Major Depressive Disorder

TOPLINE:

A study found that patients who die by suicide within a year after discharge from inpatient mental health care are less likely to have primary care consultation in the first 2 weeks, highlighting a gap during the high-risk transition period.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control study design, analyzing the records of 613 people who died by suicide within a year of being discharged from an inpatient psychiatric facility in England between 2001 and 2019.
• Of these, 93 (15.4%) died within 2 weeks of discharge.
• Each patient was matched with up to 20 control individuals who were discharged at a similar time but were living.
• Researchers evaluated primary care consultations after discharge.

TAKEAWAY:

• People who died by suicide within a year were less likely to have had a primary care consultation within 2 weeks of discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.61; P = .01).
• Those who died by suicide had higher odds for a consultation in the week preceding their death (aOR, 1.71; P < .001) and the prescription of three or more psychotropic medications (aOR, 1.73; P < .001).
• Evidence of discharge communication between the facility and primary care clinician was infrequent, highlighting a gap in continuity of care.
• Approximately 40% of people who died within 2 weeks of discharge had a documented visit with a primary care clinician during that period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Primary care clinicians have opportunities to intervene and should prioritize patients experiencing transition from inpatient care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca Musgrove, PhD, of the Centre for Mental Health and Safety at The University of Manchester in England, and published online on June 12 in BJGP Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on individuals registered with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink may have caused some suicide cases to be excluded, limiting generalizability. Lack of linked up-to-date mental health records may have led to the omission of significant post-discharge care data. Incomplete discharge documentation may undercount informational continuity, affecting multivariable analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research. Some authors declared serving as members of advisory groups and receiving grants and personal fees from various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A study found that patients who die by suicide within a year after discharge from inpatient mental health care are less likely to have primary care consultation in the first 2 weeks, highlighting a gap during the high-risk transition period.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control study design, analyzing the records of 613 people who died by suicide within a year of being discharged from an inpatient psychiatric facility in England between 2001 and 2019.
• Of these, 93 (15.4%) died within 2 weeks of discharge.
• Each patient was matched with up to 20 control individuals who were discharged at a similar time but were living.
• Researchers evaluated primary care consultations after discharge.

TAKEAWAY:

• People who died by suicide within a year were less likely to have had a primary care consultation within 2 weeks of discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.61; P = .01).
• Those who died by suicide had higher odds for a consultation in the week preceding their death (aOR, 1.71; P < .001) and the prescription of three or more psychotropic medications (aOR, 1.73; P < .001).
• Evidence of discharge communication between the facility and primary care clinician was infrequent, highlighting a gap in continuity of care.
• Approximately 40% of people who died within 2 weeks of discharge had a documented visit with a primary care clinician during that period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Primary care clinicians have opportunities to intervene and should prioritize patients experiencing transition from inpatient care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca Musgrove, PhD, of the Centre for Mental Health and Safety at The University of Manchester in England, and published online on June 12 in BJGP Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on individuals registered with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink may have caused some suicide cases to be excluded, limiting generalizability. Lack of linked up-to-date mental health records may have led to the omission of significant post-discharge care data. Incomplete discharge documentation may undercount informational continuity, affecting multivariable analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research. Some authors declared serving as members of advisory groups and receiving grants and personal fees from various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A study found that patients who die by suicide within a year after discharge from inpatient mental health care are less likely to have primary care consultation in the first 2 weeks, highlighting a gap during the high-risk transition period.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control study design, analyzing the records of 613 people who died by suicide within a year of being discharged from an inpatient psychiatric facility in England between 2001 and 2019.
• Of these, 93 (15.4%) died within 2 weeks of discharge.
• Each patient was matched with up to 20 control individuals who were discharged at a similar time but were living.
• Researchers evaluated primary care consultations after discharge.

TAKEAWAY:

• People who died by suicide within a year were less likely to have had a primary care consultation within 2 weeks of discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.61; P = .01).
• Those who died by suicide had higher odds for a consultation in the week preceding their death (aOR, 1.71; P < .001) and the prescription of three or more psychotropic medications (aOR, 1.73; P < .001).
• Evidence of discharge communication between the facility and primary care clinician was infrequent, highlighting a gap in continuity of care.
• Approximately 40% of people who died within 2 weeks of discharge had a documented visit with a primary care clinician during that period.

IN PRACTICE:

“Primary care clinicians have opportunities to intervene and should prioritize patients experiencing transition from inpatient care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Rebecca Musgrove, PhD, of the Centre for Mental Health and Safety at The University of Manchester in England, and published online on June 12 in BJGP Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on individuals registered with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink may have caused some suicide cases to be excluded, limiting generalizability. Lack of linked up-to-date mental health records may have led to the omission of significant post-discharge care data. Incomplete discharge documentation may undercount informational continuity, affecting multivariable analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research. Some authors declared serving as members of advisory groups and receiving grants and personal fees from various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Brain imaging combined with artificial intelligence has identified six distinct “biotypes” of depression and anxiety that may lead to more personalized and effective treatment.

This research has “immediate clinical implications,” study investigator Leanne Williams, PhD, director of the Stanford Medicine Center for Precision Mental Health and Wellness, told this news organization.

“At Stanford, we have started translating the imaging technology into use in a new precision mental health clinic. The technology is being actively developed for wider use in clinical settings, and we hope to make it accessible to more clinicians and patients,” Dr. Williams said.

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.

 

No More Trial and Error?

Depression is a highly heterogeneous disease, with individual patients having different symptoms and treatment responses. About 30% of patients with major depression are resistant to treatment, and about half of patients with generalized anxiety disorder do not respond to first-line treatment.

“The dominant ‘one-size-fits-all’ diagnostic approach in psychiatry leads to cycling through treatment options by trial and error, which is lengthy, expensive, and frustrating, with 30%-40% of patients not achieving remission after trying one treatment,” the authors noted.

“The goal of our work is figuring out how we can get it right the first time,” Dr. Williams said in a news release, and that requires a better understanding of the neurobiology of depression.

To that end, 801 adults diagnosed with depression and anxiety underwent functional MRI to measure brain activity at rest and when engaged in tasks designed to test cognitive and emotional functioning.

Researchers probed six brain circuits previously associated with depression: the default mode circuit, salience circuit, attention circuit, negative affect circuit, positive affect circuit, and the cognitive control circuit.

Using a machine learning technique known as cluster analysis to group the patients’ brain images, they identified six clinically distinct biotypes of depression and anxiety defined by specific profiles of dysfunction within both task-free and task-evoked brain circuits.

“Importantly for clinical translation, these biotypes predict response to different pharmacological and behavioral interventions,” investigators wrote.

For example, patients with a biotype characterized by overactivity in cognitive regions of the brain experienced the best response to the antidepressant venlafaxine, compared with patients with other biotypes.

Patients with a different biotype, characterized by higher at-rest levels of activity in three regions associated with depression and problem-solving, responded better to behavioral therapy.

In addition, those with a third biotype, who had lower levels of activity at rest in the brain circuit that controls attention, were less apt to see improvement of their symptoms with behavioral therapy than those with other biotypes. The various biotypes also correlated with differences in symptoms and task performance.

For example, individuals with overactive cognitive regions of the brain had higher levels of anhedonia than those with other biotypes, and they also performed worse on tasks measuring executive function. Those with the biotype that responded best to behavioral therapy also made errors on executive function tasks but performed well on cognitive tasks.
 

A Work in Progress

The findings provide a deeper understanding of the neurobiological underpinnings of depression and anxiety and could lead to improved diagnostic accuracy and more tailored treatment approaches, the researchers noted.

Naming the biotypes is a work in progress, Dr. Williams said.

“We have thought a lot about the naming. In the Nature Medicine paper, we use a technical convention to name the biotypes based on which brain circuit problems define each of them,” she explained.

“For example, the first biotype is called DC+SC+AC+ because it is defined by connectivity increases [C+] on three resting circuits — default mode [D], salience [S], and frontoparietal attention [A]. We are working with collaborators to generate biotype names that could be convergent across findings and labs. In the near future, we anticipate generating more descriptive medical names that clinicians could refer to alongside the technical names,” Dr. Williams said.

Commenting on the research for this news organization, James Murrough, MD, PhD, director of the Depression and Anxiety Center for Research and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called it “super exciting.”

“The work from this research group is an excellent example of where precision psychiatry research is right now, particularly with regard to the use of brain imaging to personalize treatment, and this paper gives us a glimpse of where we could be in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Murrough said.

However, he cautioned that at this point, “we’re far from realizing the dream of precision psychiatry. We just don’t have robust evidence that brain imaging markers can really guide clinical decision-making currently.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and by Brain Resource Ltd. Dr. Williams declared US patent applications numbered 10/034,645 and 15/820,338: “Systems and methods for detecting complex networks in MRI data.” Dr. Murrough had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Brain imaging combined with artificial intelligence has identified six distinct “biotypes” of depression and anxiety that may lead to more personalized and effective treatment.

This research has “immediate clinical implications,” study investigator Leanne Williams, PhD, director of the Stanford Medicine Center for Precision Mental Health and Wellness, told this news organization.

“At Stanford, we have started translating the imaging technology into use in a new precision mental health clinic. The technology is being actively developed for wider use in clinical settings, and we hope to make it accessible to more clinicians and patients,” Dr. Williams said.

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.

 

No More Trial and Error?

Depression is a highly heterogeneous disease, with individual patients having different symptoms and treatment responses. About 30% of patients with major depression are resistant to treatment, and about half of patients with generalized anxiety disorder do not respond to first-line treatment.

“The dominant ‘one-size-fits-all’ diagnostic approach in psychiatry leads to cycling through treatment options by trial and error, which is lengthy, expensive, and frustrating, with 30%-40% of patients not achieving remission after trying one treatment,” the authors noted.

“The goal of our work is figuring out how we can get it right the first time,” Dr. Williams said in a news release, and that requires a better understanding of the neurobiology of depression.

To that end, 801 adults diagnosed with depression and anxiety underwent functional MRI to measure brain activity at rest and when engaged in tasks designed to test cognitive and emotional functioning.

Researchers probed six brain circuits previously associated with depression: the default mode circuit, salience circuit, attention circuit, negative affect circuit, positive affect circuit, and the cognitive control circuit.

Using a machine learning technique known as cluster analysis to group the patients’ brain images, they identified six clinically distinct biotypes of depression and anxiety defined by specific profiles of dysfunction within both task-free and task-evoked brain circuits.

“Importantly for clinical translation, these biotypes predict response to different pharmacological and behavioral interventions,” investigators wrote.

For example, patients with a biotype characterized by overactivity in cognitive regions of the brain experienced the best response to the antidepressant venlafaxine, compared with patients with other biotypes.

Patients with a different biotype, characterized by higher at-rest levels of activity in three regions associated with depression and problem-solving, responded better to behavioral therapy.

In addition, those with a third biotype, who had lower levels of activity at rest in the brain circuit that controls attention, were less apt to see improvement of their symptoms with behavioral therapy than those with other biotypes. The various biotypes also correlated with differences in symptoms and task performance.

For example, individuals with overactive cognitive regions of the brain had higher levels of anhedonia than those with other biotypes, and they also performed worse on tasks measuring executive function. Those with the biotype that responded best to behavioral therapy also made errors on executive function tasks but performed well on cognitive tasks.
 

A Work in Progress

The findings provide a deeper understanding of the neurobiological underpinnings of depression and anxiety and could lead to improved diagnostic accuracy and more tailored treatment approaches, the researchers noted.

Naming the biotypes is a work in progress, Dr. Williams said.

“We have thought a lot about the naming. In the Nature Medicine paper, we use a technical convention to name the biotypes based on which brain circuit problems define each of them,” she explained.

“For example, the first biotype is called DC+SC+AC+ because it is defined by connectivity increases [C+] on three resting circuits — default mode [D], salience [S], and frontoparietal attention [A]. We are working with collaborators to generate biotype names that could be convergent across findings and labs. In the near future, we anticipate generating more descriptive medical names that clinicians could refer to alongside the technical names,” Dr. Williams said.

Commenting on the research for this news organization, James Murrough, MD, PhD, director of the Depression and Anxiety Center for Research and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called it “super exciting.”

“The work from this research group is an excellent example of where precision psychiatry research is right now, particularly with regard to the use of brain imaging to personalize treatment, and this paper gives us a glimpse of where we could be in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Murrough said.

However, he cautioned that at this point, “we’re far from realizing the dream of precision psychiatry. We just don’t have robust evidence that brain imaging markers can really guide clinical decision-making currently.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and by Brain Resource Ltd. Dr. Williams declared US patent applications numbered 10/034,645 and 15/820,338: “Systems and methods for detecting complex networks in MRI data.” Dr. Murrough had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Brain imaging combined with artificial intelligence has identified six distinct “biotypes” of depression and anxiety that may lead to more personalized and effective treatment.

This research has “immediate clinical implications,” study investigator Leanne Williams, PhD, director of the Stanford Medicine Center for Precision Mental Health and Wellness, told this news organization.

“At Stanford, we have started translating the imaging technology into use in a new precision mental health clinic. The technology is being actively developed for wider use in clinical settings, and we hope to make it accessible to more clinicians and patients,” Dr. Williams said.

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.

 

No More Trial and Error?

Depression is a highly heterogeneous disease, with individual patients having different symptoms and treatment responses. About 30% of patients with major depression are resistant to treatment, and about half of patients with generalized anxiety disorder do not respond to first-line treatment.

“The dominant ‘one-size-fits-all’ diagnostic approach in psychiatry leads to cycling through treatment options by trial and error, which is lengthy, expensive, and frustrating, with 30%-40% of patients not achieving remission after trying one treatment,” the authors noted.

“The goal of our work is figuring out how we can get it right the first time,” Dr. Williams said in a news release, and that requires a better understanding of the neurobiology of depression.

To that end, 801 adults diagnosed with depression and anxiety underwent functional MRI to measure brain activity at rest and when engaged in tasks designed to test cognitive and emotional functioning.

Researchers probed six brain circuits previously associated with depression: the default mode circuit, salience circuit, attention circuit, negative affect circuit, positive affect circuit, and the cognitive control circuit.

Using a machine learning technique known as cluster analysis to group the patients’ brain images, they identified six clinically distinct biotypes of depression and anxiety defined by specific profiles of dysfunction within both task-free and task-evoked brain circuits.

“Importantly for clinical translation, these biotypes predict response to different pharmacological and behavioral interventions,” investigators wrote.

For example, patients with a biotype characterized by overactivity in cognitive regions of the brain experienced the best response to the antidepressant venlafaxine, compared with patients with other biotypes.

Patients with a different biotype, characterized by higher at-rest levels of activity in three regions associated with depression and problem-solving, responded better to behavioral therapy.

In addition, those with a third biotype, who had lower levels of activity at rest in the brain circuit that controls attention, were less apt to see improvement of their symptoms with behavioral therapy than those with other biotypes. The various biotypes also correlated with differences in symptoms and task performance.

For example, individuals with overactive cognitive regions of the brain had higher levels of anhedonia than those with other biotypes, and they also performed worse on tasks measuring executive function. Those with the biotype that responded best to behavioral therapy also made errors on executive function tasks but performed well on cognitive tasks.
 

A Work in Progress

The findings provide a deeper understanding of the neurobiological underpinnings of depression and anxiety and could lead to improved diagnostic accuracy and more tailored treatment approaches, the researchers noted.

Naming the biotypes is a work in progress, Dr. Williams said.

“We have thought a lot about the naming. In the Nature Medicine paper, we use a technical convention to name the biotypes based on which brain circuit problems define each of them,” she explained.

“For example, the first biotype is called DC+SC+AC+ because it is defined by connectivity increases [C+] on three resting circuits — default mode [D], salience [S], and frontoparietal attention [A]. We are working with collaborators to generate biotype names that could be convergent across findings and labs. In the near future, we anticipate generating more descriptive medical names that clinicians could refer to alongside the technical names,” Dr. Williams said.

Commenting on the research for this news organization, James Murrough, MD, PhD, director of the Depression and Anxiety Center for Research and Treatment at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called it “super exciting.”

“The work from this research group is an excellent example of where precision psychiatry research is right now, particularly with regard to the use of brain imaging to personalize treatment, and this paper gives us a glimpse of where we could be in the not-too-distant future,” Dr. Murrough said.

However, he cautioned that at this point, “we’re far from realizing the dream of precision psychiatry. We just don’t have robust evidence that brain imaging markers can really guide clinical decision-making currently.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and by Brain Resource Ltd. Dr. Williams declared US patent applications numbered 10/034,645 and 15/820,338: “Systems and methods for detecting complex networks in MRI data.” Dr. Murrough had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits in the United States for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm show an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with visits being most common among adolescents and the largest increase in visits being seen in adults aged 65 years or older.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual nationwide cross-sectional survey, to track trends in ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm in the United States from 2011 to 2020.
• Researchers identified visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, along with diagnoses of any co-occurring mental health conditions, using discharge diagnosis codes or reason-for-visit codes.
• The focus was to identify the percentages of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, with analyses done per 100,000 persons and for changes possibly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of ED visits owing to suicide attempts and intentional self-harm increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 5.37 million in 2019-2020 (average annual percent change, 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9-22.2).
• The rate of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm was higher among adolescents and young adults, particularly women, and lower among children.
• Despite a surge in ED visits for self-harm, less than 16% included a mental health evaluation, with visits among patients with mood disorders decreasing by 5.5% annually and those among patients with drug-related disorders increasing by 6.8% annually.
• In 2019-2020, those aged 15-20 years had the highest rate of ED visits (1552 visits per 100,000 persons), with a significant increase seen across all age groups; the largest increase was among those aged 65 years or older.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that suicide attempts are the single greatest risk factor for suicide, evidence-based management of individuals presenting to emergency departments with suicide attempts and intentional self-harm is a critical component of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Tanner J. Bommersbach, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm were identified based on discharge diagnostic and reason-for-visit codes, which may have led to an underestimation of visits for suicide attempts. ED visits for suicidal vs nonsuicidal self-injury could not be distinguished due to reliance on discharge diagnostic codes. Visits for suicidal ideation, which was not the focus of the study, may have been miscoded as suicide attempts and intentional self-harm.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding source was reported for the study. Some authors received funding grants from various institutions, and one author disclosed receiving honoraria for service as a review committee member and serving as a stakeholder/consultant and as an advisory committee member for some institutes and agencies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits in the United States for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm show an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with visits being most common among adolescents and the largest increase in visits being seen in adults aged 65 years or older.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual nationwide cross-sectional survey, to track trends in ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm in the United States from 2011 to 2020.
• Researchers identified visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, along with diagnoses of any co-occurring mental health conditions, using discharge diagnosis codes or reason-for-visit codes.
• The focus was to identify the percentages of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, with analyses done per 100,000 persons and for changes possibly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of ED visits owing to suicide attempts and intentional self-harm increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 5.37 million in 2019-2020 (average annual percent change, 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9-22.2).
• The rate of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm was higher among adolescents and young adults, particularly women, and lower among children.
• Despite a surge in ED visits for self-harm, less than 16% included a mental health evaluation, with visits among patients with mood disorders decreasing by 5.5% annually and those among patients with drug-related disorders increasing by 6.8% annually.
• In 2019-2020, those aged 15-20 years had the highest rate of ED visits (1552 visits per 100,000 persons), with a significant increase seen across all age groups; the largest increase was among those aged 65 years or older.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that suicide attempts are the single greatest risk factor for suicide, evidence-based management of individuals presenting to emergency departments with suicide attempts and intentional self-harm is a critical component of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Tanner J. Bommersbach, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm were identified based on discharge diagnostic and reason-for-visit codes, which may have led to an underestimation of visits for suicide attempts. ED visits for suicidal vs nonsuicidal self-injury could not be distinguished due to reliance on discharge diagnostic codes. Visits for suicidal ideation, which was not the focus of the study, may have been miscoded as suicide attempts and intentional self-harm.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding source was reported for the study. Some authors received funding grants from various institutions, and one author disclosed receiving honoraria for service as a review committee member and serving as a stakeholder/consultant and as an advisory committee member for some institutes and agencies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits in the United States for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm show an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with visits being most common among adolescents and the largest increase in visits being seen in adults aged 65 years or older.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual nationwide cross-sectional survey, to track trends in ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm in the United States from 2011 to 2020.
• Researchers identified visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, along with diagnoses of any co-occurring mental health conditions, using discharge diagnosis codes or reason-for-visit codes.
• The focus was to identify the percentages of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, with analyses done per 100,000 persons and for changes possibly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of ED visits owing to suicide attempts and intentional self-harm increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 5.37 million in 2019-2020 (average annual percent change, 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9-22.2).
• The rate of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm was higher among adolescents and young adults, particularly women, and lower among children.
• Despite a surge in ED visits for self-harm, less than 16% included a mental health evaluation, with visits among patients with mood disorders decreasing by 5.5% annually and those among patients with drug-related disorders increasing by 6.8% annually.
• In 2019-2020, those aged 15-20 years had the highest rate of ED visits (1552 visits per 100,000 persons), with a significant increase seen across all age groups; the largest increase was among those aged 65 years or older.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that suicide attempts are the single greatest risk factor for suicide, evidence-based management of individuals presenting to emergency departments with suicide attempts and intentional self-harm is a critical component of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Tanner J. Bommersbach, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm were identified based on discharge diagnostic and reason-for-visit codes, which may have led to an underestimation of visits for suicide attempts. ED visits for suicidal vs nonsuicidal self-injury could not be distinguished due to reliance on discharge diagnostic codes. Visits for suicidal ideation, which was not the focus of the study, may have been miscoded as suicide attempts and intentional self-harm.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding source was reported for the study. Some authors received funding grants from various institutions, and one author disclosed receiving honoraria for service as a review committee member and serving as a stakeholder/consultant and as an advisory committee member for some institutes and agencies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Seltorexant, an investigational drug being developed by Johnson & Johnson, met all primary and secondary endpoints in a phase 3 trial of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with insomnia symptoms, the company has announced.

Seltorexant is an investigational potential first-in-class selective antagonist of the human orexin 2 receptor being studied for the adjunctive treatment of MDD with insomnia symptoms. Its selective mechanism of action means it has the potential to improve both mood and sleep symptoms associated with depression.

The phase 3 MDD3001 study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing the efficacy and safety of 20-mg oral seltorexant once daily with placebo, added to background selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor/serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SSRI/SNRI) therapy, for improving depressive symptoms in adult and elderly patients with MDD with insomnia symptoms.

In the study, seltorexant led to “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” improvement in depressive symptoms based on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score, as well as improved sleep disturbance outcomes, in patients with moderate to severe depression and severe sleep disturbance who had a prior inadequate response to SSRI/SNRI antidepressants alone, the company announced in a statement.

Consistent with previous trials of seltorexant, the drug was safe and well-tolerated, with similar rates of common adverse events seen in both treatment groups.

“Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide and shares a strong link with sleep disturbances. In MDD, insomnia symptoms exacerbate the risk of depressive relapse, increase healthcare costs, and impact quality of life, and it often goes undertreated despite being one of the most common residual symptoms,” Andrew Krystal, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute for Neurosciences, said in the statement.

“Seltorexant has the potential to fill a significant unmet need for new therapies to treat patients experiencing depression and insomnia and, most importantly, to improve outcomes and quality of life for these patients,” Dr. Krystal added.

The topline results are being presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) 2024 Annual Meeting in Miami, Florida.

The positive phase 3 data follow earlier promising data reported in 2022, as reported by this news organization.

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

Seltorexant, an investigational drug being developed by Johnson & Johnson, met all primary and secondary endpoints in a phase 3 trial of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with insomnia symptoms, the company has announced.

Seltorexant is an investigational potential first-in-class selective antagonist of the human orexin 2 receptor being studied for the adjunctive treatment of MDD with insomnia symptoms. Its selective mechanism of action means it has the potential to improve both mood and sleep symptoms associated with depression.

The phase 3 MDD3001 study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing the efficacy and safety of 20-mg oral seltorexant once daily with placebo, added to background selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor/serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SSRI/SNRI) therapy, for improving depressive symptoms in adult and elderly patients with MDD with insomnia symptoms.

In the study, seltorexant led to “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” improvement in depressive symptoms based on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score, as well as improved sleep disturbance outcomes, in patients with moderate to severe depression and severe sleep disturbance who had a prior inadequate response to SSRI/SNRI antidepressants alone, the company announced in a statement.

Consistent with previous trials of seltorexant, the drug was safe and well-tolerated, with similar rates of common adverse events seen in both treatment groups.

“Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide and shares a strong link with sleep disturbances. In MDD, insomnia symptoms exacerbate the risk of depressive relapse, increase healthcare costs, and impact quality of life, and it often goes undertreated despite being one of the most common residual symptoms,” Andrew Krystal, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute for Neurosciences, said in the statement.

“Seltorexant has the potential to fill a significant unmet need for new therapies to treat patients experiencing depression and insomnia and, most importantly, to improve outcomes and quality of life for these patients,” Dr. Krystal added.

The topline results are being presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) 2024 Annual Meeting in Miami, Florida.

The positive phase 3 data follow earlier promising data reported in 2022, as reported by this news organization.

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

Seltorexant, an investigational drug being developed by Johnson & Johnson, met all primary and secondary endpoints in a phase 3 trial of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with insomnia symptoms, the company has announced.

Seltorexant is an investigational potential first-in-class selective antagonist of the human orexin 2 receptor being studied for the adjunctive treatment of MDD with insomnia symptoms. Its selective mechanism of action means it has the potential to improve both mood and sleep symptoms associated with depression.

The phase 3 MDD3001 study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing the efficacy and safety of 20-mg oral seltorexant once daily with placebo, added to background selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor/serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SSRI/SNRI) therapy, for improving depressive symptoms in adult and elderly patients with MDD with insomnia symptoms.

In the study, seltorexant led to “statistically significant and clinically meaningful” improvement in depressive symptoms based on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score, as well as improved sleep disturbance outcomes, in patients with moderate to severe depression and severe sleep disturbance who had a prior inadequate response to SSRI/SNRI antidepressants alone, the company announced in a statement.

Consistent with previous trials of seltorexant, the drug was safe and well-tolerated, with similar rates of common adverse events seen in both treatment groups.

“Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide and shares a strong link with sleep disturbances. In MDD, insomnia symptoms exacerbate the risk of depressive relapse, increase healthcare costs, and impact quality of life, and it often goes undertreated despite being one of the most common residual symptoms,” Andrew Krystal, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute for Neurosciences, said in the statement.

“Seltorexant has the potential to fill a significant unmet need for new therapies to treat patients experiencing depression and insomnia and, most importantly, to improve outcomes and quality of life for these patients,” Dr. Krystal added.

The topline results are being presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) 2024 Annual Meeting in Miami, Florida.

The positive phase 3 data follow earlier promising data reported in 2022, as reported by this news organization.

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

Teens with classmates who have a mental illness have a significantly greater risk for a psychiatric diagnosis later in life, even after controlling for parents’ mental health history and other factors, a new study suggested.

The research provides new evidence that adolescents within a specific peer network may possibly “transmit” mental disorders such as depression and anxiety to each other, the investigators noted.

Having a classmate with a mental illness was associated with a 3% higher risk for subsequent psychiatric diagnosis, researchers found. The risk was highest — 13% — in the first year of follow-up and was strongest for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders.

The study is said to the be the largest to date on the topic, including data on more than 700,000 ninth graders in Finland who were followed for up to 18 years.

At least one expert noted that the numbers are higher than he would have expected, but the investigators were quick to caution the study doesn’t prove having a classmate with a mental illness leads to later psychiatric diagnosis among peers.

“The associations observed in the study are not necessarily causal,” lead investigator Jussi Alho, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki, Finland, told this news organization. “The study did not investigate the mechanisms that explain the observed associations.”

The results were published online on May 22 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Few Data

Previous studies have reported a clustering of mood symptoms, eating disorders, and other psychiatric illnesses among adolescent and adult social networks. But most involve self-selected peer groups.

“Investigating the transmission of mental disorders is especially important in childhood and adolescence,” the authors noted. “Yet, despite a few survey studies reporting that adolescents may experience increased mental health symptoms when exposed to friends or peers with mental health problems, large-scale studies on the potential peer influences of mental disorders in youth are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Researchers used a database of 713,809 students in the ninth grade, about half boys and half girls. All were born between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 1997. About 47,000 were excluded as they had a mental disorder diagnosis before the study began.

Some 666,000 students in 860 schools were followed from ninth grade until the first diagnosed mental disorder, death, emigration, or the end of the study in 2019. Median follow-up was 11.4 years.

Diagnoses were gathered from Finnish registries for inpatient, outpatient, and primary care and included ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnoses for substance misuse disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, emotional and social-functioning disorders, and hyperkinetic and conduct disorders.

The authors adjusted for sex, birth year, school and ninth-grade class size, area-level urbanicity, area-level morbidity, area-level education, area-level employment rate, parental educational level, and parental mental health, with a random intercept per school.
 

Dose-Response Relationship

Overall, a quarter (167,227) of the students were diagnosed with a mental disorder.

The risk of being diagnosed with any mental disorder was 3% higher during the entire follow-up period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04). Risk was highest in the first year of follow-up (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18) and then rose again in years 4 and 5, when the risk was 5% higher with one diagnosed classmate and 10% higher with more than one diagnosed classmate.

The risk was significantly increased for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders in each follow-up time window. Investigators also noted a dose-response relationship: The more classmates with a psychiatric illness, the greater the risk for later mental illness.

“These findings suggest that mental disorders may be transmitted within adolescent peer networks,” the authors wrote.

The researchers chose to describe the spread of mental disorders among peer classmates as “transmission” in part because it has been previously used in the literature, Dr. Alho said.

Alho said the researchers also believe that transmission is an accurate term to describe the potential mechanisms by which mental disorders may spread.

The authors hypothesized that more students might be diagnosed when disorders are normalized, through increased awareness and receptivity to diagnosis and treatment.

Conversely, the rate of disorders might also have increased — especially in the first year of follow-up — if there were no students in the peer network who had been diagnosed, the authors added. Without an example, it might discourage a student to seek help.

The authors also noted that it’s “conceivable that long-term exposure to a depressive individual could lead to gradual development of depressive symptoms through the well-established neural mechanisms of emotional contagion.”
 

New Direction for Treatment?

Commenting on the findings, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, the Betty Jo Hay Distinguished Chair in Mental Health at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said that the theory that having classmates with psychiatric illness could normalize these conditions has merit.

Once someone is diagnosed or receives treatment, “their peers kind of get implicit permission to be able to then express their own symptoms or express their own problems, which they may have been hiding or not recognized,” he said.

However, Dr. Trivedi disagreed with the authors’ suggestion that the rate of disorders might also have increased if no classmates had received a psychiatric diagnosis, noting that it was unlikely that a student would not have been exposed to depression, anxiety, or another mood disorder — through a peer or family member — given how common those illnesses are.

“The numbers are slightly higher than I would have expected,” Dr. Trivedi said, adding that peer influence having that type of impact “is something that has not been shown before.”

The study is notable for its use of comprehensive registries, which helped solidify the data integrity, Trivedi said, and the results offer some potential new directions for treatment, such as adding peer support. That has been found useful in adult treatment but has been less utilized with adolescents, he said.

The study was funded by the European Union and the Academy of Finland. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens with classmates who have a mental illness have a significantly greater risk for a psychiatric diagnosis later in life, even after controlling for parents’ mental health history and other factors, a new study suggested.

The research provides new evidence that adolescents within a specific peer network may possibly “transmit” mental disorders such as depression and anxiety to each other, the investigators noted.

Having a classmate with a mental illness was associated with a 3% higher risk for subsequent psychiatric diagnosis, researchers found. The risk was highest — 13% — in the first year of follow-up and was strongest for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders.

The study is said to the be the largest to date on the topic, including data on more than 700,000 ninth graders in Finland who were followed for up to 18 years.

At least one expert noted that the numbers are higher than he would have expected, but the investigators were quick to caution the study doesn’t prove having a classmate with a mental illness leads to later psychiatric diagnosis among peers.

“The associations observed in the study are not necessarily causal,” lead investigator Jussi Alho, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki, Finland, told this news organization. “The study did not investigate the mechanisms that explain the observed associations.”

The results were published online on May 22 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Few Data

Previous studies have reported a clustering of mood symptoms, eating disorders, and other psychiatric illnesses among adolescent and adult social networks. But most involve self-selected peer groups.

“Investigating the transmission of mental disorders is especially important in childhood and adolescence,” the authors noted. “Yet, despite a few survey studies reporting that adolescents may experience increased mental health symptoms when exposed to friends or peers with mental health problems, large-scale studies on the potential peer influences of mental disorders in youth are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Researchers used a database of 713,809 students in the ninth grade, about half boys and half girls. All were born between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 1997. About 47,000 were excluded as they had a mental disorder diagnosis before the study began.

Some 666,000 students in 860 schools were followed from ninth grade until the first diagnosed mental disorder, death, emigration, or the end of the study in 2019. Median follow-up was 11.4 years.

Diagnoses were gathered from Finnish registries for inpatient, outpatient, and primary care and included ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnoses for substance misuse disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, emotional and social-functioning disorders, and hyperkinetic and conduct disorders.

The authors adjusted for sex, birth year, school and ninth-grade class size, area-level urbanicity, area-level morbidity, area-level education, area-level employment rate, parental educational level, and parental mental health, with a random intercept per school.
 

Dose-Response Relationship

Overall, a quarter (167,227) of the students were diagnosed with a mental disorder.

The risk of being diagnosed with any mental disorder was 3% higher during the entire follow-up period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04). Risk was highest in the first year of follow-up (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18) and then rose again in years 4 and 5, when the risk was 5% higher with one diagnosed classmate and 10% higher with more than one diagnosed classmate.

The risk was significantly increased for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders in each follow-up time window. Investigators also noted a dose-response relationship: The more classmates with a psychiatric illness, the greater the risk for later mental illness.

“These findings suggest that mental disorders may be transmitted within adolescent peer networks,” the authors wrote.

The researchers chose to describe the spread of mental disorders among peer classmates as “transmission” in part because it has been previously used in the literature, Dr. Alho said.

Alho said the researchers also believe that transmission is an accurate term to describe the potential mechanisms by which mental disorders may spread.

The authors hypothesized that more students might be diagnosed when disorders are normalized, through increased awareness and receptivity to diagnosis and treatment.

Conversely, the rate of disorders might also have increased — especially in the first year of follow-up — if there were no students in the peer network who had been diagnosed, the authors added. Without an example, it might discourage a student to seek help.

The authors also noted that it’s “conceivable that long-term exposure to a depressive individual could lead to gradual development of depressive symptoms through the well-established neural mechanisms of emotional contagion.”
 

New Direction for Treatment?

Commenting on the findings, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, the Betty Jo Hay Distinguished Chair in Mental Health at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said that the theory that having classmates with psychiatric illness could normalize these conditions has merit.

Once someone is diagnosed or receives treatment, “their peers kind of get implicit permission to be able to then express their own symptoms or express their own problems, which they may have been hiding or not recognized,” he said.

However, Dr. Trivedi disagreed with the authors’ suggestion that the rate of disorders might also have increased if no classmates had received a psychiatric diagnosis, noting that it was unlikely that a student would not have been exposed to depression, anxiety, or another mood disorder — through a peer or family member — given how common those illnesses are.

“The numbers are slightly higher than I would have expected,” Dr. Trivedi said, adding that peer influence having that type of impact “is something that has not been shown before.”

The study is notable for its use of comprehensive registries, which helped solidify the data integrity, Trivedi said, and the results offer some potential new directions for treatment, such as adding peer support. That has been found useful in adult treatment but has been less utilized with adolescents, he said.

The study was funded by the European Union and the Academy of Finland. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens with classmates who have a mental illness have a significantly greater risk for a psychiatric diagnosis later in life, even after controlling for parents’ mental health history and other factors, a new study suggested.

The research provides new evidence that adolescents within a specific peer network may possibly “transmit” mental disorders such as depression and anxiety to each other, the investigators noted.

Having a classmate with a mental illness was associated with a 3% higher risk for subsequent psychiatric diagnosis, researchers found. The risk was highest — 13% — in the first year of follow-up and was strongest for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders.

The study is said to the be the largest to date on the topic, including data on more than 700,000 ninth graders in Finland who were followed for up to 18 years.

At least one expert noted that the numbers are higher than he would have expected, but the investigators were quick to caution the study doesn’t prove having a classmate with a mental illness leads to later psychiatric diagnosis among peers.

“The associations observed in the study are not necessarily causal,” lead investigator Jussi Alho, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki, Finland, told this news organization. “The study did not investigate the mechanisms that explain the observed associations.”

The results were published online on May 22 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Few Data

Previous studies have reported a clustering of mood symptoms, eating disorders, and other psychiatric illnesses among adolescent and adult social networks. But most involve self-selected peer groups.

“Investigating the transmission of mental disorders is especially important in childhood and adolescence,” the authors noted. “Yet, despite a few survey studies reporting that adolescents may experience increased mental health symptoms when exposed to friends or peers with mental health problems, large-scale studies on the potential peer influences of mental disorders in youth are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Researchers used a database of 713,809 students in the ninth grade, about half boys and half girls. All were born between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 1997. About 47,000 were excluded as they had a mental disorder diagnosis before the study began.

Some 666,000 students in 860 schools were followed from ninth grade until the first diagnosed mental disorder, death, emigration, or the end of the study in 2019. Median follow-up was 11.4 years.

Diagnoses were gathered from Finnish registries for inpatient, outpatient, and primary care and included ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnoses for substance misuse disorders, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, emotional and social-functioning disorders, and hyperkinetic and conduct disorders.

The authors adjusted for sex, birth year, school and ninth-grade class size, area-level urbanicity, area-level morbidity, area-level education, area-level employment rate, parental educational level, and parental mental health, with a random intercept per school.
 

Dose-Response Relationship

Overall, a quarter (167,227) of the students were diagnosed with a mental disorder.

The risk of being diagnosed with any mental disorder was 3% higher during the entire follow-up period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04). Risk was highest in the first year of follow-up (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18) and then rose again in years 4 and 5, when the risk was 5% higher with one diagnosed classmate and 10% higher with more than one diagnosed classmate.

The risk was significantly increased for mood, anxiety, and eating disorders in each follow-up time window. Investigators also noted a dose-response relationship: The more classmates with a psychiatric illness, the greater the risk for later mental illness.

“These findings suggest that mental disorders may be transmitted within adolescent peer networks,” the authors wrote.

The researchers chose to describe the spread of mental disorders among peer classmates as “transmission” in part because it has been previously used in the literature, Dr. Alho said.

Alho said the researchers also believe that transmission is an accurate term to describe the potential mechanisms by which mental disorders may spread.

The authors hypothesized that more students might be diagnosed when disorders are normalized, through increased awareness and receptivity to diagnosis and treatment.

Conversely, the rate of disorders might also have increased — especially in the first year of follow-up — if there were no students in the peer network who had been diagnosed, the authors added. Without an example, it might discourage a student to seek help.

The authors also noted that it’s “conceivable that long-term exposure to a depressive individual could lead to gradual development of depressive symptoms through the well-established neural mechanisms of emotional contagion.”
 

New Direction for Treatment?

Commenting on the findings, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, the Betty Jo Hay Distinguished Chair in Mental Health at UT Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, said that the theory that having classmates with psychiatric illness could normalize these conditions has merit.

Once someone is diagnosed or receives treatment, “their peers kind of get implicit permission to be able to then express their own symptoms or express their own problems, which they may have been hiding or not recognized,” he said.

However, Dr. Trivedi disagreed with the authors’ suggestion that the rate of disorders might also have increased if no classmates had received a psychiatric diagnosis, noting that it was unlikely that a student would not have been exposed to depression, anxiety, or another mood disorder — through a peer or family member — given how common those illnesses are.

“The numbers are slightly higher than I would have expected,” Dr. Trivedi said, adding that peer influence having that type of impact “is something that has not been shown before.”

The study is notable for its use of comprehensive registries, which helped solidify the data integrity, Trivedi said, and the results offer some potential new directions for treatment, such as adding peer support. That has been found useful in adult treatment but has been less utilized with adolescents, he said.

The study was funded by the European Union and the Academy of Finland. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For those outside the medical profession, it took a global pandemic to finally understand how pervasive distress and suicide are among medical professionals, particularly surgeons.

For James Harrop, MD, it was made real years earlier by a colleague he’d trained alongside and worked with for decades — “one of the best surgeons I’ve ever seen” who, one day, just wasn’t there.

Lost in his own work, it wasn’t until Dr. Harrop, a professor of neurological and orthopedic surgery at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, read an article in The New England Journal of Medicine and realized his friend Michael Weinstein, MD, MPH, had been profoundly depressed for years and was hospitalized for his own safety.

Dr. Weinstein recovered and later gave grand rounds at Thomas Jefferson University, where he is an associate professor of surgery in the Acute Care Surgery Division. But the story stuck with Dr. Harrop.

“I said to Mike afterward, I’ve known you for 20 years and, retrospectively, going back, I never saw a single sign that you were depressed, sad, or had any issues, and he said to me ‘that’s because I did everything I could to make sure no one knew I had a problem,’ ” Dr. Harrop said during a talk on physician suicide on May 4 at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“And that scared me because we need to help these people, we need to identify who they are.”

Surgeons at Greater Risk

Studies have reported that suicide and suicidal ideation are nearly twice as common among physicians, compared with among the general population. Among 9175 physicians surveyed in the 2023 Medscape Physician Suicide Report, 9% had considered suicide, and 1% had attempted it. The average for US adults is 4.9% and 0.5%, respectively.

Surgeons are at particularly high risk. A 2011 survey of 7905 US surgeons found that 1 in 16 (6.3%) had considered suicide in the previous year. A post-pandemic survey of more than 600 surgeons and surgical trainees reported that one in seven had suicidal ideation.

It’s often estimated that between 300 and 400 physicians die by suicide each year in the United States, but exact numbers are not known. Recent updated estimates from the National Violent Death Reporting System put the number at 119 physician suicides annually.

Notably, that’s no better than data reported more than 50 years ago in the landmark policy paper The Sick Physician: Impairment by Psychiatric Disorders, Including Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. It sounded the alarm on poor mental health in physicians and reported that 100 doctors died by suicide annually — the equivalent of the average medical school graduating class at the time.

“If I take my med school class and double it, that’s how many physicians die each year,” Dr. Harrop said. “And here’s the bad news, it starts in medical school.”

Research shows higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation in medical students and residents than in other graduates, with rates varying by stage of training, he noted.

In a multischool study, 12% of medical students and residents had probable major depression, 9.2% mild/moderate depression, and suicidal ideation jumped from 6.6% in the first year of medical school to 9.4% in year 4.

A recent AANS survey of 346 neurosurgery residents revealed 67% had burnout, and 41% seriously considered quitting. Burnout rose to a high of 76% in the second year and decreased to 49% and 54% in years 3 and 4, respectively.

Inadequate operating room exposure, hostile faculty, and stressors outside work were tied to burnout, whereas mentorship was linked to a threefold lower likelihood of burnout.

Notably, a 2019 study conservatively estimated that the annual cost of burnout-related physician turnover and reduced clinical hours was $4.6 billion nationally and $7600 per employed physician for an organization.

“We need to be kinder to each other, to look out for each other, and to talk to each other,” Dr. Harrop told conference attendees.

‘Death by a 1000 Cuts’

A host of factors are associated with physician suicide including long work hours, delayed gratification, difficulty balancing work and home life, changing healthcare systems, lawsuits, and the unique ability to prescribe medications, said Dr. Harrop.

“In my life, I think of it as death by 1000 cuts. Every day I come in, you’ve got another person attacking you,” he said, referencing Death by 1000 Cuts: Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021.

Dr. Harrop told this news organization that talking with numerous experts in this field has made him appreciate that anyone is at a risk for suicide.

“The problem is an overload of external resources crushing your existence to the point that you become paralyzed and make the irrational thought that the best solution is to end your life,” he said.

Ann Stroink, MD, immediate past president of the AANS, said in an interview that one potential trigger for burnout is the current shortage of neurosurgeons in the United States, which has led to increased workloads and potential sleep deprivation among existing neurosurgeons.

“To address this critical issue, we’ve been advocating through legislative channels for additional Medicare[-funded] slots” to train more neurosurgeons, she said. “It’s imperative that we take proactive steps to ensure that our healthcare system can sustainably meet the needs of patients, while also supporting the well-being of our neurosurgical professionals.”

The AANS is also advocating for decreased regulatory burdens associated with Medicare and insurance coverage, such as prior authorization, to help alleviate the administrative burdens that often contribute to burnout among its members, Dr. Stroink said.

A Model for Suicide Prevention

Dr. Harrop emphasized that suicide is preventable and that there is “some good news.” Turning to another high-risk profession, he noted that the US Air Force was able to reduce its suicide rate by 42.7% between 1994 and 1998 by doing three basic things.

The agency established a central surveillance database, restructured prevention services, and, more importantly, began conducting annual suicide prevention and awareness training, using gatekeepers to channel at-risk personnel to appropriate agencies and performing mental health questionnaires at enrollment and annually.

Similarly, education, screening, and access to mental health treatment are core recommendations for a national response to depression and suicide in physician trainees, said Dr. Harrop, who noted that his own hospital has started using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item for its staff.

Asked by this news organization how much progress has been made since The Sick Physician report, Dr. Harrop said, “we are probably doing worse” in terms of the number of physician suicides, but “on a positive note, we are better with resources and acknowledgment that a problem exists.”

He noted that the AANS, which has published a physician burnout series on its Neurosurgery Blog, has shown great interest in this topic and is working to spread the word to help neurosurgeons. “My simple talk has led to me being approached by numerous people and healthcare organizations on how to further focus resources and prevention of this problem.”

Asked the one thing he would tell his friend, Michael Weinstein, a fellow surgeon, or trainee who’s struggling, Dr. Harrop said, “I am here for you, and we will get over these temporary problems, which are not significant in the big picture of what you mean to the world.”

Dr. Harrop reported serving as an adviser for Ethicon and Spiderwort.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For those outside the medical profession, it took a global pandemic to finally understand how pervasive distress and suicide are among medical professionals, particularly surgeons.

For James Harrop, MD, it was made real years earlier by a colleague he’d trained alongside and worked with for decades — “one of the best surgeons I’ve ever seen” who, one day, just wasn’t there.

Lost in his own work, it wasn’t until Dr. Harrop, a professor of neurological and orthopedic surgery at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, read an article in The New England Journal of Medicine and realized his friend Michael Weinstein, MD, MPH, had been profoundly depressed for years and was hospitalized for his own safety.

Dr. Weinstein recovered and later gave grand rounds at Thomas Jefferson University, where he is an associate professor of surgery in the Acute Care Surgery Division. But the story stuck with Dr. Harrop.

“I said to Mike afterward, I’ve known you for 20 years and, retrospectively, going back, I never saw a single sign that you were depressed, sad, or had any issues, and he said to me ‘that’s because I did everything I could to make sure no one knew I had a problem,’ ” Dr. Harrop said during a talk on physician suicide on May 4 at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“And that scared me because we need to help these people, we need to identify who they are.”

Surgeons at Greater Risk

Studies have reported that suicide and suicidal ideation are nearly twice as common among physicians, compared with among the general population. Among 9175 physicians surveyed in the 2023 Medscape Physician Suicide Report, 9% had considered suicide, and 1% had attempted it. The average for US adults is 4.9% and 0.5%, respectively.

Surgeons are at particularly high risk. A 2011 survey of 7905 US surgeons found that 1 in 16 (6.3%) had considered suicide in the previous year. A post-pandemic survey of more than 600 surgeons and surgical trainees reported that one in seven had suicidal ideation.

It’s often estimated that between 300 and 400 physicians die by suicide each year in the United States, but exact numbers are not known. Recent updated estimates from the National Violent Death Reporting System put the number at 119 physician suicides annually.

Notably, that’s no better than data reported more than 50 years ago in the landmark policy paper The Sick Physician: Impairment by Psychiatric Disorders, Including Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. It sounded the alarm on poor mental health in physicians and reported that 100 doctors died by suicide annually — the equivalent of the average medical school graduating class at the time.

“If I take my med school class and double it, that’s how many physicians die each year,” Dr. Harrop said. “And here’s the bad news, it starts in medical school.”

Research shows higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation in medical students and residents than in other graduates, with rates varying by stage of training, he noted.

In a multischool study, 12% of medical students and residents had probable major depression, 9.2% mild/moderate depression, and suicidal ideation jumped from 6.6% in the first year of medical school to 9.4% in year 4.

A recent AANS survey of 346 neurosurgery residents revealed 67% had burnout, and 41% seriously considered quitting. Burnout rose to a high of 76% in the second year and decreased to 49% and 54% in years 3 and 4, respectively.

Inadequate operating room exposure, hostile faculty, and stressors outside work were tied to burnout, whereas mentorship was linked to a threefold lower likelihood of burnout.

Notably, a 2019 study conservatively estimated that the annual cost of burnout-related physician turnover and reduced clinical hours was $4.6 billion nationally and $7600 per employed physician for an organization.

“We need to be kinder to each other, to look out for each other, and to talk to each other,” Dr. Harrop told conference attendees.

‘Death by a 1000 Cuts’

A host of factors are associated with physician suicide including long work hours, delayed gratification, difficulty balancing work and home life, changing healthcare systems, lawsuits, and the unique ability to prescribe medications, said Dr. Harrop.

“In my life, I think of it as death by 1000 cuts. Every day I come in, you’ve got another person attacking you,” he said, referencing Death by 1000 Cuts: Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021.

Dr. Harrop told this news organization that talking with numerous experts in this field has made him appreciate that anyone is at a risk for suicide.

“The problem is an overload of external resources crushing your existence to the point that you become paralyzed and make the irrational thought that the best solution is to end your life,” he said.

Ann Stroink, MD, immediate past president of the AANS, said in an interview that one potential trigger for burnout is the current shortage of neurosurgeons in the United States, which has led to increased workloads and potential sleep deprivation among existing neurosurgeons.

“To address this critical issue, we’ve been advocating through legislative channels for additional Medicare[-funded] slots” to train more neurosurgeons, she said. “It’s imperative that we take proactive steps to ensure that our healthcare system can sustainably meet the needs of patients, while also supporting the well-being of our neurosurgical professionals.”

The AANS is also advocating for decreased regulatory burdens associated with Medicare and insurance coverage, such as prior authorization, to help alleviate the administrative burdens that often contribute to burnout among its members, Dr. Stroink said.

A Model for Suicide Prevention

Dr. Harrop emphasized that suicide is preventable and that there is “some good news.” Turning to another high-risk profession, he noted that the US Air Force was able to reduce its suicide rate by 42.7% between 1994 and 1998 by doing three basic things.

The agency established a central surveillance database, restructured prevention services, and, more importantly, began conducting annual suicide prevention and awareness training, using gatekeepers to channel at-risk personnel to appropriate agencies and performing mental health questionnaires at enrollment and annually.

Similarly, education, screening, and access to mental health treatment are core recommendations for a national response to depression and suicide in physician trainees, said Dr. Harrop, who noted that his own hospital has started using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item for its staff.

Asked by this news organization how much progress has been made since The Sick Physician report, Dr. Harrop said, “we are probably doing worse” in terms of the number of physician suicides, but “on a positive note, we are better with resources and acknowledgment that a problem exists.”

He noted that the AANS, which has published a physician burnout series on its Neurosurgery Blog, has shown great interest in this topic and is working to spread the word to help neurosurgeons. “My simple talk has led to me being approached by numerous people and healthcare organizations on how to further focus resources and prevention of this problem.”

Asked the one thing he would tell his friend, Michael Weinstein, a fellow surgeon, or trainee who’s struggling, Dr. Harrop said, “I am here for you, and we will get over these temporary problems, which are not significant in the big picture of what you mean to the world.”

Dr. Harrop reported serving as an adviser for Ethicon and Spiderwort.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For those outside the medical profession, it took a global pandemic to finally understand how pervasive distress and suicide are among medical professionals, particularly surgeons.

For James Harrop, MD, it was made real years earlier by a colleague he’d trained alongside and worked with for decades — “one of the best surgeons I’ve ever seen” who, one day, just wasn’t there.

Lost in his own work, it wasn’t until Dr. Harrop, a professor of neurological and orthopedic surgery at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, read an article in The New England Journal of Medicine and realized his friend Michael Weinstein, MD, MPH, had been profoundly depressed for years and was hospitalized for his own safety.

Dr. Weinstein recovered and later gave grand rounds at Thomas Jefferson University, where he is an associate professor of surgery in the Acute Care Surgery Division. But the story stuck with Dr. Harrop.

“I said to Mike afterward, I’ve known you for 20 years and, retrospectively, going back, I never saw a single sign that you were depressed, sad, or had any issues, and he said to me ‘that’s because I did everything I could to make sure no one knew I had a problem,’ ” Dr. Harrop said during a talk on physician suicide on May 4 at the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“And that scared me because we need to help these people, we need to identify who they are.”

Surgeons at Greater Risk

Studies have reported that suicide and suicidal ideation are nearly twice as common among physicians, compared with among the general population. Among 9175 physicians surveyed in the 2023 Medscape Physician Suicide Report, 9% had considered suicide, and 1% had attempted it. The average for US adults is 4.9% and 0.5%, respectively.

Surgeons are at particularly high risk. A 2011 survey of 7905 US surgeons found that 1 in 16 (6.3%) had considered suicide in the previous year. A post-pandemic survey of more than 600 surgeons and surgical trainees reported that one in seven had suicidal ideation.

It’s often estimated that between 300 and 400 physicians die by suicide each year in the United States, but exact numbers are not known. Recent updated estimates from the National Violent Death Reporting System put the number at 119 physician suicides annually.

Notably, that’s no better than data reported more than 50 years ago in the landmark policy paper The Sick Physician: Impairment by Psychiatric Disorders, Including Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. It sounded the alarm on poor mental health in physicians and reported that 100 doctors died by suicide annually — the equivalent of the average medical school graduating class at the time.

“If I take my med school class and double it, that’s how many physicians die each year,” Dr. Harrop said. “And here’s the bad news, it starts in medical school.”

Research shows higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation in medical students and residents than in other graduates, with rates varying by stage of training, he noted.

In a multischool study, 12% of medical students and residents had probable major depression, 9.2% mild/moderate depression, and suicidal ideation jumped from 6.6% in the first year of medical school to 9.4% in year 4.

A recent AANS survey of 346 neurosurgery residents revealed 67% had burnout, and 41% seriously considered quitting. Burnout rose to a high of 76% in the second year and decreased to 49% and 54% in years 3 and 4, respectively.

Inadequate operating room exposure, hostile faculty, and stressors outside work were tied to burnout, whereas mentorship was linked to a threefold lower likelihood of burnout.

Notably, a 2019 study conservatively estimated that the annual cost of burnout-related physician turnover and reduced clinical hours was $4.6 billion nationally and $7600 per employed physician for an organization.

“We need to be kinder to each other, to look out for each other, and to talk to each other,” Dr. Harrop told conference attendees.

‘Death by a 1000 Cuts’

A host of factors are associated with physician suicide including long work hours, delayed gratification, difficulty balancing work and home life, changing healthcare systems, lawsuits, and the unique ability to prescribe medications, said Dr. Harrop.

“In my life, I think of it as death by 1000 cuts. Every day I come in, you’ve got another person attacking you,” he said, referencing Death by 1000 Cuts: Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021.

Dr. Harrop told this news organization that talking with numerous experts in this field has made him appreciate that anyone is at a risk for suicide.

“The problem is an overload of external resources crushing your existence to the point that you become paralyzed and make the irrational thought that the best solution is to end your life,” he said.

Ann Stroink, MD, immediate past president of the AANS, said in an interview that one potential trigger for burnout is the current shortage of neurosurgeons in the United States, which has led to increased workloads and potential sleep deprivation among existing neurosurgeons.

“To address this critical issue, we’ve been advocating through legislative channels for additional Medicare[-funded] slots” to train more neurosurgeons, she said. “It’s imperative that we take proactive steps to ensure that our healthcare system can sustainably meet the needs of patients, while also supporting the well-being of our neurosurgical professionals.”

The AANS is also advocating for decreased regulatory burdens associated with Medicare and insurance coverage, such as prior authorization, to help alleviate the administrative burdens that often contribute to burnout among its members, Dr. Stroink said.

A Model for Suicide Prevention

Dr. Harrop emphasized that suicide is preventable and that there is “some good news.” Turning to another high-risk profession, he noted that the US Air Force was able to reduce its suicide rate by 42.7% between 1994 and 1998 by doing three basic things.

The agency established a central surveillance database, restructured prevention services, and, more importantly, began conducting annual suicide prevention and awareness training, using gatekeepers to channel at-risk personnel to appropriate agencies and performing mental health questionnaires at enrollment and annually.

Similarly, education, screening, and access to mental health treatment are core recommendations for a national response to depression and suicide in physician trainees, said Dr. Harrop, who noted that his own hospital has started using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item for its staff.

Asked by this news organization how much progress has been made since The Sick Physician report, Dr. Harrop said, “we are probably doing worse” in terms of the number of physician suicides, but “on a positive note, we are better with resources and acknowledgment that a problem exists.”

He noted that the AANS, which has published a physician burnout series on its Neurosurgery Blog, has shown great interest in this topic and is working to spread the word to help neurosurgeons. “My simple talk has led to me being approached by numerous people and healthcare organizations on how to further focus resources and prevention of this problem.”

Asked the one thing he would tell his friend, Michael Weinstein, a fellow surgeon, or trainee who’s struggling, Dr. Harrop said, “I am here for you, and we will get over these temporary problems, which are not significant in the big picture of what you mean to the world.”

Dr. Harrop reported serving as an adviser for Ethicon and Spiderwort.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Outside of treating major depressive disorder (MDD) through the monoamine system with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, exploration of other treatment pathways has opened the possibility of faster onset of action and fewer side effects.

In this ReCAP, Dr Joseph Goldberg, from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, NY, outlines how a better understanding of the glutamate system has led to the emergence of ketamine and esketamine as important treatment options, as well as the combination therapy of dextromethorphan with bupropion.

Dr Goldberg also discusses new results from serotonin system modulation through the 5HT1A receptor with gepirone, or the 5HT2A receptor with psilocybin. He also reports on a new compound esmethadone, known as REL-1017. Finally, he discusses the first approval of a digital therapeutic app designed to augment pharmacotherapy, and the dopamine partial agonist cariprazine as an adjunctive therapy.

--

Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Teaching Attending, Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY

Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Genomind; Luye Pharma; Neuroma; Neurelis; Otsuka; Sunovion

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AbbVie; Alkermes; Axsome; Intracellular Therapies

Receive(d) royalties from: American Psychiatric Publishing; Cambridge University Press

Outside of treating major depressive disorder (MDD) through the monoamine system with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, exploration of other treatment pathways has opened the possibility of faster onset of action and fewer side effects.

In this ReCAP, Dr Joseph Goldberg, from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, NY, outlines how a better understanding of the glutamate system has led to the emergence of ketamine and esketamine as important treatment options, as well as the combination therapy of dextromethorphan with bupropion.

Dr Goldberg also discusses new results from serotonin system modulation through the 5HT1A receptor with gepirone, or the 5HT2A receptor with psilocybin. He also reports on a new compound esmethadone, known as REL-1017. Finally, he discusses the first approval of a digital therapeutic app designed to augment pharmacotherapy, and the dopamine partial agonist cariprazine as an adjunctive therapy.

--

Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Teaching Attending, Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY

Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Genomind; Luye Pharma; Neuroma; Neurelis; Otsuka; Sunovion

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AbbVie; Alkermes; Axsome; Intracellular Therapies

Receive(d) royalties from: American Psychiatric Publishing; Cambridge University Press

Outside of treating major depressive disorder (MDD) through the monoamine system with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, exploration of other treatment pathways has opened the possibility of faster onset of action and fewer side effects.

In this ReCAP, Dr Joseph Goldberg, from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, NY, outlines how a better understanding of the glutamate system has led to the emergence of ketamine and esketamine as important treatment options, as well as the combination therapy of dextromethorphan with bupropion.

Dr Goldberg also discusses new results from serotonin system modulation through the 5HT1A receptor with gepirone, or the 5HT2A receptor with psilocybin. He also reports on a new compound esmethadone, known as REL-1017. Finally, he discusses the first approval of a digital therapeutic app designed to augment pharmacotherapy, and the dopamine partial agonist cariprazine as an adjunctive therapy.

--

Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Teaching Attending, Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY

Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Genomind; Luye Pharma; Neuroma; Neurelis; Otsuka; Sunovion

Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AbbVie; Alkermes; Axsome; Intracellular Therapies

Receive(d) royalties from: American Psychiatric Publishing; Cambridge University Press

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

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

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

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Racial Differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Racial Differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

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

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

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

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Racial Differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if a walk in a green environment could reshape brains, recalibrate sense of time, and stave off mental health conditions? If the research trends are true, you might soon find yourself writing prescriptions of 20 minutes of nature per day.

Evidence for the health benefits of exposure to green spaces, like parks, open spaces, gardens, outdoor gyms, and woodland trails, has been mostly interventional and observational, but that has not stopped global recognition that these exposures are important. 

In the wake of the pandemic, the British government allocated more than £5 million to pandemic recovery efforts that specifically involved green spaces. Since then, it has committed even more funding toward an expansive social prescribing program that connects patients to “link workers” who determine personal care needs and facilitate community and volunteer-based interventions. These can include group walking and volunteering to help out in community gardens or conservation efforts. Similar green programs can be found in Japan, where shinrin-yoku (forest bathing) was recently adopted as a national health strategy, and in the United States and Canada.

“Disconnection from nature is a major part of the health problems that we have on this planet,” said William Bird, a UK-based general practitioner, green prescriber, and CEO of Intelligent Health, which is geared toward building healthy, active, and connected communities. Dr. Bird received the prestigious Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 2010 for services related to physical activity and health. 

“Our brains are designed to connect to nature ... and we haven’t lost that instinct,” he explained. “Once we are with birdsong and water flowing and greenery, cortisol levels drop, our central vagus nerve improves, our fight and flight [response] disappears, and we start to be more receptive to other people.” 
 

Shifting Time Perception and Health

Ricardo A. Correia, PhD, a biologist and researcher at the University of Helsinki in Finland, said he believed that the mechanism for at least some of these outcomes might be differences in how time is perceived. In a perspective that appeared in March in People and Nature, Dr. Correia explored how the “services” that nature provides shift time perceptions and, in turn, regulate overall well-being. 

“I reached the realization that there was some evidence for the shift in some of the dimensions that we use to make sense of time in urban vs natural environments,” he told this news organization. 

Dr. Correia explained that human time perception facilitates understanding cause and effect, so we can act in a way that allows us to survive. 

“Time perception in humans is really complex and multifaceted,” he said. “The way that we make sense of time is not directly attached to any sensory organ, but rather goes through a range of cognitive, emotional, and bodily processes, all of which vary from person to person.” 

Dr. Correia pointed to evidence showing that time perception is shorter in urban environments and longer in natural ones. This, in turn, influences attention and attention restoration. “When we live in cities, we are exposed to similar sorts of demanding environments, increased time pressures, less time for oneself and for recreational purposes,” he said. “Ever-mounting pressure on daily demands plus processes we use to make sense of time, especially attention, means that we pay a cognitive toll.”

Dr. Correia posits that it might be possible to recalibrate time perception, but only by breaking the cycle of exposure. 

“If we are always exposed to fast-paced lifestyles, we become attuned to them and get caught up in an endless loop.” This cycle can be broken, Dr. Correia explained, by increasing exposure to natural environments. This leads to positive emotions, a sense of being in the present, and a heightened sense of mindfulness, all of which help mitigate the physical and mental health outcomes commonly associated with time scarcity. 
 

Brain-Mental Health Benefits

To date, there is quite a bit of research exploring the impacts of exposure to nature on the brain. For example, data have shown that adolescents raised exclusively in rural environments have a larger hippocampus and better spatial processing than children exclusively raised in cities. Other research demonstrated that spending just an hour in the forest led to a decline in amygdala activity in adults, whereas it remained stable after walking in an urban setting, underscoring the salutogenic effects on brain regions related to stress. There is also evidence from a 10-year longitudinal study of more than 2 million Welsh adults that highlights the value of proximity to green or blue (eg, lakes and rivers) spaces and common mental health conditions, with every additional 360 meters to the nearest green or blue space associated with 10% greater odds of anxiety and depression.

Dr. Bird said there has been a massive sea change in attitudes among general practitioners, who have come around to embracing the concept of nature as medicine. This shift among peers, who teased him in the 1990s about his green walking and conservation prescriptions, portends a bandwagon of epic proportions that could benefit patients. He said that he was especially hopeful that green prescriptions will become mainstream in certain conditions, especially those like depression and anxiety that are resistant to medication.

But Dr. Bird cautions that primary care professionals need to be mindful. “Patients need to know that it’s real science, otherwise they’ll think that they’re being pawned off or dismissed,” he said. “I try to put real evidence behind it and explain that there’s no contraindication. The main thing is to start where patients are, what they’re feeling, and what they need. Some people just don’t like nature,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if a walk in a green environment could reshape brains, recalibrate sense of time, and stave off mental health conditions? If the research trends are true, you might soon find yourself writing prescriptions of 20 minutes of nature per day.

Evidence for the health benefits of exposure to green spaces, like parks, open spaces, gardens, outdoor gyms, and woodland trails, has been mostly interventional and observational, but that has not stopped global recognition that these exposures are important. 

In the wake of the pandemic, the British government allocated more than £5 million to pandemic recovery efforts that specifically involved green spaces. Since then, it has committed even more funding toward an expansive social prescribing program that connects patients to “link workers” who determine personal care needs and facilitate community and volunteer-based interventions. These can include group walking and volunteering to help out in community gardens or conservation efforts. Similar green programs can be found in Japan, where shinrin-yoku (forest bathing) was recently adopted as a national health strategy, and in the United States and Canada.

“Disconnection from nature is a major part of the health problems that we have on this planet,” said William Bird, a UK-based general practitioner, green prescriber, and CEO of Intelligent Health, which is geared toward building healthy, active, and connected communities. Dr. Bird received the prestigious Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 2010 for services related to physical activity and health. 

“Our brains are designed to connect to nature ... and we haven’t lost that instinct,” he explained. “Once we are with birdsong and water flowing and greenery, cortisol levels drop, our central vagus nerve improves, our fight and flight [response] disappears, and we start to be more receptive to other people.” 
 

Shifting Time Perception and Health

Ricardo A. Correia, PhD, a biologist and researcher at the University of Helsinki in Finland, said he believed that the mechanism for at least some of these outcomes might be differences in how time is perceived. In a perspective that appeared in March in People and Nature, Dr. Correia explored how the “services” that nature provides shift time perceptions and, in turn, regulate overall well-being. 

“I reached the realization that there was some evidence for the shift in some of the dimensions that we use to make sense of time in urban vs natural environments,” he told this news organization. 

Dr. Correia explained that human time perception facilitates understanding cause and effect, so we can act in a way that allows us to survive. 

“Time perception in humans is really complex and multifaceted,” he said. “The way that we make sense of time is not directly attached to any sensory organ, but rather goes through a range of cognitive, emotional, and bodily processes, all of which vary from person to person.” 

Dr. Correia pointed to evidence showing that time perception is shorter in urban environments and longer in natural ones. This, in turn, influences attention and attention restoration. “When we live in cities, we are exposed to similar sorts of demanding environments, increased time pressures, less time for oneself and for recreational purposes,” he said. “Ever-mounting pressure on daily demands plus processes we use to make sense of time, especially attention, means that we pay a cognitive toll.”

Dr. Correia posits that it might be possible to recalibrate time perception, but only by breaking the cycle of exposure. 

“If we are always exposed to fast-paced lifestyles, we become attuned to them and get caught up in an endless loop.” This cycle can be broken, Dr. Correia explained, by increasing exposure to natural environments. This leads to positive emotions, a sense of being in the present, and a heightened sense of mindfulness, all of which help mitigate the physical and mental health outcomes commonly associated with time scarcity. 
 

Brain-Mental Health Benefits

To date, there is quite a bit of research exploring the impacts of exposure to nature on the brain. For example, data have shown that adolescents raised exclusively in rural environments have a larger hippocampus and better spatial processing than children exclusively raised in cities. Other research demonstrated that spending just an hour in the forest led to a decline in amygdala activity in adults, whereas it remained stable after walking in an urban setting, underscoring the salutogenic effects on brain regions related to stress. There is also evidence from a 10-year longitudinal study of more than 2 million Welsh adults that highlights the value of proximity to green or blue (eg, lakes and rivers) spaces and common mental health conditions, with every additional 360 meters to the nearest green or blue space associated with 10% greater odds of anxiety and depression.

Dr. Bird said there has been a massive sea change in attitudes among general practitioners, who have come around to embracing the concept of nature as medicine. This shift among peers, who teased him in the 1990s about his green walking and conservation prescriptions, portends a bandwagon of epic proportions that could benefit patients. He said that he was especially hopeful that green prescriptions will become mainstream in certain conditions, especially those like depression and anxiety that are resistant to medication.

But Dr. Bird cautions that primary care professionals need to be mindful. “Patients need to know that it’s real science, otherwise they’ll think that they’re being pawned off or dismissed,” he said. “I try to put real evidence behind it and explain that there’s no contraindication. The main thing is to start where patients are, what they’re feeling, and what they need. Some people just don’t like nature,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What if a walk in a green environment could reshape brains, recalibrate sense of time, and stave off mental health conditions? If the research trends are true, you might soon find yourself writing prescriptions of 20 minutes of nature per day.

Evidence for the health benefits of exposure to green spaces, like parks, open spaces, gardens, outdoor gyms, and woodland trails, has been mostly interventional and observational, but that has not stopped global recognition that these exposures are important. 

In the wake of the pandemic, the British government allocated more than £5 million to pandemic recovery efforts that specifically involved green spaces. Since then, it has committed even more funding toward an expansive social prescribing program that connects patients to “link workers” who determine personal care needs and facilitate community and volunteer-based interventions. These can include group walking and volunteering to help out in community gardens or conservation efforts. Similar green programs can be found in Japan, where shinrin-yoku (forest bathing) was recently adopted as a national health strategy, and in the United States and Canada.

“Disconnection from nature is a major part of the health problems that we have on this planet,” said William Bird, a UK-based general practitioner, green prescriber, and CEO of Intelligent Health, which is geared toward building healthy, active, and connected communities. Dr. Bird received the prestigious Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in 2010 for services related to physical activity and health. 

“Our brains are designed to connect to nature ... and we haven’t lost that instinct,” he explained. “Once we are with birdsong and water flowing and greenery, cortisol levels drop, our central vagus nerve improves, our fight and flight [response] disappears, and we start to be more receptive to other people.” 
 

Shifting Time Perception and Health

Ricardo A. Correia, PhD, a biologist and researcher at the University of Helsinki in Finland, said he believed that the mechanism for at least some of these outcomes might be differences in how time is perceived. In a perspective that appeared in March in People and Nature, Dr. Correia explored how the “services” that nature provides shift time perceptions and, in turn, regulate overall well-being. 

“I reached the realization that there was some evidence for the shift in some of the dimensions that we use to make sense of time in urban vs natural environments,” he told this news organization. 

Dr. Correia explained that human time perception facilitates understanding cause and effect, so we can act in a way that allows us to survive. 

“Time perception in humans is really complex and multifaceted,” he said. “The way that we make sense of time is not directly attached to any sensory organ, but rather goes through a range of cognitive, emotional, and bodily processes, all of which vary from person to person.” 

Dr. Correia pointed to evidence showing that time perception is shorter in urban environments and longer in natural ones. This, in turn, influences attention and attention restoration. “When we live in cities, we are exposed to similar sorts of demanding environments, increased time pressures, less time for oneself and for recreational purposes,” he said. “Ever-mounting pressure on daily demands plus processes we use to make sense of time, especially attention, means that we pay a cognitive toll.”

Dr. Correia posits that it might be possible to recalibrate time perception, but only by breaking the cycle of exposure. 

“If we are always exposed to fast-paced lifestyles, we become attuned to them and get caught up in an endless loop.” This cycle can be broken, Dr. Correia explained, by increasing exposure to natural environments. This leads to positive emotions, a sense of being in the present, and a heightened sense of mindfulness, all of which help mitigate the physical and mental health outcomes commonly associated with time scarcity. 
 

Brain-Mental Health Benefits

To date, there is quite a bit of research exploring the impacts of exposure to nature on the brain. For example, data have shown that adolescents raised exclusively in rural environments have a larger hippocampus and better spatial processing than children exclusively raised in cities. Other research demonstrated that spending just an hour in the forest led to a decline in amygdala activity in adults, whereas it remained stable after walking in an urban setting, underscoring the salutogenic effects on brain regions related to stress. There is also evidence from a 10-year longitudinal study of more than 2 million Welsh adults that highlights the value of proximity to green or blue (eg, lakes and rivers) spaces and common mental health conditions, with every additional 360 meters to the nearest green or blue space associated with 10% greater odds of anxiety and depression.

Dr. Bird said there has been a massive sea change in attitudes among general practitioners, who have come around to embracing the concept of nature as medicine. This shift among peers, who teased him in the 1990s about his green walking and conservation prescriptions, portends a bandwagon of epic proportions that could benefit patients. He said that he was especially hopeful that green prescriptions will become mainstream in certain conditions, especially those like depression and anxiety that are resistant to medication.

But Dr. Bird cautions that primary care professionals need to be mindful. “Patients need to know that it’s real science, otherwise they’ll think that they’re being pawned off or dismissed,” he said. “I try to put real evidence behind it and explain that there’s no contraindication. The main thing is to start where patients are, what they’re feeling, and what they need. Some people just don’t like nature,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.