in all study participants, compared with baseline but the beneficial effect lasted up to 3 months after treatment, demonstrating a durable effect.
Dr. Bandini noted that the study’s small sample size is a major limitation of the research so he hopes to enlarge it in future research testing A-tDCS for COVID-related smell loss and work toward providing this therapy on an outpatient basis.
Encouraging results offer new hope
Commenting on the research, Cheng-Ying Ho, MD, associate professor of pathology at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described the study as “interesting and encouraging.
“Even though there is a small percentage of patients that suffer persistent smell loss from COVID, it’s still a large number of people who have smell dysfunction and are unable to recover.”
“So far, there is no treatment for COVID-related or viral infection–related smell loss. The only thing that can be done is olfactory training, but the effect is very limited. There is no drug or other type of therapy for smell loss so far,” said Dr. Ho, whose areas of expertise include neuromuscular pathology, pediatric neuropathology, and neuropathology of infectious diseases.
“Even though it’s a small study with only seven patients, the results are very encouraging. After 2 weeks of stimulation, almost all had smell recovery that lasted several months. The weakness of the study is that they didn’t have a control group. The next step would be to expand the study to include more participants and have an adequate control group that received the sham stimuli to see if their results still stand when they have more participants.
“This very encouraging and relatively noninvasive treatment modality can give patients with smell loss some hope that this therapy can help them recover their sense of smell to some degree. The study seems to suggest that either the tDCS can stimulate nerve regrowth or that it actually can correct the rewiring of the brain,” added Dr. Ho.
The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No competing interests were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, NEUROSURGERY, AND PSYCHIATRY
Clozapine and cancer risk in schizophrenia patients: New data
Long-term treatment with clozapine is associated with a small but significant risk of hematological malignancies in individuals with schizophrenia, new research shows.
The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
An unresolved issue
Clozapine is more effective than other antipsychotics for managing symptoms and suicidal behavior in schizophrenia, with the lowest mortality, compared with other antipsychotics, but its use is restricted in many countries, the researchers note.
Reports of nine deaths associated with clozapine use – eight due to agranulocytosis and one due to leukemia – in southwestern Finland in 1975 resulted in worldwide withdrawal of the drug. In 1990, clozapine was relaunched with stipulations for strict blood count control. The cumulative incidence of clozapine-induced agranulocytosis or severe neutropenia is estimated at about 0.9%.
Several small studies from Australia, Denmark, and the United States, and a large pharmacovigilance study, suggest that clozapine treatment might be associated with an increased risk of hematological malignancies.
“Previous studies have suggested a possible risk of hematological malignancies associated with clozapine, but due to methodological issues, the question had remained unsettled,” said Dr. Tiihonen.
Finland has among the highest rates of clozapine use in the world, where 20% of schizophrenia cases are treated with the drug. In most other countries, clozapine use is less than half of that, in Finland largely because of agranulocytosis concerns.
To examine the risk of hematological malignancies associated with long-term use of clozapine and other antipsychotics, the investigators conducted a large prospective case-control and cohort study that used data from Finnish national registers and included all patients with schizophrenia.
“Unlike previous studies, we employed prospectively gathered data from a nationwide cohort [including all patients with schizophrenia], had a long follow-up time, and studied the dose-response of the risk of hematological malignancies,” Dr. Tiihonen noted.
The nested case-control study was constructed by individually matching cases of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy and pairing them with up to 10 matched controls with schizophrenia but without cancer.
Inclusion criteria were restricted to malignancies diagnosed on a histological basis. Individuals outside the ages of 18-85 years were excluded, as were those with a previous malignancy. Analyses were done using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbid conditions.
Patient education, vigilant monitoring
The case-control analysis was based on 516 patients with a first-time diagnosis of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy from 2000-2017 and diagnosed after first diagnosis of schizophrenia.
Of these, 102 patients were excluded because of a diagnosis with no histological basis, five were excluded because of age, and 34 for a previous malignancy, resulting in 375 patients with malignancies matched with 10 controls for a total of 3,743 study participants.
Of the 375 patients with hematological malignancies (305 had lymphoma, 42 leukemia, 22 myeloma, six unspecified) in 2000-2017, 208 (55%) were men and 167 (45%) were women. Ethnicity data were not available.
Compared with non-use of clozapine, clozapine use was associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies in a dose-response manner (adjusted odds ratio, 3.35; 95% confidence interval, 2.22-5.05] for ≥ 5,000 defined daily dose cumulative exposure (P < .0001).
Exposure to other antipsychotic medications was not associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies. A complementary analysis showed that the clozapine-related risk increase was specific to hematological malignancies only.
Over 17 years follow-up of the base cohort, 37 deaths occurred due to hematological malignancy among patients exposed to clozapine in 26 patients with ongoing use at the time they were diagnosed with malignancy and in 11 patients who did not use clozapine at the exact time of their cancer diagnosis. Only three deaths occurred due to agranulocytosis, the investigators report.
The use of a nationwide registry for the study makes it “unlikely” that there were any undiagnosed/unreported malignancies, the researchers note. This, plus the “robust dose-response finding, and additional analysis showing no substantial difference in odds of other cancers between users of clozapine versus other antipsychotics suggest the association is causal, and not attributable to surveillance bias,” they write.
These findings, the investigators note, suggest patients taking clozapine and their caregivers need to be educated about the signs of hematological malignancies. Furthermore, they call for mental health providers to be “vigilant” in monitoring for potential signs and symptoms of hematological malignancy in patients taking the drug.
A ‘vital’ medication
Commenting on the findings, Stephen Marder, MD, professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at UCLA, noted the link between clozapine and agranulocytosis.
“Clozapine has been previously associated with agranulocytosis. Over the years that seemed to be the main concern of clinicians. The monitoring system for agranulocytosis has been a burden on the system and for patients, but not really a significant cause for concern with the safety of the drug,” said Dr. Marder, who is also director of the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for the Department of Veterans Affairs and director of the section on psychosis at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute.
In fact, he noted recent research, including studies from this group that used large databases from Finland, which showed that clozapine was actually associated with a lower mortality risk than other antipsychotics.
The fact that the study showed prolonged use of clozapine at high doses was associated with a “very small” risk of hematological abnormalities does not undermine its standing as “the most effective antipsychotic [that is] associated with a lower risk of death,” said Dr. Marder.
“On the other hand,” he added, “it does suggest that clinicians should tell patients about it and, when they review the blood monitoring, they look at things beyond the neutrophil count” that may suggest malignancy.
“Clozapine has a vital role as the most effective antipsychotic drug and the only drug that has an indication for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and schizophrenia associated with suicidality,” said Dr. Marder.
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and by the Academy of Finland. Dr. Tiihonen and Dr. Marder have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-term treatment with clozapine is associated with a small but significant risk of hematological malignancies in individuals with schizophrenia, new research shows.
The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
An unresolved issue
Clozapine is more effective than other antipsychotics for managing symptoms and suicidal behavior in schizophrenia, with the lowest mortality, compared with other antipsychotics, but its use is restricted in many countries, the researchers note.
Reports of nine deaths associated with clozapine use – eight due to agranulocytosis and one due to leukemia – in southwestern Finland in 1975 resulted in worldwide withdrawal of the drug. In 1990, clozapine was relaunched with stipulations for strict blood count control. The cumulative incidence of clozapine-induced agranulocytosis or severe neutropenia is estimated at about 0.9%.
Several small studies from Australia, Denmark, and the United States, and a large pharmacovigilance study, suggest that clozapine treatment might be associated with an increased risk of hematological malignancies.
“Previous studies have suggested a possible risk of hematological malignancies associated with clozapine, but due to methodological issues, the question had remained unsettled,” said Dr. Tiihonen.
Finland has among the highest rates of clozapine use in the world, where 20% of schizophrenia cases are treated with the drug. In most other countries, clozapine use is less than half of that, in Finland largely because of agranulocytosis concerns.
To examine the risk of hematological malignancies associated with long-term use of clozapine and other antipsychotics, the investigators conducted a large prospective case-control and cohort study that used data from Finnish national registers and included all patients with schizophrenia.
“Unlike previous studies, we employed prospectively gathered data from a nationwide cohort [including all patients with schizophrenia], had a long follow-up time, and studied the dose-response of the risk of hematological malignancies,” Dr. Tiihonen noted.
The nested case-control study was constructed by individually matching cases of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy and pairing them with up to 10 matched controls with schizophrenia but without cancer.
Inclusion criteria were restricted to malignancies diagnosed on a histological basis. Individuals outside the ages of 18-85 years were excluded, as were those with a previous malignancy. Analyses were done using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbid conditions.
Patient education, vigilant monitoring
The case-control analysis was based on 516 patients with a first-time diagnosis of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy from 2000-2017 and diagnosed after first diagnosis of schizophrenia.
Of these, 102 patients were excluded because of a diagnosis with no histological basis, five were excluded because of age, and 34 for a previous malignancy, resulting in 375 patients with malignancies matched with 10 controls for a total of 3,743 study participants.
Of the 375 patients with hematological malignancies (305 had lymphoma, 42 leukemia, 22 myeloma, six unspecified) in 2000-2017, 208 (55%) were men and 167 (45%) were women. Ethnicity data were not available.
Compared with non-use of clozapine, clozapine use was associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies in a dose-response manner (adjusted odds ratio, 3.35; 95% confidence interval, 2.22-5.05] for ≥ 5,000 defined daily dose cumulative exposure (P < .0001).
Exposure to other antipsychotic medications was not associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies. A complementary analysis showed that the clozapine-related risk increase was specific to hematological malignancies only.
Over 17 years follow-up of the base cohort, 37 deaths occurred due to hematological malignancy among patients exposed to clozapine in 26 patients with ongoing use at the time they were diagnosed with malignancy and in 11 patients who did not use clozapine at the exact time of their cancer diagnosis. Only three deaths occurred due to agranulocytosis, the investigators report.
The use of a nationwide registry for the study makes it “unlikely” that there were any undiagnosed/unreported malignancies, the researchers note. This, plus the “robust dose-response finding, and additional analysis showing no substantial difference in odds of other cancers between users of clozapine versus other antipsychotics suggest the association is causal, and not attributable to surveillance bias,” they write.
These findings, the investigators note, suggest patients taking clozapine and their caregivers need to be educated about the signs of hematological malignancies. Furthermore, they call for mental health providers to be “vigilant” in monitoring for potential signs and symptoms of hematological malignancy in patients taking the drug.
A ‘vital’ medication
Commenting on the findings, Stephen Marder, MD, professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at UCLA, noted the link between clozapine and agranulocytosis.
“Clozapine has been previously associated with agranulocytosis. Over the years that seemed to be the main concern of clinicians. The monitoring system for agranulocytosis has been a burden on the system and for patients, but not really a significant cause for concern with the safety of the drug,” said Dr. Marder, who is also director of the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for the Department of Veterans Affairs and director of the section on psychosis at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute.
In fact, he noted recent research, including studies from this group that used large databases from Finland, which showed that clozapine was actually associated with a lower mortality risk than other antipsychotics.
The fact that the study showed prolonged use of clozapine at high doses was associated with a “very small” risk of hematological abnormalities does not undermine its standing as “the most effective antipsychotic [that is] associated with a lower risk of death,” said Dr. Marder.
“On the other hand,” he added, “it does suggest that clinicians should tell patients about it and, when they review the blood monitoring, they look at things beyond the neutrophil count” that may suggest malignancy.
“Clozapine has a vital role as the most effective antipsychotic drug and the only drug that has an indication for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and schizophrenia associated with suicidality,” said Dr. Marder.
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and by the Academy of Finland. Dr. Tiihonen and Dr. Marder have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-term treatment with clozapine is associated with a small but significant risk of hematological malignancies in individuals with schizophrenia, new research shows.
The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
An unresolved issue
Clozapine is more effective than other antipsychotics for managing symptoms and suicidal behavior in schizophrenia, with the lowest mortality, compared with other antipsychotics, but its use is restricted in many countries, the researchers note.
Reports of nine deaths associated with clozapine use – eight due to agranulocytosis and one due to leukemia – in southwestern Finland in 1975 resulted in worldwide withdrawal of the drug. In 1990, clozapine was relaunched with stipulations for strict blood count control. The cumulative incidence of clozapine-induced agranulocytosis or severe neutropenia is estimated at about 0.9%.
Several small studies from Australia, Denmark, and the United States, and a large pharmacovigilance study, suggest that clozapine treatment might be associated with an increased risk of hematological malignancies.
“Previous studies have suggested a possible risk of hematological malignancies associated with clozapine, but due to methodological issues, the question had remained unsettled,” said Dr. Tiihonen.
Finland has among the highest rates of clozapine use in the world, where 20% of schizophrenia cases are treated with the drug. In most other countries, clozapine use is less than half of that, in Finland largely because of agranulocytosis concerns.
To examine the risk of hematological malignancies associated with long-term use of clozapine and other antipsychotics, the investigators conducted a large prospective case-control and cohort study that used data from Finnish national registers and included all patients with schizophrenia.
“Unlike previous studies, we employed prospectively gathered data from a nationwide cohort [including all patients with schizophrenia], had a long follow-up time, and studied the dose-response of the risk of hematological malignancies,” Dr. Tiihonen noted.
The nested case-control study was constructed by individually matching cases of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy and pairing them with up to 10 matched controls with schizophrenia but without cancer.
Inclusion criteria were restricted to malignancies diagnosed on a histological basis. Individuals outside the ages of 18-85 years were excluded, as were those with a previous malignancy. Analyses were done using conditional logistic regression adjusted for comorbid conditions.
Patient education, vigilant monitoring
The case-control analysis was based on 516 patients with a first-time diagnosis of lymphoid and hematopoietic tissue malignancy from 2000-2017 and diagnosed after first diagnosis of schizophrenia.
Of these, 102 patients were excluded because of a diagnosis with no histological basis, five were excluded because of age, and 34 for a previous malignancy, resulting in 375 patients with malignancies matched with 10 controls for a total of 3,743 study participants.
Of the 375 patients with hematological malignancies (305 had lymphoma, 42 leukemia, 22 myeloma, six unspecified) in 2000-2017, 208 (55%) were men and 167 (45%) were women. Ethnicity data were not available.
Compared with non-use of clozapine, clozapine use was associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies in a dose-response manner (adjusted odds ratio, 3.35; 95% confidence interval, 2.22-5.05] for ≥ 5,000 defined daily dose cumulative exposure (P < .0001).
Exposure to other antipsychotic medications was not associated with increased odds of hematological malignancies. A complementary analysis showed that the clozapine-related risk increase was specific to hematological malignancies only.
Over 17 years follow-up of the base cohort, 37 deaths occurred due to hematological malignancy among patients exposed to clozapine in 26 patients with ongoing use at the time they were diagnosed with malignancy and in 11 patients who did not use clozapine at the exact time of their cancer diagnosis. Only three deaths occurred due to agranulocytosis, the investigators report.
The use of a nationwide registry for the study makes it “unlikely” that there were any undiagnosed/unreported malignancies, the researchers note. This, plus the “robust dose-response finding, and additional analysis showing no substantial difference in odds of other cancers between users of clozapine versus other antipsychotics suggest the association is causal, and not attributable to surveillance bias,” they write.
These findings, the investigators note, suggest patients taking clozapine and their caregivers need to be educated about the signs of hematological malignancies. Furthermore, they call for mental health providers to be “vigilant” in monitoring for potential signs and symptoms of hematological malignancy in patients taking the drug.
A ‘vital’ medication
Commenting on the findings, Stephen Marder, MD, professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences and vice chair of the department of psychiatry at UCLA, noted the link between clozapine and agranulocytosis.
“Clozapine has been previously associated with agranulocytosis. Over the years that seemed to be the main concern of clinicians. The monitoring system for agranulocytosis has been a burden on the system and for patients, but not really a significant cause for concern with the safety of the drug,” said Dr. Marder, who is also director of the VISN 22 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center for the Department of Veterans Affairs and director of the section on psychosis at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute.
In fact, he noted recent research, including studies from this group that used large databases from Finland, which showed that clozapine was actually associated with a lower mortality risk than other antipsychotics.
The fact that the study showed prolonged use of clozapine at high doses was associated with a “very small” risk of hematological abnormalities does not undermine its standing as “the most effective antipsychotic [that is] associated with a lower risk of death,” said Dr. Marder.
“On the other hand,” he added, “it does suggest that clinicians should tell patients about it and, when they review the blood monitoring, they look at things beyond the neutrophil count” that may suggest malignancy.
“Clozapine has a vital role as the most effective antipsychotic drug and the only drug that has an indication for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and schizophrenia associated with suicidality,” said Dr. Marder.
The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital and by the Academy of Finland. Dr. Tiihonen and Dr. Marder have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY
Does noninvasive brain stimulation augment CBT for depression?
Results of a multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials showed adjunctive transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was not superior to sham-tDCS plus CBT or CBT alone.
“Combining these interventions does not lead to added value. This is an example where negative findings guide the way of future studies. What we learned is that we might change things in a few dimensions,” study investigator Malek Bajbouj, MD, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, told this news organization.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Urgent need for better treatment
MDD affects 10% of the global population. However, up to 30% of patients have an inadequate response to standard treatment of CBT, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of the two, highlighting the need to develop more effective therapeutic strategies, the investigators note.
A noninvasive approach, tDCS, in healthy populations, has been shown to enhance cognitive function in brain regions that are also relevant for CBT. Specifically, the investigators point out that tDCS can “positively modulate neuronal activity in prefrontal structures central for affective and cognitive processes,” including emotion regulation, cognitive control working memory, and learning.
Based on this early data, the investigators conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether tDCS combined with CBT might have clinically relevant synergistic effects.
The multicenter study included adults aged 20-65 years with a single or recurrent depressive episode who were either not receiving medication or receiving a stable regimen of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or mirtazapine (Remeron).
A total of 148 participants (89 women, 59 men) with a mean age of 41 years were randomly assigned to receive CBT alone (n = 53), CBT+ tDCS (n = 48) or CBT + sham tDCS (n = 47).
Participants attended a 6-week group intervention of 12 sessions of CBT. If assigned, tDCS was applied simultaneously. Active tDCS included stimulation with an intensity of 2 milliamps for 30 minutes.
The study’s primary outcome was the change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to post treatment in the intention-to-treat sample. A total of 126 patients completed the study.
At baseline, the average MADRS score was 23.0. In each of the study groups, MADRS scores were reduced by a mean of 6.5 points (95% confidence interval, 3.82-9.14 points). The Cohen d value was -0.90 (95% CI, -1.43 to -0.50), indicating a significant effect over time, the researchers report. However, they add that “there was not significant effect of group and no significant interaction of group x time, indicating the estimated additive effects were not statistically significant.”
Results suggest that more research is needed to optimize treatment synchronization to achieve synergies between noninvasive brain stimulation and psychotherapeutic interventions.
Beauty and promise
Commenting on the findings, Mark George, MD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Advanced Imaging Research and the Brain Stimulation Laboratory, Charleston, described the study as “a really good effort by a great group of researchers.”
It’s unclear, he added, why tDCS failed to augment CBT. “It may be about the nongeneralizability of tDCS to complex functions, it may be that they didn’t get the dose right, or it might be due to a placebo response,” he speculated.
Furthermore, “tDCS is the most simple form of brain stimulation. The beauty and promise of tDCS is that it is so inexpensive and safe,” Dr. George added.
If proven effective, tDCS could potentially be used at home and rolled out as a frontline therapy for depression, he added. “Everybody wants the technology to work as an antidepressant, since it could have a very big positive public health impact,” said Dr. George.
Referring to previous research showing tDCS’ ability to improve specific brain functions in healthy controls, Dr. George noted that the potential of tDCS may be limited to augmenting specific brain functions such as memory but not more complex behaviors like depression.
However, Dr. George believes a more plausible explanation is that the optimal dose for tDCS has not yet been determined.
With other types of neuromodulation, such as electroconvulsive therapy, “we know that we’re in the brain with the right dose. But for tDCS, we don’t know that, and we’ve got to figure that out before it’s ever really going to make it [as a treatment],” he said.
“There have been great advances through the years in the field of brain stimulation and the treatment of depression. But rates of depression and suicide are continuing to grow, and we have not yet made a significant dent in treatment, in part because these technologies require equipment, [and] they’re expensive. So when we figure out tDCS, it will be a very important piece of our toolkit – a real game changer,” Dr. George added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials showed adjunctive transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was not superior to sham-tDCS plus CBT or CBT alone.
“Combining these interventions does not lead to added value. This is an example where negative findings guide the way of future studies. What we learned is that we might change things in a few dimensions,” study investigator Malek Bajbouj, MD, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, told this news organization.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Urgent need for better treatment
MDD affects 10% of the global population. However, up to 30% of patients have an inadequate response to standard treatment of CBT, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of the two, highlighting the need to develop more effective therapeutic strategies, the investigators note.
A noninvasive approach, tDCS, in healthy populations, has been shown to enhance cognitive function in brain regions that are also relevant for CBT. Specifically, the investigators point out that tDCS can “positively modulate neuronal activity in prefrontal structures central for affective and cognitive processes,” including emotion regulation, cognitive control working memory, and learning.
Based on this early data, the investigators conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether tDCS combined with CBT might have clinically relevant synergistic effects.
The multicenter study included adults aged 20-65 years with a single or recurrent depressive episode who were either not receiving medication or receiving a stable regimen of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or mirtazapine (Remeron).
A total of 148 participants (89 women, 59 men) with a mean age of 41 years were randomly assigned to receive CBT alone (n = 53), CBT+ tDCS (n = 48) or CBT + sham tDCS (n = 47).
Participants attended a 6-week group intervention of 12 sessions of CBT. If assigned, tDCS was applied simultaneously. Active tDCS included stimulation with an intensity of 2 milliamps for 30 minutes.
The study’s primary outcome was the change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to post treatment in the intention-to-treat sample. A total of 126 patients completed the study.
At baseline, the average MADRS score was 23.0. In each of the study groups, MADRS scores were reduced by a mean of 6.5 points (95% confidence interval, 3.82-9.14 points). The Cohen d value was -0.90 (95% CI, -1.43 to -0.50), indicating a significant effect over time, the researchers report. However, they add that “there was not significant effect of group and no significant interaction of group x time, indicating the estimated additive effects were not statistically significant.”
Results suggest that more research is needed to optimize treatment synchronization to achieve synergies between noninvasive brain stimulation and psychotherapeutic interventions.
Beauty and promise
Commenting on the findings, Mark George, MD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Advanced Imaging Research and the Brain Stimulation Laboratory, Charleston, described the study as “a really good effort by a great group of researchers.”
It’s unclear, he added, why tDCS failed to augment CBT. “It may be about the nongeneralizability of tDCS to complex functions, it may be that they didn’t get the dose right, or it might be due to a placebo response,” he speculated.
Furthermore, “tDCS is the most simple form of brain stimulation. The beauty and promise of tDCS is that it is so inexpensive and safe,” Dr. George added.
If proven effective, tDCS could potentially be used at home and rolled out as a frontline therapy for depression, he added. “Everybody wants the technology to work as an antidepressant, since it could have a very big positive public health impact,” said Dr. George.
Referring to previous research showing tDCS’ ability to improve specific brain functions in healthy controls, Dr. George noted that the potential of tDCS may be limited to augmenting specific brain functions such as memory but not more complex behaviors like depression.
However, Dr. George believes a more plausible explanation is that the optimal dose for tDCS has not yet been determined.
With other types of neuromodulation, such as electroconvulsive therapy, “we know that we’re in the brain with the right dose. But for tDCS, we don’t know that, and we’ve got to figure that out before it’s ever really going to make it [as a treatment],” he said.
“There have been great advances through the years in the field of brain stimulation and the treatment of depression. But rates of depression and suicide are continuing to grow, and we have not yet made a significant dent in treatment, in part because these technologies require equipment, [and] they’re expensive. So when we figure out tDCS, it will be a very important piece of our toolkit – a real game changer,” Dr. George added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials showed adjunctive transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was not superior to sham-tDCS plus CBT or CBT alone.
“Combining these interventions does not lead to added value. This is an example where negative findings guide the way of future studies. What we learned is that we might change things in a few dimensions,” study investigator Malek Bajbouj, MD, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, told this news organization.
The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
Urgent need for better treatment
MDD affects 10% of the global population. However, up to 30% of patients have an inadequate response to standard treatment of CBT, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of the two, highlighting the need to develop more effective therapeutic strategies, the investigators note.
A noninvasive approach, tDCS, in healthy populations, has been shown to enhance cognitive function in brain regions that are also relevant for CBT. Specifically, the investigators point out that tDCS can “positively modulate neuronal activity in prefrontal structures central for affective and cognitive processes,” including emotion regulation, cognitive control working memory, and learning.
Based on this early data, the investigators conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether tDCS combined with CBT might have clinically relevant synergistic effects.
The multicenter study included adults aged 20-65 years with a single or recurrent depressive episode who were either not receiving medication or receiving a stable regimen of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or mirtazapine (Remeron).
A total of 148 participants (89 women, 59 men) with a mean age of 41 years were randomly assigned to receive CBT alone (n = 53), CBT+ tDCS (n = 48) or CBT + sham tDCS (n = 47).
Participants attended a 6-week group intervention of 12 sessions of CBT. If assigned, tDCS was applied simultaneously. Active tDCS included stimulation with an intensity of 2 milliamps for 30 minutes.
The study’s primary outcome was the change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to post treatment in the intention-to-treat sample. A total of 126 patients completed the study.
At baseline, the average MADRS score was 23.0. In each of the study groups, MADRS scores were reduced by a mean of 6.5 points (95% confidence interval, 3.82-9.14 points). The Cohen d value was -0.90 (95% CI, -1.43 to -0.50), indicating a significant effect over time, the researchers report. However, they add that “there was not significant effect of group and no significant interaction of group x time, indicating the estimated additive effects were not statistically significant.”
Results suggest that more research is needed to optimize treatment synchronization to achieve synergies between noninvasive brain stimulation and psychotherapeutic interventions.
Beauty and promise
Commenting on the findings, Mark George, MD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Advanced Imaging Research and the Brain Stimulation Laboratory, Charleston, described the study as “a really good effort by a great group of researchers.”
It’s unclear, he added, why tDCS failed to augment CBT. “It may be about the nongeneralizability of tDCS to complex functions, it may be that they didn’t get the dose right, or it might be due to a placebo response,” he speculated.
Furthermore, “tDCS is the most simple form of brain stimulation. The beauty and promise of tDCS is that it is so inexpensive and safe,” Dr. George added.
If proven effective, tDCS could potentially be used at home and rolled out as a frontline therapy for depression, he added. “Everybody wants the technology to work as an antidepressant, since it could have a very big positive public health impact,” said Dr. George.
Referring to previous research showing tDCS’ ability to improve specific brain functions in healthy controls, Dr. George noted that the potential of tDCS may be limited to augmenting specific brain functions such as memory but not more complex behaviors like depression.
However, Dr. George believes a more plausible explanation is that the optimal dose for tDCS has not yet been determined.
With other types of neuromodulation, such as electroconvulsive therapy, “we know that we’re in the brain with the right dose. But for tDCS, we don’t know that, and we’ve got to figure that out before it’s ever really going to make it [as a treatment],” he said.
“There have been great advances through the years in the field of brain stimulation and the treatment of depression. But rates of depression and suicide are continuing to grow, and we have not yet made a significant dent in treatment, in part because these technologies require equipment, [and] they’re expensive. So when we figure out tDCS, it will be a very important piece of our toolkit – a real game changer,” Dr. George added.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY
Higher ‘chemical restraint’ rates in Black psych patients in the ED
Black patients presenting with psychiatric disorders to hospital emergency departments across the United States have significantly higher rates of chemical restraint than their White counterparts, new research shows.
The investigators also found White patients were more likely to receive chemical sedation at hospitals with a higher proportion of Black patients – a finding that suggests hospital demographics influence practice patterns and that structural racism may be a root cause.
“There is a large disparity in the rates at which patients who presented to EDs nationally in the United States are restrained by race. You are 63% more likely, for the same set of chief complaints, to be chemically sedated if you are Black versus if you’re White,” senior investigator Ari Friedman, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine, and medical ethics and health policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.
“The major mediator of that difference is the institution you are at – hospitals that primarily serve Black patients are more likely to chemically sedate their patients for these chief complaints – including White patients. So, it’s mediated by the practice pattern and environment,” Dr. Friedman added.
The study was published in the May issue of Annals of Epidemiology.
First large-scale study
Chemical sedation, also known as chemical restraint, is used to calm and help protect patients from harming themselves or others. Previous research on racial differences in the care of ED psychiatric patients with agitation suggests that there may be treatment disparities.
“Previous research from single institutions [has] shown that Black patients are more likely than White patients to be physically restrained, and this has been shown to be true among adult patients and pediatric patients,” lead author Utsha Khatri, MD, assistant professor of emergency medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine, New York, told this news organization.
Specifically, two single-institution studies within the last year revealed similar disparities, with higher rates of physical restraint for Black and Hispanic psychiatric patients in the ED. Another recent study showed an association with race, ethnicity, and pharmacological restraint use among pediatric patients presenting to the ED for mental health concerns.
“There has been work in psychiatry on disparities in this context, although there is less work in emergency departments,” said Dr. Friedman. “We looked across all U.S. EDs as opposed to within a single health system. The major trade-offs for us were that we weren’t able to observe restraint orders, which don’t find their way into national datasets, so we had to make some inferences based on the type of medications given.”
For the study the investigators analyzed data from 2008-2018 through the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Survey (NHAMCS) database. They examined the association of race and the administration of chemical sedation, with either an antipsychotic or ketamine, in ED visits for psychiatric disorders. These were any visit where the reason for the visit was “symptoms referable to psychological and mental disorders.”
Of the 76.2 million total ED visits evaluated, the researchers found that Black patients presenting with a psychiatric disorder were significantly more likely to receive chemical sedation with antipsychotics or ketamine than White patients presenting with the same conditions (5.3% vs. 3.0%; P < .01). This difference remained significant when accounting for admission or transfer to psychiatric facilities.
Combatting the forces of racism
When researchers accounted for the percent of hospital population that was Black, they found that patient race no longer affected the likelihood of chemical restraint.
“We found the key source of this racial disparity in use of chemical sedation is accounted for by the fact that hospitals that treat a higher proportion of Black patients tend to use more sedation,” said Dr. Khatri.
“Our findings suggest that patients who present to hospitals that serve a patient population that is 60% Black would have [a] roughly 1.8 times likelihood of getting chemically sedated, compared with a hospital that serves a population that is 10% Black,” she added.
“When a hospital has fewer resources, they often don’t have the staff or time to de-escalate a patient in distress and can have to resort to chemical sedation more quickly than a hospital with ample staff and resources,” said Dr. Friedman in a release.
Dr. Khatri added that the study highlights the need to combat the forces of racism by focusing not just on provider bias but by addressing the “underlying structural issues that lead to Black patients getting worse care based on where they live.”
“Hospitals have unequal distribution of resources and quality, largely patterned on the racial makeup of their patients. Dedicated training and funding for de-escalation techniques as well as sufficient staffing and availability of outpatient mental health care may help keep both patients and staff safe by reducing the use of physical restraint and chemical sedation in appropriate circumstances,” said Dr. Khatri.
Dr. Friedman noted that there will always be a need for restraint use to facilitate rapid medical evaluation and stabilization of patients, but “we want to make it as humane, thoughtful, and rare as possible, and to have a large armamentarium of alternative strategies that can be equitably applied across emergency departments.”
Need for widespread, systemic change
Commenting on the findings, Regina James, MD, the American Psychiatric Association’s chief of Diversity and Health Equity and deputy medical director, said the large-scale study confirms the widespread existence of racial and ethnic disparities in patients with psychiatric disorders.
“This study and previous studies, not only in psychiatry but in other areas of medicine, all bring to light that there continues to be evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in health care, and this is consistent across a range of illnesses and health care services,” said Dr. James.
“It’s important that as we think about the solution, we also think about the etiology of the problem and the layers that have contributed to it – understanding, embracing, and recognizing that these differences didn’t just come up de novo. It’s policies, practices, and behaviors that got us to this point, and it’s going to be policies, practices, and behaviors that are going to move us away from this point,” noted Dr. James.
She added that future research should focus on further understanding which factors exacerbate agitation among patients and what resources directed at the hospital level, including de-escalation training, nursing staff, and waiting room crowding, may be effective at reducing the use of chemical sedation when clinically appropriate.
The authors and Dr. James report no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Black patients presenting with psychiatric disorders to hospital emergency departments across the United States have significantly higher rates of chemical restraint than their White counterparts, new research shows.
The investigators also found White patients were more likely to receive chemical sedation at hospitals with a higher proportion of Black patients – a finding that suggests hospital demographics influence practice patterns and that structural racism may be a root cause.
“There is a large disparity in the rates at which patients who presented to EDs nationally in the United States are restrained by race. You are 63% more likely, for the same set of chief complaints, to be chemically sedated if you are Black versus if you’re White,” senior investigator Ari Friedman, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine, and medical ethics and health policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.
“The major mediator of that difference is the institution you are at – hospitals that primarily serve Black patients are more likely to chemically sedate their patients for these chief complaints – including White patients. So, it’s mediated by the practice pattern and environment,” Dr. Friedman added.
The study was published in the May issue of Annals of Epidemiology.
First large-scale study
Chemical sedation, also known as chemical restraint, is used to calm and help protect patients from harming themselves or others. Previous research on racial differences in the care of ED psychiatric patients with agitation suggests that there may be treatment disparities.
“Previous research from single institutions [has] shown that Black patients are more likely than White patients to be physically restrained, and this has been shown to be true among adult patients and pediatric patients,” lead author Utsha Khatri, MD, assistant professor of emergency medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine, New York, told this news organization.
Specifically, two single-institution studies within the last year revealed similar disparities, with higher rates of physical restraint for Black and Hispanic psychiatric patients in the ED. Another recent study showed an association with race, ethnicity, and pharmacological restraint use among pediatric patients presenting to the ED for mental health concerns.
“There has been work in psychiatry on disparities in this context, although there is less work in emergency departments,” said Dr. Friedman. “We looked across all U.S. EDs as opposed to within a single health system. The major trade-offs for us were that we weren’t able to observe restraint orders, which don’t find their way into national datasets, so we had to make some inferences based on the type of medications given.”
For the study the investigators analyzed data from 2008-2018 through the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Survey (NHAMCS) database. They examined the association of race and the administration of chemical sedation, with either an antipsychotic or ketamine, in ED visits for psychiatric disorders. These were any visit where the reason for the visit was “symptoms referable to psychological and mental disorders.”
Of the 76.2 million total ED visits evaluated, the researchers found that Black patients presenting with a psychiatric disorder were significantly more likely to receive chemical sedation with antipsychotics or ketamine than White patients presenting with the same conditions (5.3% vs. 3.0%; P < .01). This difference remained significant when accounting for admission or transfer to psychiatric facilities.
Combatting the forces of racism
When researchers accounted for the percent of hospital population that was Black, they found that patient race no longer affected the likelihood of chemical restraint.
“We found the key source of this racial disparity in use of chemical sedation is accounted for by the fact that hospitals that treat a higher proportion of Black patients tend to use more sedation,” said Dr. Khatri.
“Our findings suggest that patients who present to hospitals that serve a patient population that is 60% Black would have [a] roughly 1.8 times likelihood of getting chemically sedated, compared with a hospital that serves a population that is 10% Black,” she added.
“When a hospital has fewer resources, they often don’t have the staff or time to de-escalate a patient in distress and can have to resort to chemical sedation more quickly than a hospital with ample staff and resources,” said Dr. Friedman in a release.
Dr. Khatri added that the study highlights the need to combat the forces of racism by focusing not just on provider bias but by addressing the “underlying structural issues that lead to Black patients getting worse care based on where they live.”
“Hospitals have unequal distribution of resources and quality, largely patterned on the racial makeup of their patients. Dedicated training and funding for de-escalation techniques as well as sufficient staffing and availability of outpatient mental health care may help keep both patients and staff safe by reducing the use of physical restraint and chemical sedation in appropriate circumstances,” said Dr. Khatri.
Dr. Friedman noted that there will always be a need for restraint use to facilitate rapid medical evaluation and stabilization of patients, but “we want to make it as humane, thoughtful, and rare as possible, and to have a large armamentarium of alternative strategies that can be equitably applied across emergency departments.”
Need for widespread, systemic change
Commenting on the findings, Regina James, MD, the American Psychiatric Association’s chief of Diversity and Health Equity and deputy medical director, said the large-scale study confirms the widespread existence of racial and ethnic disparities in patients with psychiatric disorders.
“This study and previous studies, not only in psychiatry but in other areas of medicine, all bring to light that there continues to be evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in health care, and this is consistent across a range of illnesses and health care services,” said Dr. James.
“It’s important that as we think about the solution, we also think about the etiology of the problem and the layers that have contributed to it – understanding, embracing, and recognizing that these differences didn’t just come up de novo. It’s policies, practices, and behaviors that got us to this point, and it’s going to be policies, practices, and behaviors that are going to move us away from this point,” noted Dr. James.
She added that future research should focus on further understanding which factors exacerbate agitation among patients and what resources directed at the hospital level, including de-escalation training, nursing staff, and waiting room crowding, may be effective at reducing the use of chemical sedation when clinically appropriate.
The authors and Dr. James report no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Black patients presenting with psychiatric disorders to hospital emergency departments across the United States have significantly higher rates of chemical restraint than their White counterparts, new research shows.
The investigators also found White patients were more likely to receive chemical sedation at hospitals with a higher proportion of Black patients – a finding that suggests hospital demographics influence practice patterns and that structural racism may be a root cause.
“There is a large disparity in the rates at which patients who presented to EDs nationally in the United States are restrained by race. You are 63% more likely, for the same set of chief complaints, to be chemically sedated if you are Black versus if you’re White,” senior investigator Ari Friedman, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of emergency medicine, and medical ethics and health policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.
“The major mediator of that difference is the institution you are at – hospitals that primarily serve Black patients are more likely to chemically sedate their patients for these chief complaints – including White patients. So, it’s mediated by the practice pattern and environment,” Dr. Friedman added.
The study was published in the May issue of Annals of Epidemiology.
First large-scale study
Chemical sedation, also known as chemical restraint, is used to calm and help protect patients from harming themselves or others. Previous research on racial differences in the care of ED psychiatric patients with agitation suggests that there may be treatment disparities.
“Previous research from single institutions [has] shown that Black patients are more likely than White patients to be physically restrained, and this has been shown to be true among adult patients and pediatric patients,” lead author Utsha Khatri, MD, assistant professor of emergency medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine, New York, told this news organization.
Specifically, two single-institution studies within the last year revealed similar disparities, with higher rates of physical restraint for Black and Hispanic psychiatric patients in the ED. Another recent study showed an association with race, ethnicity, and pharmacological restraint use among pediatric patients presenting to the ED for mental health concerns.
“There has been work in psychiatry on disparities in this context, although there is less work in emergency departments,” said Dr. Friedman. “We looked across all U.S. EDs as opposed to within a single health system. The major trade-offs for us were that we weren’t able to observe restraint orders, which don’t find their way into national datasets, so we had to make some inferences based on the type of medications given.”
For the study the investigators analyzed data from 2008-2018 through the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Survey (NHAMCS) database. They examined the association of race and the administration of chemical sedation, with either an antipsychotic or ketamine, in ED visits for psychiatric disorders. These were any visit where the reason for the visit was “symptoms referable to psychological and mental disorders.”
Of the 76.2 million total ED visits evaluated, the researchers found that Black patients presenting with a psychiatric disorder were significantly more likely to receive chemical sedation with antipsychotics or ketamine than White patients presenting with the same conditions (5.3% vs. 3.0%; P < .01). This difference remained significant when accounting for admission or transfer to psychiatric facilities.
Combatting the forces of racism
When researchers accounted for the percent of hospital population that was Black, they found that patient race no longer affected the likelihood of chemical restraint.
“We found the key source of this racial disparity in use of chemical sedation is accounted for by the fact that hospitals that treat a higher proportion of Black patients tend to use more sedation,” said Dr. Khatri.
“Our findings suggest that patients who present to hospitals that serve a patient population that is 60% Black would have [a] roughly 1.8 times likelihood of getting chemically sedated, compared with a hospital that serves a population that is 10% Black,” she added.
“When a hospital has fewer resources, they often don’t have the staff or time to de-escalate a patient in distress and can have to resort to chemical sedation more quickly than a hospital with ample staff and resources,” said Dr. Friedman in a release.
Dr. Khatri added that the study highlights the need to combat the forces of racism by focusing not just on provider bias but by addressing the “underlying structural issues that lead to Black patients getting worse care based on where they live.”
“Hospitals have unequal distribution of resources and quality, largely patterned on the racial makeup of their patients. Dedicated training and funding for de-escalation techniques as well as sufficient staffing and availability of outpatient mental health care may help keep both patients and staff safe by reducing the use of physical restraint and chemical sedation in appropriate circumstances,” said Dr. Khatri.
Dr. Friedman noted that there will always be a need for restraint use to facilitate rapid medical evaluation and stabilization of patients, but “we want to make it as humane, thoughtful, and rare as possible, and to have a large armamentarium of alternative strategies that can be equitably applied across emergency departments.”
Need for widespread, systemic change
Commenting on the findings, Regina James, MD, the American Psychiatric Association’s chief of Diversity and Health Equity and deputy medical director, said the large-scale study confirms the widespread existence of racial and ethnic disparities in patients with psychiatric disorders.
“This study and previous studies, not only in psychiatry but in other areas of medicine, all bring to light that there continues to be evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in health care, and this is consistent across a range of illnesses and health care services,” said Dr. James.
“It’s important that as we think about the solution, we also think about the etiology of the problem and the layers that have contributed to it – understanding, embracing, and recognizing that these differences didn’t just come up de novo. It’s policies, practices, and behaviors that got us to this point, and it’s going to be policies, practices, and behaviors that are going to move us away from this point,” noted Dr. James.
She added that future research should focus on further understanding which factors exacerbate agitation among patients and what resources directed at the hospital level, including de-escalation training, nursing staff, and waiting room crowding, may be effective at reducing the use of chemical sedation when clinically appropriate.
The authors and Dr. James report no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-term cannabis use linked to dementia risk factors
A large prospective, longitudinal study showed long-term cannabis users had an intelligence quotient (IQ) decline from age 18 to midlife (mean, 5.5 IQ points), poorer learning and processing speed, compared with childhood, and self-reported memory and attention problems. Long-term cannabis users also showed hippocampal atrophy at midlife (age 45), which combined with mild midlife cognitive deficits, all known risk factors for dementia.
“Long-term cannabis users – people who have used cannabis from 18 or 19 years old and continued using through midlife – showed cognitive deficits, compared with nonusers. They also showed more severe cognitive deficits, compared with long-term alcohol users and long-term tobacco users. But people who used infrequently or recreationally in midlife did not show as severe cognitive deficits. Cognitive deficits were confined to cannabis users,” lead investigator Madeline Meier, PhD, associate professor of psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, said in an interview.
“Long-term cannabis users had smaller hippocampal volume, but we also found that smaller hippocampal volume did not explain the cognitive deficits among the long-term cannabis users,” she added.
The study was recently published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Growing use in Boomers
Long-term cannabis use has been associated with memory problems. Studies examining the impact of cannabis use on the brain have shown conflicting results. Some suggest regular use in adolescence is associated with altered connectivity and reduced volume of brain regions involved in executive functions such as memory, learning, and impulse control compared with those who do not use cannabis.
Others found no significant structural differences between the brains of cannabis users and nonusers.
An earlier, large longitudinal study in New Zealand found that persistent cannabis use (with frequent use starting in adolescence) was associated with a loss of an average of six (or up to eight) IQ points measured in mid-adulthood.
Cannabis use is increasing among Baby Boomers – a group born between 1946 and 1964 – who used cannabis at historically high rates as young adults, and who now use it at historically high rates in midlife and as older adults.
To date, case-control studies, which are predominantly in adolescents and young adults, have found that cannabis users show subtle cognitive deficits and structural brain differences, but it is unclear whether these differences in young cannabis users might be larger in midlife and in older adults who have longer histories of use.
The study included a representative cohort of 1,037 individuals in Dunedin, New Zealand, born between April 1972 and March 1973, and followed from age 3 to 45.
Cannabis use and dependence were assessed at ages 18, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. IQ was assessed at ages 7, 9, 11, and 45. Specific neuropsychological functions and hippocampal volume were assessed at age 45.
“Most of the previous research has focused on adolescent and young-adult cannabis users. What we’re looking at here is long-term cannabis users in midlife, and we’re finding that long-term users show cognitive deficits. But we’re not just looking at a snapshot of people in midlife, we’re also doing a longitudinal comparison – comparing them to themselves in childhood. We saw that long-term cannabis users showed a decline in IQ from childhood to adulthood,” said Dr. Meier.
Participants in the study are members of the Dunedin Longitudinal Study, a representative birth cohort (n = 1,037; 91% of eligible births; 52% male) born between April 1972 and March 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, who participated in the first assessment at age 3.
This cohort matched socioeconomic status (SES), key health indicators, and demographics. Assessments were carried out at birth and ages 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. IQ was assessed at ages 7, 9, 11, and 45. Specific neuropsychological functions and hippocampal volume were assessed at age 45.
Shrinking hippocampal volume
Cannabis use, cognitive function, and hippocampal volume were assessed comparing long-term cannabis users (n = 84) against five distinct groups:
- Lifelong cannabis nonusers (n = 196) – to replicate the control group most often reported in the case-control literature
- Midlife recreational cannabis users (n = 65) – to determine if cognitive deficits and structural brain differences are apparent in nonproblem users – the majority of cannabis users
- Long-term tobacco users (n = 75)
- Long-term alcohol users (n = 57) – benchmark comparisons for any cannabis findings and to disentangle potential cannabis effects from tobacco and alcohol effects
- Cannabis quitters (n = 58) – to determine whether differences are apparent after cessation
Tests were conducted on dose-response associations using continuously measured persistence of cannabis use, rigorously adjusting for numerous confounders derived from multiple longitudinal waves and data sources.
The investigators also tested whether associations between continuously measured persistence of cannabis use and cognitive deficits were mediated by hippocampal volume differences.
The hippocampus was the area of focus because it has a high density of cannabinoid receptors and is also instrumental for learning and memory, which is one of the most consistently impaired cognitive domains in cannabis users, and has been the brain region that most consistently emerges as smaller in cannabis users relative to controls. Structural MRI was done at age 45 for 875 participants (93% of age 45 participants).
Of 997 cohort members still alive at age 45, 938 (94.1%) were assessed at age 45. Age 45 participants did not differ significantly from other participants on childhood SES, childhood self-control, or childhood IQ. Cognitive functioning among midlife recreational cannabis users was similar to representative cohort norms, suggesting that infrequent recreational cannabis use in midlife is unlikely to compromise cognitive functioning.
However, long-term cannabis users did not perform significantly worse on any test than cannabis quitters. Cannabis quitters showed subtle cognitive deficits that may explain inconsistent findings on the benefits of cessation.
Smaller hippocampal volume is thought to be a possible mediator of cannabis-related cognitive deficits because the hippocampus is rich in CB1 receptors and is involved in learning and memory.
Long-term cannabis users had smaller bilateral volume in total hippocampus and 5 of 12 structurally and functionally distinct subregions (tail, hippocampal amygdala transition area, CA1, molecular layer, and dentate gyrus), and significantly smaller volumes than midlife recreational cannabis users in the left and right hippocampus, and 3 of 12 subfields (tail, CA1, and molecular layer), compared with non-users, consistent with case-control studies.
More potent
“If you’ve been using cannabis very long term and now are in midlife, you might want to consider quitting. Quitting is associated with slightly better cognitive performance in midlife. We also need to watch for risk of dementia. We know that people who show cognitive deficits at midlife are at elevated risk for later life dementia. And the deficits we saw among long-term cannabis users (although fairly mild), they were in the range in terms of effect size of what we see among people in other studies who have gone on to develop dementia in later life,” said Dr. Meier.
The study findings conflict with those of other studies, including one by the same research group, which compared the cognitive functioning of twins who were discordant for cannabis use and found little evidence of cannabis-related cognitive deficits. Because long-term cannabis users also use tobacco, alcohol, and other illicit drugs, disentangling cannabis effects from other substances is challenging.
“Long-term cannabis users tend to be long-term polysubstance users, so it’s hard to isolate,” said Dr. Meier.
Additionally, some group sizes were small, raising concerns about low statistical power.
“Group sizes were small but we didn’t rely only on those group comparisons; however, we did find statistical differences. We also tested highly statistically powered dose-response associations between persistence of cannabis use over ages 18-45 and each of our outcomes (IQ, learning, and processing speed in midlife) while adjusting possible alternate explanations such as low childhood IQ, other substance use, [and] socioeconomic backgrounds.
“These dose-response associations used large sample sizes, were highly powered, and took into account a number of alternative explanations. These two different approaches showed very similar findings and one bolstered the other,” said Dr. Meier.
The study’s results were based on individuals who began using cannabis in the 1980s or ‘90s, but the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has risen in recent years.
“When the study began, THC concentration was approximately 4%. Over the last decade we have seen it go up to 12% or even higher. A recent study surveying U.S. dispensaries found 20% THC. If THC accounts for impairment, then the effects can be larger [with higher concentrations]. One of the challenges in the U.S. is that there are laws prohibiting researchers from testing cannabis, so we have to rely on product labels, which we know are unreliable,” said Dr. Meier.
A separate report is forthcoming with results of exploratory analyses of associations between long-term cannabis use and comprehensive MRI measures of global and regional gray and white matter.
The data will also be used to answer a number of different questions about cognitive deficits, brain structure, aging preparedness, social preparedness (strength of social networks), financial and health preparedness, and biological aging (the pace of aging relative to chronological age) in long-term cannabis users, Dr. Meier noted.
‘Fantastic’ research
Commenting on the research for this news organization , Andrew J. Saxon, MD, professor, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at University of Washington, Seattle, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Addiction Psychiatry, said the study “provides more evidence that heavy and regular cannabis use is not benign behavior.”
“It’s a fantastic piece of research in which they enrolled participants at birth and have followed them up to age 45. In most of the other research that has been done, we have no idea what their baseline was. What’s so remarkable here is that they can clearly demonstrate the loss of IQ points from childhood to age 45,” said Dr. Saxon.
“It is clear that, in people using cannabis long term, cognition is impaired. It would be good to have a better handle on how much cognitive function can be regained if you quit, because that could be a motivator for quitting in people where cannabis is having an adverse effect on their lives,” he added.
On the issue of THC potency, Dr. Saxon said that, while it’s true the potency of cannabis is increasing in terms of THC concentrations, the question is: “Do people who use cannabis use a set amount or do they imbibe until they achieve the state of altered consciousness that they’re seeking? Although there has been some research in the area of self-regulation and cannabis potency, we do not yet have the answers to determine if there is any causation,” said Dr. Saxon.
Dr. Meier and Dr. Saxon reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A large prospective, longitudinal study showed long-term cannabis users had an intelligence quotient (IQ) decline from age 18 to midlife (mean, 5.5 IQ points), poorer learning and processing speed, compared with childhood, and self-reported memory and attention problems. Long-term cannabis users also showed hippocampal atrophy at midlife (age 45), which combined with mild midlife cognitive deficits, all known risk factors for dementia.
“Long-term cannabis users – people who have used cannabis from 18 or 19 years old and continued using through midlife – showed cognitive deficits, compared with nonusers. They also showed more severe cognitive deficits, compared with long-term alcohol users and long-term tobacco users. But people who used infrequently or recreationally in midlife did not show as severe cognitive deficits. Cognitive deficits were confined to cannabis users,” lead investigator Madeline Meier, PhD, associate professor of psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, said in an interview.
“Long-term cannabis users had smaller hippocampal volume, but we also found that smaller hippocampal volume did not explain the cognitive deficits among the long-term cannabis users,” she added.
The study was recently published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Growing use in Boomers
Long-term cannabis use has been associated with memory problems. Studies examining the impact of cannabis use on the brain have shown conflicting results. Some suggest regular use in adolescence is associated with altered connectivity and reduced volume of brain regions involved in executive functions such as memory, learning, and impulse control compared with those who do not use cannabis.
Others found no significant structural differences between the brains of cannabis users and nonusers.
An earlier, large longitudinal study in New Zealand found that persistent cannabis use (with frequent use starting in adolescence) was associated with a loss of an average of six (or up to eight) IQ points measured in mid-adulthood.
Cannabis use is increasing among Baby Boomers – a group born between 1946 and 1964 – who used cannabis at historically high rates as young adults, and who now use it at historically high rates in midlife and as older adults.
To date, case-control studies, which are predominantly in adolescents and young adults, have found that cannabis users show subtle cognitive deficits and structural brain differences, but it is unclear whether these differences in young cannabis users might be larger in midlife and in older adults who have longer histories of use.
The study included a representative cohort of 1,037 individuals in Dunedin, New Zealand, born between April 1972 and March 1973, and followed from age 3 to 45.
Cannabis use and dependence were assessed at ages 18, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. IQ was assessed at ages 7, 9, 11, and 45. Specific neuropsychological functions and hippocampal volume were assessed at age 45.
“Most of the previous research has focused on adolescent and young-adult cannabis users. What we’re looking at here is long-term cannabis users in midlife, and we’re finding that long-term users show cognitive deficits. But we’re not just looking at a snapshot of people in midlife, we’re also doing a longitudinal comparison – comparing them to themselves in childhood. We saw that long-term cannabis users showed a decline in IQ from childhood to adulthood,” said Dr. Meier.
Participants in the study are members of the Dunedin Longitudinal Study, a representative birth cohort (n = 1,037; 91% of eligible births; 52% male) born between April 1972 and March 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, who participated in the first assessment at age 3.
This cohort matched socioeconomic status (SES), key health indicators, and demographics. Assessments were carried out at birth and ages 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. IQ was assessed at ages 7, 9, 11, and 45. Specific neuropsychological functions and hippocampal volume were assessed at age 45.
Shrinking hippocampal volume
Cannabis use, cognitive function, and hippocampal volume were assessed comparing long-term cannabis users (n = 84) against five distinct groups:
- Lifelong cannabis nonusers (n = 196) – to replicate the control group most often reported in the case-control literature
- Midlife recreational cannabis users (n = 65) – to determine if cognitive deficits and structural brain differences are apparent in nonproblem users – the majority of cannabis users
- Long-term tobacco users (n = 75)
- Long-term alcohol users (n = 57) – benchmark comparisons for any cannabis findings and to disentangle potential cannabis effects from tobacco and alcohol effects
- Cannabis quitters (n = 58) – to determine whether differences are apparent after cessation
Tests were conducted on dose-response associations using continuously measured persistence of cannabis use, rigorously adjusting for numerous confounders derived from multiple longitudinal waves and data sources.
The investigators also tested whether associations between continuously measured persistence of cannabis use and cognitive deficits were mediated by hippocampal volume differences.
The hippocampus was the area of focus because it has a high density of cannabinoid receptors and is also instrumental for learning and memory, which is one of the most consistently impaired cognitive domains in cannabis users, and has been the brain region that most consistently emerges as smaller in cannabis users relative to controls. Structural MRI was done at age 45 for 875 participants (93% of age 45 participants).
Of 997 cohort members still alive at age 45, 938 (94.1%) were assessed at age 45. Age 45 participants did not differ significantly from other participants on childhood SES, childhood self-control, or childhood IQ. Cognitive functioning among midlife recreational cannabis users was similar to representative cohort norms, suggesting that infrequent recreational cannabis use in midlife is unlikely to compromise cognitive functioning.
However, long-term cannabis users did not perform significantly worse on any test than cannabis quitters. Cannabis quitters showed subtle cognitive deficits that may explain inconsistent findings on the benefits of cessation.
Smaller hippocampal volume is thought to be a possible mediator of cannabis-related cognitive deficits because the hippocampus is rich in CB1 receptors and is involved in learning and memory.
Long-term cannabis users had smaller bilateral volume in total hippocampus and 5 of 12 structurally and functionally distinct subregions (tail, hippocampal amygdala transition area, CA1, molecular layer, and dentate gyrus), and significantly smaller volumes than midlife recreational cannabis users in the left and right hippocampus, and 3 of 12 subfields (tail, CA1, and molecular layer), compared with non-users, consistent with case-control studies.
More potent
“If you’ve been using cannabis very long term and now are in midlife, you might want to consider quitting. Quitting is associated with slightly better cognitive performance in midlife. We also need to watch for risk of dementia. We know that people who show cognitive deficits at midlife are at elevated risk for later life dementia. And the deficits we saw among long-term cannabis users (although fairly mild), they were in the range in terms of effect size of what we see among people in other studies who have gone on to develop dementia in later life,” said Dr. Meier.
The study findings conflict with those of other studies, including one by the same research group, which compared the cognitive functioning of twins who were discordant for cannabis use and found little evidence of cannabis-related cognitive deficits. Because long-term cannabis users also use tobacco, alcohol, and other illicit drugs, disentangling cannabis effects from other substances is challenging.
“Long-term cannabis users tend to be long-term polysubstance users, so it’s hard to isolate,” said Dr. Meier.
Additionally, some group sizes were small, raising concerns about low statistical power.
“Group sizes were small but we didn’t rely only on those group comparisons; however, we did find statistical differences. We also tested highly statistically powered dose-response associations between persistence of cannabis use over ages 18-45 and each of our outcomes (IQ, learning, and processing speed in midlife) while adjusting possible alternate explanations such as low childhood IQ, other substance use, [and] socioeconomic backgrounds.
“These dose-response associations used large sample sizes, were highly powered, and took into account a number of alternative explanations. These two different approaches showed very similar findings and one bolstered the other,” said Dr. Meier.
The study’s results were based on individuals who began using cannabis in the 1980s or ‘90s, but the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has risen in recent years.
“When the study began, THC concentration was approximately 4%. Over the last decade we have seen it go up to 12% or even higher. A recent study surveying U.S. dispensaries found 20% THC. If THC accounts for impairment, then the effects can be larger [with higher concentrations]. One of the challenges in the U.S. is that there are laws prohibiting researchers from testing cannabis, so we have to rely on product labels, which we know are unreliable,” said Dr. Meier.
A separate report is forthcoming with results of exploratory analyses of associations between long-term cannabis use and comprehensive MRI measures of global and regional gray and white matter.
The data will also be used to answer a number of different questions about cognitive deficits, brain structure, aging preparedness, social preparedness (strength of social networks), financial and health preparedness, and biological aging (the pace of aging relative to chronological age) in long-term cannabis users, Dr. Meier noted.
‘Fantastic’ research
Commenting on the research for this news organization , Andrew J. Saxon, MD, professor, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at University of Washington, Seattle, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Addiction Psychiatry, said the study “provides more evidence that heavy and regular cannabis use is not benign behavior.”
“It’s a fantastic piece of research in which they enrolled participants at birth and have followed them up to age 45. In most of the other research that has been done, we have no idea what their baseline was. What’s so remarkable here is that they can clearly demonstrate the loss of IQ points from childhood to age 45,” said Dr. Saxon.
“It is clear that, in people using cannabis long term, cognition is impaired. It would be good to have a better handle on how much cognitive function can be regained if you quit, because that could be a motivator for quitting in people where cannabis is having an adverse effect on their lives,” he added.
On the issue of THC potency, Dr. Saxon said that, while it’s true the potency of cannabis is increasing in terms of THC concentrations, the question is: “Do people who use cannabis use a set amount or do they imbibe until they achieve the state of altered consciousness that they’re seeking? Although there has been some research in the area of self-regulation and cannabis potency, we do not yet have the answers to determine if there is any causation,” said Dr. Saxon.
Dr. Meier and Dr. Saxon reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A large prospective, longitudinal study showed long-term cannabis users had an intelligence quotient (IQ) decline from age 18 to midlife (mean, 5.5 IQ points), poorer learning and processing speed, compared with childhood, and self-reported memory and attention problems. Long-term cannabis users also showed hippocampal atrophy at midlife (age 45), which combined with mild midlife cognitive deficits, all known risk factors for dementia.
“Long-term cannabis users – people who have used cannabis from 18 or 19 years old and continued using through midlife – showed cognitive deficits, compared with nonusers. They also showed more severe cognitive deficits, compared with long-term alcohol users and long-term tobacco users. But people who used infrequently or recreationally in midlife did not show as severe cognitive deficits. Cognitive deficits were confined to cannabis users,” lead investigator Madeline Meier, PhD, associate professor of psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, said in an interview.
“Long-term cannabis users had smaller hippocampal volume, but we also found that smaller hippocampal volume did not explain the cognitive deficits among the long-term cannabis users,” she added.
The study was recently published online in the American Journal of Psychiatry.
Growing use in Boomers
Long-term cannabis use has been associated with memory problems. Studies examining the impact of cannabis use on the brain have shown conflicting results. Some suggest regular use in adolescence is associated with altered connectivity and reduced volume of brain regions involved in executive functions such as memory, learning, and impulse control compared with those who do not use cannabis.
Others found no significant structural differences between the brains of cannabis users and nonusers.
An earlier, large longitudinal study in New Zealand found that persistent cannabis use (with frequent use starting in adolescence) was associated with a loss of an average of six (or up to eight) IQ points measured in mid-adulthood.
Cannabis use is increasing among Baby Boomers – a group born between 1946 and 1964 – who used cannabis at historically high rates as young adults, and who now use it at historically high rates in midlife and as older adults.
To date, case-control studies, which are predominantly in adolescents and young adults, have found that cannabis users show subtle cognitive deficits and structural brain differences, but it is unclear whether these differences in young cannabis users might be larger in midlife and in older adults who have longer histories of use.
The study included a representative cohort of 1,037 individuals in Dunedin, New Zealand, born between April 1972 and March 1973, and followed from age 3 to 45.
Cannabis use and dependence were assessed at ages 18, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. IQ was assessed at ages 7, 9, 11, and 45. Specific neuropsychological functions and hippocampal volume were assessed at age 45.
“Most of the previous research has focused on adolescent and young-adult cannabis users. What we’re looking at here is long-term cannabis users in midlife, and we’re finding that long-term users show cognitive deficits. But we’re not just looking at a snapshot of people in midlife, we’re also doing a longitudinal comparison – comparing them to themselves in childhood. We saw that long-term cannabis users showed a decline in IQ from childhood to adulthood,” said Dr. Meier.
Participants in the study are members of the Dunedin Longitudinal Study, a representative birth cohort (n = 1,037; 91% of eligible births; 52% male) born between April 1972 and March 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand, who participated in the first assessment at age 3.
This cohort matched socioeconomic status (SES), key health indicators, and demographics. Assessments were carried out at birth and ages 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 26, 32, 38, and 45. IQ was assessed at ages 7, 9, 11, and 45. Specific neuropsychological functions and hippocampal volume were assessed at age 45.
Shrinking hippocampal volume
Cannabis use, cognitive function, and hippocampal volume were assessed comparing long-term cannabis users (n = 84) against five distinct groups:
- Lifelong cannabis nonusers (n = 196) – to replicate the control group most often reported in the case-control literature
- Midlife recreational cannabis users (n = 65) – to determine if cognitive deficits and structural brain differences are apparent in nonproblem users – the majority of cannabis users
- Long-term tobacco users (n = 75)
- Long-term alcohol users (n = 57) – benchmark comparisons for any cannabis findings and to disentangle potential cannabis effects from tobacco and alcohol effects
- Cannabis quitters (n = 58) – to determine whether differences are apparent after cessation
Tests were conducted on dose-response associations using continuously measured persistence of cannabis use, rigorously adjusting for numerous confounders derived from multiple longitudinal waves and data sources.
The investigators also tested whether associations between continuously measured persistence of cannabis use and cognitive deficits were mediated by hippocampal volume differences.
The hippocampus was the area of focus because it has a high density of cannabinoid receptors and is also instrumental for learning and memory, which is one of the most consistently impaired cognitive domains in cannabis users, and has been the brain region that most consistently emerges as smaller in cannabis users relative to controls. Structural MRI was done at age 45 for 875 participants (93% of age 45 participants).
Of 997 cohort members still alive at age 45, 938 (94.1%) were assessed at age 45. Age 45 participants did not differ significantly from other participants on childhood SES, childhood self-control, or childhood IQ. Cognitive functioning among midlife recreational cannabis users was similar to representative cohort norms, suggesting that infrequent recreational cannabis use in midlife is unlikely to compromise cognitive functioning.
However, long-term cannabis users did not perform significantly worse on any test than cannabis quitters. Cannabis quitters showed subtle cognitive deficits that may explain inconsistent findings on the benefits of cessation.
Smaller hippocampal volume is thought to be a possible mediator of cannabis-related cognitive deficits because the hippocampus is rich in CB1 receptors and is involved in learning and memory.
Long-term cannabis users had smaller bilateral volume in total hippocampus and 5 of 12 structurally and functionally distinct subregions (tail, hippocampal amygdala transition area, CA1, molecular layer, and dentate gyrus), and significantly smaller volumes than midlife recreational cannabis users in the left and right hippocampus, and 3 of 12 subfields (tail, CA1, and molecular layer), compared with non-users, consistent with case-control studies.
More potent
“If you’ve been using cannabis very long term and now are in midlife, you might want to consider quitting. Quitting is associated with slightly better cognitive performance in midlife. We also need to watch for risk of dementia. We know that people who show cognitive deficits at midlife are at elevated risk for later life dementia. And the deficits we saw among long-term cannabis users (although fairly mild), they were in the range in terms of effect size of what we see among people in other studies who have gone on to develop dementia in later life,” said Dr. Meier.
The study findings conflict with those of other studies, including one by the same research group, which compared the cognitive functioning of twins who were discordant for cannabis use and found little evidence of cannabis-related cognitive deficits. Because long-term cannabis users also use tobacco, alcohol, and other illicit drugs, disentangling cannabis effects from other substances is challenging.
“Long-term cannabis users tend to be long-term polysubstance users, so it’s hard to isolate,” said Dr. Meier.
Additionally, some group sizes were small, raising concerns about low statistical power.
“Group sizes were small but we didn’t rely only on those group comparisons; however, we did find statistical differences. We also tested highly statistically powered dose-response associations between persistence of cannabis use over ages 18-45 and each of our outcomes (IQ, learning, and processing speed in midlife) while adjusting possible alternate explanations such as low childhood IQ, other substance use, [and] socioeconomic backgrounds.
“These dose-response associations used large sample sizes, were highly powered, and took into account a number of alternative explanations. These two different approaches showed very similar findings and one bolstered the other,” said Dr. Meier.
The study’s results were based on individuals who began using cannabis in the 1980s or ‘90s, but the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) has risen in recent years.
“When the study began, THC concentration was approximately 4%. Over the last decade we have seen it go up to 12% or even higher. A recent study surveying U.S. dispensaries found 20% THC. If THC accounts for impairment, then the effects can be larger [with higher concentrations]. One of the challenges in the U.S. is that there are laws prohibiting researchers from testing cannabis, so we have to rely on product labels, which we know are unreliable,” said Dr. Meier.
A separate report is forthcoming with results of exploratory analyses of associations between long-term cannabis use and comprehensive MRI measures of global and regional gray and white matter.
The data will also be used to answer a number of different questions about cognitive deficits, brain structure, aging preparedness, social preparedness (strength of social networks), financial and health preparedness, and biological aging (the pace of aging relative to chronological age) in long-term cannabis users, Dr. Meier noted.
‘Fantastic’ research
Commenting on the research for this news organization , Andrew J. Saxon, MD, professor, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences at University of Washington, Seattle, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Addiction Psychiatry, said the study “provides more evidence that heavy and regular cannabis use is not benign behavior.”
“It’s a fantastic piece of research in which they enrolled participants at birth and have followed them up to age 45. In most of the other research that has been done, we have no idea what their baseline was. What’s so remarkable here is that they can clearly demonstrate the loss of IQ points from childhood to age 45,” said Dr. Saxon.
“It is clear that, in people using cannabis long term, cognition is impaired. It would be good to have a better handle on how much cognitive function can be regained if you quit, because that could be a motivator for quitting in people where cannabis is having an adverse effect on their lives,” he added.
On the issue of THC potency, Dr. Saxon said that, while it’s true the potency of cannabis is increasing in terms of THC concentrations, the question is: “Do people who use cannabis use a set amount or do they imbibe until they achieve the state of altered consciousness that they’re seeking? Although there has been some research in the area of self-regulation and cannabis potency, we do not yet have the answers to determine if there is any causation,” said Dr. Saxon.
Dr. Meier and Dr. Saxon reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
Psilocybin ‘rewires’ the brain to alleviate depression
Led by investigators from the University of California, San Francisco, and Imperial College London’s Centre for Psychedelic Research, the findings come from a new analysis of brain scans of almost 60 patients with resistant depression treated with psilocybin.
“Not much is known about the changes in brain function after psychedelic experience. There has been much more research done on the acute brain action of psychedelics, but there is very little on the postacute or subacute changes in brain function,” study investigator Robin Carhart-Harris, PhD, former head of the Imperial Centre for Psychedelic Research and now director of the Neuroscape psychedelics division at UCSF, and senior author of the study, told this news organization.
“This research is a major advance because it is showing replication across two datasets with different designs. One in which the scanning is done 1 day after intervention and the other one when the posttreatment scanning is done 3 weeks after the second of two psilocybin therapy sessions,” Dr. Carhart-Harris added.
The study was published online in Nature Medicine.
A disruptor?
Psilocybin is one of a number of psychedelics under investigation as a potential therapy for psychiatric disorders. In the last 15 years, at least six separate clinical trials have reported impressive improvements in depressive symptoms with psilocybin therapy. Several studies have tested a synthesized a form of the drug to treat patients with depression and anxiety – with promising results.
However, the therapeutic action of psilocybin and other serotonergic psychedelics is still not completely understood, although it is known that they affect 5-HT2A receptors and are hypothesized to briefly disrupt these connections, allowing them to reform in new ways in the days and weeks following treatment.
This research assessed the subacute impact of psilocybin on brain function in two clinical trials of depression:
The first trial was an open-label trial of oral psilocybin in patients with treatment-resistant depression.
Patients had baseline clinical assessment and resting-state functional MRI, followed by fixed-order “low” (10 mg) and “high” (25 mg) psilocybin therapy dosing days separated by 1 week. Of the 19 patients recruited, 3 were excluded as a result of excessive fMRI head motion. The team confirmed an antidepressant effect of psilocybin in 16 patients via reduced questionnaire scores from baseline.
Brain network modularity was significantly reduced 1 day after psilocybin therapy in 10 of 16 participants (mean difference, –0.29; t15, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.50; P = .012; d = 0.72). This result implies an increase in functional connectivity between the brain’s main intrinsic networks.
Pre- vs posttreatment change in modularity significantly correlated with change in Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score at 6 months, relative to baseline (r14 = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.14-0.78, P = .033). Results imply that decreased brain modularity 1 day after psilocybin therapy relates to long-term improvements in symptom severity.
Effective antidepressant alternative?
The second trial was a double-blind, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial comparing psilocybin with escitalopram (Lexapro). Twenty-one patients were included in the escitalopram imaging sample and 22 patients were included in the psilocybin imaging sample.
Patients received either 2 x 25 mg oral psilocybin, 3 weeks apart, plus 6 weeks of daily placebo (psilocybin arm) or 2 x 1 mg oral psilocybin, 3 weeks apart, plus 6 weeks of daily escitalopram (10-20 mg) (escitalopram arm). Functional MRI was recorded at baseline and 3 weeks after the second psilocybin dose.
On average, BDI-measured reductions in depressive symptom severity were significantly greater under psilocybin than escitalopram, indicating superior efficacy of psilocybin therapy versus escitalopram.
Evidence indicated that the reduction in network modularity and its relationship to depression severity was specific to the psilocybin group. In the escitalopram group, network modularity did not change from baseline and there was no significant correlation between changes in modularity and changes in BDI scores.
Post–psilocybin therapy changes in network flexibility were correlated with changes in BDI score. After false discovery rate correction, increased executive network dynamic flexibility strongly correlated with greater symptom improvement at the 6-week primary endpoint for the psilocybin arm (r20, –0.76, 95% CI, −0.90 to –0.50, P = .001).
There were no significant correlations between changes in BDI scores and changes in dynamic flexibility in the escitalopram arm.
“These findings are important because for the first time we find that psilocybin works differently from conventional antidepressants, making the brain more flexible and fluid and less entrenched in the negative thinking patterns associated with depression. This supports our initial predictions and confirms psilocybin could be a real alternative approach to depression treatments,” study investigator David Nutt, DM, head of the Imperial Centre for Psychedelic Research, London, said in a release.
“In previous studies we had seen a similar effect in the brain when people were scanned whilst on a psychedelic, but here we’re seeing it weeks after treatment for depression, which suggests a carryover of the acute drug action,” said Dr. Carhart-Harris.
Durable effect?
“We don’t yet know how long the changes in brain activity seen with psilocybin therapy last, and we need to do more research to understand this,” said Dr. Carhart-Harris, who is a member of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences. “If the changes don’t last, then is it related to relapse into a depressive episode? We need to do follow-up scans to see where people’s brains are at 3 months or even 6 months after treatment.
“We do know that some people relapse, and it may be that after a while their brains revert to the rigid patterns of activity we see in depression.
“One exciting implication of our findings is that we have discovered a fundamental mechanism via which psychedelic therapy works not just for depression but other mental illnesses, such as anorexia or addiction. We now need to test if this is the case, and if it is, then we have found something important,” added Dr. Carhart-Harris.
Successful phase 3, double-blind randomized, controlled trials will be required to achieve licensing for psilocybin therapy, but pragmatic trials may better address questions regarding treatment practicability, specificity, and optimization. Given the emerging research into psychedelic therapy, it is important for large-scale trials to establish the generalizability, reliability, and specificity of the drug’s antidepressant response.
So how close are we to full federal approval for psilocybin in the treatment of depression? Dr. Carhart-Harris estimated that within 4-5 years is realistic at the federal level. At the state level, in Oregon psilocybin therapy is on track for approval in 2023, including for patients currently undergoing treatment for depressive disorders. In addition, things are opening up in Canada, with some special-access opportunities.
The researchers cautioned that, while these findings are encouraging, trials assessing psilocybin for depression have taken place under controlled, clinical conditions, using a regulated dose formulated in a laboratory, and involved extensive psychological support by a mental health professional – before, during, and after dosing. Taking psychedelics in the absence of these combined safeguards may not have a positive outcome.
The research was supported by funding from the Alex Mosley Charitable Trust and founding donors of the Imperial Centre for Psychedelic Research. One coauthor was supported by the Imperial College London EPSRC Centre London for doctoral training in neurotechnology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Led by investigators from the University of California, San Francisco, and Imperial College London’s Centre for Psychedelic Research, the findings come from a new analysis of brain scans of almost 60 patients with resistant depression treated with psilocybin.
“Not much is known about the changes in brain function after psychedelic experience. There has been much more research done on the acute brain action of psychedelics, but there is very little on the postacute or subacute changes in brain function,” study investigator Robin Carhart-Harris, PhD, former head of the Imperial Centre for Psychedelic Research and now director of the Neuroscape psychedelics division at UCSF, and senior author of the study, told this news organization.
“This research is a major advance because it is showing replication across two datasets with different designs. One in which the scanning is done 1 day after intervention and the other one when the posttreatment scanning is done 3 weeks after the second of two psilocybin therapy sessions,” Dr. Carhart-Harris added.
The study was published online in Nature Medicine.
A disruptor?
Psilocybin is one of a number of psychedelics under investigation as a potential therapy for psychiatric disorders. In the last 15 years, at least six separate clinical trials have reported impressive improvements in depressive symptoms with psilocybin therapy. Several studies have tested a synthesized a form of the drug to treat patients with depression and anxiety – with promising results.
However, the therapeutic action of psilocybin and other serotonergic psychedelics is still not completely understood, although it is known that they affect 5-HT2A receptors and are hypothesized to briefly disrupt these connections, allowing them to reform in new ways in the days and weeks following treatment.
This research assessed the subacute impact of psilocybin on brain function in two clinical trials of depression:
The first trial was an open-label trial of oral psilocybin in patients with treatment-resistant depression.
Patients had baseline clinical assessment and resting-state functional MRI, followed by fixed-order “low” (10 mg) and “high” (25 mg) psilocybin therapy dosing days separated by 1 week. Of the 19 patients recruited, 3 were excluded as a result of excessive fMRI head motion. The team confirmed an antidepressant effect of psilocybin in 16 patients via reduced questionnaire scores from baseline.
Brain network modularity was significantly reduced 1 day after psilocybin therapy in 10 of 16 participants (mean difference, –0.29; t15, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.50; P = .012; d = 0.72). This result implies an increase in functional connectivity between the brain’s main intrinsic networks.
Pre- vs posttreatment change in modularity significantly correlated with change in Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score at 6 months, relative to baseline (r14 = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.14-0.78, P = .033). Results imply that decreased brain modularity 1 day after psilocybin therapy relates to long-term improvements in symptom severity.
Effective antidepressant alternative?
The second trial was a double-blind, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial comparing psilocybin with escitalopram (Lexapro). Twenty-one patients were included in the escitalopram imaging sample and 22 patients were included in the psilocybin imaging sample.
Patients received either 2 x 25 mg oral psilocybin, 3 weeks apart, plus 6 weeks of daily placebo (psilocybin arm) or 2 x 1 mg oral psilocybin, 3 weeks apart, plus 6 weeks of daily escitalopram (10-20 mg) (escitalopram arm). Functional MRI was recorded at baseline and 3 weeks after the second psilocybin dose.
On average, BDI-measured reductions in depressive symptom severity were significantly greater under psilocybin than escitalopram, indicating superior efficacy of psilocybin therapy versus escitalopram.
Evidence indicated that the reduction in network modularity and its relationship to depression severity was specific to the psilocybin group. In the escitalopram group, network modularity did not change from baseline and there was no significant correlation between changes in modularity and changes in BDI scores.
Post–psilocybin therapy changes in network flexibility were correlated with changes in BDI score. After false discovery rate correction, increased executive network dynamic flexibility strongly correlated with greater symptom improvement at the 6-week primary endpoint for the psilocybin arm (r20, –0.76, 95% CI, −0.90 to –0.50, P = .001).
There were no significant correlations between changes in BDI scores and changes in dynamic flexibility in the escitalopram arm.
“These findings are important because for the first time we find that psilocybin works differently from conventional antidepressants, making the brain more flexible and fluid and less entrenched in the negative thinking patterns associated with depression. This supports our initial predictions and confirms psilocybin could be a real alternative approach to depression treatments,” study investigator David Nutt, DM, head of the Imperial Centre for Psychedelic Research, London, said in a release.
“In previous studies we had seen a similar effect in the brain when people were scanned whilst on a psychedelic, but here we’re seeing it weeks after treatment for depression, which suggests a carryover of the acute drug action,” said Dr. Carhart-Harris.
Durable effect?
“We don’t yet know how long the changes in brain activity seen with psilocybin therapy last, and we need to do more research to understand this,” said Dr. Carhart-Harris, who is a member of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences. “If the changes don’t last, then is it related to relapse into a depressive episode? We need to do follow-up scans to see where people’s brains are at 3 months or even 6 months after treatment.
“We do know that some people relapse, and it may be that after a while their brains revert to the rigid patterns of activity we see in depression.
“One exciting implication of our findings is that we have discovered a fundamental mechanism via which psychedelic therapy works not just for depression but other mental illnesses, such as anorexia or addiction. We now need to test if this is the case, and if it is, then we have found something important,” added Dr. Carhart-Harris.
Successful phase 3, double-blind randomized, controlled trials will be required to achieve licensing for psilocybin therapy, but pragmatic trials may better address questions regarding treatment practicability, specificity, and optimization. Given the emerging research into psychedelic therapy, it is important for large-scale trials to establish the generalizability, reliability, and specificity of the drug’s antidepressant response.
So how close are we to full federal approval for psilocybin in the treatment of depression? Dr. Carhart-Harris estimated that within 4-5 years is realistic at the federal level. At the state level, in Oregon psilocybin therapy is on track for approval in 2023, including for patients currently undergoing treatment for depressive disorders. In addition, things are opening up in Canada, with some special-access opportunities.
The researchers cautioned that, while these findings are encouraging, trials assessing psilocybin for depression have taken place under controlled, clinical conditions, using a regulated dose formulated in a laboratory, and involved extensive psychological support by a mental health professional – before, during, and after dosing. Taking psychedelics in the absence of these combined safeguards may not have a positive outcome.
The research was supported by funding from the Alex Mosley Charitable Trust and founding donors of the Imperial Centre for Psychedelic Research. One coauthor was supported by the Imperial College London EPSRC Centre London for doctoral training in neurotechnology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Led by investigators from the University of California, San Francisco, and Imperial College London’s Centre for Psychedelic Research, the findings come from a new analysis of brain scans of almost 60 patients with resistant depression treated with psilocybin.
“Not much is known about the changes in brain function after psychedelic experience. There has been much more research done on the acute brain action of psychedelics, but there is very little on the postacute or subacute changes in brain function,” study investigator Robin Carhart-Harris, PhD, former head of the Imperial Centre for Psychedelic Research and now director of the Neuroscape psychedelics division at UCSF, and senior author of the study, told this news organization.
“This research is a major advance because it is showing replication across two datasets with different designs. One in which the scanning is done 1 day after intervention and the other one when the posttreatment scanning is done 3 weeks after the second of two psilocybin therapy sessions,” Dr. Carhart-Harris added.
The study was published online in Nature Medicine.
A disruptor?
Psilocybin is one of a number of psychedelics under investigation as a potential therapy for psychiatric disorders. In the last 15 years, at least six separate clinical trials have reported impressive improvements in depressive symptoms with psilocybin therapy. Several studies have tested a synthesized a form of the drug to treat patients with depression and anxiety – with promising results.
However, the therapeutic action of psilocybin and other serotonergic psychedelics is still not completely understood, although it is known that they affect 5-HT2A receptors and are hypothesized to briefly disrupt these connections, allowing them to reform in new ways in the days and weeks following treatment.
This research assessed the subacute impact of psilocybin on brain function in two clinical trials of depression:
The first trial was an open-label trial of oral psilocybin in patients with treatment-resistant depression.
Patients had baseline clinical assessment and resting-state functional MRI, followed by fixed-order “low” (10 mg) and “high” (25 mg) psilocybin therapy dosing days separated by 1 week. Of the 19 patients recruited, 3 were excluded as a result of excessive fMRI head motion. The team confirmed an antidepressant effect of psilocybin in 16 patients via reduced questionnaire scores from baseline.
Brain network modularity was significantly reduced 1 day after psilocybin therapy in 10 of 16 participants (mean difference, –0.29; t15, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.50; P = .012; d = 0.72). This result implies an increase in functional connectivity between the brain’s main intrinsic networks.
Pre- vs posttreatment change in modularity significantly correlated with change in Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score at 6 months, relative to baseline (r14 = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.14-0.78, P = .033). Results imply that decreased brain modularity 1 day after psilocybin therapy relates to long-term improvements in symptom severity.
Effective antidepressant alternative?
The second trial was a double-blind, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial comparing psilocybin with escitalopram (Lexapro). Twenty-one patients were included in the escitalopram imaging sample and 22 patients were included in the psilocybin imaging sample.
Patients received either 2 x 25 mg oral psilocybin, 3 weeks apart, plus 6 weeks of daily placebo (psilocybin arm) or 2 x 1 mg oral psilocybin, 3 weeks apart, plus 6 weeks of daily escitalopram (10-20 mg) (escitalopram arm). Functional MRI was recorded at baseline and 3 weeks after the second psilocybin dose.
On average, BDI-measured reductions in depressive symptom severity were significantly greater under psilocybin than escitalopram, indicating superior efficacy of psilocybin therapy versus escitalopram.
Evidence indicated that the reduction in network modularity and its relationship to depression severity was specific to the psilocybin group. In the escitalopram group, network modularity did not change from baseline and there was no significant correlation between changes in modularity and changes in BDI scores.
Post–psilocybin therapy changes in network flexibility were correlated with changes in BDI score. After false discovery rate correction, increased executive network dynamic flexibility strongly correlated with greater symptom improvement at the 6-week primary endpoint for the psilocybin arm (r20, –0.76, 95% CI, −0.90 to –0.50, P = .001).
There were no significant correlations between changes in BDI scores and changes in dynamic flexibility in the escitalopram arm.
“These findings are important because for the first time we find that psilocybin works differently from conventional antidepressants, making the brain more flexible and fluid and less entrenched in the negative thinking patterns associated with depression. This supports our initial predictions and confirms psilocybin could be a real alternative approach to depression treatments,” study investigator David Nutt, DM, head of the Imperial Centre for Psychedelic Research, London, said in a release.
“In previous studies we had seen a similar effect in the brain when people were scanned whilst on a psychedelic, but here we’re seeing it weeks after treatment for depression, which suggests a carryover of the acute drug action,” said Dr. Carhart-Harris.
Durable effect?
“We don’t yet know how long the changes in brain activity seen with psilocybin therapy last, and we need to do more research to understand this,” said Dr. Carhart-Harris, who is a member of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences. “If the changes don’t last, then is it related to relapse into a depressive episode? We need to do follow-up scans to see where people’s brains are at 3 months or even 6 months after treatment.
“We do know that some people relapse, and it may be that after a while their brains revert to the rigid patterns of activity we see in depression.
“One exciting implication of our findings is that we have discovered a fundamental mechanism via which psychedelic therapy works not just for depression but other mental illnesses, such as anorexia or addiction. We now need to test if this is the case, and if it is, then we have found something important,” added Dr. Carhart-Harris.
Successful phase 3, double-blind randomized, controlled trials will be required to achieve licensing for psilocybin therapy, but pragmatic trials may better address questions regarding treatment practicability, specificity, and optimization. Given the emerging research into psychedelic therapy, it is important for large-scale trials to establish the generalizability, reliability, and specificity of the drug’s antidepressant response.
So how close are we to full federal approval for psilocybin in the treatment of depression? Dr. Carhart-Harris estimated that within 4-5 years is realistic at the federal level. At the state level, in Oregon psilocybin therapy is on track for approval in 2023, including for patients currently undergoing treatment for depressive disorders. In addition, things are opening up in Canada, with some special-access opportunities.
The researchers cautioned that, while these findings are encouraging, trials assessing psilocybin for depression have taken place under controlled, clinical conditions, using a regulated dose formulated in a laboratory, and involved extensive psychological support by a mental health professional – before, during, and after dosing. Taking psychedelics in the absence of these combined safeguards may not have a positive outcome.
The research was supported by funding from the Alex Mosley Charitable Trust and founding donors of the Imperial Centre for Psychedelic Research. One coauthor was supported by the Imperial College London EPSRC Centre London for doctoral training in neurotechnology.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
FDA okays first sublingual med for agitation in serious mental illness
This is the first FDA-approved, orally dissolving, self-administered sublingual treatment for this indication. With a demonstrated onset of action as early as 20 minutes, it shows a high response rate in patients at both 120-mcg and 180-mcg doses.
An estimated 7.3 million individuals in the United States are diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders, and up to one-quarter of them experience episodes of agitation that can occur 10-17 times annually. These episodes represent a significant burden for patients, caregivers, and the health care system.
“There are large numbers of patients who experience agitation associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, and this condition has been a long-standing challenge for health care professionals to treat,” said John Krystal, MD, the Robert L. McNeil Jr. Professor of Translational Research and chair of the department of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
“The approval of Igalmi, a self-administered film with a desirable onset of action, represents a milestone moment. It provides health care teams with an innovative tool to help control agitation. As clinicians, we welcome this much-needed new oral treatment option,” he added.
“Igalmi is the first new acute treatment for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder–associated agitation in nearly a decade and represents a differentiated approach to helping patients manage this difficult and debilitating symptom,” said Vimal Mehta, PhD, CEO of BioXcel Therapeutics.
The FDA approval of Igalmi is based on data from two pivotal randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trials that evaluated Igalmi for the acute treatment of agitation associated with schizophrenia (SERENITY I) or bipolar I or II disorder (SERENITY II).
The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥5% and at least twice the rate of placebo) were somnolence, paresthesia or oral hypoesthesia, dizziness, dry mouth, hypotension, and orthostatic hypotension. All adverse drug reactions were mild to moderate in severity. While Igalmi was not associated with any treatment-related serious adverse effects in phase 3 studies, it may cause notable side effects, including hypotension, orthostatic hypotension, bradycardia, QT interval prolongation, and somnolence.
As previously reported by this news organization, data from the phase 3 SERENITY II trial that evaluated Igalmi in bipolar disorders were published in JAMA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is the first FDA-approved, orally dissolving, self-administered sublingual treatment for this indication. With a demonstrated onset of action as early as 20 minutes, it shows a high response rate in patients at both 120-mcg and 180-mcg doses.
An estimated 7.3 million individuals in the United States are diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders, and up to one-quarter of them experience episodes of agitation that can occur 10-17 times annually. These episodes represent a significant burden for patients, caregivers, and the health care system.
“There are large numbers of patients who experience agitation associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, and this condition has been a long-standing challenge for health care professionals to treat,” said John Krystal, MD, the Robert L. McNeil Jr. Professor of Translational Research and chair of the department of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
“The approval of Igalmi, a self-administered film with a desirable onset of action, represents a milestone moment. It provides health care teams with an innovative tool to help control agitation. As clinicians, we welcome this much-needed new oral treatment option,” he added.
“Igalmi is the first new acute treatment for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder–associated agitation in nearly a decade and represents a differentiated approach to helping patients manage this difficult and debilitating symptom,” said Vimal Mehta, PhD, CEO of BioXcel Therapeutics.
The FDA approval of Igalmi is based on data from two pivotal randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trials that evaluated Igalmi for the acute treatment of agitation associated with schizophrenia (SERENITY I) or bipolar I or II disorder (SERENITY II).
The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥5% and at least twice the rate of placebo) were somnolence, paresthesia or oral hypoesthesia, dizziness, dry mouth, hypotension, and orthostatic hypotension. All adverse drug reactions were mild to moderate in severity. While Igalmi was not associated with any treatment-related serious adverse effects in phase 3 studies, it may cause notable side effects, including hypotension, orthostatic hypotension, bradycardia, QT interval prolongation, and somnolence.
As previously reported by this news organization, data from the phase 3 SERENITY II trial that evaluated Igalmi in bipolar disorders were published in JAMA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This is the first FDA-approved, orally dissolving, self-administered sublingual treatment for this indication. With a demonstrated onset of action as early as 20 minutes, it shows a high response rate in patients at both 120-mcg and 180-mcg doses.
An estimated 7.3 million individuals in the United States are diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders, and up to one-quarter of them experience episodes of agitation that can occur 10-17 times annually. These episodes represent a significant burden for patients, caregivers, and the health care system.
“There are large numbers of patients who experience agitation associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, and this condition has been a long-standing challenge for health care professionals to treat,” said John Krystal, MD, the Robert L. McNeil Jr. Professor of Translational Research and chair of the department of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
“The approval of Igalmi, a self-administered film with a desirable onset of action, represents a milestone moment. It provides health care teams with an innovative tool to help control agitation. As clinicians, we welcome this much-needed new oral treatment option,” he added.
“Igalmi is the first new acute treatment for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder–associated agitation in nearly a decade and represents a differentiated approach to helping patients manage this difficult and debilitating symptom,” said Vimal Mehta, PhD, CEO of BioXcel Therapeutics.
The FDA approval of Igalmi is based on data from two pivotal randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trials that evaluated Igalmi for the acute treatment of agitation associated with schizophrenia (SERENITY I) or bipolar I or II disorder (SERENITY II).
The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥5% and at least twice the rate of placebo) were somnolence, paresthesia or oral hypoesthesia, dizziness, dry mouth, hypotension, and orthostatic hypotension. All adverse drug reactions were mild to moderate in severity. While Igalmi was not associated with any treatment-related serious adverse effects in phase 3 studies, it may cause notable side effects, including hypotension, orthostatic hypotension, bradycardia, QT interval prolongation, and somnolence.
As previously reported by this news organization, data from the phase 3 SERENITY II trial that evaluated Igalmi in bipolar disorders were published in JAMA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.