User login
IRL Togetherness: Family Media Options and Agreements
In July, the United States Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act, which will need to be taken up and passed by the House prior to becoming law. This bill was designed based on emerging research showing how social media impacts the developing regions of the adolescent brain, including those involved in the growing “stop and think” pathways.
Whether this bill is passed or not, parents are already having conversations with their children’s primary care providers about how to navigate digital versus In Real Life (IRL) aspects of parenting. Why should families and primary care providers care about creating opportunities to put down devices together? We have few new ways of explaining social media’s impact on adolescent development. These angles can empower families and give tweens an increased sense of efficacy around family social media agreements. Dr. Mitch Prinstein (chief science officer for the American Psychological Association) explains how apps take children’s data from other apps to make a profit.1 When kids understand what motivates technology companies, they are more likely to buy into efforts to curtail use. He also explains that adolescent brain size and function decreases with increased social media use and resulting lack of sleep.2
Prioritizing IRL togetherness is increasingly showing up in media itself. In Inside Out 2 the coach collects players’ phones at the beginning of their intensive training weekend, allowing for Riley to have IRL social successes and failures, and resulting growth. Gather, a recently published young adult novel by Kenneth M. Cadow, is written from the perspective of Ian Gray, a teen whose mother struggles with addiction. We experience Ian’s perspective at the house of a friend. This fictional family all put their devices in a basket upon entering their home, allowing the family to interact in a more present and positive way with one another.
Increasingly, social media use is being recognized as a societal, rather than simply an individual problem. Smartphones are being banned in middle schools as there is growing recognition that students cannot learn when they have such easy access to addictive apps. More families are choosing options for the right amount of connectivity for a child’s developmental level by waiting on devices altogether or by purchasing devices without access to social media like flip phones, Gabb phones and watches, using the Bark app, and similar alternatives to fully connected devices.
Parental anxiety plays a role as well. Some of the devices listed above allow for parents to listen in on their child’s device if, for example, the child does not answer the phone. While this may potentially be important if a child requires additional support, for example with a higher-need developmental disability, for those with typical development, it robs children of independence.
What can be done about these huge technology pressures in a 15-minute primary care visit as we await more science to inform laws governing social media’s influence on child development?
Enter the Family Media Agreement. Media agreements for kids have been around for years, and there is growing understanding that when parents follow similar rules to put down devices and be present at home, adolescents are more amenable to follow suit. It’s a communication tool for parents and their growing children to help determine right-sized parameters around device and social media use.
Primary care providers can have paper copies of these available. There are also online options that can be updated as needed. Primary care providers might follow up at the next visit to see how the agreement, and more importantly mixing ideas and communication around the agreement, is working. Providers can explain that these agreements are documents that are expected to be changed with time as family needs evolve. They can help not only set rules but provide an opportunity to practice transferring more autonomy over time, as the child reaches different stages of development. Some frequently used Family Media Agreements are available to print through Common Sense Media,3 or online through the American Academy of Pediatrics’ healthychildren.org website.4
Ultimately, if children call their parents every time they are faced with a problem, rather than looking around for a helpful person or problem solving on their own, they miss a chance to practice developing skills needed as an adult. If an adult listens in on a child’s life rather than waiting to have a conversation, the adult misses out on the opportunity to experience and instill trust that the child can handle adversity and gain age-appropriate independence. Similarly, if kids become too focused on social media “likes” to engage in noticing and being friendly and helpful to those around them, as Dr. Prinstein points out in his workbook for tweens and parents, Like Ability,5 they are not developing the skills needed to build a society where we all have an opportunity to thrive and build what is needed together. In the setting of addictive products capturing everyone’s attention, Family Media Agreements are a concrete place to start these conversations: Clinicians can empower families and growing adolescents to reclaim their time for their own IRL priorities.
Dr. Spottswood is a child psychiatrist practicing in an integrated care clinic at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vermont, a Federally Qualified Health Center. She is also the medical director of the Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program and a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont.
References
1. Raffoul A et al. Social media platforms generate billions of dollars in revenue from U.S. youth: Findings from a simulated revenue model. PLoS One. 2023 Dec 27;18(12):e0295337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295337.
2. Telzer EH et al. Sleep variability in adolescence is associated with altered brain development. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Aug:14:16-22. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2015.05.007.
3. Common Sense Family Media Agreement. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/common_sense_family_media_agreement.pdf.
4. Healthy Children Family Media Plan. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/fmp/Pages/MediaPlan.aspx.
5. Getz L, Prinstein M. Like Ability: The Truth About Popularity. Washington: Magination Press, 2022. https://www.apa.org/pubs/magination/like-ability.
In July, the United States Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act, which will need to be taken up and passed by the House prior to becoming law. This bill was designed based on emerging research showing how social media impacts the developing regions of the adolescent brain, including those involved in the growing “stop and think” pathways.
Whether this bill is passed or not, parents are already having conversations with their children’s primary care providers about how to navigate digital versus In Real Life (IRL) aspects of parenting. Why should families and primary care providers care about creating opportunities to put down devices together? We have few new ways of explaining social media’s impact on adolescent development. These angles can empower families and give tweens an increased sense of efficacy around family social media agreements. Dr. Mitch Prinstein (chief science officer for the American Psychological Association) explains how apps take children’s data from other apps to make a profit.1 When kids understand what motivates technology companies, they are more likely to buy into efforts to curtail use. He also explains that adolescent brain size and function decreases with increased social media use and resulting lack of sleep.2
Prioritizing IRL togetherness is increasingly showing up in media itself. In Inside Out 2 the coach collects players’ phones at the beginning of their intensive training weekend, allowing for Riley to have IRL social successes and failures, and resulting growth. Gather, a recently published young adult novel by Kenneth M. Cadow, is written from the perspective of Ian Gray, a teen whose mother struggles with addiction. We experience Ian’s perspective at the house of a friend. This fictional family all put their devices in a basket upon entering their home, allowing the family to interact in a more present and positive way with one another.
Increasingly, social media use is being recognized as a societal, rather than simply an individual problem. Smartphones are being banned in middle schools as there is growing recognition that students cannot learn when they have such easy access to addictive apps. More families are choosing options for the right amount of connectivity for a child’s developmental level by waiting on devices altogether or by purchasing devices without access to social media like flip phones, Gabb phones and watches, using the Bark app, and similar alternatives to fully connected devices.
Parental anxiety plays a role as well. Some of the devices listed above allow for parents to listen in on their child’s device if, for example, the child does not answer the phone. While this may potentially be important if a child requires additional support, for example with a higher-need developmental disability, for those with typical development, it robs children of independence.
What can be done about these huge technology pressures in a 15-minute primary care visit as we await more science to inform laws governing social media’s influence on child development?
Enter the Family Media Agreement. Media agreements for kids have been around for years, and there is growing understanding that when parents follow similar rules to put down devices and be present at home, adolescents are more amenable to follow suit. It’s a communication tool for parents and their growing children to help determine right-sized parameters around device and social media use.
Primary care providers can have paper copies of these available. There are also online options that can be updated as needed. Primary care providers might follow up at the next visit to see how the agreement, and more importantly mixing ideas and communication around the agreement, is working. Providers can explain that these agreements are documents that are expected to be changed with time as family needs evolve. They can help not only set rules but provide an opportunity to practice transferring more autonomy over time, as the child reaches different stages of development. Some frequently used Family Media Agreements are available to print through Common Sense Media,3 or online through the American Academy of Pediatrics’ healthychildren.org website.4
Ultimately, if children call their parents every time they are faced with a problem, rather than looking around for a helpful person or problem solving on their own, they miss a chance to practice developing skills needed as an adult. If an adult listens in on a child’s life rather than waiting to have a conversation, the adult misses out on the opportunity to experience and instill trust that the child can handle adversity and gain age-appropriate independence. Similarly, if kids become too focused on social media “likes” to engage in noticing and being friendly and helpful to those around them, as Dr. Prinstein points out in his workbook for tweens and parents, Like Ability,5 they are not developing the skills needed to build a society where we all have an opportunity to thrive and build what is needed together. In the setting of addictive products capturing everyone’s attention, Family Media Agreements are a concrete place to start these conversations: Clinicians can empower families and growing adolescents to reclaim their time for their own IRL priorities.
Dr. Spottswood is a child psychiatrist practicing in an integrated care clinic at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vermont, a Federally Qualified Health Center. She is also the medical director of the Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program and a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont.
References
1. Raffoul A et al. Social media platforms generate billions of dollars in revenue from U.S. youth: Findings from a simulated revenue model. PLoS One. 2023 Dec 27;18(12):e0295337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295337.
2. Telzer EH et al. Sleep variability in adolescence is associated with altered brain development. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Aug:14:16-22. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2015.05.007.
3. Common Sense Family Media Agreement. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/common_sense_family_media_agreement.pdf.
4. Healthy Children Family Media Plan. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/fmp/Pages/MediaPlan.aspx.
5. Getz L, Prinstein M. Like Ability: The Truth About Popularity. Washington: Magination Press, 2022. https://www.apa.org/pubs/magination/like-ability.
In July, the United States Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act, which will need to be taken up and passed by the House prior to becoming law. This bill was designed based on emerging research showing how social media impacts the developing regions of the adolescent brain, including those involved in the growing “stop and think” pathways.
Whether this bill is passed or not, parents are already having conversations with their children’s primary care providers about how to navigate digital versus In Real Life (IRL) aspects of parenting. Why should families and primary care providers care about creating opportunities to put down devices together? We have few new ways of explaining social media’s impact on adolescent development. These angles can empower families and give tweens an increased sense of efficacy around family social media agreements. Dr. Mitch Prinstein (chief science officer for the American Psychological Association) explains how apps take children’s data from other apps to make a profit.1 When kids understand what motivates technology companies, they are more likely to buy into efforts to curtail use. He also explains that adolescent brain size and function decreases with increased social media use and resulting lack of sleep.2
Prioritizing IRL togetherness is increasingly showing up in media itself. In Inside Out 2 the coach collects players’ phones at the beginning of their intensive training weekend, allowing for Riley to have IRL social successes and failures, and resulting growth. Gather, a recently published young adult novel by Kenneth M. Cadow, is written from the perspective of Ian Gray, a teen whose mother struggles with addiction. We experience Ian’s perspective at the house of a friend. This fictional family all put their devices in a basket upon entering their home, allowing the family to interact in a more present and positive way with one another.
Increasingly, social media use is being recognized as a societal, rather than simply an individual problem. Smartphones are being banned in middle schools as there is growing recognition that students cannot learn when they have such easy access to addictive apps. More families are choosing options for the right amount of connectivity for a child’s developmental level by waiting on devices altogether or by purchasing devices without access to social media like flip phones, Gabb phones and watches, using the Bark app, and similar alternatives to fully connected devices.
Parental anxiety plays a role as well. Some of the devices listed above allow for parents to listen in on their child’s device if, for example, the child does not answer the phone. While this may potentially be important if a child requires additional support, for example with a higher-need developmental disability, for those with typical development, it robs children of independence.
What can be done about these huge technology pressures in a 15-minute primary care visit as we await more science to inform laws governing social media’s influence on child development?
Enter the Family Media Agreement. Media agreements for kids have been around for years, and there is growing understanding that when parents follow similar rules to put down devices and be present at home, adolescents are more amenable to follow suit. It’s a communication tool for parents and their growing children to help determine right-sized parameters around device and social media use.
Primary care providers can have paper copies of these available. There are also online options that can be updated as needed. Primary care providers might follow up at the next visit to see how the agreement, and more importantly mixing ideas and communication around the agreement, is working. Providers can explain that these agreements are documents that are expected to be changed with time as family needs evolve. They can help not only set rules but provide an opportunity to practice transferring more autonomy over time, as the child reaches different stages of development. Some frequently used Family Media Agreements are available to print through Common Sense Media,3 or online through the American Academy of Pediatrics’ healthychildren.org website.4
Ultimately, if children call their parents every time they are faced with a problem, rather than looking around for a helpful person or problem solving on their own, they miss a chance to practice developing skills needed as an adult. If an adult listens in on a child’s life rather than waiting to have a conversation, the adult misses out on the opportunity to experience and instill trust that the child can handle adversity and gain age-appropriate independence. Similarly, if kids become too focused on social media “likes” to engage in noticing and being friendly and helpful to those around them, as Dr. Prinstein points out in his workbook for tweens and parents, Like Ability,5 they are not developing the skills needed to build a society where we all have an opportunity to thrive and build what is needed together. In the setting of addictive products capturing everyone’s attention, Family Media Agreements are a concrete place to start these conversations: Clinicians can empower families and growing adolescents to reclaim their time for their own IRL priorities.
Dr. Spottswood is a child psychiatrist practicing in an integrated care clinic at the Community Health Centers of Burlington, Vermont, a Federally Qualified Health Center. She is also the medical director of the Vermont Child Psychiatry Access Program and a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Vermont.
References
1. Raffoul A et al. Social media platforms generate billions of dollars in revenue from U.S. youth: Findings from a simulated revenue model. PLoS One. 2023 Dec 27;18(12):e0295337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295337.
2. Telzer EH et al. Sleep variability in adolescence is associated with altered brain development. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Aug:14:16-22. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2015.05.007.
3. Common Sense Family Media Agreement. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/common_sense_family_media_agreement.pdf.
4. Healthy Children Family Media Plan. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/fmp/Pages/MediaPlan.aspx.
5. Getz L, Prinstein M. Like Ability: The Truth About Popularity. Washington: Magination Press, 2022. https://www.apa.org/pubs/magination/like-ability.
An Effective Nondrug Approach to Improve Sleep in Dementia, Phase 3 Data Show
A multicomponent nonpharmaceutical intervention improves sleep in people with dementia living at home, early results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) show.
The benefits of the intervention — called DREAMS-START — were sustained at 8 months and extended to caregivers, the study found.
“We’re pleased with our results. We think that we were able to deliver it successfully and to a high rate of fidelity,” said study investigator Penny Rapaport, PhD, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, England.
The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2024.
Sustained, Long-Term Effect
Sleep disturbances are very common in dementia. About 26% of people with all types of dementia will experience sleep disturbances, and that rate is higher in certain dementia subtypes, such as dementia with Lewy bodies, said Dr. Rapaport.
Such disturbances are distressing for people living with dementia as well as for those supporting them, she added. They’re “often the thing that will lead to people transitioning and moving into a care home.”
Dr. Rapaport noted there has not been full RCT evidence that any nonpharmacologic interventions or light-based treatments are effective in improving sleep disturbances.
Medications such as antipsychotics and benzodiazepines aren’t recommended as first-line treatment in people with dementia “because often these can be harmful,” she said.
The study recruited 377 dyads of people living with dementia (mean age, 79.4 years) and their caregivers from 12 national health service sites across England. “We were able to recruit an ethnically diverse sample from a broad socioeconomic background,” said Dr. Rapaport.
Researchers allocated the dyads to the intervention or to a treatment as usual group.
About 92% of participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis at 8 months, which was the primary time point.
The intervention consists of six 1-hour interactive sessions that are “personalized and tailored to individual goals and needs,” said Dr. Rapaport. It was delivered by supervised, trained graduates, not clinicians.
The sessions focused on components of sleep hygiene (healthy habits, behaviors, and environments); activity and exercise; a tailored sleep routine; strategies to manage distress; natural and artificial light; and relaxation. A whole session was devoted to supporting sleep of caregivers.
The trial included masked outcome assessments, “so the people collecting the data were blinded to the intervention group,” said Dr. Rapaport.
The primary outcome was the Sleep Disorders Inventory (SDI) score. The SDI is a questionnaire about frequency and severity of sleep-disturbed behaviors completed by caregivers; a higher score indicates a worse outcome. The study adjusted for baseline SDI score and study site.
The adjusted mean difference between groups on the SDI was −4.7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.65 to −1.74; P = .002) at 8 months.
The minimal clinically important difference on the SDI is a 4-point change, noted Dr. Rapaport.
The adjusted mean difference on the SDI at 4 months (a secondary outcome) was −4.4 points (95% CI, −7.3 to −1.5; P = .003).
Referring to illustrative graphs, Dr. Rapaport said that SDI scores decreased at both 4 and 8 months. “You can see statistically, there’s a significant difference between groups at both time points,” she said.
As for other secondary outcomes, the study found a significant reduction in neuropsychiatric symptoms among people with dementia at 8 months in the intervention arm relative to the control arm.
In addition, sleep and anxiety significantly improved among caregivers after 8 months. This shows “a picture of things getting better for the person with dementia, and the person who’s caring for them,” said Dr. Rapaport.
She noted the good adherence rate, with almost 83% of people in the intervention arm completing four or more sessions.
Fidelity to the intervention (ie, the extent to which it is implemented as intended) was also high, “so we feel it was delivered well,” said Dr. Rapaport.
Researchers also carried out a health economics analysis and looked at strategies for implementation of the program, but Dr. Rapaport did not discuss those results.
Encouraging Findings
Commenting for this news organization, Alex Bahar-Fuchs, PhD, Faculty of Health, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, who co-chaired the session featuring the research, said the findings of this “well-powered” RCT are “encouraging,” both for the primary outcome of sleep quality and for some of the secondary outcomes for the care-partner.
“The study adds to the growing evidence behind several nonpharmacological treatment approaches for cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms of people with dementia,” he said.
The results “offer some hope for the treatment of a common disturbance in people with dementia which is associated with poorer outcomes and increased caregiver burden,” he added.
An important area for further work would be to incorporate more objective measures of sleep quality, said Dr. Bahar-Fuchs.
Because the primary outcome was measured using a self-report questionnaire (the SDI) completed by care-partners, and because the intervention arm could not be blinded, “it remains possible that some detection bias may have affected the study findings,” said Dr. Bahar-Fuchs.
He said he would like to see the research extended to include an active control condition “to be able to better ascertain treatment mechanisms.”
The study was supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research. Dr. Rapaport and Dr. Bahar-Fuchs reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A multicomponent nonpharmaceutical intervention improves sleep in people with dementia living at home, early results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) show.
The benefits of the intervention — called DREAMS-START — were sustained at 8 months and extended to caregivers, the study found.
“We’re pleased with our results. We think that we were able to deliver it successfully and to a high rate of fidelity,” said study investigator Penny Rapaport, PhD, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, England.
The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2024.
Sustained, Long-Term Effect
Sleep disturbances are very common in dementia. About 26% of people with all types of dementia will experience sleep disturbances, and that rate is higher in certain dementia subtypes, such as dementia with Lewy bodies, said Dr. Rapaport.
Such disturbances are distressing for people living with dementia as well as for those supporting them, she added. They’re “often the thing that will lead to people transitioning and moving into a care home.”
Dr. Rapaport noted there has not been full RCT evidence that any nonpharmacologic interventions or light-based treatments are effective in improving sleep disturbances.
Medications such as antipsychotics and benzodiazepines aren’t recommended as first-line treatment in people with dementia “because often these can be harmful,” she said.
The study recruited 377 dyads of people living with dementia (mean age, 79.4 years) and their caregivers from 12 national health service sites across England. “We were able to recruit an ethnically diverse sample from a broad socioeconomic background,” said Dr. Rapaport.
Researchers allocated the dyads to the intervention or to a treatment as usual group.
About 92% of participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis at 8 months, which was the primary time point.
The intervention consists of six 1-hour interactive sessions that are “personalized and tailored to individual goals and needs,” said Dr. Rapaport. It was delivered by supervised, trained graduates, not clinicians.
The sessions focused on components of sleep hygiene (healthy habits, behaviors, and environments); activity and exercise; a tailored sleep routine; strategies to manage distress; natural and artificial light; and relaxation. A whole session was devoted to supporting sleep of caregivers.
The trial included masked outcome assessments, “so the people collecting the data were blinded to the intervention group,” said Dr. Rapaport.
The primary outcome was the Sleep Disorders Inventory (SDI) score. The SDI is a questionnaire about frequency and severity of sleep-disturbed behaviors completed by caregivers; a higher score indicates a worse outcome. The study adjusted for baseline SDI score and study site.
The adjusted mean difference between groups on the SDI was −4.7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.65 to −1.74; P = .002) at 8 months.
The minimal clinically important difference on the SDI is a 4-point change, noted Dr. Rapaport.
The adjusted mean difference on the SDI at 4 months (a secondary outcome) was −4.4 points (95% CI, −7.3 to −1.5; P = .003).
Referring to illustrative graphs, Dr. Rapaport said that SDI scores decreased at both 4 and 8 months. “You can see statistically, there’s a significant difference between groups at both time points,” she said.
As for other secondary outcomes, the study found a significant reduction in neuropsychiatric symptoms among people with dementia at 8 months in the intervention arm relative to the control arm.
In addition, sleep and anxiety significantly improved among caregivers after 8 months. This shows “a picture of things getting better for the person with dementia, and the person who’s caring for them,” said Dr. Rapaport.
She noted the good adherence rate, with almost 83% of people in the intervention arm completing four or more sessions.
Fidelity to the intervention (ie, the extent to which it is implemented as intended) was also high, “so we feel it was delivered well,” said Dr. Rapaport.
Researchers also carried out a health economics analysis and looked at strategies for implementation of the program, but Dr. Rapaport did not discuss those results.
Encouraging Findings
Commenting for this news organization, Alex Bahar-Fuchs, PhD, Faculty of Health, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, who co-chaired the session featuring the research, said the findings of this “well-powered” RCT are “encouraging,” both for the primary outcome of sleep quality and for some of the secondary outcomes for the care-partner.
“The study adds to the growing evidence behind several nonpharmacological treatment approaches for cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms of people with dementia,” he said.
The results “offer some hope for the treatment of a common disturbance in people with dementia which is associated with poorer outcomes and increased caregiver burden,” he added.
An important area for further work would be to incorporate more objective measures of sleep quality, said Dr. Bahar-Fuchs.
Because the primary outcome was measured using a self-report questionnaire (the SDI) completed by care-partners, and because the intervention arm could not be blinded, “it remains possible that some detection bias may have affected the study findings,” said Dr. Bahar-Fuchs.
He said he would like to see the research extended to include an active control condition “to be able to better ascertain treatment mechanisms.”
The study was supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research. Dr. Rapaport and Dr. Bahar-Fuchs reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A multicomponent nonpharmaceutical intervention improves sleep in people with dementia living at home, early results of a new phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) show.
The benefits of the intervention — called DREAMS-START — were sustained at 8 months and extended to caregivers, the study found.
“We’re pleased with our results. We think that we were able to deliver it successfully and to a high rate of fidelity,” said study investigator Penny Rapaport, PhD, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, England.
The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2024.
Sustained, Long-Term Effect
Sleep disturbances are very common in dementia. About 26% of people with all types of dementia will experience sleep disturbances, and that rate is higher in certain dementia subtypes, such as dementia with Lewy bodies, said Dr. Rapaport.
Such disturbances are distressing for people living with dementia as well as for those supporting them, she added. They’re “often the thing that will lead to people transitioning and moving into a care home.”
Dr. Rapaport noted there has not been full RCT evidence that any nonpharmacologic interventions or light-based treatments are effective in improving sleep disturbances.
Medications such as antipsychotics and benzodiazepines aren’t recommended as first-line treatment in people with dementia “because often these can be harmful,” she said.
The study recruited 377 dyads of people living with dementia (mean age, 79.4 years) and their caregivers from 12 national health service sites across England. “We were able to recruit an ethnically diverse sample from a broad socioeconomic background,” said Dr. Rapaport.
Researchers allocated the dyads to the intervention or to a treatment as usual group.
About 92% of participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis at 8 months, which was the primary time point.
The intervention consists of six 1-hour interactive sessions that are “personalized and tailored to individual goals and needs,” said Dr. Rapaport. It was delivered by supervised, trained graduates, not clinicians.
The sessions focused on components of sleep hygiene (healthy habits, behaviors, and environments); activity and exercise; a tailored sleep routine; strategies to manage distress; natural and artificial light; and relaxation. A whole session was devoted to supporting sleep of caregivers.
The trial included masked outcome assessments, “so the people collecting the data were blinded to the intervention group,” said Dr. Rapaport.
The primary outcome was the Sleep Disorders Inventory (SDI) score. The SDI is a questionnaire about frequency and severity of sleep-disturbed behaviors completed by caregivers; a higher score indicates a worse outcome. The study adjusted for baseline SDI score and study site.
The adjusted mean difference between groups on the SDI was −4.7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], −7.65 to −1.74; P = .002) at 8 months.
The minimal clinically important difference on the SDI is a 4-point change, noted Dr. Rapaport.
The adjusted mean difference on the SDI at 4 months (a secondary outcome) was −4.4 points (95% CI, −7.3 to −1.5; P = .003).
Referring to illustrative graphs, Dr. Rapaport said that SDI scores decreased at both 4 and 8 months. “You can see statistically, there’s a significant difference between groups at both time points,” she said.
As for other secondary outcomes, the study found a significant reduction in neuropsychiatric symptoms among people with dementia at 8 months in the intervention arm relative to the control arm.
In addition, sleep and anxiety significantly improved among caregivers after 8 months. This shows “a picture of things getting better for the person with dementia, and the person who’s caring for them,” said Dr. Rapaport.
She noted the good adherence rate, with almost 83% of people in the intervention arm completing four or more sessions.
Fidelity to the intervention (ie, the extent to which it is implemented as intended) was also high, “so we feel it was delivered well,” said Dr. Rapaport.
Researchers also carried out a health economics analysis and looked at strategies for implementation of the program, but Dr. Rapaport did not discuss those results.
Encouraging Findings
Commenting for this news organization, Alex Bahar-Fuchs, PhD, Faculty of Health, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia, who co-chaired the session featuring the research, said the findings of this “well-powered” RCT are “encouraging,” both for the primary outcome of sleep quality and for some of the secondary outcomes for the care-partner.
“The study adds to the growing evidence behind several nonpharmacological treatment approaches for cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms of people with dementia,” he said.
The results “offer some hope for the treatment of a common disturbance in people with dementia which is associated with poorer outcomes and increased caregiver burden,” he added.
An important area for further work would be to incorporate more objective measures of sleep quality, said Dr. Bahar-Fuchs.
Because the primary outcome was measured using a self-report questionnaire (the SDI) completed by care-partners, and because the intervention arm could not be blinded, “it remains possible that some detection bias may have affected the study findings,” said Dr. Bahar-Fuchs.
He said he would like to see the research extended to include an active control condition “to be able to better ascertain treatment mechanisms.”
The study was supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research. Dr. Rapaport and Dr. Bahar-Fuchs reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAIC 2024
Most Youths Who Die by Suicide Had No Mental Health Diagnosis
, according to a large analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
Sofia Chaudhary, MD, with the Department of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, and colleagues, analyzed data from the National Violent Death Reporting System and found in the cross-sectional study of 40, 618 youths that 24,192 (59.6%) had no such diagnosis previously. Findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Gaps by Race, Sex and Age
The odds of having a mental health diagnosis before death by suicide differed by race and sex. Compared with White youths, the odds were lower among youths who were American Indian or Alaska Native (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.45; Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander (aOR, 0.58); and Black youths (aOR, 0.62). And more than half of female youths who died by suicide had a mental health diagnosis (4429 youths [52.4%]), compared with 11,994 male youths (37.3%).
The researchers also found wide gaps by age, specifically lower odds of having a mental health diagnosis before suicide in children ages 10-14 compared with those 20-24.
“This finding is particularly notable because suicide rates have risen to become the second leading cause of death in youths aged 10 to 14 years,” the authors wrote. “Suicide prevention strategies for young children in primary care and community settings should focus on fostering resilience, promoting peer and family connectedness, and empowering children with strategies to cope with stress and adversity.”
Youths who died by firearm suicide, the most common mechanism, had the lowest rate of diagnosis. “Similar to a prior study, we found that decedents without a documented mental health diagnosis were far more likely to utilize a firearm than those with a documented mental health diagnosis,” the authors wrote.
In an invited commentary, Lisa M. Horowitz, PhD, MPH, with the Office of the Clinical Director, Intramural Research Program, National Institute of Mental Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues wrote that the data show that identifying youth early who have mental disorders or are at-risk for suicide “is more the exception than the rule” in the United States.
The editorialists highlight that the study showed that about one-quarter of youths who have attempted suicide and nearly one-half of youths with depressed mood had no documented mental health diagnosis. Decedents were categorized with depressed mood if they were perceived by themselves or others as depressed at the time of death.
Intervention Recommendations
The study authors point to the high number of youth firearm suicide (the method used by nearly half of those who died — 19,027 (46.8%) and recommended interventions. “Suicide prevention strategies are needed for the estimated 22.6 million US children living in households with firearms, of whom 4.5 million are exposed to firearms stored loaded and unlocked,” they wrote.
A mental health diagnosis was documented for only 6308 of 19,027 youths who died by firearms (33.2%).
They noted that research has shown that more than 75% of guns used in youth suicide are owned by a family member, most commonly parents, and the presence of a firearm in the home is linked with a higher risk of youth suicide.
They wrote that the risk can be mitigated by storing all guns locked and unloaded, with ammunition stored and locked in a separate location.
The editorialists said the study highlights the need for action in several primary areas. “Suicide prevention strategies should not solely rely on a history of mental illness to identify at-risk youths, and universal suicide risk screening in healthcare settings deserves greater consideration,” they wrote.
Equitable access to care is essential to youth suicide risk detection. Interventions such as lethal means safety counseling, safety planning, and a helpline number, such as 988, should be accessible to every family and healthcare clinician.
Community-level interventions are critical, including school-based suicide prevention programs, as well as population-based training for families on the safe storage of lethal means at home.
“Every trusted adult working with children and adolescents can and should be trained to recognize the warning signs of suicide risk and help young people develop the coping strategies needed to manage difficult life experiences so that suicide is never an option,” Dr. Horowitz and colleagues wrote.
A coauthor of the study, Jennifer A. Hoffmann, MD, reports receiving grants from Children’s Research Fund Junior Board outside the submitted work. Another coauthor, Joel Fein, MD, reports fees for a patent owned by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia licensed to Potential for the Behavioral Health Screen-Emergency Department. Among the editorialists, Jeffrey A. Bridge, PhD, reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and being a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Clarigent Health and the Scientific Council of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention outside the submitted work.
, according to a large analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
Sofia Chaudhary, MD, with the Department of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, and colleagues, analyzed data from the National Violent Death Reporting System and found in the cross-sectional study of 40, 618 youths that 24,192 (59.6%) had no such diagnosis previously. Findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Gaps by Race, Sex and Age
The odds of having a mental health diagnosis before death by suicide differed by race and sex. Compared with White youths, the odds were lower among youths who were American Indian or Alaska Native (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.45; Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander (aOR, 0.58); and Black youths (aOR, 0.62). And more than half of female youths who died by suicide had a mental health diagnosis (4429 youths [52.4%]), compared with 11,994 male youths (37.3%).
The researchers also found wide gaps by age, specifically lower odds of having a mental health diagnosis before suicide in children ages 10-14 compared with those 20-24.
“This finding is particularly notable because suicide rates have risen to become the second leading cause of death in youths aged 10 to 14 years,” the authors wrote. “Suicide prevention strategies for young children in primary care and community settings should focus on fostering resilience, promoting peer and family connectedness, and empowering children with strategies to cope with stress and adversity.”
Youths who died by firearm suicide, the most common mechanism, had the lowest rate of diagnosis. “Similar to a prior study, we found that decedents without a documented mental health diagnosis were far more likely to utilize a firearm than those with a documented mental health diagnosis,” the authors wrote.
In an invited commentary, Lisa M. Horowitz, PhD, MPH, with the Office of the Clinical Director, Intramural Research Program, National Institute of Mental Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues wrote that the data show that identifying youth early who have mental disorders or are at-risk for suicide “is more the exception than the rule” in the United States.
The editorialists highlight that the study showed that about one-quarter of youths who have attempted suicide and nearly one-half of youths with depressed mood had no documented mental health diagnosis. Decedents were categorized with depressed mood if they were perceived by themselves or others as depressed at the time of death.
Intervention Recommendations
The study authors point to the high number of youth firearm suicide (the method used by nearly half of those who died — 19,027 (46.8%) and recommended interventions. “Suicide prevention strategies are needed for the estimated 22.6 million US children living in households with firearms, of whom 4.5 million are exposed to firearms stored loaded and unlocked,” they wrote.
A mental health diagnosis was documented for only 6308 of 19,027 youths who died by firearms (33.2%).
They noted that research has shown that more than 75% of guns used in youth suicide are owned by a family member, most commonly parents, and the presence of a firearm in the home is linked with a higher risk of youth suicide.
They wrote that the risk can be mitigated by storing all guns locked and unloaded, with ammunition stored and locked in a separate location.
The editorialists said the study highlights the need for action in several primary areas. “Suicide prevention strategies should not solely rely on a history of mental illness to identify at-risk youths, and universal suicide risk screening in healthcare settings deserves greater consideration,” they wrote.
Equitable access to care is essential to youth suicide risk detection. Interventions such as lethal means safety counseling, safety planning, and a helpline number, such as 988, should be accessible to every family and healthcare clinician.
Community-level interventions are critical, including school-based suicide prevention programs, as well as population-based training for families on the safe storage of lethal means at home.
“Every trusted adult working with children and adolescents can and should be trained to recognize the warning signs of suicide risk and help young people develop the coping strategies needed to manage difficult life experiences so that suicide is never an option,” Dr. Horowitz and colleagues wrote.
A coauthor of the study, Jennifer A. Hoffmann, MD, reports receiving grants from Children’s Research Fund Junior Board outside the submitted work. Another coauthor, Joel Fein, MD, reports fees for a patent owned by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia licensed to Potential for the Behavioral Health Screen-Emergency Department. Among the editorialists, Jeffrey A. Bridge, PhD, reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and being a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Clarigent Health and the Scientific Council of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention outside the submitted work.
, according to a large analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
Sofia Chaudhary, MD, with the Department of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, and colleagues, analyzed data from the National Violent Death Reporting System and found in the cross-sectional study of 40, 618 youths that 24,192 (59.6%) had no such diagnosis previously. Findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Gaps by Race, Sex and Age
The odds of having a mental health diagnosis before death by suicide differed by race and sex. Compared with White youths, the odds were lower among youths who were American Indian or Alaska Native (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.45; Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander (aOR, 0.58); and Black youths (aOR, 0.62). And more than half of female youths who died by suicide had a mental health diagnosis (4429 youths [52.4%]), compared with 11,994 male youths (37.3%).
The researchers also found wide gaps by age, specifically lower odds of having a mental health diagnosis before suicide in children ages 10-14 compared with those 20-24.
“This finding is particularly notable because suicide rates have risen to become the second leading cause of death in youths aged 10 to 14 years,” the authors wrote. “Suicide prevention strategies for young children in primary care and community settings should focus on fostering resilience, promoting peer and family connectedness, and empowering children with strategies to cope with stress and adversity.”
Youths who died by firearm suicide, the most common mechanism, had the lowest rate of diagnosis. “Similar to a prior study, we found that decedents without a documented mental health diagnosis were far more likely to utilize a firearm than those with a documented mental health diagnosis,” the authors wrote.
In an invited commentary, Lisa M. Horowitz, PhD, MPH, with the Office of the Clinical Director, Intramural Research Program, National Institute of Mental Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues wrote that the data show that identifying youth early who have mental disorders or are at-risk for suicide “is more the exception than the rule” in the United States.
The editorialists highlight that the study showed that about one-quarter of youths who have attempted suicide and nearly one-half of youths with depressed mood had no documented mental health diagnosis. Decedents were categorized with depressed mood if they were perceived by themselves or others as depressed at the time of death.
Intervention Recommendations
The study authors point to the high number of youth firearm suicide (the method used by nearly half of those who died — 19,027 (46.8%) and recommended interventions. “Suicide prevention strategies are needed for the estimated 22.6 million US children living in households with firearms, of whom 4.5 million are exposed to firearms stored loaded and unlocked,” they wrote.
A mental health diagnosis was documented for only 6308 of 19,027 youths who died by firearms (33.2%).
They noted that research has shown that more than 75% of guns used in youth suicide are owned by a family member, most commonly parents, and the presence of a firearm in the home is linked with a higher risk of youth suicide.
They wrote that the risk can be mitigated by storing all guns locked and unloaded, with ammunition stored and locked in a separate location.
The editorialists said the study highlights the need for action in several primary areas. “Suicide prevention strategies should not solely rely on a history of mental illness to identify at-risk youths, and universal suicide risk screening in healthcare settings deserves greater consideration,” they wrote.
Equitable access to care is essential to youth suicide risk detection. Interventions such as lethal means safety counseling, safety planning, and a helpline number, such as 988, should be accessible to every family and healthcare clinician.
Community-level interventions are critical, including school-based suicide prevention programs, as well as population-based training for families on the safe storage of lethal means at home.
“Every trusted adult working with children and adolescents can and should be trained to recognize the warning signs of suicide risk and help young people develop the coping strategies needed to manage difficult life experiences so that suicide is never an option,” Dr. Horowitz and colleagues wrote.
A coauthor of the study, Jennifer A. Hoffmann, MD, reports receiving grants from Children’s Research Fund Junior Board outside the submitted work. Another coauthor, Joel Fein, MD, reports fees for a patent owned by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia licensed to Potential for the Behavioral Health Screen-Emergency Department. Among the editorialists, Jeffrey A. Bridge, PhD, reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and being a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Clarigent Health and the Scientific Council of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention outside the submitted work.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Psychiatric, Autoimmune Comorbidities Increased in Patients with Alopecia Areata
TOPLINE:
and were at greater risk of developing those comorbidities after diagnosis.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated 63,384 patients with AA and 3,309,107 individuals without AA (aged 12-64 years) from the Merative MarketScan Research Databases.
- The matched cohorts included 16,512 patients with AA and 66,048 control individuals.
- Outcomes were the prevalence of psychiatric and autoimmune diseases at baseline and the incidence of new-onset psychiatric and autoimmune diseases during the year after diagnosis.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, patients with AA showed a greater prevalence of any psychiatric disease (30.9% vs 26.8%; P < .001) and any immune-mediated or autoimmune disease (16.1% vs 8.9%; P < .0001) than those with controls.
- In matched cohorts, patients with AA also showed a higher incidence of any new-onset psychiatric diseases (10.2% vs 6.8%; P < .001) or immune-mediated or autoimmune disease (6.2% vs 1.5%; P <.001) within the first 12 months of AA diagnosis than those with controls.
- Among patients with AA, the risk of developing a psychiatric comorbidity was higher (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4). The highest risks were seen for adjustment disorder (aHR, 1.5), panic disorder (aHR, 1.4), and sexual dysfunction (aHR, 1.4).
- Compared with controls, patients with AA were also at an increased risk of developing immune-mediated or autoimmune comorbidities (aHR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.5-2.8), with the highest for systemic lupus (aHR, 5.7), atopic dermatitis (aHR, 4.3), and vitiligo (aHR, 3.8).
IN PRACTICE:
“Routine monitoring of patients with AA, especially those at risk of developing comorbidities, may permit earlier and more effective intervention,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston. It was published online on July 31, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Causality could not be inferred because of the retrospective nature of the study. Comorbidities were solely diagnosed on the basis of diagnostic codes, and researchers did not have access to characteristics such as lab values that could have indicated any underlying comorbidity before the AA diagnosis. This study also did not account for the varying levels of severity of the disease, which may have led to an underestimation of disease burden and the risk for comorbidities.
DISCLOSURES:
AbbVie provided funding for this study. Mostaghimi disclosed receiving personal fees from Abbvie and several other companies outside of this work. The other four authors were current or former employees of Abbvie and have or may have stock and/or stock options in AbbVie.
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 first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
and were at greater risk of developing those comorbidities after diagnosis.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated 63,384 patients with AA and 3,309,107 individuals without AA (aged 12-64 years) from the Merative MarketScan Research Databases.
- The matched cohorts included 16,512 patients with AA and 66,048 control individuals.
- Outcomes were the prevalence of psychiatric and autoimmune diseases at baseline and the incidence of new-onset psychiatric and autoimmune diseases during the year after diagnosis.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, patients with AA showed a greater prevalence of any psychiatric disease (30.9% vs 26.8%; P < .001) and any immune-mediated or autoimmune disease (16.1% vs 8.9%; P < .0001) than those with controls.
- In matched cohorts, patients with AA also showed a higher incidence of any new-onset psychiatric diseases (10.2% vs 6.8%; P < .001) or immune-mediated or autoimmune disease (6.2% vs 1.5%; P <.001) within the first 12 months of AA diagnosis than those with controls.
- Among patients with AA, the risk of developing a psychiatric comorbidity was higher (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4). The highest risks were seen for adjustment disorder (aHR, 1.5), panic disorder (aHR, 1.4), and sexual dysfunction (aHR, 1.4).
- Compared with controls, patients with AA were also at an increased risk of developing immune-mediated or autoimmune comorbidities (aHR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.5-2.8), with the highest for systemic lupus (aHR, 5.7), atopic dermatitis (aHR, 4.3), and vitiligo (aHR, 3.8).
IN PRACTICE:
“Routine monitoring of patients with AA, especially those at risk of developing comorbidities, may permit earlier and more effective intervention,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston. It was published online on July 31, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Causality could not be inferred because of the retrospective nature of the study. Comorbidities were solely diagnosed on the basis of diagnostic codes, and researchers did not have access to characteristics such as lab values that could have indicated any underlying comorbidity before the AA diagnosis. This study also did not account for the varying levels of severity of the disease, which may have led to an underestimation of disease burden and the risk for comorbidities.
DISCLOSURES:
AbbVie provided funding for this study. Mostaghimi disclosed receiving personal fees from Abbvie and several other companies outside of this work. The other four authors were current or former employees of Abbvie and have or may have stock and/or stock options in AbbVie.
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 first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
and were at greater risk of developing those comorbidities after diagnosis.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers evaluated 63,384 patients with AA and 3,309,107 individuals without AA (aged 12-64 years) from the Merative MarketScan Research Databases.
- The matched cohorts included 16,512 patients with AA and 66,048 control individuals.
- Outcomes were the prevalence of psychiatric and autoimmune diseases at baseline and the incidence of new-onset psychiatric and autoimmune diseases during the year after diagnosis.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, patients with AA showed a greater prevalence of any psychiatric disease (30.9% vs 26.8%; P < .001) and any immune-mediated or autoimmune disease (16.1% vs 8.9%; P < .0001) than those with controls.
- In matched cohorts, patients with AA also showed a higher incidence of any new-onset psychiatric diseases (10.2% vs 6.8%; P < .001) or immune-mediated or autoimmune disease (6.2% vs 1.5%; P <.001) within the first 12 months of AA diagnosis than those with controls.
- Among patients with AA, the risk of developing a psychiatric comorbidity was higher (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4). The highest risks were seen for adjustment disorder (aHR, 1.5), panic disorder (aHR, 1.4), and sexual dysfunction (aHR, 1.4).
- Compared with controls, patients with AA were also at an increased risk of developing immune-mediated or autoimmune comorbidities (aHR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.5-2.8), with the highest for systemic lupus (aHR, 5.7), atopic dermatitis (aHR, 4.3), and vitiligo (aHR, 3.8).
IN PRACTICE:
“Routine monitoring of patients with AA, especially those at risk of developing comorbidities, may permit earlier and more effective intervention,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, Boston. It was published online on July 31, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Causality could not be inferred because of the retrospective nature of the study. Comorbidities were solely diagnosed on the basis of diagnostic codes, and researchers did not have access to characteristics such as lab values that could have indicated any underlying comorbidity before the AA diagnosis. This study also did not account for the varying levels of severity of the disease, which may have led to an underestimation of disease burden and the risk for comorbidities.
DISCLOSURES:
AbbVie provided funding for this study. Mostaghimi disclosed receiving personal fees from Abbvie and several other companies outside of this work. The other four authors were current or former employees of Abbvie and have or may have stock and/or stock options in AbbVie.
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 first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Is Sexual Behavior Out of Control?
A 25-year-old man comes in with a pulled muscle. You ask if he has anything else to discuss. Sheepishly, he says he is concerned about his use of pornography.
A 45-year-old woman struggling with depression finds herself persistently seeking sex outside the bounds of her long-term relationship. Her partner is threatening to leave. She is devastated and tells you she doesn’t understand her own behavior.
Do these patients have some form of sex addiction? How should a primary care clinician intervene? Is a referral to a 12-step program for sex addiction the right choice? What other options exist? Is a diagnosis — let alone treatment — possible or appropriate?
‘Who Are You Calling “Abnormal” ’?
Normal is not a meaningful concept in human sexual behavior. To quote the sex therapist Marty Klein, PhD: “Normal is just a setting on the dryer.”
The same goes among partners: What is “normal” for one person in a sexual relationship may discomfit another. In partnerships, we have differences around all sorts of issues, from finances to parenting to how to load the dishwasher. Why should sex, sexual desire, and sexual frequency be different?
Remember: Shame, fear, and secrecy often play a role in perpetuating behaviors that cause distress. Helping our patients accept and embrace their whole selves can provide important healing, relief from anxiety, and may even help them regulate their actions. Feeling less shame, fear, and secrecy may facilitate safer choices about sex, as well as testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.
The International Classification of Diseases-11 includes compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD)as an attempt to create consensus around a complicated, and hotly debated, problem to facilitate diagnosis and research. Syndromes similar to CSBD have had many names: “hypersexual disorder,” “sexual addiction,” “sexual compulsivity,” and “out-of-control sexual behavior.” A sizable cohort of the sexuality research community casts doubt on whether CSBD is even a discrete diagnosis.
According to the ICD-11, CSBD is characterized by “intense, repetitive sexual impulses or urges that are experienced as irresistible or uncontrollable” and result in significant distress or functional impairment.
This diagnosis has several important rule-outs. First, paraphilias, defined as a set of nonconsensual sexual behaviors and interests, are excluded. Another is that distress exclusively related to moral judgment or social disapproval is not sufficient for a diagnosis of CSBD. Finally, the diagnosis hinges on distress and does not rely on frequency of any type of sexual behavior. Some people experience significant distress over behaviors in which they engage infrequently, whereas others may have no distress from activities in which they engage quite frequently.
In one study from Germany, 5% of men and 3% of women met criteria for CSBD. A small US study found the number to be 10% and 7%, respectively. The diagnosis is not simple. Compulsive sexual behavior can be secondary to other mental health or medical conditions. Behaviors sometimes confused with CSBD can result from neurologic diseases, such as frontal brain lesions or frontotemporal dementia, as well as the use of substances and medications that enhance dopaminergic activity.
Impaired control over sexual impulses occurs in manic and hypomanic episodes. Compulsive sexual behavior frequently co-occurs with mood disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and substance use disorders. Those meeting criteria for CSBD may engage in sexual behaviors as a way of coping with depression, anxiety, boredom, loneliness, or other negative affective states.
The diagnosis of CSBD may be useful for clinicians. However, many, perhaps most, patients who present with concerns about their sexual behavior will fail to meet most criteria for CSBD. Their problem is of shorter duration, related to morality, external disapproval, lack of sexual health information, and anxiety about diverse erotic interests. It may be helpful for them to understand that they are not in the grip of a lifelong disorder but are experiencing common life challenges.
Societal concerns about sexually explicit media, often called pornography, are complex, conflicting, and catastrophizing. Some studies indicate that sexually explicit media are positive for both individual and relational sexual satisfaction; other studies have found negative effects on sexual function. Concerns about pornography often are conflated with taboos about solo sexual activity. Ironically, use of pornography is associated with fear of addiction to pornography, creating a spiral of negative self-perception.
Consequences of sexual behavior may induce distress, even if a person doesn’t meet criteria for CSBD, such as potential dissolution of a marriage, loss of a job, excessive spending, sexually transmitted infections, other health concerns, and even legal problems. Sexual behavior might not be the central issue but rather an offshoot of relational distress, a mental health disorder, or a dysfunctional coping style.
Guilt and shame can act as potent contributors to maintaining the behaviors as well as promoting secrecy around them. Sexual medicine experts recommend avoiding interventions that increase the experience of discrimination and stigma and avoiding the pathologization of the behaviors of sexually diverse individuals. As in so many aspects of medical care, we must walk in our patients’ shoes and avoid imposing on them our own moral or religious values.
What Can a Primary Care Provider Do?
When a patient is concerned about sexual behavior that feels out of control, primary care providers have an important role in evaluating for neurologic disease or side effects related to the use of medication or other substances, and facilitating psychiatric assessment to evaluate for mental health comorbidities, past trauma, and associated attachment disorders.
Our patients need resources to tease out the individual and relational problems that may arise. Seek out well-trained sex therapy colleagues in your community. The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT) is one certifying body in the United States for sex therapy.
Because of the heterogeneity of those who present with out-of-control sexual behavior, no one treatment fits all. Twelve-step programs, especially those with a focus on sexual “abstinence,” may not be the best choice. Many psychotherapeutic modalities are effective and often focus on addressing underlying or unrecognized mental health concerns, provide training on self-regulation and urge management, and relationship skills. Most important, the therapist needs to be sexologically informed and aware of their own biases around sexuality. Medical treatments are not recommended without concurrent psychological intervention.
Relational sex therapy can help couples create clear relational agreements that work for both parties (or, in polyamorous relationships, everyone involved). Relational distress also may be a stimulus for individual psychotherapy.
Back to these two patients.
The 25-year-old could be counseled that use of sexually explicit media and solo sex are not inherently bad or damaging. When used for pleasure and enjoyment, they do not lead to problems with partnered sex or cause sexual dysfunction. Counseling him to move toward social engagement and life goals, rather than away from pornography, may be all that is necessary.
Our second patient probably will need more intensive treatment, including medication management for her mood and referral to a certified sex therapist who has expertise in working with out-of-control sexual behavior. When she returns to see you in follow-up, she ideally expresses reduced shame, more autonomy, and renewed connection to her values, and she is keeping her relational agreements without sacrificing her sexual needs.
Dr. Kranz is medical director, Rochester Center for Sexual Wellness; assistant professor of Clinical Family Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. Dr. Kranz has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosen is director of Behavioral Health, Rochester Center for Sexual Wellness, Rochester, New York. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A 25-year-old man comes in with a pulled muscle. You ask if he has anything else to discuss. Sheepishly, he says he is concerned about his use of pornography.
A 45-year-old woman struggling with depression finds herself persistently seeking sex outside the bounds of her long-term relationship. Her partner is threatening to leave. She is devastated and tells you she doesn’t understand her own behavior.
Do these patients have some form of sex addiction? How should a primary care clinician intervene? Is a referral to a 12-step program for sex addiction the right choice? What other options exist? Is a diagnosis — let alone treatment — possible or appropriate?
‘Who Are You Calling “Abnormal” ’?
Normal is not a meaningful concept in human sexual behavior. To quote the sex therapist Marty Klein, PhD: “Normal is just a setting on the dryer.”
The same goes among partners: What is “normal” for one person in a sexual relationship may discomfit another. In partnerships, we have differences around all sorts of issues, from finances to parenting to how to load the dishwasher. Why should sex, sexual desire, and sexual frequency be different?
Remember: Shame, fear, and secrecy often play a role in perpetuating behaviors that cause distress. Helping our patients accept and embrace their whole selves can provide important healing, relief from anxiety, and may even help them regulate their actions. Feeling less shame, fear, and secrecy may facilitate safer choices about sex, as well as testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.
The International Classification of Diseases-11 includes compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD)as an attempt to create consensus around a complicated, and hotly debated, problem to facilitate diagnosis and research. Syndromes similar to CSBD have had many names: “hypersexual disorder,” “sexual addiction,” “sexual compulsivity,” and “out-of-control sexual behavior.” A sizable cohort of the sexuality research community casts doubt on whether CSBD is even a discrete diagnosis.
According to the ICD-11, CSBD is characterized by “intense, repetitive sexual impulses or urges that are experienced as irresistible or uncontrollable” and result in significant distress or functional impairment.
This diagnosis has several important rule-outs. First, paraphilias, defined as a set of nonconsensual sexual behaviors and interests, are excluded. Another is that distress exclusively related to moral judgment or social disapproval is not sufficient for a diagnosis of CSBD. Finally, the diagnosis hinges on distress and does not rely on frequency of any type of sexual behavior. Some people experience significant distress over behaviors in which they engage infrequently, whereas others may have no distress from activities in which they engage quite frequently.
In one study from Germany, 5% of men and 3% of women met criteria for CSBD. A small US study found the number to be 10% and 7%, respectively. The diagnosis is not simple. Compulsive sexual behavior can be secondary to other mental health or medical conditions. Behaviors sometimes confused with CSBD can result from neurologic diseases, such as frontal brain lesions or frontotemporal dementia, as well as the use of substances and medications that enhance dopaminergic activity.
Impaired control over sexual impulses occurs in manic and hypomanic episodes. Compulsive sexual behavior frequently co-occurs with mood disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and substance use disorders. Those meeting criteria for CSBD may engage in sexual behaviors as a way of coping with depression, anxiety, boredom, loneliness, or other negative affective states.
The diagnosis of CSBD may be useful for clinicians. However, many, perhaps most, patients who present with concerns about their sexual behavior will fail to meet most criteria for CSBD. Their problem is of shorter duration, related to morality, external disapproval, lack of sexual health information, and anxiety about diverse erotic interests. It may be helpful for them to understand that they are not in the grip of a lifelong disorder but are experiencing common life challenges.
Societal concerns about sexually explicit media, often called pornography, are complex, conflicting, and catastrophizing. Some studies indicate that sexually explicit media are positive for both individual and relational sexual satisfaction; other studies have found negative effects on sexual function. Concerns about pornography often are conflated with taboos about solo sexual activity. Ironically, use of pornography is associated with fear of addiction to pornography, creating a spiral of negative self-perception.
Consequences of sexual behavior may induce distress, even if a person doesn’t meet criteria for CSBD, such as potential dissolution of a marriage, loss of a job, excessive spending, sexually transmitted infections, other health concerns, and even legal problems. Sexual behavior might not be the central issue but rather an offshoot of relational distress, a mental health disorder, or a dysfunctional coping style.
Guilt and shame can act as potent contributors to maintaining the behaviors as well as promoting secrecy around them. Sexual medicine experts recommend avoiding interventions that increase the experience of discrimination and stigma and avoiding the pathologization of the behaviors of sexually diverse individuals. As in so many aspects of medical care, we must walk in our patients’ shoes and avoid imposing on them our own moral or religious values.
What Can a Primary Care Provider Do?
When a patient is concerned about sexual behavior that feels out of control, primary care providers have an important role in evaluating for neurologic disease or side effects related to the use of medication or other substances, and facilitating psychiatric assessment to evaluate for mental health comorbidities, past trauma, and associated attachment disorders.
Our patients need resources to tease out the individual and relational problems that may arise. Seek out well-trained sex therapy colleagues in your community. The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT) is one certifying body in the United States for sex therapy.
Because of the heterogeneity of those who present with out-of-control sexual behavior, no one treatment fits all. Twelve-step programs, especially those with a focus on sexual “abstinence,” may not be the best choice. Many psychotherapeutic modalities are effective and often focus on addressing underlying or unrecognized mental health concerns, provide training on self-regulation and urge management, and relationship skills. Most important, the therapist needs to be sexologically informed and aware of their own biases around sexuality. Medical treatments are not recommended without concurrent psychological intervention.
Relational sex therapy can help couples create clear relational agreements that work for both parties (or, in polyamorous relationships, everyone involved). Relational distress also may be a stimulus for individual psychotherapy.
Back to these two patients.
The 25-year-old could be counseled that use of sexually explicit media and solo sex are not inherently bad or damaging. When used for pleasure and enjoyment, they do not lead to problems with partnered sex or cause sexual dysfunction. Counseling him to move toward social engagement and life goals, rather than away from pornography, may be all that is necessary.
Our second patient probably will need more intensive treatment, including medication management for her mood and referral to a certified sex therapist who has expertise in working with out-of-control sexual behavior. When she returns to see you in follow-up, she ideally expresses reduced shame, more autonomy, and renewed connection to her values, and she is keeping her relational agreements without sacrificing her sexual needs.
Dr. Kranz is medical director, Rochester Center for Sexual Wellness; assistant professor of Clinical Family Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. Dr. Kranz has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosen is director of Behavioral Health, Rochester Center for Sexual Wellness, Rochester, New York. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A 25-year-old man comes in with a pulled muscle. You ask if he has anything else to discuss. Sheepishly, he says he is concerned about his use of pornography.
A 45-year-old woman struggling with depression finds herself persistently seeking sex outside the bounds of her long-term relationship. Her partner is threatening to leave. She is devastated and tells you she doesn’t understand her own behavior.
Do these patients have some form of sex addiction? How should a primary care clinician intervene? Is a referral to a 12-step program for sex addiction the right choice? What other options exist? Is a diagnosis — let alone treatment — possible or appropriate?
‘Who Are You Calling “Abnormal” ’?
Normal is not a meaningful concept in human sexual behavior. To quote the sex therapist Marty Klein, PhD: “Normal is just a setting on the dryer.”
The same goes among partners: What is “normal” for one person in a sexual relationship may discomfit another. In partnerships, we have differences around all sorts of issues, from finances to parenting to how to load the dishwasher. Why should sex, sexual desire, and sexual frequency be different?
Remember: Shame, fear, and secrecy often play a role in perpetuating behaviors that cause distress. Helping our patients accept and embrace their whole selves can provide important healing, relief from anxiety, and may even help them regulate their actions. Feeling less shame, fear, and secrecy may facilitate safer choices about sex, as well as testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.
The International Classification of Diseases-11 includes compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD)as an attempt to create consensus around a complicated, and hotly debated, problem to facilitate diagnosis and research. Syndromes similar to CSBD have had many names: “hypersexual disorder,” “sexual addiction,” “sexual compulsivity,” and “out-of-control sexual behavior.” A sizable cohort of the sexuality research community casts doubt on whether CSBD is even a discrete diagnosis.
According to the ICD-11, CSBD is characterized by “intense, repetitive sexual impulses or urges that are experienced as irresistible or uncontrollable” and result in significant distress or functional impairment.
This diagnosis has several important rule-outs. First, paraphilias, defined as a set of nonconsensual sexual behaviors and interests, are excluded. Another is that distress exclusively related to moral judgment or social disapproval is not sufficient for a diagnosis of CSBD. Finally, the diagnosis hinges on distress and does not rely on frequency of any type of sexual behavior. Some people experience significant distress over behaviors in which they engage infrequently, whereas others may have no distress from activities in which they engage quite frequently.
In one study from Germany, 5% of men and 3% of women met criteria for CSBD. A small US study found the number to be 10% and 7%, respectively. The diagnosis is not simple. Compulsive sexual behavior can be secondary to other mental health or medical conditions. Behaviors sometimes confused with CSBD can result from neurologic diseases, such as frontal brain lesions or frontotemporal dementia, as well as the use of substances and medications that enhance dopaminergic activity.
Impaired control over sexual impulses occurs in manic and hypomanic episodes. Compulsive sexual behavior frequently co-occurs with mood disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and substance use disorders. Those meeting criteria for CSBD may engage in sexual behaviors as a way of coping with depression, anxiety, boredom, loneliness, or other negative affective states.
The diagnosis of CSBD may be useful for clinicians. However, many, perhaps most, patients who present with concerns about their sexual behavior will fail to meet most criteria for CSBD. Their problem is of shorter duration, related to morality, external disapproval, lack of sexual health information, and anxiety about diverse erotic interests. It may be helpful for them to understand that they are not in the grip of a lifelong disorder but are experiencing common life challenges.
Societal concerns about sexually explicit media, often called pornography, are complex, conflicting, and catastrophizing. Some studies indicate that sexually explicit media are positive for both individual and relational sexual satisfaction; other studies have found negative effects on sexual function. Concerns about pornography often are conflated with taboos about solo sexual activity. Ironically, use of pornography is associated with fear of addiction to pornography, creating a spiral of negative self-perception.
Consequences of sexual behavior may induce distress, even if a person doesn’t meet criteria for CSBD, such as potential dissolution of a marriage, loss of a job, excessive spending, sexually transmitted infections, other health concerns, and even legal problems. Sexual behavior might not be the central issue but rather an offshoot of relational distress, a mental health disorder, or a dysfunctional coping style.
Guilt and shame can act as potent contributors to maintaining the behaviors as well as promoting secrecy around them. Sexual medicine experts recommend avoiding interventions that increase the experience of discrimination and stigma and avoiding the pathologization of the behaviors of sexually diverse individuals. As in so many aspects of medical care, we must walk in our patients’ shoes and avoid imposing on them our own moral or religious values.
What Can a Primary Care Provider Do?
When a patient is concerned about sexual behavior that feels out of control, primary care providers have an important role in evaluating for neurologic disease or side effects related to the use of medication or other substances, and facilitating psychiatric assessment to evaluate for mental health comorbidities, past trauma, and associated attachment disorders.
Our patients need resources to tease out the individual and relational problems that may arise. Seek out well-trained sex therapy colleagues in your community. The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors, and Therapists (AASECT) is one certifying body in the United States for sex therapy.
Because of the heterogeneity of those who present with out-of-control sexual behavior, no one treatment fits all. Twelve-step programs, especially those with a focus on sexual “abstinence,” may not be the best choice. Many psychotherapeutic modalities are effective and often focus on addressing underlying or unrecognized mental health concerns, provide training on self-regulation and urge management, and relationship skills. Most important, the therapist needs to be sexologically informed and aware of their own biases around sexuality. Medical treatments are not recommended without concurrent psychological intervention.
Relational sex therapy can help couples create clear relational agreements that work for both parties (or, in polyamorous relationships, everyone involved). Relational distress also may be a stimulus for individual psychotherapy.
Back to these two patients.
The 25-year-old could be counseled that use of sexually explicit media and solo sex are not inherently bad or damaging. When used for pleasure and enjoyment, they do not lead to problems with partnered sex or cause sexual dysfunction. Counseling him to move toward social engagement and life goals, rather than away from pornography, may be all that is necessary.
Our second patient probably will need more intensive treatment, including medication management for her mood and referral to a certified sex therapist who has expertise in working with out-of-control sexual behavior. When she returns to see you in follow-up, she ideally expresses reduced shame, more autonomy, and renewed connection to her values, and she is keeping her relational agreements without sacrificing her sexual needs.
Dr. Kranz is medical director, Rochester Center for Sexual Wellness; assistant professor of Clinical Family Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. Dr. Kranz has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rosen is director of Behavioral Health, Rochester Center for Sexual Wellness, Rochester, New York. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Psychological Weight’ Crucial in Patients With Obesity
Increasingly recognized as a multifactorial disease, obesity demands an approach that involves multiple healthcare professionals. For psychologist Andréa Levy, coordinator and founder of the nongovernmental organization Obesity Brazil, addressing the patient’s “psychological weight” is crucial.
In an interview with this news organization, Ms. Levy, who was one of the speakers at the International Congress on Obesity in 2024, emphasized the importance of integrating emotional and behavioral aspects into treatment, because these factors often influence eating habits and weight gain.
She also highlighted the essential collaboration between endocrinologists, nutritionists, psychiatrists, and psychologists, who must work together to provide comprehensive and effective care to patients.
How do psychological factors affect the treatment of obesity?
Psychological factors are important triggers for weight gain. As the degree of obesity increases, so does the predisposition to mental health problems such as anxiety, mood disorders, personality disorders, and eating disorders. Understanding these factors is important because accurate psychodiagnosis is essential for effective disease treatment.
Without a proper diagnosis, the treatment may be incomplete and omit relevant factors. For example, a person with undiagnosed depression who is starting treatment for weight loss may feel discouraged and low on energy. He or she may wrongly attribute these symptoms to the diet or surgery. Similarly, someone undergoing bariatric surgery may confuse malnutrition symptoms with depression, resulting in inadequate treatment with antidepressants and possible iatrogenic complications.
Furthermore, psychotherapy and psychological follow-up are essential to help the individual organize better and understand the treatment and the disease itself. This is especially important in stigmatized diseases and those subject to prejudice such as obesity, where understanding and acceptance are often challenging, which affects treatment adherence.
Is the collaboration between psychologist and psychiatrist always necessary?
Often, it is necessary to have the support of both a psychologist and a psychiatrist. The process generally begins with a good psychodiagnosis. Initially, there may not be a case that requires treatment, but it is important to perform this evaluation to rule out any issues.
The follow-up, unlike weekly psychotherapy, can be monthly or at an interval agreed on with the patient. It is crucial to help him or her navigate the various stages of obesity treatment. For example, the patient may be going through a period of mourning or separation, or a happier moment, such as the beginning of a relationship or the birth of a child in the family. These moments affect eating habits and need to be well managed.
Depending on the degree of the pathology, such as depression, severe binge-eating disorder, or personality disorders, the psychologist works in conjunction with the psychiatrist. When we talk about obesity, we are possibly also talking about a psychiatric population because it is a disease that, besides being highly recurrent, involves many other factors, such as the gaze of others, difficulty with dressing, body pains, mobility, and relationships. Therefore, having this disease alone is already a trigger for disorders such as depression.
What is the main evidence regarding the psychological follow-up of patients with obesity?
Several studies have investigated the relationship between obesity and mental health. Research indicates that the greater the obesity, the higher the likelihood of a positive diagnosis for a psychiatric disorder. Additionally, there is evidence of the benefits of psychological treatment for patients with obesity.
A study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism addressed the impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which helps patients manage goals and treat maladaptive behaviors such as binge-eating disorders. CBT has a modest effect on weight loss, but its integration as part of a lifestyle modification amplifies the results of this loss.
Recent research also shows that weight loss through bariatric surgery offers significant psychological benefits. In the past, it was believed that this procedure could cause depression and other severe psychiatric disorders, but it is now more than proven that weight loss, when done properly and without misconduct or malnutrition, improves psychological and psychiatric issues.
How does psychological follow-up affect the use of medication during obesity treatment?
Many people who take medications, such as corticosteroids for chronic pain or psychiatric medications, may experience weight gain. It is essential to discuss these issues with the psychiatrist because if the patient already has a predisposition to weight gain, medication X should be chosen instead of medication Y, or the dosage should be adjusted. The psychiatrist needs to understand obesity to medicate correctly. Other types of medication, such as chemotherapeutics, may also cause weight gain, often resulting in more abdominal obesity.
There is also lipedema, a hormone-dependent disease that is different from obesity. In this disease, the person gains weight mainly in the legs and arms. In this case, bariatric surgery may result in weight loss only in specific areas, causing disproportionality and difficulty in understanding for the patient. Therefore, when treating obesity, it is important to analyze the patient from all angles: psychological, physiologic, and physical, considering the diversity of the body, its functioning, and hormonal reactions.
Although psychologists do not prescribe medications, they often explain their functioning to the patient. For example, if a patient is taking a glucagon-like peptide 1 analog and experiences initial nausea, he or she may stop using the treatment because the wrong dose had been started. In this case, the psychologist can explain how the medication works and encourage the patient to discuss adjustments with the doctor, avoiding premature discontinuation.
How has the mental health follow-up of patients with obesity evolved over the years?
I started working with people with obesity 25 years ago, when I myself underwent bariatric surgery. At that time, surgeons were used to “solving” the problem and sending the person home. Often, the patient did not even return for surgical follow-up because, in theory, the problem was solved.
Over time, I believe that surgeons learned to talk to the patient, understanding that there is a whole process that even involves creating a bond with the individual who underwent the surgical procedure. Within this process, the importance of the mental health of patients was recognized, and how common it is to confuse a degree of malnutrition with a mental disorder.
Even though I am not a nutritionist, I need to know the difference between a case of malnutrition and depression. So, it is a whole set of factors that needs to be worked on like an orchestra. It is not necessary for this work to be done in the same physical space, but dialogue is important.
Of course, there are things that the patient will only share with the psychologist or with the surgeon, but there are also pieces of information that need to be shared for positive management. I have had patients who were afraid to go back to the nutritionist because they did not lose weight. If they are afraid, it is because the professional is guiding them incorrectly.
What tips would you give to clinicians regarding the psychological approach to people with obesity?
Accessibility is crucial. When someone tells me they are dealing with obesity and depression, I usually ask, “Did you know you have two chronic diseases?” It is essential to explain these concepts because the patient may often think they are free after a successful diet and weight loss, which is not true because of the high relapse associated with obesity. Depression and anxiety follow similar patterns. If the same person wears prescription glasses, I interact by saying, “Did you know you have three chronic diseases?” This question often causes surprise. “I hadn’t thought of that.”
It is essential to use accessible language for the patient to understand the functioning of the disease. More important than choosing a treatment approach is understanding the pathophysiology of obesity and its psychological impact. This avoids a one-size-fits-all approach for all patients.
For example, the impact on someone who developed obesity in childhood after suffering physical, moral, or sexual abuse will probably be deeper than on someone in a healthy family who gained weight after becoming sedentary. Each life story requires a personalized approach.
Sometimes, a patient with mild obesity (grade 1) may not seem to need specific interventions at first glance, but it is crucial to listen to his or her story. Similarly, patients with severe obesity (grades 3 or 4) who resist surgery are entitled to other treatment options, and this is perfectly valid. Therefore, it is always important to ask, “Who is this person? What does obesity represent in their story?” Then propose the most appropriate treatment.
Ms. Levy reported having no relevant financial relationships.
This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition 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.
Increasingly recognized as a multifactorial disease, obesity demands an approach that involves multiple healthcare professionals. For psychologist Andréa Levy, coordinator and founder of the nongovernmental organization Obesity Brazil, addressing the patient’s “psychological weight” is crucial.
In an interview with this news organization, Ms. Levy, who was one of the speakers at the International Congress on Obesity in 2024, emphasized the importance of integrating emotional and behavioral aspects into treatment, because these factors often influence eating habits and weight gain.
She also highlighted the essential collaboration between endocrinologists, nutritionists, psychiatrists, and psychologists, who must work together to provide comprehensive and effective care to patients.
How do psychological factors affect the treatment of obesity?
Psychological factors are important triggers for weight gain. As the degree of obesity increases, so does the predisposition to mental health problems such as anxiety, mood disorders, personality disorders, and eating disorders. Understanding these factors is important because accurate psychodiagnosis is essential for effective disease treatment.
Without a proper diagnosis, the treatment may be incomplete and omit relevant factors. For example, a person with undiagnosed depression who is starting treatment for weight loss may feel discouraged and low on energy. He or she may wrongly attribute these symptoms to the diet or surgery. Similarly, someone undergoing bariatric surgery may confuse malnutrition symptoms with depression, resulting in inadequate treatment with antidepressants and possible iatrogenic complications.
Furthermore, psychotherapy and psychological follow-up are essential to help the individual organize better and understand the treatment and the disease itself. This is especially important in stigmatized diseases and those subject to prejudice such as obesity, where understanding and acceptance are often challenging, which affects treatment adherence.
Is the collaboration between psychologist and psychiatrist always necessary?
Often, it is necessary to have the support of both a psychologist and a psychiatrist. The process generally begins with a good psychodiagnosis. Initially, there may not be a case that requires treatment, but it is important to perform this evaluation to rule out any issues.
The follow-up, unlike weekly psychotherapy, can be monthly or at an interval agreed on with the patient. It is crucial to help him or her navigate the various stages of obesity treatment. For example, the patient may be going through a period of mourning or separation, or a happier moment, such as the beginning of a relationship or the birth of a child in the family. These moments affect eating habits and need to be well managed.
Depending on the degree of the pathology, such as depression, severe binge-eating disorder, or personality disorders, the psychologist works in conjunction with the psychiatrist. When we talk about obesity, we are possibly also talking about a psychiatric population because it is a disease that, besides being highly recurrent, involves many other factors, such as the gaze of others, difficulty with dressing, body pains, mobility, and relationships. Therefore, having this disease alone is already a trigger for disorders such as depression.
What is the main evidence regarding the psychological follow-up of patients with obesity?
Several studies have investigated the relationship between obesity and mental health. Research indicates that the greater the obesity, the higher the likelihood of a positive diagnosis for a psychiatric disorder. Additionally, there is evidence of the benefits of psychological treatment for patients with obesity.
A study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism addressed the impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which helps patients manage goals and treat maladaptive behaviors such as binge-eating disorders. CBT has a modest effect on weight loss, but its integration as part of a lifestyle modification amplifies the results of this loss.
Recent research also shows that weight loss through bariatric surgery offers significant psychological benefits. In the past, it was believed that this procedure could cause depression and other severe psychiatric disorders, but it is now more than proven that weight loss, when done properly and without misconduct or malnutrition, improves psychological and psychiatric issues.
How does psychological follow-up affect the use of medication during obesity treatment?
Many people who take medications, such as corticosteroids for chronic pain or psychiatric medications, may experience weight gain. It is essential to discuss these issues with the psychiatrist because if the patient already has a predisposition to weight gain, medication X should be chosen instead of medication Y, or the dosage should be adjusted. The psychiatrist needs to understand obesity to medicate correctly. Other types of medication, such as chemotherapeutics, may also cause weight gain, often resulting in more abdominal obesity.
There is also lipedema, a hormone-dependent disease that is different from obesity. In this disease, the person gains weight mainly in the legs and arms. In this case, bariatric surgery may result in weight loss only in specific areas, causing disproportionality and difficulty in understanding for the patient. Therefore, when treating obesity, it is important to analyze the patient from all angles: psychological, physiologic, and physical, considering the diversity of the body, its functioning, and hormonal reactions.
Although psychologists do not prescribe medications, they often explain their functioning to the patient. For example, if a patient is taking a glucagon-like peptide 1 analog and experiences initial nausea, he or she may stop using the treatment because the wrong dose had been started. In this case, the psychologist can explain how the medication works and encourage the patient to discuss adjustments with the doctor, avoiding premature discontinuation.
How has the mental health follow-up of patients with obesity evolved over the years?
I started working with people with obesity 25 years ago, when I myself underwent bariatric surgery. At that time, surgeons were used to “solving” the problem and sending the person home. Often, the patient did not even return for surgical follow-up because, in theory, the problem was solved.
Over time, I believe that surgeons learned to talk to the patient, understanding that there is a whole process that even involves creating a bond with the individual who underwent the surgical procedure. Within this process, the importance of the mental health of patients was recognized, and how common it is to confuse a degree of malnutrition with a mental disorder.
Even though I am not a nutritionist, I need to know the difference between a case of malnutrition and depression. So, it is a whole set of factors that needs to be worked on like an orchestra. It is not necessary for this work to be done in the same physical space, but dialogue is important.
Of course, there are things that the patient will only share with the psychologist or with the surgeon, but there are also pieces of information that need to be shared for positive management. I have had patients who were afraid to go back to the nutritionist because they did not lose weight. If they are afraid, it is because the professional is guiding them incorrectly.
What tips would you give to clinicians regarding the psychological approach to people with obesity?
Accessibility is crucial. When someone tells me they are dealing with obesity and depression, I usually ask, “Did you know you have two chronic diseases?” It is essential to explain these concepts because the patient may often think they are free after a successful diet and weight loss, which is not true because of the high relapse associated with obesity. Depression and anxiety follow similar patterns. If the same person wears prescription glasses, I interact by saying, “Did you know you have three chronic diseases?” This question often causes surprise. “I hadn’t thought of that.”
It is essential to use accessible language for the patient to understand the functioning of the disease. More important than choosing a treatment approach is understanding the pathophysiology of obesity and its psychological impact. This avoids a one-size-fits-all approach for all patients.
For example, the impact on someone who developed obesity in childhood after suffering physical, moral, or sexual abuse will probably be deeper than on someone in a healthy family who gained weight after becoming sedentary. Each life story requires a personalized approach.
Sometimes, a patient with mild obesity (grade 1) may not seem to need specific interventions at first glance, but it is crucial to listen to his or her story. Similarly, patients with severe obesity (grades 3 or 4) who resist surgery are entitled to other treatment options, and this is perfectly valid. Therefore, it is always important to ask, “Who is this person? What does obesity represent in their story?” Then propose the most appropriate treatment.
Ms. Levy reported having no relevant financial relationships.
This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition 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.
Increasingly recognized as a multifactorial disease, obesity demands an approach that involves multiple healthcare professionals. For psychologist Andréa Levy, coordinator and founder of the nongovernmental organization Obesity Brazil, addressing the patient’s “psychological weight” is crucial.
In an interview with this news organization, Ms. Levy, who was one of the speakers at the International Congress on Obesity in 2024, emphasized the importance of integrating emotional and behavioral aspects into treatment, because these factors often influence eating habits and weight gain.
She also highlighted the essential collaboration between endocrinologists, nutritionists, psychiatrists, and psychologists, who must work together to provide comprehensive and effective care to patients.
How do psychological factors affect the treatment of obesity?
Psychological factors are important triggers for weight gain. As the degree of obesity increases, so does the predisposition to mental health problems such as anxiety, mood disorders, personality disorders, and eating disorders. Understanding these factors is important because accurate psychodiagnosis is essential for effective disease treatment.
Without a proper diagnosis, the treatment may be incomplete and omit relevant factors. For example, a person with undiagnosed depression who is starting treatment for weight loss may feel discouraged and low on energy. He or she may wrongly attribute these symptoms to the diet or surgery. Similarly, someone undergoing bariatric surgery may confuse malnutrition symptoms with depression, resulting in inadequate treatment with antidepressants and possible iatrogenic complications.
Furthermore, psychotherapy and psychological follow-up are essential to help the individual organize better and understand the treatment and the disease itself. This is especially important in stigmatized diseases and those subject to prejudice such as obesity, where understanding and acceptance are often challenging, which affects treatment adherence.
Is the collaboration between psychologist and psychiatrist always necessary?
Often, it is necessary to have the support of both a psychologist and a psychiatrist. The process generally begins with a good psychodiagnosis. Initially, there may not be a case that requires treatment, but it is important to perform this evaluation to rule out any issues.
The follow-up, unlike weekly psychotherapy, can be monthly or at an interval agreed on with the patient. It is crucial to help him or her navigate the various stages of obesity treatment. For example, the patient may be going through a period of mourning or separation, or a happier moment, such as the beginning of a relationship or the birth of a child in the family. These moments affect eating habits and need to be well managed.
Depending on the degree of the pathology, such as depression, severe binge-eating disorder, or personality disorders, the psychologist works in conjunction with the psychiatrist. When we talk about obesity, we are possibly also talking about a psychiatric population because it is a disease that, besides being highly recurrent, involves many other factors, such as the gaze of others, difficulty with dressing, body pains, mobility, and relationships. Therefore, having this disease alone is already a trigger for disorders such as depression.
What is the main evidence regarding the psychological follow-up of patients with obesity?
Several studies have investigated the relationship between obesity and mental health. Research indicates that the greater the obesity, the higher the likelihood of a positive diagnosis for a psychiatric disorder. Additionally, there is evidence of the benefits of psychological treatment for patients with obesity.
A study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism addressed the impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which helps patients manage goals and treat maladaptive behaviors such as binge-eating disorders. CBT has a modest effect on weight loss, but its integration as part of a lifestyle modification amplifies the results of this loss.
Recent research also shows that weight loss through bariatric surgery offers significant psychological benefits. In the past, it was believed that this procedure could cause depression and other severe psychiatric disorders, but it is now more than proven that weight loss, when done properly and without misconduct or malnutrition, improves psychological and psychiatric issues.
How does psychological follow-up affect the use of medication during obesity treatment?
Many people who take medications, such as corticosteroids for chronic pain or psychiatric medications, may experience weight gain. It is essential to discuss these issues with the psychiatrist because if the patient already has a predisposition to weight gain, medication X should be chosen instead of medication Y, or the dosage should be adjusted. The psychiatrist needs to understand obesity to medicate correctly. Other types of medication, such as chemotherapeutics, may also cause weight gain, often resulting in more abdominal obesity.
There is also lipedema, a hormone-dependent disease that is different from obesity. In this disease, the person gains weight mainly in the legs and arms. In this case, bariatric surgery may result in weight loss only in specific areas, causing disproportionality and difficulty in understanding for the patient. Therefore, when treating obesity, it is important to analyze the patient from all angles: psychological, physiologic, and physical, considering the diversity of the body, its functioning, and hormonal reactions.
Although psychologists do not prescribe medications, they often explain their functioning to the patient. For example, if a patient is taking a glucagon-like peptide 1 analog and experiences initial nausea, he or she may stop using the treatment because the wrong dose had been started. In this case, the psychologist can explain how the medication works and encourage the patient to discuss adjustments with the doctor, avoiding premature discontinuation.
How has the mental health follow-up of patients with obesity evolved over the years?
I started working with people with obesity 25 years ago, when I myself underwent bariatric surgery. At that time, surgeons were used to “solving” the problem and sending the person home. Often, the patient did not even return for surgical follow-up because, in theory, the problem was solved.
Over time, I believe that surgeons learned to talk to the patient, understanding that there is a whole process that even involves creating a bond with the individual who underwent the surgical procedure. Within this process, the importance of the mental health of patients was recognized, and how common it is to confuse a degree of malnutrition with a mental disorder.
Even though I am not a nutritionist, I need to know the difference between a case of malnutrition and depression. So, it is a whole set of factors that needs to be worked on like an orchestra. It is not necessary for this work to be done in the same physical space, but dialogue is important.
Of course, there are things that the patient will only share with the psychologist or with the surgeon, but there are also pieces of information that need to be shared for positive management. I have had patients who were afraid to go back to the nutritionist because they did not lose weight. If they are afraid, it is because the professional is guiding them incorrectly.
What tips would you give to clinicians regarding the psychological approach to people with obesity?
Accessibility is crucial. When someone tells me they are dealing with obesity and depression, I usually ask, “Did you know you have two chronic diseases?” It is essential to explain these concepts because the patient may often think they are free after a successful diet and weight loss, which is not true because of the high relapse associated with obesity. Depression and anxiety follow similar patterns. If the same person wears prescription glasses, I interact by saying, “Did you know you have three chronic diseases?” This question often causes surprise. “I hadn’t thought of that.”
It is essential to use accessible language for the patient to understand the functioning of the disease. More important than choosing a treatment approach is understanding the pathophysiology of obesity and its psychological impact. This avoids a one-size-fits-all approach for all patients.
For example, the impact on someone who developed obesity in childhood after suffering physical, moral, or sexual abuse will probably be deeper than on someone in a healthy family who gained weight after becoming sedentary. Each life story requires a personalized approach.
Sometimes, a patient with mild obesity (grade 1) may not seem to need specific interventions at first glance, but it is crucial to listen to his or her story. Similarly, patients with severe obesity (grades 3 or 4) who resist surgery are entitled to other treatment options, and this is perfectly valid. Therefore, it is always important to ask, “Who is this person? What does obesity represent in their story?” Then propose the most appropriate treatment.
Ms. Levy reported having no relevant financial relationships.
This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition 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.
Alzheimer’s Blood Test in Primary Care Could Slash Diagnostic, Treatment Wait Times
As disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) become available, . Currently, the patient diagnostic journey is often prolonged owing to the limited number of AD specialists, causing concern among healthcare providers and patients alike. Now, a new study suggests that use of high-performing blood tests in primary care could identify potential patients with AD much earlier, possibly reducing wait times for specialist care and receipt of treatment.
“We need to triage in primary care and send preferentially the ones that actually could be eligible for treatment, and not those who are just worried because their grandmother reported that she has Alzheimer’s,” lead researcher Soeren Mattke, MD, DSc, told this news organization.
“By combining a brief cognitive test with an accurate blood test of Alzheimer’s pathology in primary care, we can reduce unnecessary referrals, and shorten appointment wait times,” said Dr. Mattke, director of the Brain Health Observatory at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2024.
Projected Wait Times 100 Months by 2033
The investigators used a Markov model to estimate wait times for patients eligible for AD treatment, taking into account constrained capacity for specialist visits.
The model included the projected US population of people aged 55 years or older from 2023 to 2032. It assumed that individuals would undergo a brief cognitive assessment in primary care and, if suggestive of early-stage cognitive impairment, be referred to a AD specialist under three scenarios: no blood test, blood test to rule out AD pathology, and blood test to confirm AD pathology.
According to the model, without an accurate blood test for AD pathology, projected wait times to see a specialist are about 12 months in 2024 and will increase to more than 100 months in 2033, largely owing to a lack of specialist appointments.
In contrast, with the availability of an accurate blood test to rule out AD, average wait times would be just 3 months in 2024 and increase to only about 13 months in 2033, because far fewer patients would need to see a specialist.
Availability of a blood test to rule in AD pathology in primary care would have a limited effect on wait times because 50% of patients would still undergo confirmatory testing based on expert assumptions, the model suggests.
Prioritizing Resources
“Millions of people have mild memory complaints, and if they all start coming to neurologists, it could completely flood the system and create long wait times for everybody,” Dr. Mattke told this news organization.
The problem, he said, is that brief cognitive tests performed in primary care are not particularly specific for mild cognitive impairment.
“They work pretty well for manifest advanced dementia but for mild cognitive impairment, which is a very subtle, symptomatic disease, they are only about 75% accurate. One quarter are false-positives. That’s a lot of people,” Dr. Mattke said.
He also noted that although earlier blood tests were about 75% accurate, they are now about 90% accurate, “so we are getting to a level where we can pretty much say with confidence that this is likely Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Mattke said.
Commenting on this research for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said it is clear that blood tests, “once confirmed, could have a significant impact on the wait times” for dementia assessment.
“After an initial blood test, we might be able to rule out or rule in individuals who should go to a specialist for further follow-up and testing. This allows us to really ensure that we’re prioritizing resources accordingly,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study.
This project was supported by a research contract from C2N Diagnostics LLC to USC. Dr. Mattke serves on the board of directors of Senscio Systems Inc. and the scientific advisory board of ALZPath and Boston Millennia Partners and has received consulting fees from Biogen, C2N, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Snyder has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) become available, . Currently, the patient diagnostic journey is often prolonged owing to the limited number of AD specialists, causing concern among healthcare providers and patients alike. Now, a new study suggests that use of high-performing blood tests in primary care could identify potential patients with AD much earlier, possibly reducing wait times for specialist care and receipt of treatment.
“We need to triage in primary care and send preferentially the ones that actually could be eligible for treatment, and not those who are just worried because their grandmother reported that she has Alzheimer’s,” lead researcher Soeren Mattke, MD, DSc, told this news organization.
“By combining a brief cognitive test with an accurate blood test of Alzheimer’s pathology in primary care, we can reduce unnecessary referrals, and shorten appointment wait times,” said Dr. Mattke, director of the Brain Health Observatory at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2024.
Projected Wait Times 100 Months by 2033
The investigators used a Markov model to estimate wait times for patients eligible for AD treatment, taking into account constrained capacity for specialist visits.
The model included the projected US population of people aged 55 years or older from 2023 to 2032. It assumed that individuals would undergo a brief cognitive assessment in primary care and, if suggestive of early-stage cognitive impairment, be referred to a AD specialist under three scenarios: no blood test, blood test to rule out AD pathology, and blood test to confirm AD pathology.
According to the model, without an accurate blood test for AD pathology, projected wait times to see a specialist are about 12 months in 2024 and will increase to more than 100 months in 2033, largely owing to a lack of specialist appointments.
In contrast, with the availability of an accurate blood test to rule out AD, average wait times would be just 3 months in 2024 and increase to only about 13 months in 2033, because far fewer patients would need to see a specialist.
Availability of a blood test to rule in AD pathology in primary care would have a limited effect on wait times because 50% of patients would still undergo confirmatory testing based on expert assumptions, the model suggests.
Prioritizing Resources
“Millions of people have mild memory complaints, and if they all start coming to neurologists, it could completely flood the system and create long wait times for everybody,” Dr. Mattke told this news organization.
The problem, he said, is that brief cognitive tests performed in primary care are not particularly specific for mild cognitive impairment.
“They work pretty well for manifest advanced dementia but for mild cognitive impairment, which is a very subtle, symptomatic disease, they are only about 75% accurate. One quarter are false-positives. That’s a lot of people,” Dr. Mattke said.
He also noted that although earlier blood tests were about 75% accurate, they are now about 90% accurate, “so we are getting to a level where we can pretty much say with confidence that this is likely Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Mattke said.
Commenting on this research for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said it is clear that blood tests, “once confirmed, could have a significant impact on the wait times” for dementia assessment.
“After an initial blood test, we might be able to rule out or rule in individuals who should go to a specialist for further follow-up and testing. This allows us to really ensure that we’re prioritizing resources accordingly,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study.
This project was supported by a research contract from C2N Diagnostics LLC to USC. Dr. Mattke serves on the board of directors of Senscio Systems Inc. and the scientific advisory board of ALZPath and Boston Millennia Partners and has received consulting fees from Biogen, C2N, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Snyder has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) become available, . Currently, the patient diagnostic journey is often prolonged owing to the limited number of AD specialists, causing concern among healthcare providers and patients alike. Now, a new study suggests that use of high-performing blood tests in primary care could identify potential patients with AD much earlier, possibly reducing wait times for specialist care and receipt of treatment.
“We need to triage in primary care and send preferentially the ones that actually could be eligible for treatment, and not those who are just worried because their grandmother reported that she has Alzheimer’s,” lead researcher Soeren Mattke, MD, DSc, told this news organization.
“By combining a brief cognitive test with an accurate blood test of Alzheimer’s pathology in primary care, we can reduce unnecessary referrals, and shorten appointment wait times,” said Dr. Mattke, director of the Brain Health Observatory at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.
The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) 2024.
Projected Wait Times 100 Months by 2033
The investigators used a Markov model to estimate wait times for patients eligible for AD treatment, taking into account constrained capacity for specialist visits.
The model included the projected US population of people aged 55 years or older from 2023 to 2032. It assumed that individuals would undergo a brief cognitive assessment in primary care and, if suggestive of early-stage cognitive impairment, be referred to a AD specialist under three scenarios: no blood test, blood test to rule out AD pathology, and blood test to confirm AD pathology.
According to the model, without an accurate blood test for AD pathology, projected wait times to see a specialist are about 12 months in 2024 and will increase to more than 100 months in 2033, largely owing to a lack of specialist appointments.
In contrast, with the availability of an accurate blood test to rule out AD, average wait times would be just 3 months in 2024 and increase to only about 13 months in 2033, because far fewer patients would need to see a specialist.
Availability of a blood test to rule in AD pathology in primary care would have a limited effect on wait times because 50% of patients would still undergo confirmatory testing based on expert assumptions, the model suggests.
Prioritizing Resources
“Millions of people have mild memory complaints, and if they all start coming to neurologists, it could completely flood the system and create long wait times for everybody,” Dr. Mattke told this news organization.
The problem, he said, is that brief cognitive tests performed in primary care are not particularly specific for mild cognitive impairment.
“They work pretty well for manifest advanced dementia but for mild cognitive impairment, which is a very subtle, symptomatic disease, they are only about 75% accurate. One quarter are false-positives. That’s a lot of people,” Dr. Mattke said.
He also noted that although earlier blood tests were about 75% accurate, they are now about 90% accurate, “so we are getting to a level where we can pretty much say with confidence that this is likely Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Mattke said.
Commenting on this research for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said it is clear that blood tests, “once confirmed, could have a significant impact on the wait times” for dementia assessment.
“After an initial blood test, we might be able to rule out or rule in individuals who should go to a specialist for further follow-up and testing. This allows us to really ensure that we’re prioritizing resources accordingly,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study.
This project was supported by a research contract from C2N Diagnostics LLC to USC. Dr. Mattke serves on the board of directors of Senscio Systems Inc. and the scientific advisory board of ALZPath and Boston Millennia Partners and has received consulting fees from Biogen, C2N, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech. Dr. Snyder has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAIC 2024
Undiagnosed, Untreated Tardive Dyskinesia, Hinders Adherence to Antipsychotics
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic, potentially irreversible, hyperkinetic movement disorder. And the challenge with tardive dyskinesia is that it’s underdiagnosed and undertreated. With the expanded use of dopamine receptor–blocking agents, there are about 7.5 million Americans who are now exposed and at risk for tardive dyskinesia.
It’s thought that about 500,000-750,000 of these patients may in fact have tardive dyskinesia, but only 15% are treated. So why are people not being treated for tardive dyskinesia? Well, there are a number of possible answers.
Until a few years ago, there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia, and these antipsychotic medications that the patients were taking, in many cases, were potentially lifesaving drugs, so they couldn’t simply be stopped. As a result of that, I think physicians developed a certain psychic blindness to identifying tardive dyskinesia, because it was their drugs that were causing the disease and yet they couldn’t be stopped. So, there really wasn’t much they could do in terms of making the diagnosis.
In addition, they were trained that tardive dyskinesia doesn’t have much impact on patients. But we now know, through surveys and other studies, that tardive dyskinesia can have a tremendous impact on patients and on your ability to treat the patient’s underlying mental health issues. It’s estimated that 50% of patients with tardive dyskinesia actually reduce the amount of antipsychotic medication they’re taking on their own, and about 40% may in fact stop their antipsychotic medication altogether.
Thirty-five percent of patients stopped seeing their doctor after they developed tardive dyskinesia, and about 20% of patients actually told other patients not to take their antipsychotic medication. So, tardive dyskinesia is impacting your ability to treat patients. In addition, it impacts the patients themselves. Nearly three out of four patients with tardive dyskinesia said, in surveys, that it caused severe impact on their psychosocial functioning.
It also impacted caregivers, with 70% of caregivers saying that the patients with tardive dyskinesia made them more anxious and limited them socially. So, we have this tremendous impact from tardive dyskinesia.
In addition, physicians sometimes don’t identify tardive dyskinesia correctly. They mistake it for another movement disorder: drug-induced parkinsonism. Or it falls under the rubric of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and they were trained that you treat EPS with benztropine. The challenge with that is that benztropine is only indicated for acute dystonia or for drug-induced parkinsonism. It actually makes tardive dyskinesia worse. And, in the product insert for benztropine, it’s recommended that it should not be used in tardive dyskinesia. So if you have a patient whom you suspect has tardive dyskinesia, you have to discontinue the benztropine. That’s a really important first step.
And then, what else should you do? There are now two FDA-approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia. These are valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. Both of these drugs have been demonstrated in large double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to reduce tardive dyskinesia, as measured by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, by about 30%. These drugs have been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated, with the main side effect being somnolence.
Some people can also develop parkinsonism. Why could there be Parkinsonism? This is because vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors work by reducing the amount of dopamine that can be packaged in the presynaptic neuron. That means that less dopamine is available to the synapse, and this reduces movement. The American Psychiatric Association has issued guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia and has said that moderate to severe tardive dyskinesia should be treated first-line with VMAT2 inhibitors and that mild tardive dyskinesia should also be treated with VMAT2 inhibitors if the tardive dyskinesia is impacting the patient.
Given the impact that tardive dyskinesia has on patients and caregivers, and the physician’s ability to treat these patients’ mental health issues, we need to become aggressive and treat the tardive dyskinesia so that patients can improve and be able to have their movements treated without impacting their underlying mental health issues.
Daniel Kremens, professor, Department of Neurology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, codirector, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Division, Jack and Vickie Farber Center for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Teva Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Cerevel, Amneal, Acadia, Supernus, Adamas, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, and Neurocrine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic, potentially irreversible, hyperkinetic movement disorder. And the challenge with tardive dyskinesia is that it’s underdiagnosed and undertreated. With the expanded use of dopamine receptor–blocking agents, there are about 7.5 million Americans who are now exposed and at risk for tardive dyskinesia.
It’s thought that about 500,000-750,000 of these patients may in fact have tardive dyskinesia, but only 15% are treated. So why are people not being treated for tardive dyskinesia? Well, there are a number of possible answers.
Until a few years ago, there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia, and these antipsychotic medications that the patients were taking, in many cases, were potentially lifesaving drugs, so they couldn’t simply be stopped. As a result of that, I think physicians developed a certain psychic blindness to identifying tardive dyskinesia, because it was their drugs that were causing the disease and yet they couldn’t be stopped. So, there really wasn’t much they could do in terms of making the diagnosis.
In addition, they were trained that tardive dyskinesia doesn’t have much impact on patients. But we now know, through surveys and other studies, that tardive dyskinesia can have a tremendous impact on patients and on your ability to treat the patient’s underlying mental health issues. It’s estimated that 50% of patients with tardive dyskinesia actually reduce the amount of antipsychotic medication they’re taking on their own, and about 40% may in fact stop their antipsychotic medication altogether.
Thirty-five percent of patients stopped seeing their doctor after they developed tardive dyskinesia, and about 20% of patients actually told other patients not to take their antipsychotic medication. So, tardive dyskinesia is impacting your ability to treat patients. In addition, it impacts the patients themselves. Nearly three out of four patients with tardive dyskinesia said, in surveys, that it caused severe impact on their psychosocial functioning.
It also impacted caregivers, with 70% of caregivers saying that the patients with tardive dyskinesia made them more anxious and limited them socially. So, we have this tremendous impact from tardive dyskinesia.
In addition, physicians sometimes don’t identify tardive dyskinesia correctly. They mistake it for another movement disorder: drug-induced parkinsonism. Or it falls under the rubric of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and they were trained that you treat EPS with benztropine. The challenge with that is that benztropine is only indicated for acute dystonia or for drug-induced parkinsonism. It actually makes tardive dyskinesia worse. And, in the product insert for benztropine, it’s recommended that it should not be used in tardive dyskinesia. So if you have a patient whom you suspect has tardive dyskinesia, you have to discontinue the benztropine. That’s a really important first step.
And then, what else should you do? There are now two FDA-approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia. These are valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. Both of these drugs have been demonstrated in large double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to reduce tardive dyskinesia, as measured by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, by about 30%. These drugs have been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated, with the main side effect being somnolence.
Some people can also develop parkinsonism. Why could there be Parkinsonism? This is because vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors work by reducing the amount of dopamine that can be packaged in the presynaptic neuron. That means that less dopamine is available to the synapse, and this reduces movement. The American Psychiatric Association has issued guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia and has said that moderate to severe tardive dyskinesia should be treated first-line with VMAT2 inhibitors and that mild tardive dyskinesia should also be treated with VMAT2 inhibitors if the tardive dyskinesia is impacting the patient.
Given the impact that tardive dyskinesia has on patients and caregivers, and the physician’s ability to treat these patients’ mental health issues, we need to become aggressive and treat the tardive dyskinesia so that patients can improve and be able to have their movements treated without impacting their underlying mental health issues.
Daniel Kremens, professor, Department of Neurology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, codirector, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Division, Jack and Vickie Farber Center for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Teva Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Cerevel, Amneal, Acadia, Supernus, Adamas, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, and Neurocrine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic, potentially irreversible, hyperkinetic movement disorder. And the challenge with tardive dyskinesia is that it’s underdiagnosed and undertreated. With the expanded use of dopamine receptor–blocking agents, there are about 7.5 million Americans who are now exposed and at risk for tardive dyskinesia.
It’s thought that about 500,000-750,000 of these patients may in fact have tardive dyskinesia, but only 15% are treated. So why are people not being treated for tardive dyskinesia? Well, there are a number of possible answers.
Until a few years ago, there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia, and these antipsychotic medications that the patients were taking, in many cases, were potentially lifesaving drugs, so they couldn’t simply be stopped. As a result of that, I think physicians developed a certain psychic blindness to identifying tardive dyskinesia, because it was their drugs that were causing the disease and yet they couldn’t be stopped. So, there really wasn’t much they could do in terms of making the diagnosis.
In addition, they were trained that tardive dyskinesia doesn’t have much impact on patients. But we now know, through surveys and other studies, that tardive dyskinesia can have a tremendous impact on patients and on your ability to treat the patient’s underlying mental health issues. It’s estimated that 50% of patients with tardive dyskinesia actually reduce the amount of antipsychotic medication they’re taking on their own, and about 40% may in fact stop their antipsychotic medication altogether.
Thirty-five percent of patients stopped seeing their doctor after they developed tardive dyskinesia, and about 20% of patients actually told other patients not to take their antipsychotic medication. So, tardive dyskinesia is impacting your ability to treat patients. In addition, it impacts the patients themselves. Nearly three out of four patients with tardive dyskinesia said, in surveys, that it caused severe impact on their psychosocial functioning.
It also impacted caregivers, with 70% of caregivers saying that the patients with tardive dyskinesia made them more anxious and limited them socially. So, we have this tremendous impact from tardive dyskinesia.
In addition, physicians sometimes don’t identify tardive dyskinesia correctly. They mistake it for another movement disorder: drug-induced parkinsonism. Or it falls under the rubric of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and they were trained that you treat EPS with benztropine. The challenge with that is that benztropine is only indicated for acute dystonia or for drug-induced parkinsonism. It actually makes tardive dyskinesia worse. And, in the product insert for benztropine, it’s recommended that it should not be used in tardive dyskinesia. So if you have a patient whom you suspect has tardive dyskinesia, you have to discontinue the benztropine. That’s a really important first step.
And then, what else should you do? There are now two FDA-approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia. These are valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. Both of these drugs have been demonstrated in large double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to reduce tardive dyskinesia, as measured by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, by about 30%. These drugs have been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated, with the main side effect being somnolence.
Some people can also develop parkinsonism. Why could there be Parkinsonism? This is because vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors work by reducing the amount of dopamine that can be packaged in the presynaptic neuron. That means that less dopamine is available to the synapse, and this reduces movement. The American Psychiatric Association has issued guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia and has said that moderate to severe tardive dyskinesia should be treated first-line with VMAT2 inhibitors and that mild tardive dyskinesia should also be treated with VMAT2 inhibitors if the tardive dyskinesia is impacting the patient.
Given the impact that tardive dyskinesia has on patients and caregivers, and the physician’s ability to treat these patients’ mental health issues, we need to become aggressive and treat the tardive dyskinesia so that patients can improve and be able to have their movements treated without impacting their underlying mental health issues.
Daniel Kremens, professor, Department of Neurology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, codirector, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Division, Jack and Vickie Farber Center for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Teva Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Cerevel, Amneal, Acadia, Supernus, Adamas, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, and Neurocrine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New Models Predict Time From Mild Cognitive Impairment to Dementia
Using a large, real-world population, researchers have developed models that predict cognitive decline in amyloid-positive patients with either mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia.
The models may help clinicians better answer common questions from their patients about their rate of cognitive decline, noted the investigators, led by Pieter J. van der Veere, MD, Alzheimer Center and Department of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Easy-to-Use Prototype
On average, it takes 4 years for MCI to progress to dementia. While new disease-modifying drugs targeting amyloid may slow progression, whether this effect is clinically meaningful is debatable, the investigators noted.
Earlier published models predicting cognitive decline either are limited to patients with MCI or haven’t been developed for easy clinical use, they added.
For the single-center study, researchers selected 961 amyloid-positive patients, mean age 65 years, who had at least two longitudinal Mini-Mental State Examinations (MMSEs). Of these, 310 had MCI, and 651 had mild dementia; 48% were women, and over 90% were White.
Researchers used linear mixed modeling to predict MMSE over time. They included age, sex, baseline MMSE, apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 status, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) beta-amyloid (Aß) 1-42 and plasma phosphorylated-tau markers, and MRI total brain and hippocampal volume measures in the various models, including the final biomarker prediction models.
At follow-up, investigators found that the yearly decline in MMSEs increased in patients with both MCI and mild dementia. In MCI, the average MMSE declined from 26.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.2-26.7) at baseline to 21.0 (95% CI, 20.2-21.7) after 5 years.
In mild dementia, the average MMSE declined from 22.4 (95% CI, 22.0-22.7) to 7.8 (95% CI, 6.8-8.9) at 5 years.
The predicted mean time to reach an MMSE of 20 (indicating mild dementia) for a hypothetical patient with MCI and a baseline MMSE of 28 and CSF Aß 1-42 of 925 pg/mL was 6 years (95% CI, 5.4-6.7 years).
However, with a hypothetical drug treatment that reduces the rate of decline by 30%, the patient would not reach the stage of moderate dementia for 8.6 years.
For a hypothetical patient with mild dementia with a baseline MMSE of 20 and CSF Aß 1-42 of 625 pg/mL, the predicted mean time to reach an MMSE of 15 was 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.1-2.5), or 3.3 years if decline is reduced by 30% with drug treatment.
External validation of the prediction models using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, a longitudinal cohort of patients not cognitively impaired or with MCI or dementia, showed comparable performance between the model-building approaches.
Researchers have incorporated the models in an easy-to-use calculator as a prototype tool that physicians can use to discuss prognosis, the uncertainty surrounding the predictions, and the impact of intervention strategies with patients.
Future prediction models may be able to predict patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life and daily functioning, the researchers noted.
“Until then, there is an important role for clinicians in translating the observed and predicted cognitive functions,” they wrote.
Compared with other studies predicting the MMSE decline using different statistical techniques, these new models showed similar or even better predictive performance while requiring less or similar information, the investigators noted.
The study used MMSE as a measure of cognition, but there may be intraindividual variation in these measures among cognitively normal patients, and those with cognitive decline may score lower if measurements are taken later in the day. Another study limitation was that the models were built for use in memory clinics, so generalizability to the general population could be limited.
The study was supported by Eisai, ZonMW, and Health~Holland Top Sector Life Sciences & Health. See paper for financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Using a large, real-world population, researchers have developed models that predict cognitive decline in amyloid-positive patients with either mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia.
The models may help clinicians better answer common questions from their patients about their rate of cognitive decline, noted the investigators, led by Pieter J. van der Veere, MD, Alzheimer Center and Department of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Easy-to-Use Prototype
On average, it takes 4 years for MCI to progress to dementia. While new disease-modifying drugs targeting amyloid may slow progression, whether this effect is clinically meaningful is debatable, the investigators noted.
Earlier published models predicting cognitive decline either are limited to patients with MCI or haven’t been developed for easy clinical use, they added.
For the single-center study, researchers selected 961 amyloid-positive patients, mean age 65 years, who had at least two longitudinal Mini-Mental State Examinations (MMSEs). Of these, 310 had MCI, and 651 had mild dementia; 48% were women, and over 90% were White.
Researchers used linear mixed modeling to predict MMSE over time. They included age, sex, baseline MMSE, apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 status, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) beta-amyloid (Aß) 1-42 and plasma phosphorylated-tau markers, and MRI total brain and hippocampal volume measures in the various models, including the final biomarker prediction models.
At follow-up, investigators found that the yearly decline in MMSEs increased in patients with both MCI and mild dementia. In MCI, the average MMSE declined from 26.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.2-26.7) at baseline to 21.0 (95% CI, 20.2-21.7) after 5 years.
In mild dementia, the average MMSE declined from 22.4 (95% CI, 22.0-22.7) to 7.8 (95% CI, 6.8-8.9) at 5 years.
The predicted mean time to reach an MMSE of 20 (indicating mild dementia) for a hypothetical patient with MCI and a baseline MMSE of 28 and CSF Aß 1-42 of 925 pg/mL was 6 years (95% CI, 5.4-6.7 years).
However, with a hypothetical drug treatment that reduces the rate of decline by 30%, the patient would not reach the stage of moderate dementia for 8.6 years.
For a hypothetical patient with mild dementia with a baseline MMSE of 20 and CSF Aß 1-42 of 625 pg/mL, the predicted mean time to reach an MMSE of 15 was 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.1-2.5), or 3.3 years if decline is reduced by 30% with drug treatment.
External validation of the prediction models using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, a longitudinal cohort of patients not cognitively impaired or with MCI or dementia, showed comparable performance between the model-building approaches.
Researchers have incorporated the models in an easy-to-use calculator as a prototype tool that physicians can use to discuss prognosis, the uncertainty surrounding the predictions, and the impact of intervention strategies with patients.
Future prediction models may be able to predict patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life and daily functioning, the researchers noted.
“Until then, there is an important role for clinicians in translating the observed and predicted cognitive functions,” they wrote.
Compared with other studies predicting the MMSE decline using different statistical techniques, these new models showed similar or even better predictive performance while requiring less or similar information, the investigators noted.
The study used MMSE as a measure of cognition, but there may be intraindividual variation in these measures among cognitively normal patients, and those with cognitive decline may score lower if measurements are taken later in the day. Another study limitation was that the models were built for use in memory clinics, so generalizability to the general population could be limited.
The study was supported by Eisai, ZonMW, and Health~Holland Top Sector Life Sciences & Health. See paper for financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Using a large, real-world population, researchers have developed models that predict cognitive decline in amyloid-positive patients with either mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia.
The models may help clinicians better answer common questions from their patients about their rate of cognitive decline, noted the investigators, led by Pieter J. van der Veere, MD, Alzheimer Center and Department of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Easy-to-Use Prototype
On average, it takes 4 years for MCI to progress to dementia. While new disease-modifying drugs targeting amyloid may slow progression, whether this effect is clinically meaningful is debatable, the investigators noted.
Earlier published models predicting cognitive decline either are limited to patients with MCI or haven’t been developed for easy clinical use, they added.
For the single-center study, researchers selected 961 amyloid-positive patients, mean age 65 years, who had at least two longitudinal Mini-Mental State Examinations (MMSEs). Of these, 310 had MCI, and 651 had mild dementia; 48% were women, and over 90% were White.
Researchers used linear mixed modeling to predict MMSE over time. They included age, sex, baseline MMSE, apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 status, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) beta-amyloid (Aß) 1-42 and plasma phosphorylated-tau markers, and MRI total brain and hippocampal volume measures in the various models, including the final biomarker prediction models.
At follow-up, investigators found that the yearly decline in MMSEs increased in patients with both MCI and mild dementia. In MCI, the average MMSE declined from 26.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.2-26.7) at baseline to 21.0 (95% CI, 20.2-21.7) after 5 years.
In mild dementia, the average MMSE declined from 22.4 (95% CI, 22.0-22.7) to 7.8 (95% CI, 6.8-8.9) at 5 years.
The predicted mean time to reach an MMSE of 20 (indicating mild dementia) for a hypothetical patient with MCI and a baseline MMSE of 28 and CSF Aß 1-42 of 925 pg/mL was 6 years (95% CI, 5.4-6.7 years).
However, with a hypothetical drug treatment that reduces the rate of decline by 30%, the patient would not reach the stage of moderate dementia for 8.6 years.
For a hypothetical patient with mild dementia with a baseline MMSE of 20 and CSF Aß 1-42 of 625 pg/mL, the predicted mean time to reach an MMSE of 15 was 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.1-2.5), or 3.3 years if decline is reduced by 30% with drug treatment.
External validation of the prediction models using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, a longitudinal cohort of patients not cognitively impaired or with MCI or dementia, showed comparable performance between the model-building approaches.
Researchers have incorporated the models in an easy-to-use calculator as a prototype tool that physicians can use to discuss prognosis, the uncertainty surrounding the predictions, and the impact of intervention strategies with patients.
Future prediction models may be able to predict patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life and daily functioning, the researchers noted.
“Until then, there is an important role for clinicians in translating the observed and predicted cognitive functions,” they wrote.
Compared with other studies predicting the MMSE decline using different statistical techniques, these new models showed similar or even better predictive performance while requiring less or similar information, the investigators noted.
The study used MMSE as a measure of cognition, but there may be intraindividual variation in these measures among cognitively normal patients, and those with cognitive decline may score lower if measurements are taken later in the day. Another study limitation was that the models were built for use in memory clinics, so generalizability to the general population could be limited.
The study was supported by Eisai, ZonMW, and Health~Holland Top Sector Life Sciences & Health. See paper for financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Baseline Bone Pain Predicts Survival in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Prostate cancer often metastasizes to the bones, leading to pain and a reduced quality of life. While the relationship between bone pain and overall survival in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer is well-documented, its impact in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is less clear.
- Researchers conducted a post hoc secondary analysis using data from the SWOG-1216 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1279 men diagnosed with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from 248 centers across the United States. Patients had received androgen deprivation therapy either with orteronel or bicalutamide.
- Among the 1197 patients (median age, 67.6 years) with data on bone pain included in the secondary analysis, 301 (23.5%) reported bone pain at baseline.
- The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response.
TAKEAWAY:
- The median overall survival for patients with baseline bone pain was 3.9 years compared with not reached (95% CI, 6.6 years to not reached) for those without bone pain at a median follow-up of 4 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.66; P < .001).
- Similarly, patients with bone pain had a shorter progression-free survival vs those without bone pain (median, 1.3 years vs 3.7 years; aHR, 1.46; P < .001).
- The complete prostate-specific antigen response rate at 7 months was also lower for patients with baseline bone pain (46.3% vs 66.3%; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer “with baseline bone pain had worse survival outcomes than those without baseline bone pain,” the authors wrote. “These results highlight the need to consider bone pain in prognostic modeling, treatment selection, patient monitoring, and follow-up and suggest prioritizing these patients for clinical trials and immediate systemic treatment initiation.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Georges Gebrael, MD, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The post hoc design may introduce bias. Orteronel failed to receive regulatory approval, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the study did not account for synchronous vs metachronous disease status, a known established prognostic factor.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute and Millennium Pharmaceuticals (Takeda Oncology Company). Several authors declared ties with 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 first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Prostate cancer often metastasizes to the bones, leading to pain and a reduced quality of life. While the relationship between bone pain and overall survival in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer is well-documented, its impact in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is less clear.
- Researchers conducted a post hoc secondary analysis using data from the SWOG-1216 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1279 men diagnosed with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from 248 centers across the United States. Patients had received androgen deprivation therapy either with orteronel or bicalutamide.
- Among the 1197 patients (median age, 67.6 years) with data on bone pain included in the secondary analysis, 301 (23.5%) reported bone pain at baseline.
- The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response.
TAKEAWAY:
- The median overall survival for patients with baseline bone pain was 3.9 years compared with not reached (95% CI, 6.6 years to not reached) for those without bone pain at a median follow-up of 4 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.66; P < .001).
- Similarly, patients with bone pain had a shorter progression-free survival vs those without bone pain (median, 1.3 years vs 3.7 years; aHR, 1.46; P < .001).
- The complete prostate-specific antigen response rate at 7 months was also lower for patients with baseline bone pain (46.3% vs 66.3%; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer “with baseline bone pain had worse survival outcomes than those without baseline bone pain,” the authors wrote. “These results highlight the need to consider bone pain in prognostic modeling, treatment selection, patient monitoring, and follow-up and suggest prioritizing these patients for clinical trials and immediate systemic treatment initiation.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Georges Gebrael, MD, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The post hoc design may introduce bias. Orteronel failed to receive regulatory approval, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the study did not account for synchronous vs metachronous disease status, a known established prognostic factor.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute and Millennium Pharmaceuticals (Takeda Oncology Company). Several authors declared ties with 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 first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Prostate cancer often metastasizes to the bones, leading to pain and a reduced quality of life. While the relationship between bone pain and overall survival in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer is well-documented, its impact in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is less clear.
- Researchers conducted a post hoc secondary analysis using data from the SWOG-1216 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1279 men diagnosed with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from 248 centers across the United States. Patients had received androgen deprivation therapy either with orteronel or bicalutamide.
- Among the 1197 patients (median age, 67.6 years) with data on bone pain included in the secondary analysis, 301 (23.5%) reported bone pain at baseline.
- The primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response.
TAKEAWAY:
- The median overall survival for patients with baseline bone pain was 3.9 years compared with not reached (95% CI, 6.6 years to not reached) for those without bone pain at a median follow-up of 4 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.66; P < .001).
- Similarly, patients with bone pain had a shorter progression-free survival vs those without bone pain (median, 1.3 years vs 3.7 years; aHR, 1.46; P < .001).
- The complete prostate-specific antigen response rate at 7 months was also lower for patients with baseline bone pain (46.3% vs 66.3%; P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer “with baseline bone pain had worse survival outcomes than those without baseline bone pain,” the authors wrote. “These results highlight the need to consider bone pain in prognostic modeling, treatment selection, patient monitoring, and follow-up and suggest prioritizing these patients for clinical trials and immediate systemic treatment initiation.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Georges Gebrael, MD, Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The post hoc design may introduce bias. Orteronel failed to receive regulatory approval, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the study did not account for synchronous vs metachronous disease status, a known established prognostic factor.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute and Millennium Pharmaceuticals (Takeda Oncology Company). Several authors declared ties with 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 first appeared on Medscape.com.