PTSD

Mental health conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in Illinois (40%) and across the United States (21%).^1,2There is increasing recognition in primary care that major depressive disorder (MDD) often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Funding bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality³ and the Health Resources and Service Administration,⁴ have spotlights on improving screening and access to care for depression and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the needs of individuals with multiple mental health conditions still often go unrecognized and unaddressed in perinatal health settings.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for depression, alcohol use, and drug use, and will be recommending screening for anxiety.^5,6 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends screening for perinatal mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, acute postpartum psychosis, and suicidality; however, despite these recommendations, screening and treatment for comorbid mental health disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum is not standard practice.⁷

Addressing perinatal mental health is critical because untreated mental health conditions during the perinatal period can cause long-term adverse psychiatric and medical outcomes for the birthing person, the baby, and the family.⁸ This commentary highlights the importance of recognizing and screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, improving referral rates for mental health treatment, and raising awareness of the importance of addressing rural perinatal mental health.
 

Perinatal mental health comorbidities

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health condition during the perinatal period⁹ and is often comorbid.^10-12 In “Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities,” Craemer et al.¹³ reported that nearly half of the perinatal patients who screened positive for MDD also screened positive for at least one other mental health condition, among them general anxiety disorder (GAD), SUD, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality.

Many (9%) of the perinatal patients with MDD had a severe comorbidity profile characterized by four diagnoses – MDD, GAD, SUD, and PTSD. In routine medical care these comorbidities often go undetected even though the risk to mothers and babies increases with more severe mental health symptoms.⁸

The high frequency of perinatal mental health comorbidities Craemer et al.¹³ found demonstrates a compelling need for comorbid mental health screening during the perinatal period, particularly for low-income Black, Hispanic, and rural birthing persons. Positive screens for perinatal mental health disorders may reflect the onset of these disorders in pregnancy or the postpartum, or preexisting disorders that have gone undetected or untreated before pregnancy.

For many patients, the perinatal period is the first time they are screened for any mental health disorder; typically, they are screened solely for depression. Screening alone can have a positive impact on perinatal mental health. In fact, the USPSTF found that programs to screen perinatal patients, with or without treatment-related support, resulted in a 2%-9% absolute reduction in depression prevalence.¹⁴ However, screening for MDD is too infrequent for many reasons, including the logistics of integrating screening into the clinic workflow and limited provider availability, time, and training in mental health.

We recommend screening perinatal patients for mental health comorbidities. This recommendation may seem impractical given the lack of screening tools for comorbid mental health conditions; however, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH), the validated tool^15-17 used in this study, is an ideal option. CAT-MH is uniquely capable of screening for MDD, GAD, PTSD, SUD, and suicidality in one platform and is routinely used in diverse settings including the Veterans Administration,¹⁸ foster care,¹⁹ and universities.²⁰ The main limitation of this more comprehensive screening is that it takes about 10 minutes per patient. However, CAT-MH is self-administered and can be done in the waiting room or on a mobile device prior to a clinic visit.

CAT-MH can also be easily integrated into clinical workflow when added to the Electronic Medical Record²¹, and is a more comprehensive tool than existing perinatal depression tools such as the Perinatal Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Perinatal Depression Scale (EPDS).²² Another limitation is cost – currently $5.00 per assessment – however, this is less than routine blood work.²³ If CAT-MH is not an option, we recommend a stepped approach of screening for GAD when perinatal patients screen positive for MDD, as this is the most common comorbidity profile. The GAD-7 is a free and widely available tool.²⁴

Barriers to care

In Craemer et al,¹³ nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of perinatal patients with a positive screen did not receive a referral to follow-up care or a medication prescription. These low referral rates may reflect a variety of widely recognized barriers to care, including lack of referral options, provider and/or patient reluctance to pursue referrals, barriers to insurance coverage, or inadequate behavioral health infrastructure to ensure referral and diagnostic follow-up.

Further, rural residing perinatal patients are an underserved population that need more resources and screening. Despite an on-site behavioral specialist at the rural clinic, Craemer et al¹³ found a stark disparity in referral rates: referrals to treatment for a positive diagnosis was over two times less at the rural clinic (23.9%), compared with the urban clinics (51.6%). The most common treatment offered at the rural clinic was a prescription for medication (17.4%), while referral to follow-up care was the most common at the urban clinics (35.5%). Rural areas not only have a shortage of health care providers, but community members seeking mental health care often encounter greater stigma, compared with urban residents.^25,26

These data highlight an unmet need for referrals to treatment for patients in rural communities, particularly in Illinois where the pregnancy-related mortality ratio attributable to mental health conditions is three times greater in rural areas, compared with those residing in urban Cook County (Chicago).² Increasing access and availability to mental health treatment and prevention resources in Illinois, especially in rural areas, is an opportunity to prevent pregnancy-related mortality attributable to mental health conditions.

Overall, there is a critical need for screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, increased attention to low rates of referral to mental health treatment, and investing in rural perinatal mental health. Addressing perinatal mental health disorders is key to decreasing the burden of maternal mortality, particularly in Illinois.

Ms. Craemer and Ms. Sayah are senior research specialists at the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Duffecy is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Geller is a professor of obstetrics & gynecology and director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Maki is a professor of psychiatry, psychology, and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

1. Trost S et al. Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 states, 2017-2019. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022.

2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois maternal morbidity and mortality report 2016-2017. 2021.

3. AHRQ. Funding opportunities to address opioid and other substance use disorders. Updated 2023.

4. HRSA. Screening and treatment for maternal mental health and substance use disorders.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Accessed May 26, 2023.

6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Anxiety in adults: Screening. 2022.

7. ACOG. Screening and diagnosis of mental health conditions during pregnancy and postpartum. Clinical Practice Guideline. Number 4. 2023 June.

8. Meltzer-Brody S and Stuebe A. The long-term psychiatric and medical prognosis of perinatal mental illness. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.009.

9. Van Niel MS and Payne JL. Perinatal depression: A review. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 May. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19054.

10. Wisner KL et al. Onset timing, thoughts of self-harm, and diagnoses in postpartum women with screen-positive depression findings. 2013 May. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.87.

11. Falah-Hassani K et al. The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Sep. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000617.

12. Pentecost R et al. Scoping review of the associations between perinatal substance use and perinatal depression and anxiety. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.02.008.

13. Craemer KA et al. Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.05.007.

14. O’Connor E et al. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18948.

15. Kozhimannil KB et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum depression care among low-income women. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0619.

16. Wenzel ES et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms across pregnancy and the postpartum in low-income Black and Latina women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1007/s00737-021-01139-y.

17. Gibbons RD et al. Development of a computerized adaptive substance use disorder scale for screening and measurement: The CAT‐SUD. Addiction. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1111/add.14938.

18. Brenner LA et al. Validation of a computerized adaptive test suicide scale (CAT-SS) among united states military veterans. PloS One. 2022 Jan 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261920.

19. The Center for State Child Welfare Data. Using technology to diagnose and report on behavioral health challenges facing foster youth. 2018.

20. Kim JJ et al. The experience of depression, anxiety, and mania among perinatal women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016 Oct. doi: 10.1007/s00737-016-0632-6.

21. Tepper MC et al. Toward population health: Using a learning behavioral health system and measurement-based care to improve access, care, outcomes, and disparities. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10597-022-00957-3.

22. Wenzel E et al. Using computerised adaptive tests to screen for perinatal depression in underserved women of colour. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300262.

23. Sanger-Katz M. They want it to be secret: How a common blood test can cost $11 or almost $1,000. New York Times. 2019 Apr 19.

24. Spitzer RL et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

25. Mollard E et al. An integrative review of postpartum depression in rural US communities. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.003.

26. Anglim AJ and Radke SM. Rural maternal health care outcomes, drivers, and patient perspectives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000753.

Mental health conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in Illinois (40%) and across the United States (21%).^1,2There is increasing recognition in primary care that major depressive disorder (MDD) often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Funding bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality³ and the Health Resources and Service Administration,⁴ have spotlights on improving screening and access to care for depression and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the needs of individuals with multiple mental health conditions still often go unrecognized and unaddressed in perinatal health settings.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for depression, alcohol use, and drug use, and will be recommending screening for anxiety.^5,6 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends screening for perinatal mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, acute postpartum psychosis, and suicidality; however, despite these recommendations, screening and treatment for comorbid mental health disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum is not standard practice.⁷

Addressing perinatal mental health is critical because untreated mental health conditions during the perinatal period can cause long-term adverse psychiatric and medical outcomes for the birthing person, the baby, and the family.⁸ This commentary highlights the importance of recognizing and screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, improving referral rates for mental health treatment, and raising awareness of the importance of addressing rural perinatal mental health.
 

Perinatal mental health comorbidities

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health condition during the perinatal period⁹ and is often comorbid.^10-12 In “Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities,” Craemer et al.¹³ reported that nearly half of the perinatal patients who screened positive for MDD also screened positive for at least one other mental health condition, among them general anxiety disorder (GAD), SUD, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality.

Many (9%) of the perinatal patients with MDD had a severe comorbidity profile characterized by four diagnoses – MDD, GAD, SUD, and PTSD. In routine medical care these comorbidities often go undetected even though the risk to mothers and babies increases with more severe mental health symptoms.⁸

The high frequency of perinatal mental health comorbidities Craemer et al.¹³ found demonstrates a compelling need for comorbid mental health screening during the perinatal period, particularly for low-income Black, Hispanic, and rural birthing persons. Positive screens for perinatal mental health disorders may reflect the onset of these disorders in pregnancy or the postpartum, or preexisting disorders that have gone undetected or untreated before pregnancy.

For many patients, the perinatal period is the first time they are screened for any mental health disorder; typically, they are screened solely for depression. Screening alone can have a positive impact on perinatal mental health. In fact, the USPSTF found that programs to screen perinatal patients, with or without treatment-related support, resulted in a 2%-9% absolute reduction in depression prevalence.¹⁴ However, screening for MDD is too infrequent for many reasons, including the logistics of integrating screening into the clinic workflow and limited provider availability, time, and training in mental health.

We recommend screening perinatal patients for mental health comorbidities. This recommendation may seem impractical given the lack of screening tools for comorbid mental health conditions; however, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH), the validated tool^15-17 used in this study, is an ideal option. CAT-MH is uniquely capable of screening for MDD, GAD, PTSD, SUD, and suicidality in one platform and is routinely used in diverse settings including the Veterans Administration,¹⁸ foster care,¹⁹ and universities.²⁰ The main limitation of this more comprehensive screening is that it takes about 10 minutes per patient. However, CAT-MH is self-administered and can be done in the waiting room or on a mobile device prior to a clinic visit.

CAT-MH can also be easily integrated into clinical workflow when added to the Electronic Medical Record²¹, and is a more comprehensive tool than existing perinatal depression tools such as the Perinatal Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Perinatal Depression Scale (EPDS).²² Another limitation is cost – currently $5.00 per assessment – however, this is less than routine blood work.²³ If CAT-MH is not an option, we recommend a stepped approach of screening for GAD when perinatal patients screen positive for MDD, as this is the most common comorbidity profile. The GAD-7 is a free and widely available tool.²⁴

Barriers to care

In Craemer et al,¹³ nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of perinatal patients with a positive screen did not receive a referral to follow-up care or a medication prescription. These low referral rates may reflect a variety of widely recognized barriers to care, including lack of referral options, provider and/or patient reluctance to pursue referrals, barriers to insurance coverage, or inadequate behavioral health infrastructure to ensure referral and diagnostic follow-up.

Further, rural residing perinatal patients are an underserved population that need more resources and screening. Despite an on-site behavioral specialist at the rural clinic, Craemer et al¹³ found a stark disparity in referral rates: referrals to treatment for a positive diagnosis was over two times less at the rural clinic (23.9%), compared with the urban clinics (51.6%). The most common treatment offered at the rural clinic was a prescription for medication (17.4%), while referral to follow-up care was the most common at the urban clinics (35.5%). Rural areas not only have a shortage of health care providers, but community members seeking mental health care often encounter greater stigma, compared with urban residents.^25,26

These data highlight an unmet need for referrals to treatment for patients in rural communities, particularly in Illinois where the pregnancy-related mortality ratio attributable to mental health conditions is three times greater in rural areas, compared with those residing in urban Cook County (Chicago).² Increasing access and availability to mental health treatment and prevention resources in Illinois, especially in rural areas, is an opportunity to prevent pregnancy-related mortality attributable to mental health conditions.

Overall, there is a critical need for screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, increased attention to low rates of referral to mental health treatment, and investing in rural perinatal mental health. Addressing perinatal mental health disorders is key to decreasing the burden of maternal mortality, particularly in Illinois.

Ms. Craemer and Ms. Sayah are senior research specialists at the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Duffecy is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Geller is a professor of obstetrics & gynecology and director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Maki is a professor of psychiatry, psychology, and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

1. Trost S et al. Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 states, 2017-2019. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022.

2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois maternal morbidity and mortality report 2016-2017. 2021.

3. AHRQ. Funding opportunities to address opioid and other substance use disorders. Updated 2023.

4. HRSA. Screening and treatment for maternal mental health and substance use disorders.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Accessed May 26, 2023.

6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Anxiety in adults: Screening. 2022.

7. ACOG. Screening and diagnosis of mental health conditions during pregnancy and postpartum. Clinical Practice Guideline. Number 4. 2023 June.

8. Meltzer-Brody S and Stuebe A. The long-term psychiatric and medical prognosis of perinatal mental illness. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.009.

9. Van Niel MS and Payne JL. Perinatal depression: A review. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 May. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19054.

10. Wisner KL et al. Onset timing, thoughts of self-harm, and diagnoses in postpartum women with screen-positive depression findings. 2013 May. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.87.

11. Falah-Hassani K et al. The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Sep. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000617.

12. Pentecost R et al. Scoping review of the associations between perinatal substance use and perinatal depression and anxiety. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.02.008.

13. Craemer KA et al. Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.05.007.

14. O’Connor E et al. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18948.

15. Kozhimannil KB et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum depression care among low-income women. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0619.

16. Wenzel ES et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms across pregnancy and the postpartum in low-income Black and Latina women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1007/s00737-021-01139-y.

17. Gibbons RD et al. Development of a computerized adaptive substance use disorder scale for screening and measurement: The CAT‐SUD. Addiction. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1111/add.14938.

18. Brenner LA et al. Validation of a computerized adaptive test suicide scale (CAT-SS) among united states military veterans. PloS One. 2022 Jan 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261920.

19. The Center for State Child Welfare Data. Using technology to diagnose and report on behavioral health challenges facing foster youth. 2018.

20. Kim JJ et al. The experience of depression, anxiety, and mania among perinatal women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016 Oct. doi: 10.1007/s00737-016-0632-6.

21. Tepper MC et al. Toward population health: Using a learning behavioral health system and measurement-based care to improve access, care, outcomes, and disparities. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10597-022-00957-3.

22. Wenzel E et al. Using computerised adaptive tests to screen for perinatal depression in underserved women of colour. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300262.

23. Sanger-Katz M. They want it to be secret: How a common blood test can cost $11 or almost $1,000. New York Times. 2019 Apr 19.

24. Spitzer RL et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

25. Mollard E et al. An integrative review of postpartum depression in rural US communities. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.003.

26. Anglim AJ and Radke SM. Rural maternal health care outcomes, drivers, and patient perspectives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000753.

Mental health conditions are the leading cause of pregnancy-related death in Illinois (40%) and across the United States (21%).^1,2There is increasing recognition in primary care that major depressive disorder (MDD) often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Funding bodies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality³ and the Health Resources and Service Administration,⁴ have spotlights on improving screening and access to care for depression and substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the needs of individuals with multiple mental health conditions still often go unrecognized and unaddressed in perinatal health settings.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that all adults be screened for depression, alcohol use, and drug use, and will be recommending screening for anxiety.^5,6 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recommends screening for perinatal mental health conditions including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, acute postpartum psychosis, and suicidality; however, despite these recommendations, screening and treatment for comorbid mental health disorders during pregnancy and the postpartum is not standard practice.⁷

Addressing perinatal mental health is critical because untreated mental health conditions during the perinatal period can cause long-term adverse psychiatric and medical outcomes for the birthing person, the baby, and the family.⁸ This commentary highlights the importance of recognizing and screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, improving referral rates for mental health treatment, and raising awareness of the importance of addressing rural perinatal mental health.
 

Perinatal mental health comorbidities

Major depressive disorder is the most common mental health condition during the perinatal period⁹ and is often comorbid.^10-12 In “Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities,” Craemer et al.¹³ reported that nearly half of the perinatal patients who screened positive for MDD also screened positive for at least one other mental health condition, among them general anxiety disorder (GAD), SUD, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality.

Many (9%) of the perinatal patients with MDD had a severe comorbidity profile characterized by four diagnoses – MDD, GAD, SUD, and PTSD. In routine medical care these comorbidities often go undetected even though the risk to mothers and babies increases with more severe mental health symptoms.⁸

The high frequency of perinatal mental health comorbidities Craemer et al.¹³ found demonstrates a compelling need for comorbid mental health screening during the perinatal period, particularly for low-income Black, Hispanic, and rural birthing persons. Positive screens for perinatal mental health disorders may reflect the onset of these disorders in pregnancy or the postpartum, or preexisting disorders that have gone undetected or untreated before pregnancy.

For many patients, the perinatal period is the first time they are screened for any mental health disorder; typically, they are screened solely for depression. Screening alone can have a positive impact on perinatal mental health. In fact, the USPSTF found that programs to screen perinatal patients, with or without treatment-related support, resulted in a 2%-9% absolute reduction in depression prevalence.¹⁴ However, screening for MDD is too infrequent for many reasons, including the logistics of integrating screening into the clinic workflow and limited provider availability, time, and training in mental health.

We recommend screening perinatal patients for mental health comorbidities. This recommendation may seem impractical given the lack of screening tools for comorbid mental health conditions; however, the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH), the validated tool^15-17 used in this study, is an ideal option. CAT-MH is uniquely capable of screening for MDD, GAD, PTSD, SUD, and suicidality in one platform and is routinely used in diverse settings including the Veterans Administration,¹⁸ foster care,¹⁹ and universities.²⁰ The main limitation of this more comprehensive screening is that it takes about 10 minutes per patient. However, CAT-MH is self-administered and can be done in the waiting room or on a mobile device prior to a clinic visit.

CAT-MH can also be easily integrated into clinical workflow when added to the Electronic Medical Record²¹, and is a more comprehensive tool than existing perinatal depression tools such as the Perinatal Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Edinburgh Perinatal Depression Scale (EPDS).²² Another limitation is cost – currently $5.00 per assessment – however, this is less than routine blood work.²³ If CAT-MH is not an option, we recommend a stepped approach of screening for GAD when perinatal patients screen positive for MDD, as this is the most common comorbidity profile. The GAD-7 is a free and widely available tool.²⁴

Barriers to care

In Craemer et al,¹³ nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of perinatal patients with a positive screen did not receive a referral to follow-up care or a medication prescription. These low referral rates may reflect a variety of widely recognized barriers to care, including lack of referral options, provider and/or patient reluctance to pursue referrals, barriers to insurance coverage, or inadequate behavioral health infrastructure to ensure referral and diagnostic follow-up.

Further, rural residing perinatal patients are an underserved population that need more resources and screening. Despite an on-site behavioral specialist at the rural clinic, Craemer et al¹³ found a stark disparity in referral rates: referrals to treatment for a positive diagnosis was over two times less at the rural clinic (23.9%), compared with the urban clinics (51.6%). The most common treatment offered at the rural clinic was a prescription for medication (17.4%), while referral to follow-up care was the most common at the urban clinics (35.5%). Rural areas not only have a shortage of health care providers, but community members seeking mental health care often encounter greater stigma, compared with urban residents.^25,26

These data highlight an unmet need for referrals to treatment for patients in rural communities, particularly in Illinois where the pregnancy-related mortality ratio attributable to mental health conditions is three times greater in rural areas, compared with those residing in urban Cook County (Chicago).² Increasing access and availability to mental health treatment and prevention resources in Illinois, especially in rural areas, is an opportunity to prevent pregnancy-related mortality attributable to mental health conditions.

Overall, there is a critical need for screening for perinatal mental health comorbidities, increased attention to low rates of referral to mental health treatment, and investing in rural perinatal mental health. Addressing perinatal mental health disorders is key to decreasing the burden of maternal mortality, particularly in Illinois.

Ms. Craemer and Ms. Sayah are senior research specialists at the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Duffecy is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Geller is a professor of obstetrics & gynecology and director of the Center for Research on Women & Gender, University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Maki is a professor of psychiatry, psychology, and obstetrics & gynecology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

1. Trost S et al. Pregnancy-related deaths: Data from maternal mortality review committees in 36 states, 2017-2019. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2022.

2. Illinois Department of Public Health. Illinois maternal morbidity and mortality report 2016-2017. 2021.

3. AHRQ. Funding opportunities to address opioid and other substance use disorders. Updated 2023.

4. HRSA. Screening and treatment for maternal mental health and substance use disorders.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Accessed May 26, 2023.

6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Anxiety in adults: Screening. 2022.

7. ACOG. Screening and diagnosis of mental health conditions during pregnancy and postpartum. Clinical Practice Guideline. Number 4. 2023 June.

8. Meltzer-Brody S and Stuebe A. The long-term psychiatric and medical prognosis of perinatal mental illness. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.08.009.

9. Van Niel MS and Payne JL. Perinatal depression: A review. Cleve Clin J Med. 2020 May. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.87a.19054.

10. Wisner KL et al. Onset timing, thoughts of self-harm, and diagnoses in postpartum women with screen-positive depression findings. 2013 May. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.87.

11. Falah-Hassani K et al. The prevalence of antenatal and postnatal co-morbid anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis. Psychol Med. 2017 Sep. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000617.

12. Pentecost R et al. Scoping review of the associations between perinatal substance use and perinatal depression and anxiety. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.02.008.

13. Craemer KA et al. Perinatal mental health in low-income urban and rural patients: The importance of screening for comorbidities. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023 Jul-Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.05.007.

14. O’Connor E et al. Primary care screening for and treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women: Evidence report and systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016 Jan 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.18948.

15. Kozhimannil KB et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum depression care among low-income women. Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0619.

16. Wenzel ES et al. Depression and anxiety symptoms across pregnancy and the postpartum in low-income Black and Latina women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2021 Dec. doi: 10.1007/s00737-021-01139-y.

17. Gibbons RD et al. Development of a computerized adaptive substance use disorder scale for screening and measurement: The CAT‐SUD. Addiction. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1111/add.14938.

18. Brenner LA et al. Validation of a computerized adaptive test suicide scale (CAT-SS) among united states military veterans. PloS One. 2022 Jan 21. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261920.

19. The Center for State Child Welfare Data. Using technology to diagnose and report on behavioral health challenges facing foster youth. 2018.

20. Kim JJ et al. The experience of depression, anxiety, and mania among perinatal women. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2016 Oct. doi: 10.1007/s00737-016-0632-6.

21. Tepper MC et al. Toward population health: Using a learning behavioral health system and measurement-based care to improve access, care, outcomes, and disparities. Community Ment Health J. 2022 Nov. doi: 10.1007/s10597-022-00957-3.

22. Wenzel E et al. Using computerised adaptive tests to screen for perinatal depression in underserved women of colour. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2021-300262.

23. Sanger-Katz M. They want it to be secret: How a common blood test can cost $11 or almost $1,000. New York Times. 2019 Apr 19.

24. Spitzer RL et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092.

25. Mollard E et al. An integrative review of postpartum depression in rural US communities. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.apnu.2015.12.003.

26. Anglim AJ and Radke SM. Rural maternal health care outcomes, drivers, and patient perspectives. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000753.

TOPLINE:

Treatment with two naturally occurring psychedelics was associated with reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms in trauma-exposed U.S. Special Operations Forces Veterans (SOFVs), according to a new study. Perhaps most surprising to investigators, however, was that treatment was also associated with improved cognitive scores in the veterans, many of whom had traumatic brain injuries.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators reviewed clinical charts of 86 SOFVs who received psychedelic-assisted treatment at a therapeutic program in Mexico, 86% of whom sustained head injuries during deployment.
• On the first day of the study, participants received a single oral dose (10 mg/kg) of ibogaine hydrochloride in a group setting with two to five other attendees and spent the next day reflecting on their experience with program staff.
• On the third day, participants inhaled 5-MeO-DMT in three incremental doses for a total of 50 mg and were then invited to reflect on their experience both individually and with the group of peers who shared the experience.
• Follow-up surveys at 1, 3, and 6 months posttreatment between September 2019 to March 2021 measured symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, cognitive functioning, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, and quality of life.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were significant improvements in self-reported PTSD symptoms, depression, anxiety, insomnia severity, anger, and a large improvement in self-reported satisfaction with life (P < .001 for all).
• Participants reported significant increases in psychological flexibility (P < .001), cognitive functioning (P < .001), and postconcussive symptoms (P < .001).
• Treatment was also associated with a significant reduction in suicidal ideation from pretreatment to 1-month follow-up (P < .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“If consistently replicated, this could have major implications for the landscape of mental health care if people are able to experience significant and sustained healing with 3 days of intensive treatment, relative to our traditionally available interventions that require 8-12 weeks of weekly therapy (for example, gold standard talk therapies such as [prolonged exposure] or [cognitive processing therapy]), or daily use of a pharmacotherapy such as [a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor] for months to years,” study authors write.

SOURCE:

Alan Kooi Davis, PhD, of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education at Ohio State University, led the study, which was published online  in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse.

LIMITATIONS:

Study assessments are based solely on self-report measures. Future research should implement carefully designed batteries that include both self-report and gold-standard clinician-administered measures to better capture symptom improvement and other information. The sample also lacked diversity with regard to race, religion, and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions. Dr. Davis is a board member at Source Resource Foundation and a lead trainer at Fluence. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment with two naturally occurring psychedelics was associated with reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms in trauma-exposed U.S. Special Operations Forces Veterans (SOFVs), according to a new study. Perhaps most surprising to investigators, however, was that treatment was also associated with improved cognitive scores in the veterans, many of whom had traumatic brain injuries.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators reviewed clinical charts of 86 SOFVs who received psychedelic-assisted treatment at a therapeutic program in Mexico, 86% of whom sustained head injuries during deployment.
• On the first day of the study, participants received a single oral dose (10 mg/kg) of ibogaine hydrochloride in a group setting with two to five other attendees and spent the next day reflecting on their experience with program staff.
• On the third day, participants inhaled 5-MeO-DMT in three incremental doses for a total of 50 mg and were then invited to reflect on their experience both individually and with the group of peers who shared the experience.
• Follow-up surveys at 1, 3, and 6 months posttreatment between September 2019 to March 2021 measured symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, cognitive functioning, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, and quality of life.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were significant improvements in self-reported PTSD symptoms, depression, anxiety, insomnia severity, anger, and a large improvement in self-reported satisfaction with life (P < .001 for all).
• Participants reported significant increases in psychological flexibility (P < .001), cognitive functioning (P < .001), and postconcussive symptoms (P < .001).
• Treatment was also associated with a significant reduction in suicidal ideation from pretreatment to 1-month follow-up (P < .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“If consistently replicated, this could have major implications for the landscape of mental health care if people are able to experience significant and sustained healing with 3 days of intensive treatment, relative to our traditionally available interventions that require 8-12 weeks of weekly therapy (for example, gold standard talk therapies such as [prolonged exposure] or [cognitive processing therapy]), or daily use of a pharmacotherapy such as [a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor] for months to years,” study authors write.

SOURCE:

Alan Kooi Davis, PhD, of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education at Ohio State University, led the study, which was published online  in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse.

LIMITATIONS:

Study assessments are based solely on self-report measures. Future research should implement carefully designed batteries that include both self-report and gold-standard clinician-administered measures to better capture symptom improvement and other information. The sample also lacked diversity with regard to race, religion, and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions. Dr. Davis is a board member at Source Resource Foundation and a lead trainer at Fluence. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment with two naturally occurring psychedelics was associated with reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms in trauma-exposed U.S. Special Operations Forces Veterans (SOFVs), according to a new study. Perhaps most surprising to investigators, however, was that treatment was also associated with improved cognitive scores in the veterans, many of whom had traumatic brain injuries.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators reviewed clinical charts of 86 SOFVs who received psychedelic-assisted treatment at a therapeutic program in Mexico, 86% of whom sustained head injuries during deployment.
• On the first day of the study, participants received a single oral dose (10 mg/kg) of ibogaine hydrochloride in a group setting with two to five other attendees and spent the next day reflecting on their experience with program staff.
• On the third day, participants inhaled 5-MeO-DMT in three incremental doses for a total of 50 mg and were then invited to reflect on their experience both individually and with the group of peers who shared the experience.
• Follow-up surveys at 1, 3, and 6 months posttreatment between September 2019 to March 2021 measured symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, cognitive functioning, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, and quality of life.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were significant improvements in self-reported PTSD symptoms, depression, anxiety, insomnia severity, anger, and a large improvement in self-reported satisfaction with life (P < .001 for all).
• Participants reported significant increases in psychological flexibility (P < .001), cognitive functioning (P < .001), and postconcussive symptoms (P < .001).
• Treatment was also associated with a significant reduction in suicidal ideation from pretreatment to 1-month follow-up (P < .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“If consistently replicated, this could have major implications for the landscape of mental health care if people are able to experience significant and sustained healing with 3 days of intensive treatment, relative to our traditionally available interventions that require 8-12 weeks of weekly therapy (for example, gold standard talk therapies such as [prolonged exposure] or [cognitive processing therapy]), or daily use of a pharmacotherapy such as [a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor] for months to years,” study authors write.

SOURCE:

Alan Kooi Davis, PhD, of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education at Ohio State University, led the study, which was published online  in the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse.

LIMITATIONS:

Study assessments are based solely on self-report measures. Future research should implement carefully designed batteries that include both self-report and gold-standard clinician-administered measures to better capture symptom improvement and other information. The sample also lacked diversity with regard to race, religion, and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions. Dr. Davis is a board member at Source Resource Foundation and a lead trainer at Fluence. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

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

Patients with obesity but without major depressive disorder or suicidal ideation within the previous 2 years attained meaningful weight loss with semaglutide, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline, in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.

Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.  

“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”

“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”

“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”

Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”

“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”

Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.

Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.

Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
 

36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants

Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.

However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.

The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.

Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m², or ≥27 kg/m² with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.

They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.

From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
• STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
• STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
• STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%. 

The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
• STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
• STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
• STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.

The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obesity but without major depressive disorder or suicidal ideation within the previous 2 years attained meaningful weight loss with semaglutide, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline, in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.

Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.  

“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”

“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”

“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”

Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”

“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”

Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.

Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.

Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
 

36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants

Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.

However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.

The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.

Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m², or ≥27 kg/m² with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.

They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.

From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
• STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
• STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
• STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%. 

The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
• STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
• STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
• STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.

The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obesity but without major depressive disorder or suicidal ideation within the previous 2 years attained meaningful weight loss with semaglutide, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline, in a post hoc analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) program.

Adverse events, including psychiatric events, were slightly more usual in the patients on antidepressants, Robert Kushner, MD, noted, in an oral session at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society.  

“It is very common that patients who present for weight management are taking antidepressants for various reasons, including depression, anxiety, insomnia, or chronic pain,”Dr. Kushner, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an email. “We wanted to see if these participants responded differently to semaglutide, compared to those not on antidepressants.”

“We found that antidepressants do not blunt the effect of semaglutide for weight loss,” he said. “However, there is a slight increase in reported adverse effects.”

“Semaglutide 2.4 mg provides an effective treatment option for weight management, regardless of antidepressant use at baseline,” Dr. Kushner summarized. “Clinicians should be assured that we can use semaglutide in this population of patients.”

Jack Yanovski, MD, PhD, said this was a “great presentation,” noting that “it’s really important that we understand what goes on in patients with depression.”

“Of course, all these trials still had rules that prevent the folks with the most severe depressive symptoms or past suicidality to participate,” added Dr. Yanovski, chief of the Growth and Obesity Section, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, Md. “We need specific trials to know exactly how well we do.”

Dr. Kushner agreed, but also noted that, ever since some earlier antidepressants were associated with risk for suicidal ideation and death, strict guidelines were put in place that exclude certain patients from participating in clinical trials.

Dr. Yanovski suggested that now that the drugs are approved, it would be possible to study this, and the information would be important for clinicians.

Dr. Kushner said he hopes that such studies are forthcoming. In the meantime, “data like this will add some support and understanding,” he suggested.
 

36,000 Patients with obesity, 500 on antidepressants

Many people living with obesity report taking antidepressants for depression, anxiety, chronic pain, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sleep disturbance, neuropathy, panic disorder, or posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Kushner noted.

However, some of these medications can cause weight gain, and little is known about treatment outcomes for people with obesity who are on antidepressants, since most weight-loss studies exclude people with active major depressive disorder.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,961 patients in STEP 1 and 807 patients in STEP 2 as well as 611 patients in STEP 3 and 304 patients in STEP 5 – 3,683 participants in total, of which 539 were on antidepressants at baseline.

The patients were randomly assigned to 2.4 mg semaglutide vs. placebo plus a lifestyle intervention (STEP 1, 2, and 5) or intensive behavioral therapy (STEP 3 only), for 68 weeks, except STEP 5, which was 104 weeks.

Patients were included if they were aged 18 or older with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m², or ≥27 kg/m² with more than one weight-related complication (STEP 1, 3, and 5) or BMI ≥27 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes (STEP 2 only), and at least one self-reported unsuccessful effort to lose weight by diet.

They were excluded if they had active major depressive disorder within 2 years prior to screening (or other severe psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of 15 or higher (indicating moderately severe or severe depression), or suicide ideation (type 4 or 5 on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale) or suicide behavior, within 30 days of screening.

From baseline to week 68, patients on semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) had a significantly greater change in weight vs. patients on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: –15.7% / –14.7% vs. –0.2% / –2.8%
• STEP 2: –10.7% / –9.5% vs. –3.3% / –3.4%
• STEP 3: –16.2% / –15.9% vs. –5.0% / –5.9%
• STEP 5: –19.0% / –14.1% vs. +1.6% / – 4.0%. 

The proportion of reported adverse events was generally slightly greater in patients receiving semaglutide (with/without baseline antidepressant use) than those on placebo (with/without baseline antidepressant use), respectively:

• STEP 1: 97.7% vs 88.6% and 92.9% vs. 86%
• STEP 2: 97.6% vs 86.5% and 88.6% vs. 77.2%
• STEP 3: 97.6% vs 95.3% and 100% vs. 95.8%
• STEP 5: 100% vs 94.8% and 95.5% vs. 89.2%.

Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequently reported in the semaglutide group and in patients on antidepressants at baseline. The proportion of patients with psychiatric adverse events was greater in participants on antidepressants at baseline. There were no differences in suicidal ideation/behavior in patients with/without antidepressant use at baseline.

The STEP trials were funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Kushner discloses that he served as a consultant for Novo Nordisk, WeightWatchers, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer, and received a research grant from Epitomee.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

fdp_dt_2023_cover_thumnail.jpg

In this issue: 

• Limb Loss and Prostheses
• Neurology
  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Alzheimer's and Dementia
  • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
  • Parkinson's Disease
  • Migraine and Headache
• Cardiology
• Mental Health
  • Depression
  • Opioid Use Disorder
  • PTSD and Psychedelic Treatments
  • Homelessness
  • Eating Disorders
• Diabetes
• Rheumatoid Arthritis
• Respiratory illnesses
• Women's Health
  • Access to Care
  • Infertility
  • Pregnancy
• HPV and Related Cancers

fdp_dt_2023_cover_thumnail.jpg

In this issue: 

• Limb Loss and Prostheses
• Neurology
  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Alzheimer's and Dementia
  • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
  • Parkinson's Disease
  • Migraine and Headache
• Cardiology
• Mental Health
  • Depression
  • Opioid Use Disorder
  • PTSD and Psychedelic Treatments
  • Homelessness
  • Eating Disorders
• Diabetes
• Rheumatoid Arthritis
• Respiratory illnesses
• Women's Health
  • Access to Care
  • Infertility
  • Pregnancy
• HPV and Related Cancers

fdp_dt_2023_cover_thumnail.jpg

In this issue: 

• Limb Loss and Prostheses
• Neurology
  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Alzheimer's and Dementia
  • Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
  • Parkinson's Disease
  • Migraine and Headache
• Cardiology
• Mental Health
  • Depression
  • Opioid Use Disorder
  • PTSD and Psychedelic Treatments
  • Homelessness
  • Eating Disorders
• Diabetes
• Rheumatoid Arthritis
• Respiratory illnesses
• Women's Health
  • Access to Care
  • Infertility
  • Pregnancy
• HPV and Related Cancers

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2023.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2023.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2023.

TOPLINE:

A new study confirms the safety and efficacy of the psychedelic MDMA in ethnically and racially diverse populations with moderate to severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the gold standard treatment for PTSD, which affects about 5% of Americans each year. However, many patients have persistent symptoms, and up to 47% don’t respond to the SSRIs sertraline and paroxetine, which are approved for PTSD by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mounting evidence suggests 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT), which promotes monoamine reuptake inhibition and release, simultaneously inducing prosocial feelings and softening responses to emotionally challenging and fearful stimuli, could be an alternative treatment for PTSD, possibly enhancing the benefits of psychotherapy.

A phase 3 study (MAPP1) showed MDMA-AT was generally well-tolerated and met the primary and secondary endpoints of reduced PTSD symptom severity and decreased functional impairment.

This new confirmatory phase 3 study (MAPP2) included 104 patients with PTSD who were randomized to MDMA-AT or placebo with therapy. Participants were a mean age of about 39 years, 71.2% were assigned female sex at birth, 33.7% identified as non-White, and 26.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino.

The mean Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score at baseline was 39.0 and was similar between groups. Overall, 26.9% and 73.1% of patients had moderate or severe PTSD, respectively.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Among the 94 participants who completed the study, the least-squares mean change in CAPS-5 total score at 18 weeks was −23.7 (95% confidence interval, −26.9 to −20.4) for MDMA-AT versus −14.8 (95% CI, −18.3 to −11.3) for placebo with therapy (treatment difference: −8.9; 95% CI, −13.7 to −4.1; P < .001).

MDMA-AT significantly mitigated the secondary outcome of clinician-rated functional impairment, as measured by a reduction in the Sheehan Disability Scale score.

About 86.5% of participants treated with MDMA-AT achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 71.2% no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly transient and mild or moderate in severity. Although suicidal ideation was reported in both groups, MDMA did not appear to increase the risk, and there were no reports of problematic MDMA abuse or dependence.
 

IN PRACTICE:

“This confirmatory phase 3 trial showed consistent benefits of MDMA-AT in an ethnoracially diverse group of individuals with long-standing moderate to severe PTSD and numerous comorbidities,” write the authors, noting the dropout rate was low and treatment was generally well tolerated.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jennifer M. Mitchell, PhD, department of neurology and department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded participants with high suicide risk, comorbid personality disorders, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Effect sizes for MDMA-AT were similar to MAPP1 and, although higher than those observed in SSRI studies, the superiority of MDMA-AT over SSRIs cannot be assumed without a direct comparison.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, with support from the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, and organized by the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Mitchell has reported receiving research support from MAPS; grants/contracts from the Veterans Administration and FDA; royalties/licenses from the University of California, Los Angeles; and payment/honoraria from Stanford University and Johns Hopkins. She has been a reviewer for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the California Department of Justice, and a grant reviewer for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

A new study confirms the safety and efficacy of the psychedelic MDMA in ethnically and racially diverse populations with moderate to severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the gold standard treatment for PTSD, which affects about 5% of Americans each year. However, many patients have persistent symptoms, and up to 47% don’t respond to the SSRIs sertraline and paroxetine, which are approved for PTSD by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mounting evidence suggests 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT), which promotes monoamine reuptake inhibition and release, simultaneously inducing prosocial feelings and softening responses to emotionally challenging and fearful stimuli, could be an alternative treatment for PTSD, possibly enhancing the benefits of psychotherapy.

A phase 3 study (MAPP1) showed MDMA-AT was generally well-tolerated and met the primary and secondary endpoints of reduced PTSD symptom severity and decreased functional impairment.

This new confirmatory phase 3 study (MAPP2) included 104 patients with PTSD who were randomized to MDMA-AT or placebo with therapy. Participants were a mean age of about 39 years, 71.2% were assigned female sex at birth, 33.7% identified as non-White, and 26.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino.

The mean Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score at baseline was 39.0 and was similar between groups. Overall, 26.9% and 73.1% of patients had moderate or severe PTSD, respectively.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Among the 94 participants who completed the study, the least-squares mean change in CAPS-5 total score at 18 weeks was −23.7 (95% confidence interval, −26.9 to −20.4) for MDMA-AT versus −14.8 (95% CI, −18.3 to −11.3) for placebo with therapy (treatment difference: −8.9; 95% CI, −13.7 to −4.1; P < .001).

MDMA-AT significantly mitigated the secondary outcome of clinician-rated functional impairment, as measured by a reduction in the Sheehan Disability Scale score.

About 86.5% of participants treated with MDMA-AT achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 71.2% no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly transient and mild or moderate in severity. Although suicidal ideation was reported in both groups, MDMA did not appear to increase the risk, and there were no reports of problematic MDMA abuse or dependence.
 

IN PRACTICE:

“This confirmatory phase 3 trial showed consistent benefits of MDMA-AT in an ethnoracially diverse group of individuals with long-standing moderate to severe PTSD and numerous comorbidities,” write the authors, noting the dropout rate was low and treatment was generally well tolerated.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jennifer M. Mitchell, PhD, department of neurology and department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded participants with high suicide risk, comorbid personality disorders, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Effect sizes for MDMA-AT were similar to MAPP1 and, although higher than those observed in SSRI studies, the superiority of MDMA-AT over SSRIs cannot be assumed without a direct comparison.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, with support from the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, and organized by the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Mitchell has reported receiving research support from MAPS; grants/contracts from the Veterans Administration and FDA; royalties/licenses from the University of California, Los Angeles; and payment/honoraria from Stanford University and Johns Hopkins. She has been a reviewer for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the California Department of Justice, and a grant reviewer for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

TOPLINE:

A new study confirms the safety and efficacy of the psychedelic MDMA in ethnically and racially diverse populations with moderate to severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the gold standard treatment for PTSD, which affects about 5% of Americans each year. However, many patients have persistent symptoms, and up to 47% don’t respond to the SSRIs sertraline and paroxetine, which are approved for PTSD by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mounting evidence suggests 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT), which promotes monoamine reuptake inhibition and release, simultaneously inducing prosocial feelings and softening responses to emotionally challenging and fearful stimuli, could be an alternative treatment for PTSD, possibly enhancing the benefits of psychotherapy.

A phase 3 study (MAPP1) showed MDMA-AT was generally well-tolerated and met the primary and secondary endpoints of reduced PTSD symptom severity and decreased functional impairment.

This new confirmatory phase 3 study (MAPP2) included 104 patients with PTSD who were randomized to MDMA-AT or placebo with therapy. Participants were a mean age of about 39 years, 71.2% were assigned female sex at birth, 33.7% identified as non-White, and 26.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino.

The mean Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score at baseline was 39.0 and was similar between groups. Overall, 26.9% and 73.1% of patients had moderate or severe PTSD, respectively.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Among the 94 participants who completed the study, the least-squares mean change in CAPS-5 total score at 18 weeks was −23.7 (95% confidence interval, −26.9 to −20.4) for MDMA-AT versus −14.8 (95% CI, −18.3 to −11.3) for placebo with therapy (treatment difference: −8.9; 95% CI, −13.7 to −4.1; P < .001).

MDMA-AT significantly mitigated the secondary outcome of clinician-rated functional impairment, as measured by a reduction in the Sheehan Disability Scale score.

About 86.5% of participants treated with MDMA-AT achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 71.2% no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly transient and mild or moderate in severity. Although suicidal ideation was reported in both groups, MDMA did not appear to increase the risk, and there were no reports of problematic MDMA abuse or dependence.
 

IN PRACTICE:

“This confirmatory phase 3 trial showed consistent benefits of MDMA-AT in an ethnoracially diverse group of individuals with long-standing moderate to severe PTSD and numerous comorbidities,” write the authors, noting the dropout rate was low and treatment was generally well tolerated.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jennifer M. Mitchell, PhD, department of neurology and department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded participants with high suicide risk, comorbid personality disorders, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Effect sizes for MDMA-AT were similar to MAPP1 and, although higher than those observed in SSRI studies, the superiority of MDMA-AT over SSRIs cannot be assumed without a direct comparison.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, with support from the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, and organized by the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Mitchell has reported receiving research support from MAPS; grants/contracts from the Veterans Administration and FDA; royalties/licenses from the University of California, Los Angeles; and payment/honoraria from Stanford University and Johns Hopkins. She has been a reviewer for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the California Department of Justice, and a grant reviewer for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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

When Ryan (not his real name), 37, returned home from two deployments with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq from 2005 to 2008, he began withdrawing from social situations and experienced chronic anxiety. Nights brought no respite – his sleep was interrupted by punishing nightmares.

“I had every calling card of a veteran in distress,” he said in an interview. When his wife told him she thought he may have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), he shrugged it off. “I wasn’t automatically going to accept [the diagnosis] because as an infantry veteran, we’re big tough guys. We don’t need help with anything.”

Ryan’s wife had heard of a program called Northwest Battle Buddies (NWBB) that pairs professionally trained dogs with veterans struggling with PTSD. The dogs, mostly recruited from rescue organizations, receive 5-7 months of specialized training to assist the veterans.
 

Life-changing help

While Ryan was skeptical about the program and whether it would work for him, he agreed to try it. After working with Bullet, a cream-colored golden retriever, he realized his life was improving.

“I stopped self-medicating, started advocating for myself, and became more comfortable socializing in public.” In his 3 years with Bullet, Ryan was able to work on his marriage, advance his career, and become a homeowner.

“The dreams I never thought were attainable started coming to fruition, and I was happy and comfortable for the first time in as long as I could remember.”

Unfortunately, Bullet died from a rare heart condition after a few years, and when that happened, NWBB immediately began working with Ryan to find him a new dog to fill the void left by Bullet.

Soon, Ryan began working with Twitch, who, like Bullet, knew when Ryan was becoming anxious, angry, or depressed before he did, he said.

“These dogs pick up on PTSD symptoms and come over and press themselves against you, push their faces into yours, and give you those big puppy dog eyes as if to say, ‘I got you. Everything is going to be okay.’ ”

The same thing happened when Ryan had night terrors and nightmares. “These dogs wake you up, and again, you’re greeted with this sweet puppy dog face.”

NWBB founder and CEO Shannon Walker, who has been training dogs for 25 years and whose father served in the U.S. Air Force in the 1950s, leads a 5-week training course for the veterans and their “battle buddies” so that the veterans can learn how to bond with and benefit from their new service dogs.
 

Finding the perfect match

Veterans are paired with trained service dogs based on their lifestyle and personality. For instance, a Vietnam veteran who is having trouble walking may be paired with a calm dog while a younger veteran who runs each morning is paired with a more active dog.

NWBB operates on funds from private donors and nonprofit organizations that make it financially feasible for the veterans to travel to Washington State and stay for the time required to train with their service dogs.

“Our service dogs are there in the midnight hour when no one else is,” she said. “Our veterans are fighting internal battles that no one else sees but the dogs. The dogs alert on their adrenaline and bring them back to the moment of now, interrupting suicidal ideations, panic attacks, and night terrors.”

Joshua Morganstein, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on the Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster, said in an interview that “PTSD can be devastating for service members and veterans and is often associated with comorbid mental health conditions, such as anxiety and substance use.”

He noted that for many people, dogs and other animals can be an important source of physical, emotional, and psychological comfort.

“Programs like the Northwest Battle Buddies are important for us to study and better understand the extent to which trained animals are able to help alleviate the symptoms of PTSD and associated disorders and, perhaps most importantly, enhance the ability of service members and veterans to function and live in ways that feel healthy and productive to them,” said Dr. Morganstein.

He added that the concept of a “battle buddy” is a term pioneered by the U.S. Army in 2002 and describes a “formal, rather than ad hoc, system of peer support in which service members are assigned buddies.

“Buddies look out for each other, encourage self-care and self-advocacy and, when needed, help their buddy to seek help. Buddies remind us that someone is looking out for us and there is someone we look out for as well, both of which are protective during difficult times,” he said.

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

When Ryan (not his real name), 37, returned home from two deployments with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq from 2005 to 2008, he began withdrawing from social situations and experienced chronic anxiety. Nights brought no respite – his sleep was interrupted by punishing nightmares.

“I had every calling card of a veteran in distress,” he said in an interview. When his wife told him she thought he may have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), he shrugged it off. “I wasn’t automatically going to accept [the diagnosis] because as an infantry veteran, we’re big tough guys. We don’t need help with anything.”

Ryan’s wife had heard of a program called Northwest Battle Buddies (NWBB) that pairs professionally trained dogs with veterans struggling with PTSD. The dogs, mostly recruited from rescue organizations, receive 5-7 months of specialized training to assist the veterans.
 

Life-changing help

While Ryan was skeptical about the program and whether it would work for him, he agreed to try it. After working with Bullet, a cream-colored golden retriever, he realized his life was improving.

“I stopped self-medicating, started advocating for myself, and became more comfortable socializing in public.” In his 3 years with Bullet, Ryan was able to work on his marriage, advance his career, and become a homeowner.

“The dreams I never thought were attainable started coming to fruition, and I was happy and comfortable for the first time in as long as I could remember.”

Unfortunately, Bullet died from a rare heart condition after a few years, and when that happened, NWBB immediately began working with Ryan to find him a new dog to fill the void left by Bullet.

Soon, Ryan began working with Twitch, who, like Bullet, knew when Ryan was becoming anxious, angry, or depressed before he did, he said.

“These dogs pick up on PTSD symptoms and come over and press themselves against you, push their faces into yours, and give you those big puppy dog eyes as if to say, ‘I got you. Everything is going to be okay.’ ”

The same thing happened when Ryan had night terrors and nightmares. “These dogs wake you up, and again, you’re greeted with this sweet puppy dog face.”

NWBB founder and CEO Shannon Walker, who has been training dogs for 25 years and whose father served in the U.S. Air Force in the 1950s, leads a 5-week training course for the veterans and their “battle buddies” so that the veterans can learn how to bond with and benefit from their new service dogs.
 

Finding the perfect match

Veterans are paired with trained service dogs based on their lifestyle and personality. For instance, a Vietnam veteran who is having trouble walking may be paired with a calm dog while a younger veteran who runs each morning is paired with a more active dog.

NWBB operates on funds from private donors and nonprofit organizations that make it financially feasible for the veterans to travel to Washington State and stay for the time required to train with their service dogs.

“Our service dogs are there in the midnight hour when no one else is,” she said. “Our veterans are fighting internal battles that no one else sees but the dogs. The dogs alert on their adrenaline and bring them back to the moment of now, interrupting suicidal ideations, panic attacks, and night terrors.”

Joshua Morganstein, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on the Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster, said in an interview that “PTSD can be devastating for service members and veterans and is often associated with comorbid mental health conditions, such as anxiety and substance use.”

He noted that for many people, dogs and other animals can be an important source of physical, emotional, and psychological comfort.

“Programs like the Northwest Battle Buddies are important for us to study and better understand the extent to which trained animals are able to help alleviate the symptoms of PTSD and associated disorders and, perhaps most importantly, enhance the ability of service members and veterans to function and live in ways that feel healthy and productive to them,” said Dr. Morganstein.

He added that the concept of a “battle buddy” is a term pioneered by the U.S. Army in 2002 and describes a “formal, rather than ad hoc, system of peer support in which service members are assigned buddies.

“Buddies look out for each other, encourage self-care and self-advocacy and, when needed, help their buddy to seek help. Buddies remind us that someone is looking out for us and there is someone we look out for as well, both of which are protective during difficult times,” he said.

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

When Ryan (not his real name), 37, returned home from two deployments with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq from 2005 to 2008, he began withdrawing from social situations and experienced chronic anxiety. Nights brought no respite – his sleep was interrupted by punishing nightmares.

“I had every calling card of a veteran in distress,” he said in an interview. When his wife told him she thought he may have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), he shrugged it off. “I wasn’t automatically going to accept [the diagnosis] because as an infantry veteran, we’re big tough guys. We don’t need help with anything.”

Ryan’s wife had heard of a program called Northwest Battle Buddies (NWBB) that pairs professionally trained dogs with veterans struggling with PTSD. The dogs, mostly recruited from rescue organizations, receive 5-7 months of specialized training to assist the veterans.
 

Life-changing help

While Ryan was skeptical about the program and whether it would work for him, he agreed to try it. After working with Bullet, a cream-colored golden retriever, he realized his life was improving.

“I stopped self-medicating, started advocating for myself, and became more comfortable socializing in public.” In his 3 years with Bullet, Ryan was able to work on his marriage, advance his career, and become a homeowner.

“The dreams I never thought were attainable started coming to fruition, and I was happy and comfortable for the first time in as long as I could remember.”

Unfortunately, Bullet died from a rare heart condition after a few years, and when that happened, NWBB immediately began working with Ryan to find him a new dog to fill the void left by Bullet.

Soon, Ryan began working with Twitch, who, like Bullet, knew when Ryan was becoming anxious, angry, or depressed before he did, he said.

“These dogs pick up on PTSD symptoms and come over and press themselves against you, push their faces into yours, and give you those big puppy dog eyes as if to say, ‘I got you. Everything is going to be okay.’ ”

The same thing happened when Ryan had night terrors and nightmares. “These dogs wake you up, and again, you’re greeted with this sweet puppy dog face.”

NWBB founder and CEO Shannon Walker, who has been training dogs for 25 years and whose father served in the U.S. Air Force in the 1950s, leads a 5-week training course for the veterans and their “battle buddies” so that the veterans can learn how to bond with and benefit from their new service dogs.
 

Finding the perfect match

Veterans are paired with trained service dogs based on their lifestyle and personality. For instance, a Vietnam veteran who is having trouble walking may be paired with a calm dog while a younger veteran who runs each morning is paired with a more active dog.

NWBB operates on funds from private donors and nonprofit organizations that make it financially feasible for the veterans to travel to Washington State and stay for the time required to train with their service dogs.

“Our service dogs are there in the midnight hour when no one else is,” she said. “Our veterans are fighting internal battles that no one else sees but the dogs. The dogs alert on their adrenaline and bring them back to the moment of now, interrupting suicidal ideations, panic attacks, and night terrors.”

Joshua Morganstein, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on the Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster, said in an interview that “PTSD can be devastating for service members and veterans and is often associated with comorbid mental health conditions, such as anxiety and substance use.”

He noted that for many people, dogs and other animals can be an important source of physical, emotional, and psychological comfort.

“Programs like the Northwest Battle Buddies are important for us to study and better understand the extent to which trained animals are able to help alleviate the symptoms of PTSD and associated disorders and, perhaps most importantly, enhance the ability of service members and veterans to function and live in ways that feel healthy and productive to them,” said Dr. Morganstein.

He added that the concept of a “battle buddy” is a term pioneered by the U.S. Army in 2002 and describes a “formal, rather than ad hoc, system of peer support in which service members are assigned buddies.

“Buddies look out for each other, encourage self-care and self-advocacy and, when needed, help their buddy to seek help. Buddies remind us that someone is looking out for us and there is someone we look out for as well, both of which are protective during difficult times,” he said.

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

TOPLINE

First-year medical residents training during COVID-19 were significantly less likely to have posttraumatic stress disorder and workplace trauma, compared with their counterparts who trained before the pandemic, and reported fewer work hours, higher workload satisfaction, and fewer medical errors, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY

• Studies have reported a high prevalence of PTSD symptoms among residents during the pandemic, but it’s unclear if this prevalence differs from prepandemic levels.
• Using the Intern Health Study, a longitudinal cohort study of 1st-year residents, researchers investigated differences in PTSD symptoms among those training before the pandemic (2018-2019) and during its first wave (March to June, 2020).
• The study included 1,957 first-year residents (48.2% female; mean age, 27.6 years) who completed a baseline survey 2 months before their residency start, and then quarterly surveys during their intern year, with the fourth quarterly survey including a screen for PTSD.
• Researchers assessed differences in nonresidency factors and residency-related factors before and during the pandemic and examined exposure to workplace trauma.

TAKEAWAY

• Residents training during the pandemic were significantly less likely than pre-pandemic residents to screen positive for PTSD (7.1% vs. 10.7%; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.88; P = .01).
• They were also less likely to have workplace trauma exposure (50.9% vs. 56.6%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95; P = .01).
• Residents training during the pandemic compared to prepandemic reported significantly lower weekly duty hours (score mean difference –3.1 hours; 95% CI, –4.1 to −2.0 hours), lower mean reports of medical errors (MD, −0.04; 95% CI, –0.06 to –0.01), and higher workload satisfaction (MD, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.2-0.3).
• However, after accounting for these residency-related factors, training during the pandemic was no longer associated with lower odds of presenting PTSD symptoms.

IN PRACTICE

While the findings show residents training during the first pandemic wave were less likely to have PTSD, future studies should further follow these residents’ PTSD symptoms and investigate whether interventions targeting residency-related factors could reduce their PTSD risk moving forward, the investigators note.

SOURCE

The study was carried out by Michelle K. Ptak, BA, department of psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. It was published online Aug. 22 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS

The study used self-reports and included only the first pandemic wave, 1st-year residents, and prepandemic data for a single academic year. Survey participation decreased during the pandemic, and it’s possible there were unmeasured factors associated with PTSD risk.

DISCLOSURES

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE

First-year medical residents training during COVID-19 were significantly less likely to have posttraumatic stress disorder and workplace trauma, compared with their counterparts who trained before the pandemic, and reported fewer work hours, higher workload satisfaction, and fewer medical errors, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY

• Studies have reported a high prevalence of PTSD symptoms among residents during the pandemic, but it’s unclear if this prevalence differs from prepandemic levels.
• Using the Intern Health Study, a longitudinal cohort study of 1st-year residents, researchers investigated differences in PTSD symptoms among those training before the pandemic (2018-2019) and during its first wave (March to June, 2020).
• The study included 1,957 first-year residents (48.2% female; mean age, 27.6 years) who completed a baseline survey 2 months before their residency start, and then quarterly surveys during their intern year, with the fourth quarterly survey including a screen for PTSD.
• Researchers assessed differences in nonresidency factors and residency-related factors before and during the pandemic and examined exposure to workplace trauma.

TAKEAWAY

• Residents training during the pandemic were significantly less likely than pre-pandemic residents to screen positive for PTSD (7.1% vs. 10.7%; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.88; P = .01).
• They were also less likely to have workplace trauma exposure (50.9% vs. 56.6%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95; P = .01).
• Residents training during the pandemic compared to prepandemic reported significantly lower weekly duty hours (score mean difference –3.1 hours; 95% CI, –4.1 to −2.0 hours), lower mean reports of medical errors (MD, −0.04; 95% CI, –0.06 to –0.01), and higher workload satisfaction (MD, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.2-0.3).
• However, after accounting for these residency-related factors, training during the pandemic was no longer associated with lower odds of presenting PTSD symptoms.

IN PRACTICE

While the findings show residents training during the first pandemic wave were less likely to have PTSD, future studies should further follow these residents’ PTSD symptoms and investigate whether interventions targeting residency-related factors could reduce their PTSD risk moving forward, the investigators note.

SOURCE

The study was carried out by Michelle K. Ptak, BA, department of psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. It was published online Aug. 22 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS

The study used self-reports and included only the first pandemic wave, 1st-year residents, and prepandemic data for a single academic year. Survey participation decreased during the pandemic, and it’s possible there were unmeasured factors associated with PTSD risk.

DISCLOSURES

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE

First-year medical residents training during COVID-19 were significantly less likely to have posttraumatic stress disorder and workplace trauma, compared with their counterparts who trained before the pandemic, and reported fewer work hours, higher workload satisfaction, and fewer medical errors, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY

• Studies have reported a high prevalence of PTSD symptoms among residents during the pandemic, but it’s unclear if this prevalence differs from prepandemic levels.
• Using the Intern Health Study, a longitudinal cohort study of 1st-year residents, researchers investigated differences in PTSD symptoms among those training before the pandemic (2018-2019) and during its first wave (March to June, 2020).
• The study included 1,957 first-year residents (48.2% female; mean age, 27.6 years) who completed a baseline survey 2 months before their residency start, and then quarterly surveys during their intern year, with the fourth quarterly survey including a screen for PTSD.
• Researchers assessed differences in nonresidency factors and residency-related factors before and during the pandemic and examined exposure to workplace trauma.

TAKEAWAY

• Residents training during the pandemic were significantly less likely than pre-pandemic residents to screen positive for PTSD (7.1% vs. 10.7%; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.88; P = .01).
• They were also less likely to have workplace trauma exposure (50.9% vs. 56.6%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.95; P = .01).
• Residents training during the pandemic compared to prepandemic reported significantly lower weekly duty hours (score mean difference –3.1 hours; 95% CI, –4.1 to −2.0 hours), lower mean reports of medical errors (MD, −0.04; 95% CI, –0.06 to –0.01), and higher workload satisfaction (MD, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.2-0.3).
• However, after accounting for these residency-related factors, training during the pandemic was no longer associated with lower odds of presenting PTSD symptoms.

IN PRACTICE

While the findings show residents training during the first pandemic wave were less likely to have PTSD, future studies should further follow these residents’ PTSD symptoms and investigate whether interventions targeting residency-related factors could reduce their PTSD risk moving forward, the investigators note.

SOURCE

The study was carried out by Michelle K. Ptak, BA, department of psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues. It was published online Aug. 22 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS

The study used self-reports and included only the first pandemic wave, 1st-year residents, and prepandemic data for a single academic year. Survey participation decreased during the pandemic, and it’s possible there were unmeasured factors associated with PTSD risk.

DISCLOSURES

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Suicide is not a trivial matter – it upends families, robs partners of a loved one, prevents children from having a parent, and can destroy a parent’s most cherished being. It is not surprising that societies have repeatedly made it a goal to study and reduce suicide within their populations.

The suicide rate in the United States is trending upward, from about 10 per 100,000 in 2000 to about 15 per 100,000 in more recent reports. The increasing suicide rates have been accompanied by increasing distress among many strata of society. From a public health level, analysts are not just witnessing increasing suicide rates, but a shocking rise in all “deaths of despair,”¹ among which suicide can be considered the ultimate example.

NicoBadre_Calif.jpeg_web.jpg

On an individual level, many know someone who has died of suicide or suffered from a serious suicide attempt. From the public health level to the individual level, advocacy has called for various interventions in the field of psychiatry to remedy this tragic problem.

Psychiatrists have been firsthand witnesses to this increasing demand for suicide interventions. When in residency, the norm was to perform a suicide risk assessment at the time of admission to the hospital and again at the time of discharge. As the years passed, the new normal within psychiatric hospitals has shifted to asking about suicidality on a daily basis.

In what seems to us like an escalating arms race, the emerging standard of care at many facilities is now not only for daily suicide risk assessments by each psychiatrist, but also to require nurses to ask about suicidality during every 8-hour shift – in addition to documented inquiries about suicidality by other allied staff on the psychiatric unit. As a result, it is not uncommon for a patient hospitalized at an academic center to receive more than half a dozen suicide risk assessments in a day (first by the medical student, at least once – often more than once – by the resident, again by the attending psychiatrist, then the social worker and three nurses in 24 hours).

Compton_Jason_CALIF_web.jpg

One of the concerns about such an approach is the lack of logic inherent to many risk assessment tools and symptom scales. Many of us are familiar with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to assess depression.² The PHQ-9 asks to consider “over the last 2 weeks, how often have you ...” in relation to nine symptoms associated with depression. It has always defied reason to perform a PHQ-9 every day and expect the answers to change from “nearly every day” to “not at all,” considering only 1 day has passed since the last time the patient has answered the questions. Yet daily, or near daily, PHQ-9 scores are a frequently used tool of tracking symptom improvement in response to treatments, such as electroconvulsive therapy, performed multiple times a week.

One can argue that the patient’s perspective on how symptomatic he or she has been over the past 2 weeks may change rapidly with alleviation of a depressed mood. However, the PHQ-9 is both reported to be, and often regarded as, an objective score. If one wishes to utilize it as such, the defense of its use should not be that it is a subjective report with just as much utility as “Rate your depression on a scale of 0-27.”

Similarly, many suicide scales were intended to assess thoughts of suicide in the past month³ or have been re-tooled to address this particular concern by asking “since the last contact.”⁴ It is baffling to see a chart with many dozens of suicide risk assessments with at times widely differing answers, yet all measuring thoughts of suicide in the past month. Is one to expect the answer to “How many times have you had these thoughts [of suicide ideation]? (1) Less than once a week (2) Once a week ...” to change between 8 a.m. and noon? Furthermore, for the purpose of assessing acute risk of suicidality in the immediate future, to only consider symptoms since the last contact – or past 2 weeks, past month, etc. – is of unclear significance.
 

Provider liability

Another concern is the liability placed on providers. A common problem encountered in the inpatient setting is insurance companies refusing to reimburse a hospital stay for depressed patients denying suicidality.

Any provider in the position of caring for such a patient must ask: What is the likelihood of someone providing a false negative – a false denial of suicidality? Is the likelihood of a suicidal person denying suicidality different if asked 5 or 10 or more times in a day? There are innumerable instances where a patient at a very high risk of self-harm has denied suicidality, been discharged from the hospital, and suffered terrible consequences. Ethically, the psychiatrist aware of this risk is no more at ease discharging these patients, whether it is one suicide risk scale or a dozen that suggests a patient is at low risk.

Alternatively, it may feel untenable from a medicolegal perspective for a psychiatrist to discharge a patient denying suicidality when the chart includes over a dozen previously documented elevated suicide risk assessments in the past 72 hours. By placing the job of suicide risk assessment in the hands of providers of varying levels of training and responsibility, a situation is created in which the seasoned psychiatrist who would otherwise be comfortable discharging a patient feels unable to do so because every other note-writer in the record – from the triage nurse to the medical assistant to the sitter in the emergency department – has recorded the patient as high risk for suicide. When put in such a position, the thought often occurs that systems of care, rather than individual providers, are protected most by ever escalating requirements for suicide risk documentation. To make a clinical decision contrary to the body of suicide risk documentation puts the provider at risk of being scapegoated by the system of care, which can point to its illogical and ineffective, though profusely documented, suicide prevention protocols.
 

Limitations of risk assessments

Considering the ongoing rise in the use of suicide risk assessments, one would expect that the evidence for their efficacy was robust and well established. Yet a thorough review of suicide risk assessments funded by the MacArthur Foundation, which examined decades of research, came to disheartening conclusions: “predictive ability has not improved over the past 50 years”; “no risk factor category or subcategory is substantially stronger than any other”; and “predicting solely according to base rates may be comparable to prediction with current risk factors.”⁵

Those findings were consistent with the conclusions of many other studies, which have summarized the utility of suicide risk assessments as follows: “occurrence of suicide is too low to identify those individuals who are likely to die by suicide”;⁶ “suicide prediction models produce accurate overall classification models, but their accuracy of predicting a future event is near zero”;⁷ “risk stratification is too inaccurate to be clinically useful and might even be harmful”;⁸ “suicide risk prediction [lacks] any items or information that to a useful degree permit the identification of persons who will complete suicide”;⁹ “existing suicide prediction tools have little current clinical value”;¹⁰ “our current preoccupation with risk assessment has ... created a mythology with no evidence to support it.”¹¹ And that’s to cite just a few.

Sadly, we have known about the limitations of suicide risk assessments for many decades. In 1983 a large VA prospective study, which aimed to identify veterans who will die by suicide, examined 4,800 patients with a wide range of instruments and measures.¹² This study concluded that “discriminant analysis was clearly inadequate in correctly classifying the subjects. For an event as rare as suicide, our predictive tools and guides are simply not equal to the task.” The authors described the feelings of many in stating “courts and public opinion expect physicians to be able to pick out the particular persons who will later commit suicide. Although we may reconstruct causal chains and motives, we do not possess the tools to predict suicides.”

Yet, even several decades prior, in 1954, Dr. Albert Rosen performed an elegant statistical analysis and predicted that, considering the low base rate of suicide, suicide risk assessments are “of no practical value, for it would be impossible to treat the prodigious number of false positives.”¹³ It seems that we continue to be unable to accept Dr. Rosen’s premonition despite decades of confirmatory evidence.
 

“Quantity over quality”

Regardless of those sobering reports, the field of psychiatry is seemingly doubling down on efforts to predict and prevent suicide deaths, and the way it is doing so has very questionable validity.

One can reasonably argue that the periodic performance of a suicide risk assessment may have clinical utility in reminding us of modifiable risk factors such as intoxication, social isolation, and access to lethal means. One can also reasonably argue that these risk assessments may provide useful education to patients and their families on epidemiological risk factors such as gender, age, and marital status. But our pursuit of serial suicide risk assessments throughout the day is encouraging providers to focus on a particular risk factor that changes from moment to moment and has particularly low validity, that being self-reported suicidality.

Reported suicidality is one of the few risk factors that can change from shift to shift. But 80% of people who die by suicide had not previously expressed suicidality, and 98.3% of people who have endorsed suicidality do not die by suicide.¹⁴ While the former statistic may improve with increased assessment, the later will likely worsen.

Suicide is not a trivial matter. We admire those that study it and advocate for better interventions. We have compassion for those who have suffered the loss of a loved one to suicide. Our patients have died as a result of the human limitations surrounding suicide prevention. Recognizing the weight of suicide and making an effort to avoid minimizing its immense consequences drive our desire to be honest with ourselves, our patients and their families, and society. That includes the unfortunate truth regarding the current state of the evidence and our ability to enact change.

It is our concern that the rising fascination with repeated suicide risk assessment is misguided in its current form and serves the purpose of appeasing administrators more than reflecting a scientific understanding of the literature. More sadly, we are concerned that this “quantity-over-quality” approach is yet another barrier to practicing what may be one of the few interventions with any hope of meaningfully impacting a patient’s risk of suicide in the clinical setting – spending time connecting with our patients.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Compton is a member of the psychiatry faculty at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Badre and Dr. Compton have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Joint Economic Committee. (2019). Long Term Trends in Deaths of Despair. SCP Report 4-19.

2. Kroenke K and Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann. 2013;32(9):509-15. doi: 10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06.

3. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) Full Lifetime/Recent.

4. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) Full Since Last Contact.

5. Franklin JC et al. Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychol Bull. 2017 Feb;143(2):187-232. doi: 10.1037/bul0000084.

6. Beautrais AL. Further suicidal behavior among medically serious suicide attempters. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2004 Spring;34(1):1-11. doi: 10.1521/suli.34.1.1.27772.

7. Belsher BE. Prediction models for suicide attempts and deaths: A systematic review and simulation. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 1;76(6):642-651. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0174.

8. Carter G et al. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guideline for the management of deliberate self-harm. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;50(10):939-1000. doi: 10.1177/0004867416661039.

9. Fosse R et al. Predictors of suicide in the patient population admitted to a locked-door psychiatric acute ward. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 16;12(3):e0173958. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173958.

10. Kessler RC et al. Suicide prediction models: A critical review of recent research with recommendations for the way forward. Mol Psychiatry. 2020 Jan;25(1):168-79. doi: 10.1038/s41380-019-0531-0.

11. Mulder R. Problems with suicide risk assessment. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;45(8):605-7. doi: 10.3109/00048674.2011.594786.

12. Pokorny AD. Prediction of suicide in psychiatric patients: Report of a prospective study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983 Mar;40(3):249-57. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790030019002.

13. Rosen A. Detection of suicidal patients: An example of some limitations in the prediction of infrequent events. J Consult Psychol. 1954 Dec;18(6):397-403. doi: 10.1037/h0058579.

14. McHugh CM et al. (2019). Association between suicidal ideation and suicide: Meta-analyses of odds ratios, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. BJPsych Open. 2019 Mar;5(2):e18. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2018.88.

Suicide is not a trivial matter – it upends families, robs partners of a loved one, prevents children from having a parent, and can destroy a parent’s most cherished being. It is not surprising that societies have repeatedly made it a goal to study and reduce suicide within their populations.

The suicide rate in the United States is trending upward, from about 10 per 100,000 in 2000 to about 15 per 100,000 in more recent reports. The increasing suicide rates have been accompanied by increasing distress among many strata of society. From a public health level, analysts are not just witnessing increasing suicide rates, but a shocking rise in all “deaths of despair,”¹ among which suicide can be considered the ultimate example.

NicoBadre_Calif.jpeg_web.jpg

On an individual level, many know someone who has died of suicide or suffered from a serious suicide attempt. From the public health level to the individual level, advocacy has called for various interventions in the field of psychiatry to remedy this tragic problem.

Psychiatrists have been firsthand witnesses to this increasing demand for suicide interventions. When in residency, the norm was to perform a suicide risk assessment at the time of admission to the hospital and again at the time of discharge. As the years passed, the new normal within psychiatric hospitals has shifted to asking about suicidality on a daily basis.

In what seems to us like an escalating arms race, the emerging standard of care at many facilities is now not only for daily suicide risk assessments by each psychiatrist, but also to require nurses to ask about suicidality during every 8-hour shift – in addition to documented inquiries about suicidality by other allied staff on the psychiatric unit. As a result, it is not uncommon for a patient hospitalized at an academic center to receive more than half a dozen suicide risk assessments in a day (first by the medical student, at least once – often more than once – by the resident, again by the attending psychiatrist, then the social worker and three nurses in 24 hours).

Compton_Jason_CALIF_web.jpg

One of the concerns about such an approach is the lack of logic inherent to many risk assessment tools and symptom scales. Many of us are familiar with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to assess depression.² The PHQ-9 asks to consider “over the last 2 weeks, how often have you ...” in relation to nine symptoms associated with depression. It has always defied reason to perform a PHQ-9 every day and expect the answers to change from “nearly every day” to “not at all,” considering only 1 day has passed since the last time the patient has answered the questions. Yet daily, or near daily, PHQ-9 scores are a frequently used tool of tracking symptom improvement in response to treatments, such as electroconvulsive therapy, performed multiple times a week.

One can argue that the patient’s perspective on how symptomatic he or she has been over the past 2 weeks may change rapidly with alleviation of a depressed mood. However, the PHQ-9 is both reported to be, and often regarded as, an objective score. If one wishes to utilize it as such, the defense of its use should not be that it is a subjective report with just as much utility as “Rate your depression on a scale of 0-27.”

Similarly, many suicide scales were intended to assess thoughts of suicide in the past month³ or have been re-tooled to address this particular concern by asking “since the last contact.”⁴ It is baffling to see a chart with many dozens of suicide risk assessments with at times widely differing answers, yet all measuring thoughts of suicide in the past month. Is one to expect the answer to “How many times have you had these thoughts [of suicide ideation]? (1) Less than once a week (2) Once a week ...” to change between 8 a.m. and noon? Furthermore, for the purpose of assessing acute risk of suicidality in the immediate future, to only consider symptoms since the last contact – or past 2 weeks, past month, etc. – is of unclear significance.
 

Provider liability

Another concern is the liability placed on providers. A common problem encountered in the inpatient setting is insurance companies refusing to reimburse a hospital stay for depressed patients denying suicidality.

Any provider in the position of caring for such a patient must ask: What is the likelihood of someone providing a false negative – a false denial of suicidality? Is the likelihood of a suicidal person denying suicidality different if asked 5 or 10 or more times in a day? There are innumerable instances where a patient at a very high risk of self-harm has denied suicidality, been discharged from the hospital, and suffered terrible consequences. Ethically, the psychiatrist aware of this risk is no more at ease discharging these patients, whether it is one suicide risk scale or a dozen that suggests a patient is at low risk.

Alternatively, it may feel untenable from a medicolegal perspective for a psychiatrist to discharge a patient denying suicidality when the chart includes over a dozen previously documented elevated suicide risk assessments in the past 72 hours. By placing the job of suicide risk assessment in the hands of providers of varying levels of training and responsibility, a situation is created in which the seasoned psychiatrist who would otherwise be comfortable discharging a patient feels unable to do so because every other note-writer in the record – from the triage nurse to the medical assistant to the sitter in the emergency department – has recorded the patient as high risk for suicide. When put in such a position, the thought often occurs that systems of care, rather than individual providers, are protected most by ever escalating requirements for suicide risk documentation. To make a clinical decision contrary to the body of suicide risk documentation puts the provider at risk of being scapegoated by the system of care, which can point to its illogical and ineffective, though profusely documented, suicide prevention protocols.
 

Limitations of risk assessments

Considering the ongoing rise in the use of suicide risk assessments, one would expect that the evidence for their efficacy was robust and well established. Yet a thorough review of suicide risk assessments funded by the MacArthur Foundation, which examined decades of research, came to disheartening conclusions: “predictive ability has not improved over the past 50 years”; “no risk factor category or subcategory is substantially stronger than any other”; and “predicting solely according to base rates may be comparable to prediction with current risk factors.”⁵

Those findings were consistent with the conclusions of many other studies, which have summarized the utility of suicide risk assessments as follows: “occurrence of suicide is too low to identify those individuals who are likely to die by suicide”;⁶ “suicide prediction models produce accurate overall classification models, but their accuracy of predicting a future event is near zero”;⁷ “risk stratification is too inaccurate to be clinically useful and might even be harmful”;⁸ “suicide risk prediction [lacks] any items or information that to a useful degree permit the identification of persons who will complete suicide”;⁹ “existing suicide prediction tools have little current clinical value”;¹⁰ “our current preoccupation with risk assessment has ... created a mythology with no evidence to support it.”¹¹ And that’s to cite just a few.

Sadly, we have known about the limitations of suicide risk assessments for many decades. In 1983 a large VA prospective study, which aimed to identify veterans who will die by suicide, examined 4,800 patients with a wide range of instruments and measures.¹² This study concluded that “discriminant analysis was clearly inadequate in correctly classifying the subjects. For an event as rare as suicide, our predictive tools and guides are simply not equal to the task.” The authors described the feelings of many in stating “courts and public opinion expect physicians to be able to pick out the particular persons who will later commit suicide. Although we may reconstruct causal chains and motives, we do not possess the tools to predict suicides.”

Yet, even several decades prior, in 1954, Dr. Albert Rosen performed an elegant statistical analysis and predicted that, considering the low base rate of suicide, suicide risk assessments are “of no practical value, for it would be impossible to treat the prodigious number of false positives.”¹³ It seems that we continue to be unable to accept Dr. Rosen’s premonition despite decades of confirmatory evidence.
 

“Quantity over quality”

Regardless of those sobering reports, the field of psychiatry is seemingly doubling down on efforts to predict and prevent suicide deaths, and the way it is doing so has very questionable validity.

One can reasonably argue that the periodic performance of a suicide risk assessment may have clinical utility in reminding us of modifiable risk factors such as intoxication, social isolation, and access to lethal means. One can also reasonably argue that these risk assessments may provide useful education to patients and their families on epidemiological risk factors such as gender, age, and marital status. But our pursuit of serial suicide risk assessments throughout the day is encouraging providers to focus on a particular risk factor that changes from moment to moment and has particularly low validity, that being self-reported suicidality.

Reported suicidality is one of the few risk factors that can change from shift to shift. But 80% of people who die by suicide had not previously expressed suicidality, and 98.3% of people who have endorsed suicidality do not die by suicide.¹⁴ While the former statistic may improve with increased assessment, the later will likely worsen.

Suicide is not a trivial matter. We admire those that study it and advocate for better interventions. We have compassion for those who have suffered the loss of a loved one to suicide. Our patients have died as a result of the human limitations surrounding suicide prevention. Recognizing the weight of suicide and making an effort to avoid minimizing its immense consequences drive our desire to be honest with ourselves, our patients and their families, and society. That includes the unfortunate truth regarding the current state of the evidence and our ability to enact change.

It is our concern that the rising fascination with repeated suicide risk assessment is misguided in its current form and serves the purpose of appeasing administrators more than reflecting a scientific understanding of the literature. More sadly, we are concerned that this “quantity-over-quality” approach is yet another barrier to practicing what may be one of the few interventions with any hope of meaningfully impacting a patient’s risk of suicide in the clinical setting – spending time connecting with our patients.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Compton is a member of the psychiatry faculty at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Badre and Dr. Compton have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Joint Economic Committee. (2019). Long Term Trends in Deaths of Despair. SCP Report 4-19.

2. Kroenke K and Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann. 2013;32(9):509-15. doi: 10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06.

3. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) Full Lifetime/Recent.

4. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) Full Since Last Contact.

5. Franklin JC et al. Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychol Bull. 2017 Feb;143(2):187-232. doi: 10.1037/bul0000084.

6. Beautrais AL. Further suicidal behavior among medically serious suicide attempters. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2004 Spring;34(1):1-11. doi: 10.1521/suli.34.1.1.27772.

7. Belsher BE. Prediction models for suicide attempts and deaths: A systematic review and simulation. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 1;76(6):642-651. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0174.

8. Carter G et al. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guideline for the management of deliberate self-harm. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;50(10):939-1000. doi: 10.1177/0004867416661039.

9. Fosse R et al. Predictors of suicide in the patient population admitted to a locked-door psychiatric acute ward. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 16;12(3):e0173958. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173958.

10. Kessler RC et al. Suicide prediction models: A critical review of recent research with recommendations for the way forward. Mol Psychiatry. 2020 Jan;25(1):168-79. doi: 10.1038/s41380-019-0531-0.

11. Mulder R. Problems with suicide risk assessment. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;45(8):605-7. doi: 10.3109/00048674.2011.594786.

12. Pokorny AD. Prediction of suicide in psychiatric patients: Report of a prospective study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983 Mar;40(3):249-57. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790030019002.

13. Rosen A. Detection of suicidal patients: An example of some limitations in the prediction of infrequent events. J Consult Psychol. 1954 Dec;18(6):397-403. doi: 10.1037/h0058579.

14. McHugh CM et al. (2019). Association between suicidal ideation and suicide: Meta-analyses of odds ratios, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. BJPsych Open. 2019 Mar;5(2):e18. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2018.88.

Suicide is not a trivial matter – it upends families, robs partners of a loved one, prevents children from having a parent, and can destroy a parent’s most cherished being. It is not surprising that societies have repeatedly made it a goal to study and reduce suicide within their populations.

The suicide rate in the United States is trending upward, from about 10 per 100,000 in 2000 to about 15 per 100,000 in more recent reports. The increasing suicide rates have been accompanied by increasing distress among many strata of society. From a public health level, analysts are not just witnessing increasing suicide rates, but a shocking rise in all “deaths of despair,”¹ among which suicide can be considered the ultimate example.

NicoBadre_Calif.jpeg_web.jpg

On an individual level, many know someone who has died of suicide or suffered from a serious suicide attempt. From the public health level to the individual level, advocacy has called for various interventions in the field of psychiatry to remedy this tragic problem.

Psychiatrists have been firsthand witnesses to this increasing demand for suicide interventions. When in residency, the norm was to perform a suicide risk assessment at the time of admission to the hospital and again at the time of discharge. As the years passed, the new normal within psychiatric hospitals has shifted to asking about suicidality on a daily basis.

In what seems to us like an escalating arms race, the emerging standard of care at many facilities is now not only for daily suicide risk assessments by each psychiatrist, but also to require nurses to ask about suicidality during every 8-hour shift – in addition to documented inquiries about suicidality by other allied staff on the psychiatric unit. As a result, it is not uncommon for a patient hospitalized at an academic center to receive more than half a dozen suicide risk assessments in a day (first by the medical student, at least once – often more than once – by the resident, again by the attending psychiatrist, then the social worker and three nurses in 24 hours).

Compton_Jason_CALIF_web.jpg

One of the concerns about such an approach is the lack of logic inherent to many risk assessment tools and symptom scales. Many of us are familiar with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) to assess depression.² The PHQ-9 asks to consider “over the last 2 weeks, how often have you ...” in relation to nine symptoms associated with depression. It has always defied reason to perform a PHQ-9 every day and expect the answers to change from “nearly every day” to “not at all,” considering only 1 day has passed since the last time the patient has answered the questions. Yet daily, or near daily, PHQ-9 scores are a frequently used tool of tracking symptom improvement in response to treatments, such as electroconvulsive therapy, performed multiple times a week.

One can argue that the patient’s perspective on how symptomatic he or she has been over the past 2 weeks may change rapidly with alleviation of a depressed mood. However, the PHQ-9 is both reported to be, and often regarded as, an objective score. If one wishes to utilize it as such, the defense of its use should not be that it is a subjective report with just as much utility as “Rate your depression on a scale of 0-27.”

Similarly, many suicide scales were intended to assess thoughts of suicide in the past month³ or have been re-tooled to address this particular concern by asking “since the last contact.”⁴ It is baffling to see a chart with many dozens of suicide risk assessments with at times widely differing answers, yet all measuring thoughts of suicide in the past month. Is one to expect the answer to “How many times have you had these thoughts [of suicide ideation]? (1) Less than once a week (2) Once a week ...” to change between 8 a.m. and noon? Furthermore, for the purpose of assessing acute risk of suicidality in the immediate future, to only consider symptoms since the last contact – or past 2 weeks, past month, etc. – is of unclear significance.
 

Provider liability

Another concern is the liability placed on providers. A common problem encountered in the inpatient setting is insurance companies refusing to reimburse a hospital stay for depressed patients denying suicidality.

Any provider in the position of caring for such a patient must ask: What is the likelihood of someone providing a false negative – a false denial of suicidality? Is the likelihood of a suicidal person denying suicidality different if asked 5 or 10 or more times in a day? There are innumerable instances where a patient at a very high risk of self-harm has denied suicidality, been discharged from the hospital, and suffered terrible consequences. Ethically, the psychiatrist aware of this risk is no more at ease discharging these patients, whether it is one suicide risk scale or a dozen that suggests a patient is at low risk.

Alternatively, it may feel untenable from a medicolegal perspective for a psychiatrist to discharge a patient denying suicidality when the chart includes over a dozen previously documented elevated suicide risk assessments in the past 72 hours. By placing the job of suicide risk assessment in the hands of providers of varying levels of training and responsibility, a situation is created in which the seasoned psychiatrist who would otherwise be comfortable discharging a patient feels unable to do so because every other note-writer in the record – from the triage nurse to the medical assistant to the sitter in the emergency department – has recorded the patient as high risk for suicide. When put in such a position, the thought often occurs that systems of care, rather than individual providers, are protected most by ever escalating requirements for suicide risk documentation. To make a clinical decision contrary to the body of suicide risk documentation puts the provider at risk of being scapegoated by the system of care, which can point to its illogical and ineffective, though profusely documented, suicide prevention protocols.
 

Limitations of risk assessments

Considering the ongoing rise in the use of suicide risk assessments, one would expect that the evidence for their efficacy was robust and well established. Yet a thorough review of suicide risk assessments funded by the MacArthur Foundation, which examined decades of research, came to disheartening conclusions: “predictive ability has not improved over the past 50 years”; “no risk factor category or subcategory is substantially stronger than any other”; and “predicting solely according to base rates may be comparable to prediction with current risk factors.”⁵

Those findings were consistent with the conclusions of many other studies, which have summarized the utility of suicide risk assessments as follows: “occurrence of suicide is too low to identify those individuals who are likely to die by suicide”;⁶ “suicide prediction models produce accurate overall classification models, but their accuracy of predicting a future event is near zero”;⁷ “risk stratification is too inaccurate to be clinically useful and might even be harmful”;⁸ “suicide risk prediction [lacks] any items or information that to a useful degree permit the identification of persons who will complete suicide”;⁹ “existing suicide prediction tools have little current clinical value”;¹⁰ “our current preoccupation with risk assessment has ... created a mythology with no evidence to support it.”¹¹ And that’s to cite just a few.

Sadly, we have known about the limitations of suicide risk assessments for many decades. In 1983 a large VA prospective study, which aimed to identify veterans who will die by suicide, examined 4,800 patients with a wide range of instruments and measures.¹² This study concluded that “discriminant analysis was clearly inadequate in correctly classifying the subjects. For an event as rare as suicide, our predictive tools and guides are simply not equal to the task.” The authors described the feelings of many in stating “courts and public opinion expect physicians to be able to pick out the particular persons who will later commit suicide. Although we may reconstruct causal chains and motives, we do not possess the tools to predict suicides.”

Yet, even several decades prior, in 1954, Dr. Albert Rosen performed an elegant statistical analysis and predicted that, considering the low base rate of suicide, suicide risk assessments are “of no practical value, for it would be impossible to treat the prodigious number of false positives.”¹³ It seems that we continue to be unable to accept Dr. Rosen’s premonition despite decades of confirmatory evidence.
 

“Quantity over quality”

Regardless of those sobering reports, the field of psychiatry is seemingly doubling down on efforts to predict and prevent suicide deaths, and the way it is doing so has very questionable validity.

One can reasonably argue that the periodic performance of a suicide risk assessment may have clinical utility in reminding us of modifiable risk factors such as intoxication, social isolation, and access to lethal means. One can also reasonably argue that these risk assessments may provide useful education to patients and their families on epidemiological risk factors such as gender, age, and marital status. But our pursuit of serial suicide risk assessments throughout the day is encouraging providers to focus on a particular risk factor that changes from moment to moment and has particularly low validity, that being self-reported suicidality.

Reported suicidality is one of the few risk factors that can change from shift to shift. But 80% of people who die by suicide had not previously expressed suicidality, and 98.3% of people who have endorsed suicidality do not die by suicide.¹⁴ While the former statistic may improve with increased assessment, the later will likely worsen.

Suicide is not a trivial matter. We admire those that study it and advocate for better interventions. We have compassion for those who have suffered the loss of a loved one to suicide. Our patients have died as a result of the human limitations surrounding suicide prevention. Recognizing the weight of suicide and making an effort to avoid minimizing its immense consequences drive our desire to be honest with ourselves, our patients and their families, and society. That includes the unfortunate truth regarding the current state of the evidence and our ability to enact change.

It is our concern that the rising fascination with repeated suicide risk assessment is misguided in its current form and serves the purpose of appeasing administrators more than reflecting a scientific understanding of the literature. More sadly, we are concerned that this “quantity-over-quality” approach is yet another barrier to practicing what may be one of the few interventions with any hope of meaningfully impacting a patient’s risk of suicide in the clinical setting – spending time connecting with our patients.

Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. Dr. Compton is a member of the psychiatry faculty at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Badre and Dr. Compton have no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Joint Economic Committee. (2019). Long Term Trends in Deaths of Despair. SCP Report 4-19.

2. Kroenke K and Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann. 2013;32(9):509-15. doi: 10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06.

3. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) Full Lifetime/Recent.

4. Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) Full Since Last Contact.

5. Franklin JC et al. Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychol Bull. 2017 Feb;143(2):187-232. doi: 10.1037/bul0000084.

6. Beautrais AL. Further suicidal behavior among medically serious suicide attempters. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2004 Spring;34(1):1-11. doi: 10.1521/suli.34.1.1.27772.

7. Belsher BE. Prediction models for suicide attempts and deaths: A systematic review and simulation. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Jun 1;76(6):642-651. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.0174.

8. Carter G et al. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guideline for the management of deliberate self-harm. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;50(10):939-1000. doi: 10.1177/0004867416661039.

9. Fosse R et al. Predictors of suicide in the patient population admitted to a locked-door psychiatric acute ward. PLoS One. 2017 Mar 16;12(3):e0173958. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173958.

10. Kessler RC et al. Suicide prediction models: A critical review of recent research with recommendations for the way forward. Mol Psychiatry. 2020 Jan;25(1):168-79. doi: 10.1038/s41380-019-0531-0.

11. Mulder R. Problems with suicide risk assessment. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011 Aug;45(8):605-7. doi: 10.3109/00048674.2011.594786.

12. Pokorny AD. Prediction of suicide in psychiatric patients: Report of a prospective study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983 Mar;40(3):249-57. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790030019002.

13. Rosen A. Detection of suicidal patients: An example of some limitations in the prediction of infrequent events. J Consult Psychol. 1954 Dec;18(6):397-403. doi: 10.1037/h0058579.

14. McHugh CM et al. (2019). Association between suicidal ideation and suicide: Meta-analyses of odds ratios, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value. BJPsych Open. 2019 Mar;5(2):e18. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2018.88.

As psychiatrists know, many of our severely traumatized adult patients were victims of abuse during childhood. We routinely ask every new patient about physical, emotional, or sexual abuse when they were growing up because of the well-established, serious neurobiological and mental repercussions.^1,2

Perhaps one of the worst experiences for a child is to witness bitterly adversarial parents (their vital role models) who argue viciously, despise each other, and hurl insults (and even punches) at each other. Such a chronically and emotionally traumatic upbringing can haunt kids well into adulthood, disrupting their hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and triggering anxiety, depression, and even psychosis due to epigenetic changes that ultimately lead to abnormal brain development.³

It often feels that the governance of our country, or the national “political family,” is seriously fractured like a hopelessly dysfunctional family. Could that be negatively impacting the mental health of the citizenry? Having 2 antagonistic political parties expressing visceral hatred and undisguised contempt for each other 24/7 (thanks to the enabling era of cable TV, the internet, and social media) has transformed each party’s fanatic followers from fellow citizens to ideological combatants. In this poisonous societal zeitgeist of bidirectional acrimony and mutual detestation, the opposing parties and their “intellectual militias” label each other as “extremists” or “radicals.” They become completely blind to any redeeming social value in the ideas or principles of their political opponents. They spend enormous time and energy on undermining each other instead of attending to the myriad vital issues involved in the governance of a massive and complex country.

Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”⁴ The current toxic cloud of intense “hyperpartisanship” is emblematic of the dark Machiavellian side of democracy. But those who lament the current distorted version of democracy should contemplate living in a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, where a despot would execute any dissenter or invade and destroy an adjacent country at a whim.

Churchill made that statement in 1947. The internet, social media, and smartphones were science fiction back then. Those technological advances have added fuel to the political process and significantly stoked the flames of hyperpartisanship. It’s now democracy on steroids, where freedom of expression goes to extremes, highlighting the warts and pitfalls of the democratic system. Political rivals can now communicate their ferocious disagreements to millions of their disciples instantaneously, triggering immediate rebuttals and counterattacks by their adversaries. This “virtual guerilla warfare” is mentally and emotionally exhausting to all involved, especially to the subset of neutral bystanders who are unaffiliated with either political party, which, due to the “religification” of politics, have become like secular religions.⁵ Chronic, unremitting, inescapable stress is a sure pathway for anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even brain atrophy.

Optimists may point out that the United States has weathered and emerged stronger from many serious traumas, including the Civil War (with its lethal divisiveness), World War I, the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Watergate political scandal, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the banking collapse and recession, and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought society to a standstill and induced so much anxiety and uncertainty.

On the other hand, pessimists would insist those sequential crises left indelible scars that cumulatively altered the mindset of political rivals, predisposing them to extreme views of each other. Alienation inevitably leads to fanaticism. It’s perplexing but fascinating how the fierce bidirectional missives of weaponized ideas can be as virulent and destructive as a traditional physical war. Perhaps in this era, the pen is mightier than the sword after all.

Continue to: From a psychiatric perspective...

From a psychiatric perspective, the intransigent groupthink of political partisanship eerily resembles folie en masse, a psychiatric syndrome for which there is no established treatment. It has become a serious threat to our modern democracy. So I decided to ask the “know-it-all” artificial intelligence ChatGPT, whom I previously had “invited” to write a “guest editorial” about myths surrounding psychiatry,⁶ to answer 3 burning questions:

1. Is there toxic hyperpartisanship in the USA today? (Box 1)

Box 1

2. How can severe hyperpartisanship be corrected? (Supplemental Box 1)

Supplemental Box 1

3. What can cause the collapse of a democracy? (Supplemental Box 2).

Supplemental Box 2

Judge for yourself, but I believe the ChatGPT responses were spot-on.

[embed:render:related:node:242362]

[embed:render:related:node:262070]

As psychiatrists know, many of our severely traumatized adult patients were victims of abuse during childhood. We routinely ask every new patient about physical, emotional, or sexual abuse when they were growing up because of the well-established, serious neurobiological and mental repercussions.^1,2

Perhaps one of the worst experiences for a child is to witness bitterly adversarial parents (their vital role models) who argue viciously, despise each other, and hurl insults (and even punches) at each other. Such a chronically and emotionally traumatic upbringing can haunt kids well into adulthood, disrupting their hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and triggering anxiety, depression, and even psychosis due to epigenetic changes that ultimately lead to abnormal brain development.³

It often feels that the governance of our country, or the national “political family,” is seriously fractured like a hopelessly dysfunctional family. Could that be negatively impacting the mental health of the citizenry? Having 2 antagonistic political parties expressing visceral hatred and undisguised contempt for each other 24/7 (thanks to the enabling era of cable TV, the internet, and social media) has transformed each party’s fanatic followers from fellow citizens to ideological combatants. In this poisonous societal zeitgeist of bidirectional acrimony and mutual detestation, the opposing parties and their “intellectual militias” label each other as “extremists” or “radicals.” They become completely blind to any redeeming social value in the ideas or principles of their political opponents. They spend enormous time and energy on undermining each other instead of attending to the myriad vital issues involved in the governance of a massive and complex country.

Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”⁴ The current toxic cloud of intense “hyperpartisanship” is emblematic of the dark Machiavellian side of democracy. But those who lament the current distorted version of democracy should contemplate living in a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, where a despot would execute any dissenter or invade and destroy an adjacent country at a whim.

Churchill made that statement in 1947. The internet, social media, and smartphones were science fiction back then. Those technological advances have added fuel to the political process and significantly stoked the flames of hyperpartisanship. It’s now democracy on steroids, where freedom of expression goes to extremes, highlighting the warts and pitfalls of the democratic system. Political rivals can now communicate their ferocious disagreements to millions of their disciples instantaneously, triggering immediate rebuttals and counterattacks by their adversaries. This “virtual guerilla warfare” is mentally and emotionally exhausting to all involved, especially to the subset of neutral bystanders who are unaffiliated with either political party, which, due to the “religification” of politics, have become like secular religions.⁵ Chronic, unremitting, inescapable stress is a sure pathway for anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even brain atrophy.

Optimists may point out that the United States has weathered and emerged stronger from many serious traumas, including the Civil War (with its lethal divisiveness), World War I, the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Watergate political scandal, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the banking collapse and recession, and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought society to a standstill and induced so much anxiety and uncertainty.

On the other hand, pessimists would insist those sequential crises left indelible scars that cumulatively altered the mindset of political rivals, predisposing them to extreme views of each other. Alienation inevitably leads to fanaticism. It’s perplexing but fascinating how the fierce bidirectional missives of weaponized ideas can be as virulent and destructive as a traditional physical war. Perhaps in this era, the pen is mightier than the sword after all.

Continue to: From a psychiatric perspective...

From a psychiatric perspective, the intransigent groupthink of political partisanship eerily resembles folie en masse, a psychiatric syndrome for which there is no established treatment. It has become a serious threat to our modern democracy. So I decided to ask the “know-it-all” artificial intelligence ChatGPT, whom I previously had “invited” to write a “guest editorial” about myths surrounding psychiatry,⁶ to answer 3 burning questions:

1. Is there toxic hyperpartisanship in the USA today? (Box 1)

Box 1

2. How can severe hyperpartisanship be corrected? (Supplemental Box 1)

Supplemental Box 1

3. What can cause the collapse of a democracy? (Supplemental Box 2).

Supplemental Box 2

Judge for yourself, but I believe the ChatGPT responses were spot-on.

[embed:render:related:node:242362]

[embed:render:related:node:262070]

As psychiatrists know, many of our severely traumatized adult patients were victims of abuse during childhood. We routinely ask every new patient about physical, emotional, or sexual abuse when they were growing up because of the well-established, serious neurobiological and mental repercussions.^1,2

Perhaps one of the worst experiences for a child is to witness bitterly adversarial parents (their vital role models) who argue viciously, despise each other, and hurl insults (and even punches) at each other. Such a chronically and emotionally traumatic upbringing can haunt kids well into adulthood, disrupting their hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and triggering anxiety, depression, and even psychosis due to epigenetic changes that ultimately lead to abnormal brain development.³

It often feels that the governance of our country, or the national “political family,” is seriously fractured like a hopelessly dysfunctional family. Could that be negatively impacting the mental health of the citizenry? Having 2 antagonistic political parties expressing visceral hatred and undisguised contempt for each other 24/7 (thanks to the enabling era of cable TV, the internet, and social media) has transformed each party’s fanatic followers from fellow citizens to ideological combatants. In this poisonous societal zeitgeist of bidirectional acrimony and mutual detestation, the opposing parties and their “intellectual militias” label each other as “extremists” or “radicals.” They become completely blind to any redeeming social value in the ideas or principles of their political opponents. They spend enormous time and energy on undermining each other instead of attending to the myriad vital issues involved in the governance of a massive and complex country.

Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”⁴ The current toxic cloud of intense “hyperpartisanship” is emblematic of the dark Machiavellian side of democracy. But those who lament the current distorted version of democracy should contemplate living in a dictatorship or totalitarian regime, where a despot would execute any dissenter or invade and destroy an adjacent country at a whim.

Churchill made that statement in 1947. The internet, social media, and smartphones were science fiction back then. Those technological advances have added fuel to the political process and significantly stoked the flames of hyperpartisanship. It’s now democracy on steroids, where freedom of expression goes to extremes, highlighting the warts and pitfalls of the democratic system. Political rivals can now communicate their ferocious disagreements to millions of their disciples instantaneously, triggering immediate rebuttals and counterattacks by their adversaries. This “virtual guerilla warfare” is mentally and emotionally exhausting to all involved, especially to the subset of neutral bystanders who are unaffiliated with either political party, which, due to the “religification” of politics, have become like secular religions.⁵ Chronic, unremitting, inescapable stress is a sure pathway for anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even brain atrophy.

Optimists may point out that the United States has weathered and emerged stronger from many serious traumas, including the Civil War (with its lethal divisiveness), World War I, the deadly 1918 influenza pandemic, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, World War II, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Watergate political scandal, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the banking collapse and recession, and most recently the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought society to a standstill and induced so much anxiety and uncertainty.

On the other hand, pessimists would insist those sequential crises left indelible scars that cumulatively altered the mindset of political rivals, predisposing them to extreme views of each other. Alienation inevitably leads to fanaticism. It’s perplexing but fascinating how the fierce bidirectional missives of weaponized ideas can be as virulent and destructive as a traditional physical war. Perhaps in this era, the pen is mightier than the sword after all.

Continue to: From a psychiatric perspective...

From a psychiatric perspective, the intransigent groupthink of political partisanship eerily resembles folie en masse, a psychiatric syndrome for which there is no established treatment. It has become a serious threat to our modern democracy. So I decided to ask the “know-it-all” artificial intelligence ChatGPT, whom I previously had “invited” to write a “guest editorial” about myths surrounding psychiatry,⁶ to answer 3 burning questions:

1. Is there toxic hyperpartisanship in the USA today? (Box 1)

Box 1

2. How can severe hyperpartisanship be corrected? (Supplemental Box 1)

Supplemental Box 1

3. What can cause the collapse of a democracy? (Supplemental Box 2).

Supplemental Box 2

Judge for yourself, but I believe the ChatGPT responses were spot-on.

[embed:render:related:node:242362]

[embed:render:related:node:262070]