ADHD

A growing number of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) have a diagnosis of comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), raising issues about whether it’s appropriate to prescribe stimulants in this patient population.

One new study showed that from 2007-2017, there was a threefold increase in OUD and comorbid ADHD and that a significant number of these patients received prescription stimulants.

“This is the beginning stages of looking at whether or not there are risks of prescribing stimulants to patients who are on medications for opioid use disorder,” investigator Tae Woo (Ted) Park, MD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“More and more people are being identified with ADHD, and we need to do more research on the best way to manage this patient group,” Dr. Park added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
 

Biological connection?

Dr. Park is not convinced there is “an actual biological connection” between ADHD and OUD, noting that there are many reasons why patients with ADHD may be more prone to developing such a disorder.

Perhaps they did not get an ADHD diagnosis as a child, “which led to impairment in their ability to be successful at school and then in a job,” which in turn predisposed them to having a substance use disorder, said Dr. Park.

From previous research and his own clinical experience, ADHD can significantly affect quality of life and “cause increased impairment” in patients with a substance use disorder, he added.

Interestingly, there’s evidence suggesting patients treated for ADHD early in life are less likely to develop a substance use disorder later on, he said.

The “gold standard” treatment for ADHD is a prescription stimulant, which carries its own addiction risks. “So the issue is about whether or not to prescribe risky medications and how to weigh the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Park.

From a private health insurance database, researchers examined records for patients aged 18-64 years who were receiving medication for OUD, including buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone, from 2007-2017.

In the study sample, about 17,000 individuals were receiving stimulants, and 156,000 were not receiving these drugs. The largest percentage of participants in both groups was in the age-18-to-25 category.

About 35% of those receiving stimulants had ADHD, and about the same percentage had a mood disorder diagnosis.

Percentage of co-occurring ADHD and OUD increased from more than 4% in 2007 to more than 14% in 2017. The prevalence of stimulant use plus medication for OUD also increased during that time.

The increase in ADHD diagnoses may reflect growing identification of the condition, Dr. Park noted. As the opioid problem became more apparent and additional treatments made available, “there were more health care contacts, more assessments, and more diagnoses, including of ADHD,” he said.
 

Risks versus benefits

Stimulants may also be risky in patients with OUD. Results from another study presented at the AAAP meeting showed these drugs were associated with an increased chance of poisoning in patients receiving buprenorphine.

However, Dr. Park is skeptical the combination of stimulants and buprenorphine “leads to a biological risk of overdose.” He used a hypothetical scenario where other factors play into the connection: A patient gets a prescription stimulant, becomes addicted, then starts using street or illicit stimulants, which leads to a relapse on opioids, and then to an overdose.

Dr. Park noted that the same study that found an increased poisoning risk in stimulant users also found that patients tend to stay on buprenorphine treatment, providing protection against overdose.

“So there are risks and benefits of prescribing these medications, and it becomes tricky to know whether to prescribe them or not,” he said.

While stimulants are by far the best treatment for ADHD, atomoxetine (Strattera), a nonstimulant medication with antidepressant effects is another option, Dr. Park said.

He added that a limitation of his study was that very few individuals in the database received methadone.

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

A growing number of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) have a diagnosis of comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), raising issues about whether it’s appropriate to prescribe stimulants in this patient population.

One new study showed that from 2007-2017, there was a threefold increase in OUD and comorbid ADHD and that a significant number of these patients received prescription stimulants.

“This is the beginning stages of looking at whether or not there are risks of prescribing stimulants to patients who are on medications for opioid use disorder,” investigator Tae Woo (Ted) Park, MD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“More and more people are being identified with ADHD, and we need to do more research on the best way to manage this patient group,” Dr. Park added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
 

Biological connection?

Dr. Park is not convinced there is “an actual biological connection” between ADHD and OUD, noting that there are many reasons why patients with ADHD may be more prone to developing such a disorder.

Perhaps they did not get an ADHD diagnosis as a child, “which led to impairment in their ability to be successful at school and then in a job,” which in turn predisposed them to having a substance use disorder, said Dr. Park.

From previous research and his own clinical experience, ADHD can significantly affect quality of life and “cause increased impairment” in patients with a substance use disorder, he added.

Interestingly, there’s evidence suggesting patients treated for ADHD early in life are less likely to develop a substance use disorder later on, he said.

The “gold standard” treatment for ADHD is a prescription stimulant, which carries its own addiction risks. “So the issue is about whether or not to prescribe risky medications and how to weigh the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Park.

From a private health insurance database, researchers examined records for patients aged 18-64 years who were receiving medication for OUD, including buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone, from 2007-2017.

In the study sample, about 17,000 individuals were receiving stimulants, and 156,000 were not receiving these drugs. The largest percentage of participants in both groups was in the age-18-to-25 category.

About 35% of those receiving stimulants had ADHD, and about the same percentage had a mood disorder diagnosis.

Percentage of co-occurring ADHD and OUD increased from more than 4% in 2007 to more than 14% in 2017. The prevalence of stimulant use plus medication for OUD also increased during that time.

The increase in ADHD diagnoses may reflect growing identification of the condition, Dr. Park noted. As the opioid problem became more apparent and additional treatments made available, “there were more health care contacts, more assessments, and more diagnoses, including of ADHD,” he said.
 

Risks versus benefits

Stimulants may also be risky in patients with OUD. Results from another study presented at the AAAP meeting showed these drugs were associated with an increased chance of poisoning in patients receiving buprenorphine.

However, Dr. Park is skeptical the combination of stimulants and buprenorphine “leads to a biological risk of overdose.” He used a hypothetical scenario where other factors play into the connection: A patient gets a prescription stimulant, becomes addicted, then starts using street or illicit stimulants, which leads to a relapse on opioids, and then to an overdose.

Dr. Park noted that the same study that found an increased poisoning risk in stimulant users also found that patients tend to stay on buprenorphine treatment, providing protection against overdose.

“So there are risks and benefits of prescribing these medications, and it becomes tricky to know whether to prescribe them or not,” he said.

While stimulants are by far the best treatment for ADHD, atomoxetine (Strattera), a nonstimulant medication with antidepressant effects is another option, Dr. Park said.

He added that a limitation of his study was that very few individuals in the database received methadone.

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

A growing number of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) have a diagnosis of comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), raising issues about whether it’s appropriate to prescribe stimulants in this patient population.

One new study showed that from 2007-2017, there was a threefold increase in OUD and comorbid ADHD and that a significant number of these patients received prescription stimulants.

“This is the beginning stages of looking at whether or not there are risks of prescribing stimulants to patients who are on medications for opioid use disorder,” investigator Tae Woo (Ted) Park, MD, assistant professor, department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“More and more people are being identified with ADHD, and we need to do more research on the best way to manage this patient group,” Dr. Park added.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.
 

Biological connection?

Dr. Park is not convinced there is “an actual biological connection” between ADHD and OUD, noting that there are many reasons why patients with ADHD may be more prone to developing such a disorder.

Perhaps they did not get an ADHD diagnosis as a child, “which led to impairment in their ability to be successful at school and then in a job,” which in turn predisposed them to having a substance use disorder, said Dr. Park.

From previous research and his own clinical experience, ADHD can significantly affect quality of life and “cause increased impairment” in patients with a substance use disorder, he added.

Interestingly, there’s evidence suggesting patients treated for ADHD early in life are less likely to develop a substance use disorder later on, he said.

The “gold standard” treatment for ADHD is a prescription stimulant, which carries its own addiction risks. “So the issue is about whether or not to prescribe risky medications and how to weigh the risks and benefits,” said Dr. Park.

From a private health insurance database, researchers examined records for patients aged 18-64 years who were receiving medication for OUD, including buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone, from 2007-2017.

In the study sample, about 17,000 individuals were receiving stimulants, and 156,000 were not receiving these drugs. The largest percentage of participants in both groups was in the age-18-to-25 category.

About 35% of those receiving stimulants had ADHD, and about the same percentage had a mood disorder diagnosis.

Percentage of co-occurring ADHD and OUD increased from more than 4% in 2007 to more than 14% in 2017. The prevalence of stimulant use plus medication for OUD also increased during that time.

The increase in ADHD diagnoses may reflect growing identification of the condition, Dr. Park noted. As the opioid problem became more apparent and additional treatments made available, “there were more health care contacts, more assessments, and more diagnoses, including of ADHD,” he said.
 

Risks versus benefits

Stimulants may also be risky in patients with OUD. Results from another study presented at the AAAP meeting showed these drugs were associated with an increased chance of poisoning in patients receiving buprenorphine.

However, Dr. Park is skeptical the combination of stimulants and buprenorphine “leads to a biological risk of overdose.” He used a hypothetical scenario where other factors play into the connection: A patient gets a prescription stimulant, becomes addicted, then starts using street or illicit stimulants, which leads to a relapse on opioids, and then to an overdose.

Dr. Park noted that the same study that found an increased poisoning risk in stimulant users also found that patients tend to stay on buprenorphine treatment, providing protection against overdose.

“So there are risks and benefits of prescribing these medications, and it becomes tricky to know whether to prescribe them or not,” he said.

While stimulants are by far the best treatment for ADHD, atomoxetine (Strattera), a nonstimulant medication with antidepressant effects is another option, Dr. Park said.

He added that a limitation of his study was that very few individuals in the database received methadone.

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

High genetic risk for a range of psychiatric illnesses appears to influence individuals’ choice of urban or rural life, new research suggests.

Individuals with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or anorexia nervosa (AN) are significantly more likely to move from a rural to an urban setting, whereas those at high genetic risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were more likely to do the opposite.

The findings held even in those at high genetic risk who had never been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, highlighting a genetic factor that previous research linking urban living to mental illness has not explored.

“It’s not as simple as saying that urban environment is responsible for schizophrenia and everyone should move out of urban environments and they will be safe,” study investigator Evangelos Vassos, MD, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and a consulting psychiatrist, said in an interview. “If you are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia, you will still be predisposed to schizophrenia even if you move.”

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Genetic influence

The study results don’t rule out environmental influence, but offer evidence that the migration pattern researchers have tracked for years may have a multifactorial explanation.

“Our research shows that, at some level, an individual’s genes select their environment and that the relationship between environmental and genetic influences on mental health is interrelated,” Jessye Maxwell, MSc, lead author and a PhD candidate in psychiatry at King’s College, said in a statement. “This overlap needs to be considered when developing models to predict the risk of people developing mental health conditions in the future.”

For the study, the investigators calculated polygenic risk scores (PRS) of different psychiatric illnesses for 385,793 U.K. Biobank participants aged 37-73. PRS analyzes genetic information across a person’s entire genome, rather than by individual genes.

They used address history and U.K. census records from 1931 to 2011 to map population density over time.

PRS analyses showed significant associations with higher population density throughout adulthood, reaching highest significance between age 45 and 55 years for schizophrenia (88 people/km²; 95% confidence interval, 65-98 people/km²), BD (44 people/km²; 95%CI, 34-54 people/km²), AN (36 people/km²; 95%CI, 22-50 people/km²), and ASD (35 people/km²; 95%CI, 25-45 people/km²).

When they compared those who were born and stayed in rural or suburban areas to their counterparts who moved from those areas to cities, they found the odds of moving to urban areas ranged from 5% among people at high genetic risk for schizophrenia to 13% of those with a high risk for BD. Only people at high risk for ADHD were more likely to move to rural areas.

However, the study is not without its limitations. Only people of European descent were included, family medical history was unavailable for some participants, and only about 50,000 people had a lifetime diagnosis of mental illness, which is not representative of the general population.
 

‘Convincing evidence’

Still, the research adds another piece of the puzzle scientists seek to solve about where people live and mental illness risk, said Jordan DeVylder, PhD, associate professor of social work at Fordham University, New York, who commented on the study for this news organization.

Dr. DeVylder, who has also published research on the topic but was not part of the current study, noted that urban living has long been thought to be among the most consistent environmental risk factors for psychosis. However, he noted, “this association can also be explained by genetic selection, in which the same genes that predispose one to schizophrenia also predispose one to choose urban living.”

“This study presents the most convincing evidence to date that genetics have a major role in this association, at least in the countries where this association between urban living and psychosis exists,” he said.

The study was funded by National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The authors and Dr. DeVylder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

High genetic risk for a range of psychiatric illnesses appears to influence individuals’ choice of urban or rural life, new research suggests.

Individuals with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or anorexia nervosa (AN) are significantly more likely to move from a rural to an urban setting, whereas those at high genetic risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were more likely to do the opposite.

The findings held even in those at high genetic risk who had never been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, highlighting a genetic factor that previous research linking urban living to mental illness has not explored.

“It’s not as simple as saying that urban environment is responsible for schizophrenia and everyone should move out of urban environments and they will be safe,” study investigator Evangelos Vassos, MD, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and a consulting psychiatrist, said in an interview. “If you are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia, you will still be predisposed to schizophrenia even if you move.”

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Genetic influence

The study results don’t rule out environmental influence, but offer evidence that the migration pattern researchers have tracked for years may have a multifactorial explanation.

“Our research shows that, at some level, an individual’s genes select their environment and that the relationship between environmental and genetic influences on mental health is interrelated,” Jessye Maxwell, MSc, lead author and a PhD candidate in psychiatry at King’s College, said in a statement. “This overlap needs to be considered when developing models to predict the risk of people developing mental health conditions in the future.”

For the study, the investigators calculated polygenic risk scores (PRS) of different psychiatric illnesses for 385,793 U.K. Biobank participants aged 37-73. PRS analyzes genetic information across a person’s entire genome, rather than by individual genes.

They used address history and U.K. census records from 1931 to 2011 to map population density over time.

PRS analyses showed significant associations with higher population density throughout adulthood, reaching highest significance between age 45 and 55 years for schizophrenia (88 people/km²; 95% confidence interval, 65-98 people/km²), BD (44 people/km²; 95%CI, 34-54 people/km²), AN (36 people/km²; 95%CI, 22-50 people/km²), and ASD (35 people/km²; 95%CI, 25-45 people/km²).

When they compared those who were born and stayed in rural or suburban areas to their counterparts who moved from those areas to cities, they found the odds of moving to urban areas ranged from 5% among people at high genetic risk for schizophrenia to 13% of those with a high risk for BD. Only people at high risk for ADHD were more likely to move to rural areas.

However, the study is not without its limitations. Only people of European descent were included, family medical history was unavailable for some participants, and only about 50,000 people had a lifetime diagnosis of mental illness, which is not representative of the general population.
 

‘Convincing evidence’

Still, the research adds another piece of the puzzle scientists seek to solve about where people live and mental illness risk, said Jordan DeVylder, PhD, associate professor of social work at Fordham University, New York, who commented on the study for this news organization.

Dr. DeVylder, who has also published research on the topic but was not part of the current study, noted that urban living has long been thought to be among the most consistent environmental risk factors for psychosis. However, he noted, “this association can also be explained by genetic selection, in which the same genes that predispose one to schizophrenia also predispose one to choose urban living.”

“This study presents the most convincing evidence to date that genetics have a major role in this association, at least in the countries where this association between urban living and psychosis exists,” he said.

The study was funded by National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The authors and Dr. DeVylder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

High genetic risk for a range of psychiatric illnesses appears to influence individuals’ choice of urban or rural life, new research suggests.

Individuals with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or anorexia nervosa (AN) are significantly more likely to move from a rural to an urban setting, whereas those at high genetic risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were more likely to do the opposite.

The findings held even in those at high genetic risk who had never been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, highlighting a genetic factor that previous research linking urban living to mental illness has not explored.

“It’s not as simple as saying that urban environment is responsible for schizophrenia and everyone should move out of urban environments and they will be safe,” study investigator Evangelos Vassos, MD, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and a consulting psychiatrist, said in an interview. “If you are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia, you will still be predisposed to schizophrenia even if you move.”

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Genetic influence

The study results don’t rule out environmental influence, but offer evidence that the migration pattern researchers have tracked for years may have a multifactorial explanation.

“Our research shows that, at some level, an individual’s genes select their environment and that the relationship between environmental and genetic influences on mental health is interrelated,” Jessye Maxwell, MSc, lead author and a PhD candidate in psychiatry at King’s College, said in a statement. “This overlap needs to be considered when developing models to predict the risk of people developing mental health conditions in the future.”

For the study, the investigators calculated polygenic risk scores (PRS) of different psychiatric illnesses for 385,793 U.K. Biobank participants aged 37-73. PRS analyzes genetic information across a person’s entire genome, rather than by individual genes.

They used address history and U.K. census records from 1931 to 2011 to map population density over time.

PRS analyses showed significant associations with higher population density throughout adulthood, reaching highest significance between age 45 and 55 years for schizophrenia (88 people/km²; 95% confidence interval, 65-98 people/km²), BD (44 people/km²; 95%CI, 34-54 people/km²), AN (36 people/km²; 95%CI, 22-50 people/km²), and ASD (35 people/km²; 95%CI, 25-45 people/km²).

When they compared those who were born and stayed in rural or suburban areas to their counterparts who moved from those areas to cities, they found the odds of moving to urban areas ranged from 5% among people at high genetic risk for schizophrenia to 13% of those with a high risk for BD. Only people at high risk for ADHD were more likely to move to rural areas.

However, the study is not without its limitations. Only people of European descent were included, family medical history was unavailable for some participants, and only about 50,000 people had a lifetime diagnosis of mental illness, which is not representative of the general population.
 

‘Convincing evidence’

Still, the research adds another piece of the puzzle scientists seek to solve about where people live and mental illness risk, said Jordan DeVylder, PhD, associate professor of social work at Fordham University, New York, who commented on the study for this news organization.

Dr. DeVylder, who has also published research on the topic but was not part of the current study, noted that urban living has long been thought to be among the most consistent environmental risk factors for psychosis. However, he noted, “this association can also be explained by genetic selection, in which the same genes that predispose one to schizophrenia also predispose one to choose urban living.”

“This study presents the most convincing evidence to date that genetics have a major role in this association, at least in the countries where this association between urban living and psychosis exists,” he said.

The study was funded by National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The authors and Dr. DeVylder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The majority of families of preschool children with a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were not offered behavior therapy as a first-line treatment, according to data from nearly 200 children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ current clinical practice guidelines recommend parent training in behavior management (PTBM) as a first-line treatment for children aged 4-5 years diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or symptoms of ADHD such as hyperactivity or impulsivity, but data on how well primary care providers follow this recommendation in practice are lacking, wrote Yair Bannett, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

To investigate the rates of PTBM recommendations, the researchers reviewed electronic health records for 22,714 children aged 48-71 months who had at least two visits to any 1 of 10 primary care practices in a California pediatric health network between Oct. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2019. Children with an autism diagnosis were excluded; ADHD-related visits were identified via ADHD diagnosis codes or symptom-level diagnosis codes.

In the study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, 192 children (1%) had either an ADHD diagnosis or ADHD symptoms; of these, 21 (11%) received referrals for PTBM during ADHD-related primary care visits. Records showed an additional 55 patients (29%) had a mention of counseling on PTBM by a primary care provider, including handouts.

PCPs prescribed ADHD medications for 32 children; 9 of these had documented PTBM recommendations, and in 4 cases, the PCPs recommended PTBM before prescribing a first medication.

A majority (73%) of the children were male, 64% were privately insured, 56% had subspecialists involved in their care, and 17% were prescribed ADHD medications (88% of which were stimulants).

In a multivariate analysis, children with public insurance were significantly less likely to receive a PTBM recommendation than were those with private insurance (adjusted relative risk 0.87).

The most common recommendation overall was routine/habit modifications (for 79 children), such as reducing sugar or adding supplements to the diet; improving sleep hygiene; and limiting screen time.

The low rates of PTBM among publicly insured patients in particular highlight the need to identify factors behind disparities in recommended treatments, the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on primary care provider documentation during the study period and the inclusion only of medical record reviews with diagnostic codes for ADHD, the researchers noted. Further studies beyond a single health care system are needed to assess generalizability, they added.

However, the results present an opportunity for primary care providers to improve adherence to clinical practice guidelines and establish behavioral treatment at an early age to mitigate long-term morbidity, they concluded.
 

Low rates highlight barriers and opportunities

“We were surprised to find very low rates of documented recommendations for behavioral treatment mentioned by PCPs,” Dr. Bannett said in an interview. The researchers were surprised that recommendations for changes in daily routines and habits, such as reduced sugar intake, regular exercise, better sleep, and reduced screen time, were the most common recommendations for families of children presenting with symptoms of ADHD. “Though these are good recommendations that can support the general health of any young child, there is no evidence to support their benefit in alleviating symptoms of ADHD,” he said.

Dr. Bannett acknowledged the challenge for pediatricians to stay current on where and how families can access this type of behavioral treatment, but the evidence supports behavior therapy over medication in preschool children, he said.

“I think that it is important for primary care clinicians to know that there are options for parent training in behavioral management for both privately and publicly insured patients,” said Dr. Bannett. “In California, for example, parent training programs are offered through county mental health services. In some counties, there are other organizations that offer parent training for underserved populations and those with public insurance,” he said.

Dr. Bannett noted that online treatments, including behavioral treatments, may be possible for some families.

He cited Triple P, an evidence-based curriculum for parent training in behavior management, which offers an online course for parents at triplep-parenting.com, and an online parent training course offered through the CHADD website (chadd.org/parent-to-parent/).

Dr. Bannett noted that the researchers are planning a follow-up study to investigate the reasons behind the low referral rates for PTBM. “A known barrier is the limited availability of therapists who can provide this type of therapy,” Dr. Bannett said. “Research is needed on the effectiveness of online versions of parent training, which can overcome some of the access barriers many families experience,” he added.

“Additionally, since behavioral treatment requires a significant effort on the part of the parents and caregivers, who often are not able to complete the therapy, there is a need for research on ways to enhance parent and family engagement and participation in these important evidence-based treatments,” as well as a need to research ways to increase adherence to evidence-based practices, said Dr. Bannett. “We are currently planning intervention studies that will enhance primary care clinicians’ knowledge and clinical practice; for example, decision support tools in the electronic health record, and up-to-date information about available resources and behavioral therapists in their community that they can share with families,” he said. 
 

Barriers make it difficult to adhere to guidelines

The study authors missed a significant element of the AAP guidelines by failing to acknowledge the extensive accompanying section on barriers to adoption, which details why most pediatricians in clinical practice do not prescribe PTBM, Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., said in an interview.

“Academically, it is a wonderful article,” said Dr. Lessin, who was a member of the authoring committee of the AAP guidelines and a major contributor to the section on barriers. The AAP guidelines recommend PTBM because it is evidence based, but the barrier section is essential to understanding that this evidence-based recommendation is nearly impossible to follow in real-world clinical practice, he emphasized. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ “Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents,” published in October of 2019 in Pediatrics, included a full subsection on barriers as to why the guidelines might not be followed in many cases in a real-world setting, and the study authors failed to acknowledge this section and its implications, said Dr. Lessin. Notably, the barriers section was originally published in Pediatrics under a Supplemental Data tab that might easily be overlooked by someone reviewing the main practice guideline recommendations, he said.

In most areas of the country, PTBM is simply unavailable, Dr. Lessin said. 

There is a dearth of mental health providers in the United States in general, and “a monstrous shortage of mental health practitioners for young children,” he said. Children in underserved areas barely have access to a medical home, let alone mental health subspecialists, he added.

Even in areas where specialized behavior therapy may be available, it can be prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest patients, Dr. Lessin noted. Insurance does not cover this type of behavior therapy, and most mental health professionals don’t accept Medicaid, nor commercial insurance, he said. 

“I don’t even bother with those referrals, because they are not available,” said Dr. Lessin. The take-home message is that most community-based pediatricians are not following the guidelines because the barriers are so enormous, he said.

The study was supported by a research grant from the Society of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics and salary support through the Instructor Support Program at the department of pediatrics, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, to Dr. Bannett. The researchers had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lessin had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

The majority of families of preschool children with a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were not offered behavior therapy as a first-line treatment, according to data from nearly 200 children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ current clinical practice guidelines recommend parent training in behavior management (PTBM) as a first-line treatment for children aged 4-5 years diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or symptoms of ADHD such as hyperactivity or impulsivity, but data on how well primary care providers follow this recommendation in practice are lacking, wrote Yair Bannett, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

To investigate the rates of PTBM recommendations, the researchers reviewed electronic health records for 22,714 children aged 48-71 months who had at least two visits to any 1 of 10 primary care practices in a California pediatric health network between Oct. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2019. Children with an autism diagnosis were excluded; ADHD-related visits were identified via ADHD diagnosis codes or symptom-level diagnosis codes.

In the study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, 192 children (1%) had either an ADHD diagnosis or ADHD symptoms; of these, 21 (11%) received referrals for PTBM during ADHD-related primary care visits. Records showed an additional 55 patients (29%) had a mention of counseling on PTBM by a primary care provider, including handouts.

PCPs prescribed ADHD medications for 32 children; 9 of these had documented PTBM recommendations, and in 4 cases, the PCPs recommended PTBM before prescribing a first medication.

A majority (73%) of the children were male, 64% were privately insured, 56% had subspecialists involved in their care, and 17% were prescribed ADHD medications (88% of which were stimulants).

In a multivariate analysis, children with public insurance were significantly less likely to receive a PTBM recommendation than were those with private insurance (adjusted relative risk 0.87).

The most common recommendation overall was routine/habit modifications (for 79 children), such as reducing sugar or adding supplements to the diet; improving sleep hygiene; and limiting screen time.

The low rates of PTBM among publicly insured patients in particular highlight the need to identify factors behind disparities in recommended treatments, the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on primary care provider documentation during the study period and the inclusion only of medical record reviews with diagnostic codes for ADHD, the researchers noted. Further studies beyond a single health care system are needed to assess generalizability, they added.

However, the results present an opportunity for primary care providers to improve adherence to clinical practice guidelines and establish behavioral treatment at an early age to mitigate long-term morbidity, they concluded.
 

Low rates highlight barriers and opportunities

“We were surprised to find very low rates of documented recommendations for behavioral treatment mentioned by PCPs,” Dr. Bannett said in an interview. The researchers were surprised that recommendations for changes in daily routines and habits, such as reduced sugar intake, regular exercise, better sleep, and reduced screen time, were the most common recommendations for families of children presenting with symptoms of ADHD. “Though these are good recommendations that can support the general health of any young child, there is no evidence to support their benefit in alleviating symptoms of ADHD,” he said.

Dr. Bannett acknowledged the challenge for pediatricians to stay current on where and how families can access this type of behavioral treatment, but the evidence supports behavior therapy over medication in preschool children, he said.

“I think that it is important for primary care clinicians to know that there are options for parent training in behavioral management for both privately and publicly insured patients,” said Dr. Bannett. “In California, for example, parent training programs are offered through county mental health services. In some counties, there are other organizations that offer parent training for underserved populations and those with public insurance,” he said.

Dr. Bannett noted that online treatments, including behavioral treatments, may be possible for some families.

He cited Triple P, an evidence-based curriculum for parent training in behavior management, which offers an online course for parents at triplep-parenting.com, and an online parent training course offered through the CHADD website (chadd.org/parent-to-parent/).

Dr. Bannett noted that the researchers are planning a follow-up study to investigate the reasons behind the low referral rates for PTBM. “A known barrier is the limited availability of therapists who can provide this type of therapy,” Dr. Bannett said. “Research is needed on the effectiveness of online versions of parent training, which can overcome some of the access barriers many families experience,” he added.

“Additionally, since behavioral treatment requires a significant effort on the part of the parents and caregivers, who often are not able to complete the therapy, there is a need for research on ways to enhance parent and family engagement and participation in these important evidence-based treatments,” as well as a need to research ways to increase adherence to evidence-based practices, said Dr. Bannett. “We are currently planning intervention studies that will enhance primary care clinicians’ knowledge and clinical practice; for example, decision support tools in the electronic health record, and up-to-date information about available resources and behavioral therapists in their community that they can share with families,” he said. 
 

Barriers make it difficult to adhere to guidelines

The study authors missed a significant element of the AAP guidelines by failing to acknowledge the extensive accompanying section on barriers to adoption, which details why most pediatricians in clinical practice do not prescribe PTBM, Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., said in an interview.

“Academically, it is a wonderful article,” said Dr. Lessin, who was a member of the authoring committee of the AAP guidelines and a major contributor to the section on barriers. The AAP guidelines recommend PTBM because it is evidence based, but the barrier section is essential to understanding that this evidence-based recommendation is nearly impossible to follow in real-world clinical practice, he emphasized. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ “Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents,” published in October of 2019 in Pediatrics, included a full subsection on barriers as to why the guidelines might not be followed in many cases in a real-world setting, and the study authors failed to acknowledge this section and its implications, said Dr. Lessin. Notably, the barriers section was originally published in Pediatrics under a Supplemental Data tab that might easily be overlooked by someone reviewing the main practice guideline recommendations, he said.

In most areas of the country, PTBM is simply unavailable, Dr. Lessin said. 

There is a dearth of mental health providers in the United States in general, and “a monstrous shortage of mental health practitioners for young children,” he said. Children in underserved areas barely have access to a medical home, let alone mental health subspecialists, he added.

Even in areas where specialized behavior therapy may be available, it can be prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest patients, Dr. Lessin noted. Insurance does not cover this type of behavior therapy, and most mental health professionals don’t accept Medicaid, nor commercial insurance, he said. 

“I don’t even bother with those referrals, because they are not available,” said Dr. Lessin. The take-home message is that most community-based pediatricians are not following the guidelines because the barriers are so enormous, he said.

The study was supported by a research grant from the Society of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics and salary support through the Instructor Support Program at the department of pediatrics, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, to Dr. Bannett. The researchers had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lessin had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

The majority of families of preschool children with a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were not offered behavior therapy as a first-line treatment, according to data from nearly 200 children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ current clinical practice guidelines recommend parent training in behavior management (PTBM) as a first-line treatment for children aged 4-5 years diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or symptoms of ADHD such as hyperactivity or impulsivity, but data on how well primary care providers follow this recommendation in practice are lacking, wrote Yair Bannett, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.

To investigate the rates of PTBM recommendations, the researchers reviewed electronic health records for 22,714 children aged 48-71 months who had at least two visits to any 1 of 10 primary care practices in a California pediatric health network between Oct. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2019. Children with an autism diagnosis were excluded; ADHD-related visits were identified via ADHD diagnosis codes or symptom-level diagnosis codes.

In the study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, 192 children (1%) had either an ADHD diagnosis or ADHD symptoms; of these, 21 (11%) received referrals for PTBM during ADHD-related primary care visits. Records showed an additional 55 patients (29%) had a mention of counseling on PTBM by a primary care provider, including handouts.

PCPs prescribed ADHD medications for 32 children; 9 of these had documented PTBM recommendations, and in 4 cases, the PCPs recommended PTBM before prescribing a first medication.

A majority (73%) of the children were male, 64% were privately insured, 56% had subspecialists involved in their care, and 17% were prescribed ADHD medications (88% of which were stimulants).

In a multivariate analysis, children with public insurance were significantly less likely to receive a PTBM recommendation than were those with private insurance (adjusted relative risk 0.87).

The most common recommendation overall was routine/habit modifications (for 79 children), such as reducing sugar or adding supplements to the diet; improving sleep hygiene; and limiting screen time.

The low rates of PTBM among publicly insured patients in particular highlight the need to identify factors behind disparities in recommended treatments, the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on primary care provider documentation during the study period and the inclusion only of medical record reviews with diagnostic codes for ADHD, the researchers noted. Further studies beyond a single health care system are needed to assess generalizability, they added.

However, the results present an opportunity for primary care providers to improve adherence to clinical practice guidelines and establish behavioral treatment at an early age to mitigate long-term morbidity, they concluded.
 

Low rates highlight barriers and opportunities

“We were surprised to find very low rates of documented recommendations for behavioral treatment mentioned by PCPs,” Dr. Bannett said in an interview. The researchers were surprised that recommendations for changes in daily routines and habits, such as reduced sugar intake, regular exercise, better sleep, and reduced screen time, were the most common recommendations for families of children presenting with symptoms of ADHD. “Though these are good recommendations that can support the general health of any young child, there is no evidence to support their benefit in alleviating symptoms of ADHD,” he said.

Dr. Bannett acknowledged the challenge for pediatricians to stay current on where and how families can access this type of behavioral treatment, but the evidence supports behavior therapy over medication in preschool children, he said.

“I think that it is important for primary care clinicians to know that there are options for parent training in behavioral management for both privately and publicly insured patients,” said Dr. Bannett. “In California, for example, parent training programs are offered through county mental health services. In some counties, there are other organizations that offer parent training for underserved populations and those with public insurance,” he said.

Dr. Bannett noted that online treatments, including behavioral treatments, may be possible for some families.

He cited Triple P, an evidence-based curriculum for parent training in behavior management, which offers an online course for parents at triplep-parenting.com, and an online parent training course offered through the CHADD website (chadd.org/parent-to-parent/).

Dr. Bannett noted that the researchers are planning a follow-up study to investigate the reasons behind the low referral rates for PTBM. “A known barrier is the limited availability of therapists who can provide this type of therapy,” Dr. Bannett said. “Research is needed on the effectiveness of online versions of parent training, which can overcome some of the access barriers many families experience,” he added.

“Additionally, since behavioral treatment requires a significant effort on the part of the parents and caregivers, who often are not able to complete the therapy, there is a need for research on ways to enhance parent and family engagement and participation in these important evidence-based treatments,” as well as a need to research ways to increase adherence to evidence-based practices, said Dr. Bannett. “We are currently planning intervention studies that will enhance primary care clinicians’ knowledge and clinical practice; for example, decision support tools in the electronic health record, and up-to-date information about available resources and behavioral therapists in their community that they can share with families,” he said. 
 

Barriers make it difficult to adhere to guidelines

The study authors missed a significant element of the AAP guidelines by failing to acknowledge the extensive accompanying section on barriers to adoption, which details why most pediatricians in clinical practice do not prescribe PTBM, Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., said in an interview.

“Academically, it is a wonderful article,” said Dr. Lessin, who was a member of the authoring committee of the AAP guidelines and a major contributor to the section on barriers. The AAP guidelines recommend PTBM because it is evidence based, but the barrier section is essential to understanding that this evidence-based recommendation is nearly impossible to follow in real-world clinical practice, he emphasized. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ “Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents,” published in October of 2019 in Pediatrics, included a full subsection on barriers as to why the guidelines might not be followed in many cases in a real-world setting, and the study authors failed to acknowledge this section and its implications, said Dr. Lessin. Notably, the barriers section was originally published in Pediatrics under a Supplemental Data tab that might easily be overlooked by someone reviewing the main practice guideline recommendations, he said.

In most areas of the country, PTBM is simply unavailable, Dr. Lessin said. 

There is a dearth of mental health providers in the United States in general, and “a monstrous shortage of mental health practitioners for young children,” he said. Children in underserved areas barely have access to a medical home, let alone mental health subspecialists, he added.

Even in areas where specialized behavior therapy may be available, it can be prohibitively expensive for all but the wealthiest patients, Dr. Lessin noted. Insurance does not cover this type of behavior therapy, and most mental health professionals don’t accept Medicaid, nor commercial insurance, he said. 

“I don’t even bother with those referrals, because they are not available,” said Dr. Lessin. The take-home message is that most community-based pediatricians are not following the guidelines because the barriers are so enormous, he said.

The study was supported by a research grant from the Society of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics and salary support through the Instructor Support Program at the department of pediatrics, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, to Dr. Bannett. The researchers had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lessin had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Marijuana use is now a legal activity in many parts of the United States, but those managing patients with psychiatric disorders are in the difficult position of determining whether this use is helpful, harmful, or irrelevant to the underlying illness on the basis of limited and largely incomplete data, according to an overview of this issue presented at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

HighGradeRoots/iStock/Getty Images

While there is clear evidence that cannabis use relative to the general population “is more prevalent among patients with psychiatric disorders,” it is less certain how often this use is risky, said Diana M. Martinez, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York.

Independent of euphoric effects, cannabis can be perceived by individuals with psychiatric diagnosis as self-medication for feelings of stress, social anxiety, and insomnia, among other symptoms. These are the same reasons why many individuals without psychiatric conditions use cannabis-containing products.

The perception that cannabis use is generally benign presumably explains the successful efforts at legalization, but there are risks for those with or without psychiatric illnesses, Dr. Martinez pointed out at the meeting, sponsored by Medscape Live. Not least, about 20% of regular users of cannabis develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), a condition defined in the DSM-5 as the continued use of cannabis despite adverse consequences, such as dependence.
 

Impact of severe CUD ‘incapacitating’

“Of those who meet criteria for CUD, 23% have severe CUD, which is an incapacitating form,” reported Dr. Martinez, citing work led by Deborah Hasin, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia University.

However, relative to otherwise healthy individuals, those with a psychiatric diagnosis might face greater benefits or greater risks from cannabis use, according to Dr. Martinez, who cited a 2017 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

This report evaluated the potential risks and benefits on the basis of published studies.

There is limited evidence that regular cannabis increases rather than modifies symptoms of mania and hypomania in patients with bipolar disorder, according to the report. The report also cited limited evidence that cannabis use increases severity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There was limited evidence of adverse effects on symptoms of anxiety, although this appeared to depend on daily or nearly daily use.

The report found no data of acceptable quality to draw conclusions about the effect of cannabis use on symptoms of depression.

In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), “a recent study showed that daily but not occasional use of cannabis increased impulsivity but not inattention, working memory, or verbal intelligence,” said Dr. Martinez, citing a study published this year.

Some evidence also suggests that patients with a psychiatric disorder might benefit from cannabis use, but, again, this evidence is limited. For one example, it includes a potential reduction in symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder, Dr. Martinez said.
 

More support for cannabis in medical disease

Relative to the quality of evidence supporting benefit from cannabis in psychiatric disease, the data appear to be stronger for patients with medical illnesses, such as cancer. For example, Dr. Martinez cited evidence that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a major active ingredient in cannabis, improves sleep in the context of a medical illnesses. There is also evidence for anxiolytic effects in patients with a medical illness, although that is weaker.

In patients with or without a psychiatric disorder, marijuana does pose a risk of substance abuse disorder, and it shares the risks of intoxicants, such as inattention leading to increased risk of accidents, including motor vehicle accidents. This pertains to those with or without a psychiatric or medical condition, Dr. Martinez said.

While intermittent light use of cannabis appears to pose no risk or a very low risk of long-term adverse effects on cognition, at least in patients without psychiatric disorders, Dr. Martinez indicated that the risk-benefit ratio for any individual is use dependent. The risk of CUD, for example, increases with the frequency of exposure and the potency of the cannabis. Dr. Martinez indicated that a conservative approach is prudent with the limited evidence available for patients with psychiatric disorders.
 

Empirical evidence for therapeutic role

In published studies, other researchers have expressed interest in a potential therapeutic role of cannabis for psychiatric disorders, but there appears to be a general consensus that the supportive data remain weak. One expert who has written on this topic, Jerome Sarris, PhD, professor of integrative mental health, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Westmead, Australia, said that empirical evidence does support a benefit in selected patients.

“Of course, high THC forms are strongly discouraged in people with schizophrenia or high risk of developing psychotic disorder, or in youths,” Dr. Sarris explained. “However, there is a potential role for use in people with sleep and pain issues, and many find it beneficial to also assist with affective disorder symptoms.”

In a systematic review he led that was published last year, the evidence to support cannabis for psychiatric disorders was characterized as “embryonic.” However, small studies and case reports appear to support benefit for such indications as ADHD if precautions are taken.

“I certainly would not discourage use of prescribed standardized medicinal cannabis therapeutics for all people with psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Sarris said. He suggested that attention should be made to the THC potency and terpene composition of the products that patients with psychiatric disorders are taking.

Marijuana use is now a legal activity in many parts of the United States, but those managing patients with psychiatric disorders are in the difficult position of determining whether this use is helpful, harmful, or irrelevant to the underlying illness on the basis of limited and largely incomplete data, according to an overview of this issue presented at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

HighGradeRoots/iStock/Getty Images

While there is clear evidence that cannabis use relative to the general population “is more prevalent among patients with psychiatric disorders,” it is less certain how often this use is risky, said Diana M. Martinez, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York.

Independent of euphoric effects, cannabis can be perceived by individuals with psychiatric diagnosis as self-medication for feelings of stress, social anxiety, and insomnia, among other symptoms. These are the same reasons why many individuals without psychiatric conditions use cannabis-containing products.

The perception that cannabis use is generally benign presumably explains the successful efforts at legalization, but there are risks for those with or without psychiatric illnesses, Dr. Martinez pointed out at the meeting, sponsored by Medscape Live. Not least, about 20% of regular users of cannabis develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), a condition defined in the DSM-5 as the continued use of cannabis despite adverse consequences, such as dependence.
 

Impact of severe CUD ‘incapacitating’

“Of those who meet criteria for CUD, 23% have severe CUD, which is an incapacitating form,” reported Dr. Martinez, citing work led by Deborah Hasin, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia University.

However, relative to otherwise healthy individuals, those with a psychiatric diagnosis might face greater benefits or greater risks from cannabis use, according to Dr. Martinez, who cited a 2017 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

This report evaluated the potential risks and benefits on the basis of published studies.

There is limited evidence that regular cannabis increases rather than modifies symptoms of mania and hypomania in patients with bipolar disorder, according to the report. The report also cited limited evidence that cannabis use increases severity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There was limited evidence of adverse effects on symptoms of anxiety, although this appeared to depend on daily or nearly daily use.

The report found no data of acceptable quality to draw conclusions about the effect of cannabis use on symptoms of depression.

In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), “a recent study showed that daily but not occasional use of cannabis increased impulsivity but not inattention, working memory, or verbal intelligence,” said Dr. Martinez, citing a study published this year.

Some evidence also suggests that patients with a psychiatric disorder might benefit from cannabis use, but, again, this evidence is limited. For one example, it includes a potential reduction in symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder, Dr. Martinez said.
 

More support for cannabis in medical disease

Relative to the quality of evidence supporting benefit from cannabis in psychiatric disease, the data appear to be stronger for patients with medical illnesses, such as cancer. For example, Dr. Martinez cited evidence that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a major active ingredient in cannabis, improves sleep in the context of a medical illnesses. There is also evidence for anxiolytic effects in patients with a medical illness, although that is weaker.

In patients with or without a psychiatric disorder, marijuana does pose a risk of substance abuse disorder, and it shares the risks of intoxicants, such as inattention leading to increased risk of accidents, including motor vehicle accidents. This pertains to those with or without a psychiatric or medical condition, Dr. Martinez said.

While intermittent light use of cannabis appears to pose no risk or a very low risk of long-term adverse effects on cognition, at least in patients without psychiatric disorders, Dr. Martinez indicated that the risk-benefit ratio for any individual is use dependent. The risk of CUD, for example, increases with the frequency of exposure and the potency of the cannabis. Dr. Martinez indicated that a conservative approach is prudent with the limited evidence available for patients with psychiatric disorders.
 

Empirical evidence for therapeutic role

In published studies, other researchers have expressed interest in a potential therapeutic role of cannabis for psychiatric disorders, but there appears to be a general consensus that the supportive data remain weak. One expert who has written on this topic, Jerome Sarris, PhD, professor of integrative mental health, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Westmead, Australia, said that empirical evidence does support a benefit in selected patients.

“Of course, high THC forms are strongly discouraged in people with schizophrenia or high risk of developing psychotic disorder, or in youths,” Dr. Sarris explained. “However, there is a potential role for use in people with sleep and pain issues, and many find it beneficial to also assist with affective disorder symptoms.”

In a systematic review he led that was published last year, the evidence to support cannabis for psychiatric disorders was characterized as “embryonic.” However, small studies and case reports appear to support benefit for such indications as ADHD if precautions are taken.

“I certainly would not discourage use of prescribed standardized medicinal cannabis therapeutics for all people with psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Sarris said. He suggested that attention should be made to the THC potency and terpene composition of the products that patients with psychiatric disorders are taking.

Marijuana use is now a legal activity in many parts of the United States, but those managing patients with psychiatric disorders are in the difficult position of determining whether this use is helpful, harmful, or irrelevant to the underlying illness on the basis of limited and largely incomplete data, according to an overview of this issue presented at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

HighGradeRoots/iStock/Getty Images

While there is clear evidence that cannabis use relative to the general population “is more prevalent among patients with psychiatric disorders,” it is less certain how often this use is risky, said Diana M. Martinez, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York.

Independent of euphoric effects, cannabis can be perceived by individuals with psychiatric diagnosis as self-medication for feelings of stress, social anxiety, and insomnia, among other symptoms. These are the same reasons why many individuals without psychiatric conditions use cannabis-containing products.

The perception that cannabis use is generally benign presumably explains the successful efforts at legalization, but there are risks for those with or without psychiatric illnesses, Dr. Martinez pointed out at the meeting, sponsored by Medscape Live. Not least, about 20% of regular users of cannabis develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), a condition defined in the DSM-5 as the continued use of cannabis despite adverse consequences, such as dependence.
 

Impact of severe CUD ‘incapacitating’

“Of those who meet criteria for CUD, 23% have severe CUD, which is an incapacitating form,” reported Dr. Martinez, citing work led by Deborah Hasin, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia University.

However, relative to otherwise healthy individuals, those with a psychiatric diagnosis might face greater benefits or greater risks from cannabis use, according to Dr. Martinez, who cited a 2017 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

This report evaluated the potential risks and benefits on the basis of published studies.

There is limited evidence that regular cannabis increases rather than modifies symptoms of mania and hypomania in patients with bipolar disorder, according to the report. The report also cited limited evidence that cannabis use increases severity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There was limited evidence of adverse effects on symptoms of anxiety, although this appeared to depend on daily or nearly daily use.

The report found no data of acceptable quality to draw conclusions about the effect of cannabis use on symptoms of depression.

In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), “a recent study showed that daily but not occasional use of cannabis increased impulsivity but not inattention, working memory, or verbal intelligence,” said Dr. Martinez, citing a study published this year.

Some evidence also suggests that patients with a psychiatric disorder might benefit from cannabis use, but, again, this evidence is limited. For one example, it includes a potential reduction in symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder, Dr. Martinez said.
 

More support for cannabis in medical disease

Relative to the quality of evidence supporting benefit from cannabis in psychiatric disease, the data appear to be stronger for patients with medical illnesses, such as cancer. For example, Dr. Martinez cited evidence that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a major active ingredient in cannabis, improves sleep in the context of a medical illnesses. There is also evidence for anxiolytic effects in patients with a medical illness, although that is weaker.

In patients with or without a psychiatric disorder, marijuana does pose a risk of substance abuse disorder, and it shares the risks of intoxicants, such as inattention leading to increased risk of accidents, including motor vehicle accidents. This pertains to those with or without a psychiatric or medical condition, Dr. Martinez said.

While intermittent light use of cannabis appears to pose no risk or a very low risk of long-term adverse effects on cognition, at least in patients without psychiatric disorders, Dr. Martinez indicated that the risk-benefit ratio for any individual is use dependent. The risk of CUD, for example, increases with the frequency of exposure and the potency of the cannabis. Dr. Martinez indicated that a conservative approach is prudent with the limited evidence available for patients with psychiatric disorders.
 

Empirical evidence for therapeutic role

In published studies, other researchers have expressed interest in a potential therapeutic role of cannabis for psychiatric disorders, but there appears to be a general consensus that the supportive data remain weak. One expert who has written on this topic, Jerome Sarris, PhD, professor of integrative mental health, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Westmead, Australia, said that empirical evidence does support a benefit in selected patients.

“Of course, high THC forms are strongly discouraged in people with schizophrenia or high risk of developing psychotic disorder, or in youths,” Dr. Sarris explained. “However, there is a potential role for use in people with sleep and pain issues, and many find it beneficial to also assist with affective disorder symptoms.”

In a systematic review he led that was published last year, the evidence to support cannabis for psychiatric disorders was characterized as “embryonic.” However, small studies and case reports appear to support benefit for such indications as ADHD if precautions are taken.

“I certainly would not discourage use of prescribed standardized medicinal cannabis therapeutics for all people with psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Sarris said. He suggested that attention should be made to the THC potency and terpene composition of the products that patients with psychiatric disorders are taking.

Methylphenidate is safe and effective for treating apathy in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research suggests.

Dundanim/shutterstock.com

Results from a phase 3 randomized trial showed that, after 6 months of treatment, mean score on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) apathy subscale decreased by 4.5 points for patients who received methylphenidate vs. a decrease of 3.1 points for those who received placebo.

In addition, the safety profile showed no significant between-group differences.

“Methylphenidate offers a treatment approach providing a modest but potentially clinically significant benefit for patients and caregivers,” said the investigators, led by Jacobo E. Mintzer, MD, MBA, professor of health studies at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.

The findings were published online Sept. 27 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Common problem

Apathy, which is common among patients with AD, is associated with increased risk for mortality, financial burden, and caregiver burden. No treatment has proved effective for apathy in this population.

Two trials of methylphenidate, a catecholaminergic agent, have provided preliminary evidence of efficacy. Findings from the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate trial (ADMET) suggested the drug was associated with improved cognition and few adverse events. However, both trials had small patient populations and short durations.

The current investigators conducted ADMET 2, a 6-month, phase 3 trial, to investigate methylphenidate further. They recruited 200 patients (mean age, 76 years; 66% men; 90% White) at nine clinical centers that specialized in dementia care in the United States and one in Canada.

Eligible patients had a diagnosis of possible or probable AD and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 10 and 28. They also had clinically significant apathy for at least 4 weeks and an available caregiver who spent more than 10 hours a week with the patient.

The researchers randomly assigned patients to receive methylphenidate (n = 99) or placebo (n = 101). For 3 days, participants in the active group received 10 mg/day of methylphenidate. After that point, they received 20 mg/day of methylphenidate for the rest of the study.

Patients in both treatment groups were given the same number of identical-appearing capsules each day.

In-person follow-up visits took place monthly for 6 months. Participants also were contacted by telephone at days 15, 45, and 75 after treatment assignment.

Participants underwent cognitive testing at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The battery of tests included the MMSE, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised Digit Span.

The trial’s two primary outcomes were mean change in NPI apathy score from baseline to 6 months and the odds of an improved rating on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) between baseline and 6 months.

Significant change on either outcome was to be considered a signal of effective treatment.
 

Treatment-specific benefit

Ten patients in the methylphenidate group and seven in the placebo group withdrew during the study.

Mean MMSE score at baseline was 19.2 in the methylphenidate group vs. 18.5 in the placebo group, indicating moderately severe dementia. Mean baseline score on the NPI apathy subscale was 8.0 vs. 7.6, respectively.

In an adjusted, longitudinal model, mean between-group difference in change in NPI apathy score at 6 months was –1.25 (P = .002). The mean NPI apathy score decreased by 4.5 points in the methylphenidate group vs. 3.1 points in the placebo group.

The largest change in apathy score occurred during the first 2 months of treatment. At 6 months, 27% of the methylphenidate group vs. 14% of the placebo group had an NPI apathy score of 0.

In addition, 43.8% of the methylphenidate group had improvement on the ADCS-CGIC compared with 35.2% of the placebo group. The odds ratio (OR) for improvement on ADCS-CGIC for methylphenidate vs. placebo was 1.90 (P = .07).

There was also a strong association between score improvement on the NPI apathy subscale and improvement on the ADCS-CGIC subscale (OR, 2.95; P = .002).

“It is important to note that there were no group differences in any of the cognitive measures, suggesting that the effect of the treatment is specific to the treatment of apathy and not a secondary effect of improvement in cognition,” the researchers wrote.

In all, 17 serious adverse events occurred in the methylphenidate group and 10 occurred in the placebo group. However, all events were found to be hospitalizations for events not related to treatment.
 

‘Enduring effect’

Commenting on the findings, Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, professor of brain sciences at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, noted that the reduction in NPI apathy subscale score of more than 50% was clinically meaningful.

A more robust outcome on the ADCS-CGIC would have been desirable, he added, although that instrument is not designed specifically for apathy.

Methylphenidate’s effect on apathy observed at 2 months and remaining stable throughout the study makes it appear to be “an enduring effect, and not something that the patient accommodates to,” said Dr. Cummings, who was not involved with the research. Such a change may manifest itself in a patient’s greater willingness to help voluntarily with housework or to suggest going for a walk, he noted.

“These are not dramatic changes in cognition, of course, but they are changes in initiative and that is very important,” Dr. Cummings said. Decreased apathy also may improve quality of life for the patient’s caregiver, he added.

Overall, the findings raise the question of whether the Food and Drug Administration should recognize apathy as an indication for which drugs can be approved, said Dr. Cummings.

“For me, that would be the next major step in this line of investigation,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Mintzer has served as an adviser to Praxis Bioresearch and Cerevel Therapeutics on matters unrelated to this study. Dr. Cummings is the author of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory but does not receive payments for it from academic trials such as ADMET 2.
 

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

Methylphenidate is safe and effective for treating apathy in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research suggests.

Dundanim/shutterstock.com

Results from a phase 3 randomized trial showed that, after 6 months of treatment, mean score on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) apathy subscale decreased by 4.5 points for patients who received methylphenidate vs. a decrease of 3.1 points for those who received placebo.

In addition, the safety profile showed no significant between-group differences.

“Methylphenidate offers a treatment approach providing a modest but potentially clinically significant benefit for patients and caregivers,” said the investigators, led by Jacobo E. Mintzer, MD, MBA, professor of health studies at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.

The findings were published online Sept. 27 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Common problem

Apathy, which is common among patients with AD, is associated with increased risk for mortality, financial burden, and caregiver burden. No treatment has proved effective for apathy in this population.

Two trials of methylphenidate, a catecholaminergic agent, have provided preliminary evidence of efficacy. Findings from the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate trial (ADMET) suggested the drug was associated with improved cognition and few adverse events. However, both trials had small patient populations and short durations.

The current investigators conducted ADMET 2, a 6-month, phase 3 trial, to investigate methylphenidate further. They recruited 200 patients (mean age, 76 years; 66% men; 90% White) at nine clinical centers that specialized in dementia care in the United States and one in Canada.

Eligible patients had a diagnosis of possible or probable AD and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 10 and 28. They also had clinically significant apathy for at least 4 weeks and an available caregiver who spent more than 10 hours a week with the patient.

The researchers randomly assigned patients to receive methylphenidate (n = 99) or placebo (n = 101). For 3 days, participants in the active group received 10 mg/day of methylphenidate. After that point, they received 20 mg/day of methylphenidate for the rest of the study.

Patients in both treatment groups were given the same number of identical-appearing capsules each day.

In-person follow-up visits took place monthly for 6 months. Participants also were contacted by telephone at days 15, 45, and 75 after treatment assignment.

Participants underwent cognitive testing at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The battery of tests included the MMSE, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised Digit Span.

The trial’s two primary outcomes were mean change in NPI apathy score from baseline to 6 months and the odds of an improved rating on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) between baseline and 6 months.

Significant change on either outcome was to be considered a signal of effective treatment.
 

Treatment-specific benefit

Ten patients in the methylphenidate group and seven in the placebo group withdrew during the study.

Mean MMSE score at baseline was 19.2 in the methylphenidate group vs. 18.5 in the placebo group, indicating moderately severe dementia. Mean baseline score on the NPI apathy subscale was 8.0 vs. 7.6, respectively.

In an adjusted, longitudinal model, mean between-group difference in change in NPI apathy score at 6 months was –1.25 (P = .002). The mean NPI apathy score decreased by 4.5 points in the methylphenidate group vs. 3.1 points in the placebo group.

The largest change in apathy score occurred during the first 2 months of treatment. At 6 months, 27% of the methylphenidate group vs. 14% of the placebo group had an NPI apathy score of 0.

In addition, 43.8% of the methylphenidate group had improvement on the ADCS-CGIC compared with 35.2% of the placebo group. The odds ratio (OR) for improvement on ADCS-CGIC for methylphenidate vs. placebo was 1.90 (P = .07).

There was also a strong association between score improvement on the NPI apathy subscale and improvement on the ADCS-CGIC subscale (OR, 2.95; P = .002).

“It is important to note that there were no group differences in any of the cognitive measures, suggesting that the effect of the treatment is specific to the treatment of apathy and not a secondary effect of improvement in cognition,” the researchers wrote.

In all, 17 serious adverse events occurred in the methylphenidate group and 10 occurred in the placebo group. However, all events were found to be hospitalizations for events not related to treatment.
 

‘Enduring effect’

Commenting on the findings, Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, professor of brain sciences at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, noted that the reduction in NPI apathy subscale score of more than 50% was clinically meaningful.

A more robust outcome on the ADCS-CGIC would have been desirable, he added, although that instrument is not designed specifically for apathy.

Methylphenidate’s effect on apathy observed at 2 months and remaining stable throughout the study makes it appear to be “an enduring effect, and not something that the patient accommodates to,” said Dr. Cummings, who was not involved with the research. Such a change may manifest itself in a patient’s greater willingness to help voluntarily with housework or to suggest going for a walk, he noted.

“These are not dramatic changes in cognition, of course, but they are changes in initiative and that is very important,” Dr. Cummings said. Decreased apathy also may improve quality of life for the patient’s caregiver, he added.

Overall, the findings raise the question of whether the Food and Drug Administration should recognize apathy as an indication for which drugs can be approved, said Dr. Cummings.

“For me, that would be the next major step in this line of investigation,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Mintzer has served as an adviser to Praxis Bioresearch and Cerevel Therapeutics on matters unrelated to this study. Dr. Cummings is the author of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory but does not receive payments for it from academic trials such as ADMET 2.
 

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

Methylphenidate is safe and effective for treating apathy in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), new research suggests.

Dundanim/shutterstock.com

Results from a phase 3 randomized trial showed that, after 6 months of treatment, mean score on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) apathy subscale decreased by 4.5 points for patients who received methylphenidate vs. a decrease of 3.1 points for those who received placebo.

In addition, the safety profile showed no significant between-group differences.

“Methylphenidate offers a treatment approach providing a modest but potentially clinically significant benefit for patients and caregivers,” said the investigators, led by Jacobo E. Mintzer, MD, MBA, professor of health studies at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.

The findings were published online Sept. 27 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Common problem

Apathy, which is common among patients with AD, is associated with increased risk for mortality, financial burden, and caregiver burden. No treatment has proved effective for apathy in this population.

Two trials of methylphenidate, a catecholaminergic agent, have provided preliminary evidence of efficacy. Findings from the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate trial (ADMET) suggested the drug was associated with improved cognition and few adverse events. However, both trials had small patient populations and short durations.

The current investigators conducted ADMET 2, a 6-month, phase 3 trial, to investigate methylphenidate further. They recruited 200 patients (mean age, 76 years; 66% men; 90% White) at nine clinical centers that specialized in dementia care in the United States and one in Canada.

Eligible patients had a diagnosis of possible or probable AD and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 10 and 28. They also had clinically significant apathy for at least 4 weeks and an available caregiver who spent more than 10 hours a week with the patient.

The researchers randomly assigned patients to receive methylphenidate (n = 99) or placebo (n = 101). For 3 days, participants in the active group received 10 mg/day of methylphenidate. After that point, they received 20 mg/day of methylphenidate for the rest of the study.

Patients in both treatment groups were given the same number of identical-appearing capsules each day.

In-person follow-up visits took place monthly for 6 months. Participants also were contacted by telephone at days 15, 45, and 75 after treatment assignment.

Participants underwent cognitive testing at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The battery of tests included the MMSE, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Revised Digit Span.

The trial’s two primary outcomes were mean change in NPI apathy score from baseline to 6 months and the odds of an improved rating on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) between baseline and 6 months.

Significant change on either outcome was to be considered a signal of effective treatment.
 

Treatment-specific benefit

Ten patients in the methylphenidate group and seven in the placebo group withdrew during the study.

Mean MMSE score at baseline was 19.2 in the methylphenidate group vs. 18.5 in the placebo group, indicating moderately severe dementia. Mean baseline score on the NPI apathy subscale was 8.0 vs. 7.6, respectively.

In an adjusted, longitudinal model, mean between-group difference in change in NPI apathy score at 6 months was –1.25 (P = .002). The mean NPI apathy score decreased by 4.5 points in the methylphenidate group vs. 3.1 points in the placebo group.

The largest change in apathy score occurred during the first 2 months of treatment. At 6 months, 27% of the methylphenidate group vs. 14% of the placebo group had an NPI apathy score of 0.

In addition, 43.8% of the methylphenidate group had improvement on the ADCS-CGIC compared with 35.2% of the placebo group. The odds ratio (OR) for improvement on ADCS-CGIC for methylphenidate vs. placebo was 1.90 (P = .07).

There was also a strong association between score improvement on the NPI apathy subscale and improvement on the ADCS-CGIC subscale (OR, 2.95; P = .002).

“It is important to note that there were no group differences in any of the cognitive measures, suggesting that the effect of the treatment is specific to the treatment of apathy and not a secondary effect of improvement in cognition,” the researchers wrote.

In all, 17 serious adverse events occurred in the methylphenidate group and 10 occurred in the placebo group. However, all events were found to be hospitalizations for events not related to treatment.
 

‘Enduring effect’

Commenting on the findings, Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, professor of brain sciences at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, noted that the reduction in NPI apathy subscale score of more than 50% was clinically meaningful.

A more robust outcome on the ADCS-CGIC would have been desirable, he added, although that instrument is not designed specifically for apathy.

Methylphenidate’s effect on apathy observed at 2 months and remaining stable throughout the study makes it appear to be “an enduring effect, and not something that the patient accommodates to,” said Dr. Cummings, who was not involved with the research. Such a change may manifest itself in a patient’s greater willingness to help voluntarily with housework or to suggest going for a walk, he noted.

“These are not dramatic changes in cognition, of course, but they are changes in initiative and that is very important,” Dr. Cummings said. Decreased apathy also may improve quality of life for the patient’s caregiver, he added.

Overall, the findings raise the question of whether the Food and Drug Administration should recognize apathy as an indication for which drugs can be approved, said Dr. Cummings.

“For me, that would be the next major step in this line of investigation,” he concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Mintzer has served as an adviser to Praxis Bioresearch and Cerevel Therapeutics on matters unrelated to this study. Dr. Cummings is the author of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory but does not receive payments for it from academic trials such as ADMET 2.
 

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

How often do you find yourself on social media? The first thing I do when I wake up is check my email and text messages, as well as my Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram notifications.

Some 150,000 messages are shared on Facebook each minute; 293 million daily active users worldwide were recorded on Snapchat during the second quarter of 2021; 127.2 million monthly active users in the United States are projected to be on Instagram by 2023.

Social media has gained the hearts and wonder of many around the world. It’s absolutely incredible how ingrained it has become in our lives as a medium for creativity, outlet for communication, and platform for information. In fact, these online network tools have now become essential during COVID-19 to ensure productive workflow, keep in touch with our loved ones, and, overall, maintain social capital. Social media has truly emerged as a powerful form of living beyond our physical selves.

Yet, increased (and addictive) social media use is associated with negative health outcomes, especially among adolescents. For example, in a study reporting parent and adolescent accounts of social media use, it was reported that social media use was associated with hyperactivity/impulsivity, depression, anxiety, loneliness, and a fear of missing out. Furthermore, a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between social media use and depressive symptoms among adolescents found a small but significant and positive relationship between the two. However, additional research is required to elucidate this association.

Notwithstanding, the addictive nature of social media has previously been called out as analogous to the addictive nature of gambling. Let’s think about it. Whether you’re on Instagram, TikTok, or a similar platform, you can’t help but scroll from one video to the next. It’s one 5- to 10-second video after the next, and before you know it, you’ve spent the past hour going through random videos – but you can’t stop. Why is that so?

Social media actually “rewires” our brain such that we expect instant gratification. In other words, when we get a notification, message, like, or share, we expect fast and short-term pleasure/reward because the brain will produce a “hit of dopamine.” However, it is important to note that the reward system is not delimited to the dopaminergic pathway and, in fact, should be understood as a complex network system (i.e., governed by changes in brain morphology through addiction and excessive behavior). Given the quick pace of the social media world, the reward pathways in our brain change and there’s an increasing demand for attention, perpetuating an addictive mindset.

Maskot/Getty Images

When we refresh our page, we expect instant gratification. But what happens when we don’t get a like, or a message, or some sort of “reward”? Recounts of social media use by adolescents have likened online attention to popularity. Accordingly, a lack of constant attention on social media has created a vicious cycle of anxiety, loneliness, and depression because of a failure to receive “virtual” reward. Taken together, social media may be harmful because it distorts our self-image, and while social media platforms help connect us, they can also ironically make us feel isolated, lower our self-confidence, and diminish our overall sense of well-being.

As the platforms for communication and information have evolved so rapidly over the past decade, there is a need to establish boundaries between what is beneficial and what is potentially detrimental to our mental health. While social media companies should play a role in mitigating addictive social network behavior, it would also seem counterintuitive to the general business model. In that case, who takes charge? Perhaps teachers, guardians, health care providers, and the government need to play a role in teaching and training individuals how to manage their social media consumption. This multifaceted problem requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Leanna M.W. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto.

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

How often do you find yourself on social media? The first thing I do when I wake up is check my email and text messages, as well as my Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram notifications.

Some 150,000 messages are shared on Facebook each minute; 293 million daily active users worldwide were recorded on Snapchat during the second quarter of 2021; 127.2 million monthly active users in the United States are projected to be on Instagram by 2023.

Social media has gained the hearts and wonder of many around the world. It’s absolutely incredible how ingrained it has become in our lives as a medium for creativity, outlet for communication, and platform for information. In fact, these online network tools have now become essential during COVID-19 to ensure productive workflow, keep in touch with our loved ones, and, overall, maintain social capital. Social media has truly emerged as a powerful form of living beyond our physical selves.

Yet, increased (and addictive) social media use is associated with negative health outcomes, especially among adolescents. For example, in a study reporting parent and adolescent accounts of social media use, it was reported that social media use was associated with hyperactivity/impulsivity, depression, anxiety, loneliness, and a fear of missing out. Furthermore, a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between social media use and depressive symptoms among adolescents found a small but significant and positive relationship between the two. However, additional research is required to elucidate this association.

Notwithstanding, the addictive nature of social media has previously been called out as analogous to the addictive nature of gambling. Let’s think about it. Whether you’re on Instagram, TikTok, or a similar platform, you can’t help but scroll from one video to the next. It’s one 5- to 10-second video after the next, and before you know it, you’ve spent the past hour going through random videos – but you can’t stop. Why is that so?

Social media actually “rewires” our brain such that we expect instant gratification. In other words, when we get a notification, message, like, or share, we expect fast and short-term pleasure/reward because the brain will produce a “hit of dopamine.” However, it is important to note that the reward system is not delimited to the dopaminergic pathway and, in fact, should be understood as a complex network system (i.e., governed by changes in brain morphology through addiction and excessive behavior). Given the quick pace of the social media world, the reward pathways in our brain change and there’s an increasing demand for attention, perpetuating an addictive mindset.

Maskot/Getty Images

When we refresh our page, we expect instant gratification. But what happens when we don’t get a like, or a message, or some sort of “reward”? Recounts of social media use by adolescents have likened online attention to popularity. Accordingly, a lack of constant attention on social media has created a vicious cycle of anxiety, loneliness, and depression because of a failure to receive “virtual” reward. Taken together, social media may be harmful because it distorts our self-image, and while social media platforms help connect us, they can also ironically make us feel isolated, lower our self-confidence, and diminish our overall sense of well-being.

As the platforms for communication and information have evolved so rapidly over the past decade, there is a need to establish boundaries between what is beneficial and what is potentially detrimental to our mental health. While social media companies should play a role in mitigating addictive social network behavior, it would also seem counterintuitive to the general business model. In that case, who takes charge? Perhaps teachers, guardians, health care providers, and the government need to play a role in teaching and training individuals how to manage their social media consumption. This multifaceted problem requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Leanna M.W. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto.

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

How often do you find yourself on social media? The first thing I do when I wake up is check my email and text messages, as well as my Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram notifications.

Some 150,000 messages are shared on Facebook each minute; 293 million daily active users worldwide were recorded on Snapchat during the second quarter of 2021; 127.2 million monthly active users in the United States are projected to be on Instagram by 2023.

Social media has gained the hearts and wonder of many around the world. It’s absolutely incredible how ingrained it has become in our lives as a medium for creativity, outlet for communication, and platform for information. In fact, these online network tools have now become essential during COVID-19 to ensure productive workflow, keep in touch with our loved ones, and, overall, maintain social capital. Social media has truly emerged as a powerful form of living beyond our physical selves.

Yet, increased (and addictive) social media use is associated with negative health outcomes, especially among adolescents. For example, in a study reporting parent and adolescent accounts of social media use, it was reported that social media use was associated with hyperactivity/impulsivity, depression, anxiety, loneliness, and a fear of missing out. Furthermore, a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between social media use and depressive symptoms among adolescents found a small but significant and positive relationship between the two. However, additional research is required to elucidate this association.

Notwithstanding, the addictive nature of social media has previously been called out as analogous to the addictive nature of gambling. Let’s think about it. Whether you’re on Instagram, TikTok, or a similar platform, you can’t help but scroll from one video to the next. It’s one 5- to 10-second video after the next, and before you know it, you’ve spent the past hour going through random videos – but you can’t stop. Why is that so?

Social media actually “rewires” our brain such that we expect instant gratification. In other words, when we get a notification, message, like, or share, we expect fast and short-term pleasure/reward because the brain will produce a “hit of dopamine.” However, it is important to note that the reward system is not delimited to the dopaminergic pathway and, in fact, should be understood as a complex network system (i.e., governed by changes in brain morphology through addiction and excessive behavior). Given the quick pace of the social media world, the reward pathways in our brain change and there’s an increasing demand for attention, perpetuating an addictive mindset.

Maskot/Getty Images

When we refresh our page, we expect instant gratification. But what happens when we don’t get a like, or a message, or some sort of “reward”? Recounts of social media use by adolescents have likened online attention to popularity. Accordingly, a lack of constant attention on social media has created a vicious cycle of anxiety, loneliness, and depression because of a failure to receive “virtual” reward. Taken together, social media may be harmful because it distorts our self-image, and while social media platforms help connect us, they can also ironically make us feel isolated, lower our self-confidence, and diminish our overall sense of well-being.

As the platforms for communication and information have evolved so rapidly over the past decade, there is a need to establish boundaries between what is beneficial and what is potentially detrimental to our mental health. While social media companies should play a role in mitigating addictive social network behavior, it would also seem counterintuitive to the general business model. In that case, who takes charge? Perhaps teachers, guardians, health care providers, and the government need to play a role in teaching and training individuals how to manage their social media consumption. This multifaceted problem requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Leanna M.W. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto.

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