Randy Dotinga

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – How often do patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) end up taking drugs that could dangerously interact with other medications they’re taking? A new German study provides a disturbing hint, a pharmacist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers told colleagues: Out of 627 patients who took an average of 5.3 drugs each, about 1 in 25 faced a potentially severe interaction, and nearly two-thirds had at least one potentially risky interaction.

It’s crucial to “work on identifying those interactions,” said Jenelle H. Montgomery, PharmD, of Duke University Hospital, Durham, N.C., and to understand the risks. As she noted, interactions don’t just put patients at risk of adverse effects and hospitalization. They can also lead to secondary comorbidities and therapeutic failures.
 

Newer versus older drugs

Drug interactions in MS have become more common as disease-modifying therapies have evolved, she said. Some older drugs – such as glatiramer acetate, beta-interferons, and fumarates – have low interaction profiles. But newer drugs have more drug interactions caused in part by their side-effect profiles, oral routes of administration, and immunosuppressive instead of immunomodulatory effects, she said. Teriflunomide, for example, interacts with rosuvastatin and warfarin.

S1P modulators are especially complex on the interaction front, Dr. Montgomery said. Cardiology consults are recommended for patients taking siponimod, ozanimod, and ponesimod, and there are a number of potential interactions between these drugs and other medications.

In regard to other MS drugs, other medications can disrupt the metabolism of cladribine, she said, and the manufacturer recommends separating any other oral drug doses by 3 hours. Even MS-related drugs can interact: carbamazepine, used to treat MS-related neuropathic pain, interacts with drugs such as siponimod.
 

Who is most at risk?

How can medical professionals prevent harmful drug interactions in MS? One strategy could be to focus on patients who may be more susceptible. Dr. Montgomery highlighted the kinds of patients who were most at risk of polypharmacy, per the 2022 German study: older people, those with lower education levels, and those with more disability. And she pointed out that 77% of all drug interactions were between prescription drugs. Another 19% were between prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications, and 4% were between OTC drugs.

She also emphasized the importance of asking about everything that a patient is taking, including herbal supplements, as nearly 60% of people aged 20 and over take them, and about 75% of those over 60. A quarter of people over age 60 take at least four supplements.

Information about interactions with supplements isn’t always available, she said, but she did mention concerns about St. John’s wort interactions with siponimod and cladribine.

Dr. Montgomery also offered several tips: Periodically ask patients to bring in medication bottles or pillboxes; encourage annual checkups with primary physicians; and use drug resources such as Facts and Comparisons, Lexicomp, Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, and Natural Medicines.

Disclosures for Dr. Montgomery were not available.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – How often do patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) end up taking drugs that could dangerously interact with other medications they’re taking? A new German study provides a disturbing hint, a pharmacist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers told colleagues: Out of 627 patients who took an average of 5.3 drugs each, about 1 in 25 faced a potentially severe interaction, and nearly two-thirds had at least one potentially risky interaction.

It’s crucial to “work on identifying those interactions,” said Jenelle H. Montgomery, PharmD, of Duke University Hospital, Durham, N.C., and to understand the risks. As she noted, interactions don’t just put patients at risk of adverse effects and hospitalization. They can also lead to secondary comorbidities and therapeutic failures.
 

Newer versus older drugs

Drug interactions in MS have become more common as disease-modifying therapies have evolved, she said. Some older drugs – such as glatiramer acetate, beta-interferons, and fumarates – have low interaction profiles. But newer drugs have more drug interactions caused in part by their side-effect profiles, oral routes of administration, and immunosuppressive instead of immunomodulatory effects, she said. Teriflunomide, for example, interacts with rosuvastatin and warfarin.

S1P modulators are especially complex on the interaction front, Dr. Montgomery said. Cardiology consults are recommended for patients taking siponimod, ozanimod, and ponesimod, and there are a number of potential interactions between these drugs and other medications.

In regard to other MS drugs, other medications can disrupt the metabolism of cladribine, she said, and the manufacturer recommends separating any other oral drug doses by 3 hours. Even MS-related drugs can interact: carbamazepine, used to treat MS-related neuropathic pain, interacts with drugs such as siponimod.
 

Who is most at risk?

How can medical professionals prevent harmful drug interactions in MS? One strategy could be to focus on patients who may be more susceptible. Dr. Montgomery highlighted the kinds of patients who were most at risk of polypharmacy, per the 2022 German study: older people, those with lower education levels, and those with more disability. And she pointed out that 77% of all drug interactions were between prescription drugs. Another 19% were between prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications, and 4% were between OTC drugs.

She also emphasized the importance of asking about everything that a patient is taking, including herbal supplements, as nearly 60% of people aged 20 and over take them, and about 75% of those over 60. A quarter of people over age 60 take at least four supplements.

Information about interactions with supplements isn’t always available, she said, but she did mention concerns about St. John’s wort interactions with siponimod and cladribine.

Dr. Montgomery also offered several tips: Periodically ask patients to bring in medication bottles or pillboxes; encourage annual checkups with primary physicians; and use drug resources such as Facts and Comparisons, Lexicomp, Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, and Natural Medicines.

Disclosures for Dr. Montgomery were not available.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – How often do patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) end up taking drugs that could dangerously interact with other medications they’re taking? A new German study provides a disturbing hint, a pharmacist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers told colleagues: Out of 627 patients who took an average of 5.3 drugs each, about 1 in 25 faced a potentially severe interaction, and nearly two-thirds had at least one potentially risky interaction.

It’s crucial to “work on identifying those interactions,” said Jenelle H. Montgomery, PharmD, of Duke University Hospital, Durham, N.C., and to understand the risks. As she noted, interactions don’t just put patients at risk of adverse effects and hospitalization. They can also lead to secondary comorbidities and therapeutic failures.
 

Newer versus older drugs

Drug interactions in MS have become more common as disease-modifying therapies have evolved, she said. Some older drugs – such as glatiramer acetate, beta-interferons, and fumarates – have low interaction profiles. But newer drugs have more drug interactions caused in part by their side-effect profiles, oral routes of administration, and immunosuppressive instead of immunomodulatory effects, she said. Teriflunomide, for example, interacts with rosuvastatin and warfarin.

S1P modulators are especially complex on the interaction front, Dr. Montgomery said. Cardiology consults are recommended for patients taking siponimod, ozanimod, and ponesimod, and there are a number of potential interactions between these drugs and other medications.

In regard to other MS drugs, other medications can disrupt the metabolism of cladribine, she said, and the manufacturer recommends separating any other oral drug doses by 3 hours. Even MS-related drugs can interact: carbamazepine, used to treat MS-related neuropathic pain, interacts with drugs such as siponimod.
 

Who is most at risk?

How can medical professionals prevent harmful drug interactions in MS? One strategy could be to focus on patients who may be more susceptible. Dr. Montgomery highlighted the kinds of patients who were most at risk of polypharmacy, per the 2022 German study: older people, those with lower education levels, and those with more disability. And she pointed out that 77% of all drug interactions were between prescription drugs. Another 19% were between prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications, and 4% were between OTC drugs.

She also emphasized the importance of asking about everything that a patient is taking, including herbal supplements, as nearly 60% of people aged 20 and over take them, and about 75% of those over 60. A quarter of people over age 60 take at least four supplements.

Information about interactions with supplements isn’t always available, she said, but she did mention concerns about St. John’s wort interactions with siponimod and cladribine.

Dr. Montgomery also offered several tips: Periodically ask patients to bring in medication bottles or pillboxes; encourage annual checkups with primary physicians; and use drug resources such as Facts and Comparisons, Lexicomp, Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, and Natural Medicines.

Disclosures for Dr. Montgomery were not available.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Treatment guidelines are helpful in treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), a neurologist told colleagues, but they’re only useful to an extent. Consider his 40-year-old female patient who’s averse to vaccines, often misses appointments, and seems to be unable to take blood pressure drugs as prescribed. In this case, the best strategy may not be the drug with the highest efficacy.

“There’s no pharmaceutical insert that’s going to tell you what to do with all of this information,” John R. Rinker II, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “It’s important to not only know about the disease and the specifics of the pharmaceuticals, but also about the patient’s personal circumstances, their comorbidities, their social situation, and how it all ties together.”

Fortunately, he said, there are about two dozen medication options now available for RRMS. Noting that his scale is at best “a crude approximation of reality,” he said their efficacy runs the gamut from low (glatiramer acetate and beta-interferons) to high (cladribine, alemtuzumab). He places sphingosine-1 phosphate (SIP1) modulators in the mid-range in terms of efficacy and B cell-depleting agents and natalizumab toward the high side.
 

Why go low?

Why put someone on a low-efficacy drug? One reason is because they’re the safest options, he said, while the two highest-efficacy drugs – cladribine and alemtuzumab – are the least safe. But even the older, safer drugs can cause problems: Beta interferons can cause flu-like symptoms early on along with depression and miscarriage, and glatiramer acetate can spur injection site reactions and acute post injection syndrome “that can feel like a panic attack or even a heart attack.”

Dimethyl fumarate “is probably the easiest of the oral agents to initiate because there’s no extra doctor’s appointments. And there’s no concerns really about hair loss, liver failure, or birth defects,” he said. “But it’s one of the oral agents that has the most side effects associated with it.” Flushing is almost universal but “rarely a cause of discontinuation,” while gastrointestinal symptoms can lead to discontinuation.

Alemtuzumab, a high-efficacy drug that’s administered in two annual cycles, he said, is especially convenient but monthly labs are required for years to check for problems due to its dampening of the immune system. Patients on ocrelizumab must be closely monitored for the same reason.

There are other factors to consider. Lower-efficacy drugs tend to be better options in younger patients – “they’re more resilient, and they tend to recover a little bit better after their early relapses,” Dr. Rinker said.

The drugs are especially helpful in patients who recover well after their initial episodes and who have sensory instead of motor symptoms, he said.
 

The case for high efficacy

Higher-efficacy drugs are best for older patients and those with heavy disease burden.

What about the 40-year-old patient? She’s female (women get less sick from MS) and has low disease burden, suggesting that a lower-efficacy drug may be appropriate, he said. “On the other hand, she has an incomplete recovery, and she’s got spinal cord disease and motor symptoms, so the tendency is going to be more towards the higher-efficacy end of the [drug] spectrum.”

But which drug? S1P modulators aren’t a good option since they require redosing or titration if doses are missed: “It’s important that you don’t prescribe them to patients where you have concerns about compliance.”

Also, he said, “we don’t think we’re to the point that we’re willing to put her at risk of severe medical complications by putting her on medicines with a high monitoring burden like cladribine or alemtuzumab.”

The best option may be teriflunomide, a once-daily pill, he said. It’s forgiving if a patient misses a dose since the medication stays in the body for a long time.

“There’s no single right answer,” Dr. Rinker said. “But there are ways to eliminate a lot of the choices based upon what we know about the medications and what we know about the patient. Then we can tailor a specific range of medications for a specific patient.”

Dr. Rinker disclosed research support from GW Pharmaceuticals.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Treatment guidelines are helpful in treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), a neurologist told colleagues, but they’re only useful to an extent. Consider his 40-year-old female patient who’s averse to vaccines, often misses appointments, and seems to be unable to take blood pressure drugs as prescribed. In this case, the best strategy may not be the drug with the highest efficacy.

“There’s no pharmaceutical insert that’s going to tell you what to do with all of this information,” John R. Rinker II, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “It’s important to not only know about the disease and the specifics of the pharmaceuticals, but also about the patient’s personal circumstances, their comorbidities, their social situation, and how it all ties together.”

Fortunately, he said, there are about two dozen medication options now available for RRMS. Noting that his scale is at best “a crude approximation of reality,” he said their efficacy runs the gamut from low (glatiramer acetate and beta-interferons) to high (cladribine, alemtuzumab). He places sphingosine-1 phosphate (SIP1) modulators in the mid-range in terms of efficacy and B cell-depleting agents and natalizumab toward the high side.
 

Why go low?

Why put someone on a low-efficacy drug? One reason is because they’re the safest options, he said, while the two highest-efficacy drugs – cladribine and alemtuzumab – are the least safe. But even the older, safer drugs can cause problems: Beta interferons can cause flu-like symptoms early on along with depression and miscarriage, and glatiramer acetate can spur injection site reactions and acute post injection syndrome “that can feel like a panic attack or even a heart attack.”

Dimethyl fumarate “is probably the easiest of the oral agents to initiate because there’s no extra doctor’s appointments. And there’s no concerns really about hair loss, liver failure, or birth defects,” he said. “But it’s one of the oral agents that has the most side effects associated with it.” Flushing is almost universal but “rarely a cause of discontinuation,” while gastrointestinal symptoms can lead to discontinuation.

Alemtuzumab, a high-efficacy drug that’s administered in two annual cycles, he said, is especially convenient but monthly labs are required for years to check for problems due to its dampening of the immune system. Patients on ocrelizumab must be closely monitored for the same reason.

There are other factors to consider. Lower-efficacy drugs tend to be better options in younger patients – “they’re more resilient, and they tend to recover a little bit better after their early relapses,” Dr. Rinker said.

The drugs are especially helpful in patients who recover well after their initial episodes and who have sensory instead of motor symptoms, he said.
 

The case for high efficacy

Higher-efficacy drugs are best for older patients and those with heavy disease burden.

What about the 40-year-old patient? She’s female (women get less sick from MS) and has low disease burden, suggesting that a lower-efficacy drug may be appropriate, he said. “On the other hand, she has an incomplete recovery, and she’s got spinal cord disease and motor symptoms, so the tendency is going to be more towards the higher-efficacy end of the [drug] spectrum.”

But which drug? S1P modulators aren’t a good option since they require redosing or titration if doses are missed: “It’s important that you don’t prescribe them to patients where you have concerns about compliance.”

Also, he said, “we don’t think we’re to the point that we’re willing to put her at risk of severe medical complications by putting her on medicines with a high monitoring burden like cladribine or alemtuzumab.”

The best option may be teriflunomide, a once-daily pill, he said. It’s forgiving if a patient misses a dose since the medication stays in the body for a long time.

“There’s no single right answer,” Dr. Rinker said. “But there are ways to eliminate a lot of the choices based upon what we know about the medications and what we know about the patient. Then we can tailor a specific range of medications for a specific patient.”

Dr. Rinker disclosed research support from GW Pharmaceuticals.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Treatment guidelines are helpful in treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), a neurologist told colleagues, but they’re only useful to an extent. Consider his 40-year-old female patient who’s averse to vaccines, often misses appointments, and seems to be unable to take blood pressure drugs as prescribed. In this case, the best strategy may not be the drug with the highest efficacy.

“There’s no pharmaceutical insert that’s going to tell you what to do with all of this information,” John R. Rinker II, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “It’s important to not only know about the disease and the specifics of the pharmaceuticals, but also about the patient’s personal circumstances, their comorbidities, their social situation, and how it all ties together.”

Fortunately, he said, there are about two dozen medication options now available for RRMS. Noting that his scale is at best “a crude approximation of reality,” he said their efficacy runs the gamut from low (glatiramer acetate and beta-interferons) to high (cladribine, alemtuzumab). He places sphingosine-1 phosphate (SIP1) modulators in the mid-range in terms of efficacy and B cell-depleting agents and natalizumab toward the high side.
 

Why go low?

Why put someone on a low-efficacy drug? One reason is because they’re the safest options, he said, while the two highest-efficacy drugs – cladribine and alemtuzumab – are the least safe. But even the older, safer drugs can cause problems: Beta interferons can cause flu-like symptoms early on along with depression and miscarriage, and glatiramer acetate can spur injection site reactions and acute post injection syndrome “that can feel like a panic attack or even a heart attack.”

Dimethyl fumarate “is probably the easiest of the oral agents to initiate because there’s no extra doctor’s appointments. And there’s no concerns really about hair loss, liver failure, or birth defects,” he said. “But it’s one of the oral agents that has the most side effects associated with it.” Flushing is almost universal but “rarely a cause of discontinuation,” while gastrointestinal symptoms can lead to discontinuation.

Alemtuzumab, a high-efficacy drug that’s administered in two annual cycles, he said, is especially convenient but monthly labs are required for years to check for problems due to its dampening of the immune system. Patients on ocrelizumab must be closely monitored for the same reason.

There are other factors to consider. Lower-efficacy drugs tend to be better options in younger patients – “they’re more resilient, and they tend to recover a little bit better after their early relapses,” Dr. Rinker said.

The drugs are especially helpful in patients who recover well after their initial episodes and who have sensory instead of motor symptoms, he said.
 

The case for high efficacy

Higher-efficacy drugs are best for older patients and those with heavy disease burden.

What about the 40-year-old patient? She’s female (women get less sick from MS) and has low disease burden, suggesting that a lower-efficacy drug may be appropriate, he said. “On the other hand, she has an incomplete recovery, and she’s got spinal cord disease and motor symptoms, so the tendency is going to be more towards the higher-efficacy end of the [drug] spectrum.”

But which drug? S1P modulators aren’t a good option since they require redosing or titration if doses are missed: “It’s important that you don’t prescribe them to patients where you have concerns about compliance.”

Also, he said, “we don’t think we’re to the point that we’re willing to put her at risk of severe medical complications by putting her on medicines with a high monitoring burden like cladribine or alemtuzumab.”

The best option may be teriflunomide, a once-daily pill, he said. It’s forgiving if a patient misses a dose since the medication stays in the body for a long time.

“There’s no single right answer,” Dr. Rinker said. “But there are ways to eliminate a lot of the choices based upon what we know about the medications and what we know about the patient. Then we can tailor a specific range of medications for a specific patient.”

Dr. Rinker disclosed research support from GW Pharmaceuticals.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Just 2 days before she spoke in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, University of Colorado neurologist Anna Shah, MD, asked a 26-year-old patient with MS about whether she planned to have children. Absolutely not, the young woman replied. “I read online that I can give birth to a baby with MS, which is crazy.”

The patient didn’t understand the risk of having a child with MS – it’s thought to be 2%-5% if one parent has the condition – but she wouldn’t have learned the facts if Dr. Shah hadn’t asked the right questions. “It’s really important for us as a community to know how to be proactive with discussions [about pregnancy],” she said.

As she noted, an estimated 75% of patients with MS are women, most are diagnosed during prime child-bearing years, and many pregnancies in general – an estimated half – are not planned. And while a higher percentage of women with MS are having children than in the past, she said, misinformation remains common. In fact, physicians can be part of the problem.

Dr. Shaw highlighted a 2019 Italian survey that found that 16% of 395 people with MS reported that they were discouraged from having children, mainly by medical professionals, after their diagnosis. Seven percent said they never wanted to become parents because of their MS. A 2021 survey of 332 patients with MS in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, found that 56% reported that MS played a role in their decisions about family planning, and 14% of those decided not to have children.

In regard to women of child-bearing age, Dr. Shah recommends that family planning and contraception should be discussed at the initial visit and every subsequent visit. Open-ended, individualized questions are key. “We don’t know what patients don’t share with us,” she said.

Make sure to consider the timing of any plans to have children, she said. If the patient wants to have children within a year, talk about matters such as whether disease activity is well-controlled (6-12 months of good control is ideal) and whether current disease-modifying therapies are safe. Make sure to get a baseline prepartum MRI scan, she said.

If the patients don’t want to have children, make sure they are using a reliable strategy to avoid conception. Be aware that modafinil – “not one that immediately comes to mind” – may decrease the efficacy of oral contraceptives, she said, as can anticonvulsants (phenytoin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and primidone). Oral contraceptives, meanwhile, may decrease levels of lamotrigine.

What if a patient has trouble conceiving? There are some hints in research that MS may boost the risk of infertility in women, Dr. Shah said. That’s why she recommends that colleagues consider referring a patient to an infertility specialist after attempting conception for 6 months as opposed to the general recommendation for 12 months.

Dr. Shah disclosed advisory board service (Genentech) and development of nonbranded educational programming through Novartis and the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Just 2 days before she spoke in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, University of Colorado neurologist Anna Shah, MD, asked a 26-year-old patient with MS about whether she planned to have children. Absolutely not, the young woman replied. “I read online that I can give birth to a baby with MS, which is crazy.”

The patient didn’t understand the risk of having a child with MS – it’s thought to be 2%-5% if one parent has the condition – but she wouldn’t have learned the facts if Dr. Shah hadn’t asked the right questions. “It’s really important for us as a community to know how to be proactive with discussions [about pregnancy],” she said.

As she noted, an estimated 75% of patients with MS are women, most are diagnosed during prime child-bearing years, and many pregnancies in general – an estimated half – are not planned. And while a higher percentage of women with MS are having children than in the past, she said, misinformation remains common. In fact, physicians can be part of the problem.

Dr. Shaw highlighted a 2019 Italian survey that found that 16% of 395 people with MS reported that they were discouraged from having children, mainly by medical professionals, after their diagnosis. Seven percent said they never wanted to become parents because of their MS. A 2021 survey of 332 patients with MS in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, found that 56% reported that MS played a role in their decisions about family planning, and 14% of those decided not to have children.

In regard to women of child-bearing age, Dr. Shah recommends that family planning and contraception should be discussed at the initial visit and every subsequent visit. Open-ended, individualized questions are key. “We don’t know what patients don’t share with us,” she said.

Make sure to consider the timing of any plans to have children, she said. If the patient wants to have children within a year, talk about matters such as whether disease activity is well-controlled (6-12 months of good control is ideal) and whether current disease-modifying therapies are safe. Make sure to get a baseline prepartum MRI scan, she said.

If the patients don’t want to have children, make sure they are using a reliable strategy to avoid conception. Be aware that modafinil – “not one that immediately comes to mind” – may decrease the efficacy of oral contraceptives, she said, as can anticonvulsants (phenytoin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and primidone). Oral contraceptives, meanwhile, may decrease levels of lamotrigine.

What if a patient has trouble conceiving? There are some hints in research that MS may boost the risk of infertility in women, Dr. Shah said. That’s why she recommends that colleagues consider referring a patient to an infertility specialist after attempting conception for 6 months as opposed to the general recommendation for 12 months.

Dr. Shah disclosed advisory board service (Genentech) and development of nonbranded educational programming through Novartis and the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – Just 2 days before she spoke in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, University of Colorado neurologist Anna Shah, MD, asked a 26-year-old patient with MS about whether she planned to have children. Absolutely not, the young woman replied. “I read online that I can give birth to a baby with MS, which is crazy.”

The patient didn’t understand the risk of having a child with MS – it’s thought to be 2%-5% if one parent has the condition – but she wouldn’t have learned the facts if Dr. Shah hadn’t asked the right questions. “It’s really important for us as a community to know how to be proactive with discussions [about pregnancy],” she said.

As she noted, an estimated 75% of patients with MS are women, most are diagnosed during prime child-bearing years, and many pregnancies in general – an estimated half – are not planned. And while a higher percentage of women with MS are having children than in the past, she said, misinformation remains common. In fact, physicians can be part of the problem.

Dr. Shaw highlighted a 2019 Italian survey that found that 16% of 395 people with MS reported that they were discouraged from having children, mainly by medical professionals, after their diagnosis. Seven percent said they never wanted to become parents because of their MS. A 2021 survey of 332 patients with MS in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, found that 56% reported that MS played a role in their decisions about family planning, and 14% of those decided not to have children.

In regard to women of child-bearing age, Dr. Shah recommends that family planning and contraception should be discussed at the initial visit and every subsequent visit. Open-ended, individualized questions are key. “We don’t know what patients don’t share with us,” she said.

Make sure to consider the timing of any plans to have children, she said. If the patient wants to have children within a year, talk about matters such as whether disease activity is well-controlled (6-12 months of good control is ideal) and whether current disease-modifying therapies are safe. Make sure to get a baseline prepartum MRI scan, she said.

If the patients don’t want to have children, make sure they are using a reliable strategy to avoid conception. Be aware that modafinil – “not one that immediately comes to mind” – may decrease the efficacy of oral contraceptives, she said, as can anticonvulsants (phenytoin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, topiramate, and primidone). Oral contraceptives, meanwhile, may decrease levels of lamotrigine.

What if a patient has trouble conceiving? There are some hints in research that MS may boost the risk of infertility in women, Dr. Shah said. That’s why she recommends that colleagues consider referring a patient to an infertility specialist after attempting conception for 6 months as opposed to the general recommendation for 12 months.

Dr. Shah disclosed advisory board service (Genentech) and development of nonbranded educational programming through Novartis and the National Committee for Quality Assurance.

NEW ORLEANS – In an unexpected finding, researchers discovered that Asian American adolescents had the highest rate of suicidal ideation, per a 2019 national survey of high-school students. According to a weighted analysis, 24% of Asian Americans reported thinking about or planning suicide vs. 22% of Whites and Blacks and 20% of Hispanics (P < .01).

“We were shocked,” said study lead author Esha Hansoti, MD, who conducted the research at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and is now a psychiatry resident at Zucker Hillside Hospital Northwell/Hofstra in Glen Oaks, NY. The findings were released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Hansoti and colleagues launched the analysis in light of sparse research into Asian American mental health, she said. Even within this population, she said, mental illness “tends to be overlooked” and discussion of the topic may be considered taboo.

For the new study, researchers analyzed the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, conducted biennially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had more than 13,000 participants in grades 9-12.

A weighted bivariate analysis of 618 Asian American adolescents – adjusted for age, sex, and depressive symptoms – found no statistically significant impact on suicidal ideation by gender, age, substance use, sexual/physical dating violence, or fluency in English.

However, several groups had a statistically significant higher risk, including victims of forced sexual intercourse and those who were threatened or bullied at school.

Those who didn’t get mostly A grades were also at high risk: Adolescents with mostly Ds and Fs were more likely to have acknowledged suicidal ideation than those with mostly As (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.2).

Gays and lesbians (AOR = 7.9 vs. heterosexuals), and bisexuals (AOR = 5.2 vs. heterosexuals) also showed sharply higher rates of suicidal ideation.

It’s not clear why Asian American adolescents may be at higher risk of suicidal ideation. The survey was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which spawned bigotry against people of Asian descent and an ongoing outbreak of high-profile violence against Asian Americans across the country.

Dr. Hansoti noted that Asian Americans face the pressures to live up to the standards of being a “model minority.” In addition, “very few Asian American adolescents are taken to a therapist, and few mental health providers are Asian Americans.”

She urged fellow psychiatrists “to remember that our perceptions of Asian Americans might hinder some of the diagnoses we could be making. Be thoughtful about how their ethnicity and race affects their presentation and their own perception of their illness.”

She added that Asian Americans may experience mental illness and anxiety “more somatically and physically than emotionally.”

In an interview, Anne Saw, PhD, associate professor of clinical-community psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, said the findings are “helpful for corroborating other studies identifying risk factors of suicidal ideation among Asian American adolescents. Since this research utilizes the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, these findings can be compared with risk factors of suicidal ideation among adolescents from other racial/ethnic backgrounds to pinpoint general as well as specific risk factors, thus informing how we can tailor interventions for specific groups.”

According to Dr. Saw, while it’s clear that suicide is a leading cause of death among Asian American adolescents, it’s still unknown which specific subgroups other than girls and LGBTIA+ individuals are especially vulnerable and which culturally tailored interventions are most effective for decreasing suicide risk.

“Psychiatrists should understand that risk and protective factors for suicidal behavior in Asian American adolescents are multifaceted and require careful attention and intervention across different environments,” she said.

No funding and no disclosures were reported.

NEW ORLEANS – In an unexpected finding, researchers discovered that Asian American adolescents had the highest rate of suicidal ideation, per a 2019 national survey of high-school students. According to a weighted analysis, 24% of Asian Americans reported thinking about or planning suicide vs. 22% of Whites and Blacks and 20% of Hispanics (P < .01).

“We were shocked,” said study lead author Esha Hansoti, MD, who conducted the research at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and is now a psychiatry resident at Zucker Hillside Hospital Northwell/Hofstra in Glen Oaks, NY. The findings were released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Hansoti and colleagues launched the analysis in light of sparse research into Asian American mental health, she said. Even within this population, she said, mental illness “tends to be overlooked” and discussion of the topic may be considered taboo.

For the new study, researchers analyzed the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, conducted biennially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had more than 13,000 participants in grades 9-12.

A weighted bivariate analysis of 618 Asian American adolescents – adjusted for age, sex, and depressive symptoms – found no statistically significant impact on suicidal ideation by gender, age, substance use, sexual/physical dating violence, or fluency in English.

However, several groups had a statistically significant higher risk, including victims of forced sexual intercourse and those who were threatened or bullied at school.

Those who didn’t get mostly A grades were also at high risk: Adolescents with mostly Ds and Fs were more likely to have acknowledged suicidal ideation than those with mostly As (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.2).

Gays and lesbians (AOR = 7.9 vs. heterosexuals), and bisexuals (AOR = 5.2 vs. heterosexuals) also showed sharply higher rates of suicidal ideation.

It’s not clear why Asian American adolescents may be at higher risk of suicidal ideation. The survey was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which spawned bigotry against people of Asian descent and an ongoing outbreak of high-profile violence against Asian Americans across the country.

Dr. Hansoti noted that Asian Americans face the pressures to live up to the standards of being a “model minority.” In addition, “very few Asian American adolescents are taken to a therapist, and few mental health providers are Asian Americans.”

She urged fellow psychiatrists “to remember that our perceptions of Asian Americans might hinder some of the diagnoses we could be making. Be thoughtful about how their ethnicity and race affects their presentation and their own perception of their illness.”

She added that Asian Americans may experience mental illness and anxiety “more somatically and physically than emotionally.”

In an interview, Anne Saw, PhD, associate professor of clinical-community psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, said the findings are “helpful for corroborating other studies identifying risk factors of suicidal ideation among Asian American adolescents. Since this research utilizes the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, these findings can be compared with risk factors of suicidal ideation among adolescents from other racial/ethnic backgrounds to pinpoint general as well as specific risk factors, thus informing how we can tailor interventions for specific groups.”

According to Dr. Saw, while it’s clear that suicide is a leading cause of death among Asian American adolescents, it’s still unknown which specific subgroups other than girls and LGBTIA+ individuals are especially vulnerable and which culturally tailored interventions are most effective for decreasing suicide risk.

“Psychiatrists should understand that risk and protective factors for suicidal behavior in Asian American adolescents are multifaceted and require careful attention and intervention across different environments,” she said.

No funding and no disclosures were reported.

NEW ORLEANS – In an unexpected finding, researchers discovered that Asian American adolescents had the highest rate of suicidal ideation, per a 2019 national survey of high-school students. According to a weighted analysis, 24% of Asian Americans reported thinking about or planning suicide vs. 22% of Whites and Blacks and 20% of Hispanics (P < .01).

“We were shocked,” said study lead author Esha Hansoti, MD, who conducted the research at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and is now a psychiatry resident at Zucker Hillside Hospital Northwell/Hofstra in Glen Oaks, NY. The findings were released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

Dr. Hansoti and colleagues launched the analysis in light of sparse research into Asian American mental health, she said. Even within this population, she said, mental illness “tends to be overlooked” and discussion of the topic may be considered taboo.

For the new study, researchers analyzed the 2019 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, conducted biennially by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had more than 13,000 participants in grades 9-12.

A weighted bivariate analysis of 618 Asian American adolescents – adjusted for age, sex, and depressive symptoms – found no statistically significant impact on suicidal ideation by gender, age, substance use, sexual/physical dating violence, or fluency in English.

However, several groups had a statistically significant higher risk, including victims of forced sexual intercourse and those who were threatened or bullied at school.

Those who didn’t get mostly A grades were also at high risk: Adolescents with mostly Ds and Fs were more likely to have acknowledged suicidal ideation than those with mostly As (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.2).

Gays and lesbians (AOR = 7.9 vs. heterosexuals), and bisexuals (AOR = 5.2 vs. heterosexuals) also showed sharply higher rates of suicidal ideation.

It’s not clear why Asian American adolescents may be at higher risk of suicidal ideation. The survey was completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which spawned bigotry against people of Asian descent and an ongoing outbreak of high-profile violence against Asian Americans across the country.

Dr. Hansoti noted that Asian Americans face the pressures to live up to the standards of being a “model minority.” In addition, “very few Asian American adolescents are taken to a therapist, and few mental health providers are Asian Americans.”

She urged fellow psychiatrists “to remember that our perceptions of Asian Americans might hinder some of the diagnoses we could be making. Be thoughtful about how their ethnicity and race affects their presentation and their own perception of their illness.”

She added that Asian Americans may experience mental illness and anxiety “more somatically and physically than emotionally.”

In an interview, Anne Saw, PhD, associate professor of clinical-community psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, said the findings are “helpful for corroborating other studies identifying risk factors of suicidal ideation among Asian American adolescents. Since this research utilizes the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, these findings can be compared with risk factors of suicidal ideation among adolescents from other racial/ethnic backgrounds to pinpoint general as well as specific risk factors, thus informing how we can tailor interventions for specific groups.”

According to Dr. Saw, while it’s clear that suicide is a leading cause of death among Asian American adolescents, it’s still unknown which specific subgroups other than girls and LGBTIA+ individuals are especially vulnerable and which culturally tailored interventions are most effective for decreasing suicide risk.

“Psychiatrists should understand that risk and protective factors for suicidal behavior in Asian American adolescents are multifaceted and require careful attention and intervention across different environments,” she said.

No funding and no disclosures were reported.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Positive data support autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, and it’s a “reasonable option for people that have largely failed other disease-modifying options.” But, he said, it remains unclear which patients should undergo the procedure.

An especially pressing question is “whether transplant is an alternative to our high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies” (DMTs) in some high-risk patients, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center, said in a presidential lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

A handful of ongoing randomized controlled trials will bring answers, he said.

Stem cell therapy exists because there are gaps in MS treatment, Dr. Cohen said. “We have now more than 20 medications. However, none of these therapies is completely effective in all patients. In particular, there are some patients with very active disease who continue to have relapses or new MRI lesion activity despite treatment with all of the available therapies.”

And in progressive MS, the efficacy of a couple of agents is modest and mainly for people with ongoing focal lesion activity, he said. “Finally, all of these currently available therapies are intended primarily to prevent the accumulation of damage, and none of them directly promotes repair. So despite our progress in the field, there still are a number of unmet needs.”
 

‘Rebooting’ the immune system

Several types of stem cell therapy exist, including remyelination and anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Cohen said. In his lecture, he focused on immunoablative or myeloablative therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

This “complicated, multistep procedure” involves first eliminating the immune system to get rid of pathogenic inflammatory cells. This “big component is actually the therapy for MS. It’s also the step that has the most potential complications,” he said.

According to Dr. Cohen, the next step has been described as “rebooting” the immune system.

Does this procedure help patients with MS? In relapsing MS, reports suggest there’s “almost complete abrogation of disease activity following transplant,” he said, “a benefit that’s lasted 5-10-15 years. In addition, there’s also a benefit on the accumulation of CNS damage as measured by whole brain atrophy.”

Recent data, he said, suggests that MS patients most likely to benefit are young, developed MS relatively recently, are still ambulatory, and have highly active MS despite treatment with first- and second-line agents.

However, there have only been two randomized controlled trials of stem cell transplantation versus DMT, and Dr. Cohen said both studies have limitations. The first one, from 2015, is very small, with just 21 subjects. The second study – from 2019 – is larger (n = 103), but some patients weren’t taking higher-efficacy DMTs.

Other research is more promising: Dr. Cohen highlighted a 2017 analysis that found patients with relapsing/remitting MS who underwent stem-cell transplantation were more likely to be symptom-free at 2 years (78%-83%) than those who took DMTs in clinical trials (13%-46%).
 

Clinical concerns

As for side effects of stem cell transplantation, Dr. Cohen said, “most patients have some adverse effects during the procedure itself. There may be an MS relapse or pseudorelapses in association with the mobilization and the conditioning regimens.”

A wide range of other adverse effects is possible before the immune system is reconstituted, he said, including reactivation of various virus infections, such as HPV, CMV or EPV (Epstein-Barr virus), secondary autoimmune phenomenon, and secondary malignancy. EPV infection is also common after transplant, and is “probably the most troublesome posttransplant complication from a management point of view,” he said.

“Thankfully, once the patient ... recovers from the transplant procedure, late adverse effects are relatively uncommon, the most common of which would be infertility,” he said. “There have been some reports of successful pregnancies following transplant, but it’s important to advise people who are considering transplant that most men and women have infertility after the procedure. So if they desire to have children afterward, they need to be counseled on necessary preparations to do that.”

What about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which seems a possible risk because of the suppression of the immune system? Dr. Cohen is aware of one case linked to a stem-cell transplant, and it may not have been caused by the procedure.

Cost is another potential obstacle, he noted. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants cost $150,000 on average in the U.S., although the expense varies widely.
 

Unanswered questions

Moving forward, Dr. Cohen said it remains unclear how these procedures fare against the newest generations of DMTs in MS. Five phase 3 randomized controlled trials are now trying to clarify the matter, he said, by pitting stem-cell transplantation against various MS drugs – alemtuzumab, cladribine, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and rituximab.

There are also unanswered questions about the best conditioning regimens in the transplants, he said, and lack of clarity about where to draw the line between eligible and ineligible patients with MS. “How many DMTs does the person have to fail? What’s the upper level of disability beyond which it is unlikely to be helpful and more likely to cause harm?”

He added: “A particular profile that we’re seeing increasingly at our center is someone with very active disease and onset who gets started on a high-efficacy therapy as their first therapy and effectively stops relapses and MRI lesion activity. But within a couple of years, we can tell that they’re already starting to accumulate disability. Is this someone for whom transplant might be useful, and by extension, is transplant appropriate as the first therapy in some patients? And beyond MS, is transplant a consideration for other autoimmune CNS disorders? There are lots of unanswered questions, which future studies will hopefully begin to address.”

Dr. Cohen reports consulting for Biogen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Convelo, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK), Janssen, Mylan, and PSI. He serves as an editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Positive data support autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, and it’s a “reasonable option for people that have largely failed other disease-modifying options.” But, he said, it remains unclear which patients should undergo the procedure.

An especially pressing question is “whether transplant is an alternative to our high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies” (DMTs) in some high-risk patients, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center, said in a presidential lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

A handful of ongoing randomized controlled trials will bring answers, he said.

Stem cell therapy exists because there are gaps in MS treatment, Dr. Cohen said. “We have now more than 20 medications. However, none of these therapies is completely effective in all patients. In particular, there are some patients with very active disease who continue to have relapses or new MRI lesion activity despite treatment with all of the available therapies.”

And in progressive MS, the efficacy of a couple of agents is modest and mainly for people with ongoing focal lesion activity, he said. “Finally, all of these currently available therapies are intended primarily to prevent the accumulation of damage, and none of them directly promotes repair. So despite our progress in the field, there still are a number of unmet needs.”
 

‘Rebooting’ the immune system

Several types of stem cell therapy exist, including remyelination and anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Cohen said. In his lecture, he focused on immunoablative or myeloablative therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

This “complicated, multistep procedure” involves first eliminating the immune system to get rid of pathogenic inflammatory cells. This “big component is actually the therapy for MS. It’s also the step that has the most potential complications,” he said.

According to Dr. Cohen, the next step has been described as “rebooting” the immune system.

Does this procedure help patients with MS? In relapsing MS, reports suggest there’s “almost complete abrogation of disease activity following transplant,” he said, “a benefit that’s lasted 5-10-15 years. In addition, there’s also a benefit on the accumulation of CNS damage as measured by whole brain atrophy.”

Recent data, he said, suggests that MS patients most likely to benefit are young, developed MS relatively recently, are still ambulatory, and have highly active MS despite treatment with first- and second-line agents.

However, there have only been two randomized controlled trials of stem cell transplantation versus DMT, and Dr. Cohen said both studies have limitations. The first one, from 2015, is very small, with just 21 subjects. The second study – from 2019 – is larger (n = 103), but some patients weren’t taking higher-efficacy DMTs.

Other research is more promising: Dr. Cohen highlighted a 2017 analysis that found patients with relapsing/remitting MS who underwent stem-cell transplantation were more likely to be symptom-free at 2 years (78%-83%) than those who took DMTs in clinical trials (13%-46%).
 

Clinical concerns

As for side effects of stem cell transplantation, Dr. Cohen said, “most patients have some adverse effects during the procedure itself. There may be an MS relapse or pseudorelapses in association with the mobilization and the conditioning regimens.”

A wide range of other adverse effects is possible before the immune system is reconstituted, he said, including reactivation of various virus infections, such as HPV, CMV or EPV (Epstein-Barr virus), secondary autoimmune phenomenon, and secondary malignancy. EPV infection is also common after transplant, and is “probably the most troublesome posttransplant complication from a management point of view,” he said.

“Thankfully, once the patient ... recovers from the transplant procedure, late adverse effects are relatively uncommon, the most common of which would be infertility,” he said. “There have been some reports of successful pregnancies following transplant, but it’s important to advise people who are considering transplant that most men and women have infertility after the procedure. So if they desire to have children afterward, they need to be counseled on necessary preparations to do that.”

What about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which seems a possible risk because of the suppression of the immune system? Dr. Cohen is aware of one case linked to a stem-cell transplant, and it may not have been caused by the procedure.

Cost is another potential obstacle, he noted. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants cost $150,000 on average in the U.S., although the expense varies widely.
 

Unanswered questions

Moving forward, Dr. Cohen said it remains unclear how these procedures fare against the newest generations of DMTs in MS. Five phase 3 randomized controlled trials are now trying to clarify the matter, he said, by pitting stem-cell transplantation against various MS drugs – alemtuzumab, cladribine, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and rituximab.

There are also unanswered questions about the best conditioning regimens in the transplants, he said, and lack of clarity about where to draw the line between eligible and ineligible patients with MS. “How many DMTs does the person have to fail? What’s the upper level of disability beyond which it is unlikely to be helpful and more likely to cause harm?”

He added: “A particular profile that we’re seeing increasingly at our center is someone with very active disease and onset who gets started on a high-efficacy therapy as their first therapy and effectively stops relapses and MRI lesion activity. But within a couple of years, we can tell that they’re already starting to accumulate disability. Is this someone for whom transplant might be useful, and by extension, is transplant appropriate as the first therapy in some patients? And beyond MS, is transplant a consideration for other autoimmune CNS disorders? There are lots of unanswered questions, which future studies will hopefully begin to address.”

Dr. Cohen reports consulting for Biogen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Convelo, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK), Janssen, Mylan, and PSI. He serves as an editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Positive data support autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, and it’s a “reasonable option for people that have largely failed other disease-modifying options.” But, he said, it remains unclear which patients should undergo the procedure.

An especially pressing question is “whether transplant is an alternative to our high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies” (DMTs) in some high-risk patients, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center, said in a presidential lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

A handful of ongoing randomized controlled trials will bring answers, he said.

Stem cell therapy exists because there are gaps in MS treatment, Dr. Cohen said. “We have now more than 20 medications. However, none of these therapies is completely effective in all patients. In particular, there are some patients with very active disease who continue to have relapses or new MRI lesion activity despite treatment with all of the available therapies.”

And in progressive MS, the efficacy of a couple of agents is modest and mainly for people with ongoing focal lesion activity, he said. “Finally, all of these currently available therapies are intended primarily to prevent the accumulation of damage, and none of them directly promotes repair. So despite our progress in the field, there still are a number of unmet needs.”
 

‘Rebooting’ the immune system

Several types of stem cell therapy exist, including remyelination and anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Cohen said. In his lecture, he focused on immunoablative or myeloablative therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

This “complicated, multistep procedure” involves first eliminating the immune system to get rid of pathogenic inflammatory cells. This “big component is actually the therapy for MS. It’s also the step that has the most potential complications,” he said.

According to Dr. Cohen, the next step has been described as “rebooting” the immune system.

Does this procedure help patients with MS? In relapsing MS, reports suggest there’s “almost complete abrogation of disease activity following transplant,” he said, “a benefit that’s lasted 5-10-15 years. In addition, there’s also a benefit on the accumulation of CNS damage as measured by whole brain atrophy.”

Recent data, he said, suggests that MS patients most likely to benefit are young, developed MS relatively recently, are still ambulatory, and have highly active MS despite treatment with first- and second-line agents.

However, there have only been two randomized controlled trials of stem cell transplantation versus DMT, and Dr. Cohen said both studies have limitations. The first one, from 2015, is very small, with just 21 subjects. The second study – from 2019 – is larger (n = 103), but some patients weren’t taking higher-efficacy DMTs.

Other research is more promising: Dr. Cohen highlighted a 2017 analysis that found patients with relapsing/remitting MS who underwent stem-cell transplantation were more likely to be symptom-free at 2 years (78%-83%) than those who took DMTs in clinical trials (13%-46%).
 

Clinical concerns

As for side effects of stem cell transplantation, Dr. Cohen said, “most patients have some adverse effects during the procedure itself. There may be an MS relapse or pseudorelapses in association with the mobilization and the conditioning regimens.”

A wide range of other adverse effects is possible before the immune system is reconstituted, he said, including reactivation of various virus infections, such as HPV, CMV or EPV (Epstein-Barr virus), secondary autoimmune phenomenon, and secondary malignancy. EPV infection is also common after transplant, and is “probably the most troublesome posttransplant complication from a management point of view,” he said.

“Thankfully, once the patient ... recovers from the transplant procedure, late adverse effects are relatively uncommon, the most common of which would be infertility,” he said. “There have been some reports of successful pregnancies following transplant, but it’s important to advise people who are considering transplant that most men and women have infertility after the procedure. So if they desire to have children afterward, they need to be counseled on necessary preparations to do that.”

What about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which seems a possible risk because of the suppression of the immune system? Dr. Cohen is aware of one case linked to a stem-cell transplant, and it may not have been caused by the procedure.

Cost is another potential obstacle, he noted. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants cost $150,000 on average in the U.S., although the expense varies widely.
 

Unanswered questions

Moving forward, Dr. Cohen said it remains unclear how these procedures fare against the newest generations of DMTs in MS. Five phase 3 randomized controlled trials are now trying to clarify the matter, he said, by pitting stem-cell transplantation against various MS drugs – alemtuzumab, cladribine, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and rituximab.

There are also unanswered questions about the best conditioning regimens in the transplants, he said, and lack of clarity about where to draw the line between eligible and ineligible patients with MS. “How many DMTs does the person have to fail? What’s the upper level of disability beyond which it is unlikely to be helpful and more likely to cause harm?”

He added: “A particular profile that we’re seeing increasingly at our center is someone with very active disease and onset who gets started on a high-efficacy therapy as their first therapy and effectively stops relapses and MRI lesion activity. But within a couple of years, we can tell that they’re already starting to accumulate disability. Is this someone for whom transplant might be useful, and by extension, is transplant appropriate as the first therapy in some patients? And beyond MS, is transplant a consideration for other autoimmune CNS disorders? There are lots of unanswered questions, which future studies will hopefully begin to address.”

Dr. Cohen reports consulting for Biogen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Convelo, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK), Janssen, Mylan, and PSI. He serves as an editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)

In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.

In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that patients with MS aren’t at higher risk of COVID infection, although hospitalization may be more common. There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.

Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.

He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).

Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.

“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”

As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.

COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”

Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.

Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)

In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.

In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that patients with MS aren’t at higher risk of COVID infection, although hospitalization may be more common. There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.

Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.

He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).

Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.

“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”

As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.

COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”

Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.

Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)

In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.

In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that patients with MS aren’t at higher risk of COVID infection, although hospitalization may be more common. There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.

Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.

He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).

Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.

“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”

As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.

COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”

Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.

Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with new-onset schizophrenia often ask psychiatrist Stephen R. Marder, MD, whether they’ll need to be on medications forever to treat the disorder. Now, he said, research is showing that the answer isn’t always yes.

In many cases, “it’s an open question” whether lifelong medical treatment is needed, said Dr. Marder, a professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California, Los Angeles, who spoke in a presentation about schizophrenia treatment at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

According to Dr. Marder, research about relapses suggests that there may be a subpopulation of patients who can come off antipsychotics and remain in remission or partial remission. “The problem,” he said, “is that group is very hard to identify.”

Indeed, he highlighted a 2017 study that suggested perhaps 20% of patients with schizophrenia may remain stable over the long term after stopping medication. The study noted choosing the best candidates isn’t simple, as “we do not have clinical measures or biomarkers that allow us to identify them prospectively. Because relapses and delays in the treatment of psychosis have been associated with poorer outcomes, there may be risk associated with withholding or discontinuing medication.”

There are more complications. There’s some evidence that antipsychotic drugs reduce brain volume, Dr. Marder said. But on the other hand, each psychotic episode can itself be harmful. “There is clear evidence that for each psychotic episode, they can take longer to improve, and they need higher doses.”

What to do? “My suggestion for most patients is to keep them on a relatively mild dose of an antipsychotic,” Dr. Marder said, “then to have a gradual decrease in the dose. I’ve done it in many patients.”

Which drug is best over the long term – oral or long-acting injectable antipsychotics? “It’s a hard question to answer because if you rely on randomized clinical trials – with patients who signed consent and are willing to be in a study like that – the subjects are sometimes not the ones who benefit the most from the long-acting drugs. So for many of the randomized clinical trials, the data was incomplete, and it was hard to make the case.”

But if you combine meta-analyses and cohort studies, as a 2021 study did, “you come up with a really clear answer: LAIs [long-acting injectables] are superior. They lead to a superior outcomes when it comes to rehospitalization and psychotic relapse,” Dr. Marder said.

That study reported that “LAIs were more beneficial than oral antipsychotics in 60 [18.3%] of 328 comparisons, not different in 252 [76.8%] comparisons, and less beneficial in 16 [4.9%] comparisons.”
 

More schizophrenia treatment pearls

People with schizophrenia – including those who aren’t on medication – face three times the risk of developing type 2 diabetes as the general population, “maybe because there’s a shared genetic risk for both disorders,” Dr. Marder said. “Those of you who have a lot of schizophrenia patients, I suspect you’re monitoring if they’re treating their type 2 diabetes and their obesity.”

Which antipsychotics are the best option for these patients? He highlighted a 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis that offers helpful insight into connections between 18 drugs and factors like weight and cholesterol.

Dr. Marder added that “if somebody has an elevation in their triglycerides or [hemoglobin] A1c in one single fasting blood glucose during the first 6 weeks of treatment, even if they haven’t been rated, it suggests that they’re developing insulin resistance.” At that point, he said, it’s a good idea to reconsider the medication choice.

Also, he said, keep in mind that “there’s substantial evidence that metformin is the appropriate treatment for patients who begin to demonstrate insulin resistance. It also works sometimes for weight loss.”

Exercise in people with schizophrenia can pay important dividends. A 2016 meta-analysis suggests that “not only does exercise for people with schizophrenia lead to better cardiovascular health, it’s good for the brain and improves cognitive functioning,” Dr. Marder said. “It’s not easy sometimes to get people with schizophrenia to exercise, but it’s many times worth the effort.”

Dr. Marder reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Newron, Merck, and Biogen; editor of UptoDate and Schizophrenia Bulletin Open; and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with new-onset schizophrenia often ask psychiatrist Stephen R. Marder, MD, whether they’ll need to be on medications forever to treat the disorder. Now, he said, research is showing that the answer isn’t always yes.

In many cases, “it’s an open question” whether lifelong medical treatment is needed, said Dr. Marder, a professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California, Los Angeles, who spoke in a presentation about schizophrenia treatment at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

According to Dr. Marder, research about relapses suggests that there may be a subpopulation of patients who can come off antipsychotics and remain in remission or partial remission. “The problem,” he said, “is that group is very hard to identify.”

Indeed, he highlighted a 2017 study that suggested perhaps 20% of patients with schizophrenia may remain stable over the long term after stopping medication. The study noted choosing the best candidates isn’t simple, as “we do not have clinical measures or biomarkers that allow us to identify them prospectively. Because relapses and delays in the treatment of psychosis have been associated with poorer outcomes, there may be risk associated with withholding or discontinuing medication.”

There are more complications. There’s some evidence that antipsychotic drugs reduce brain volume, Dr. Marder said. But on the other hand, each psychotic episode can itself be harmful. “There is clear evidence that for each psychotic episode, they can take longer to improve, and they need higher doses.”

What to do? “My suggestion for most patients is to keep them on a relatively mild dose of an antipsychotic,” Dr. Marder said, “then to have a gradual decrease in the dose. I’ve done it in many patients.”

Which drug is best over the long term – oral or long-acting injectable antipsychotics? “It’s a hard question to answer because if you rely on randomized clinical trials – with patients who signed consent and are willing to be in a study like that – the subjects are sometimes not the ones who benefit the most from the long-acting drugs. So for many of the randomized clinical trials, the data was incomplete, and it was hard to make the case.”

But if you combine meta-analyses and cohort studies, as a 2021 study did, “you come up with a really clear answer: LAIs [long-acting injectables] are superior. They lead to a superior outcomes when it comes to rehospitalization and psychotic relapse,” Dr. Marder said.

That study reported that “LAIs were more beneficial than oral antipsychotics in 60 [18.3%] of 328 comparisons, not different in 252 [76.8%] comparisons, and less beneficial in 16 [4.9%] comparisons.”
 

More schizophrenia treatment pearls

People with schizophrenia – including those who aren’t on medication – face three times the risk of developing type 2 diabetes as the general population, “maybe because there’s a shared genetic risk for both disorders,” Dr. Marder said. “Those of you who have a lot of schizophrenia patients, I suspect you’re monitoring if they’re treating their type 2 diabetes and their obesity.”

Which antipsychotics are the best option for these patients? He highlighted a 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis that offers helpful insight into connections between 18 drugs and factors like weight and cholesterol.

Dr. Marder added that “if somebody has an elevation in their triglycerides or [hemoglobin] A1c in one single fasting blood glucose during the first 6 weeks of treatment, even if they haven’t been rated, it suggests that they’re developing insulin resistance.” At that point, he said, it’s a good idea to reconsider the medication choice.

Also, he said, keep in mind that “there’s substantial evidence that metformin is the appropriate treatment for patients who begin to demonstrate insulin resistance. It also works sometimes for weight loss.”

Exercise in people with schizophrenia can pay important dividends. A 2016 meta-analysis suggests that “not only does exercise for people with schizophrenia lead to better cardiovascular health, it’s good for the brain and improves cognitive functioning,” Dr. Marder said. “It’s not easy sometimes to get people with schizophrenia to exercise, but it’s many times worth the effort.”

Dr. Marder reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Newron, Merck, and Biogen; editor of UptoDate and Schizophrenia Bulletin Open; and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with new-onset schizophrenia often ask psychiatrist Stephen R. Marder, MD, whether they’ll need to be on medications forever to treat the disorder. Now, he said, research is showing that the answer isn’t always yes.

In many cases, “it’s an open question” whether lifelong medical treatment is needed, said Dr. Marder, a professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California, Los Angeles, who spoke in a presentation about schizophrenia treatment at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

According to Dr. Marder, research about relapses suggests that there may be a subpopulation of patients who can come off antipsychotics and remain in remission or partial remission. “The problem,” he said, “is that group is very hard to identify.”

Indeed, he highlighted a 2017 study that suggested perhaps 20% of patients with schizophrenia may remain stable over the long term after stopping medication. The study noted choosing the best candidates isn’t simple, as “we do not have clinical measures or biomarkers that allow us to identify them prospectively. Because relapses and delays in the treatment of psychosis have been associated with poorer outcomes, there may be risk associated with withholding or discontinuing medication.”

There are more complications. There’s some evidence that antipsychotic drugs reduce brain volume, Dr. Marder said. But on the other hand, each psychotic episode can itself be harmful. “There is clear evidence that for each psychotic episode, they can take longer to improve, and they need higher doses.”

What to do? “My suggestion for most patients is to keep them on a relatively mild dose of an antipsychotic,” Dr. Marder said, “then to have a gradual decrease in the dose. I’ve done it in many patients.”

Which drug is best over the long term – oral or long-acting injectable antipsychotics? “It’s a hard question to answer because if you rely on randomized clinical trials – with patients who signed consent and are willing to be in a study like that – the subjects are sometimes not the ones who benefit the most from the long-acting drugs. So for many of the randomized clinical trials, the data was incomplete, and it was hard to make the case.”

But if you combine meta-analyses and cohort studies, as a 2021 study did, “you come up with a really clear answer: LAIs [long-acting injectables] are superior. They lead to a superior outcomes when it comes to rehospitalization and psychotic relapse,” Dr. Marder said.

That study reported that “LAIs were more beneficial than oral antipsychotics in 60 [18.3%] of 328 comparisons, not different in 252 [76.8%] comparisons, and less beneficial in 16 [4.9%] comparisons.”
 

More schizophrenia treatment pearls

People with schizophrenia – including those who aren’t on medication – face three times the risk of developing type 2 diabetes as the general population, “maybe because there’s a shared genetic risk for both disorders,” Dr. Marder said. “Those of you who have a lot of schizophrenia patients, I suspect you’re monitoring if they’re treating their type 2 diabetes and their obesity.”

Which antipsychotics are the best option for these patients? He highlighted a 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis that offers helpful insight into connections between 18 drugs and factors like weight and cholesterol.

Dr. Marder added that “if somebody has an elevation in their triglycerides or [hemoglobin] A1c in one single fasting blood glucose during the first 6 weeks of treatment, even if they haven’t been rated, it suggests that they’re developing insulin resistance.” At that point, he said, it’s a good idea to reconsider the medication choice.

Also, he said, keep in mind that “there’s substantial evidence that metformin is the appropriate treatment for patients who begin to demonstrate insulin resistance. It also works sometimes for weight loss.”

Exercise in people with schizophrenia can pay important dividends. A 2016 meta-analysis suggests that “not only does exercise for people with schizophrenia lead to better cardiovascular health, it’s good for the brain and improves cognitive functioning,” Dr. Marder said. “It’s not easy sometimes to get people with schizophrenia to exercise, but it’s many times worth the effort.”

Dr. Marder reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Newron, Merck, and Biogen; editor of UptoDate and Schizophrenia Bulletin Open; and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

NEW ORLEANS – Adult patients who completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly less likely over the following year to require inpatient or emergency psychiatric treatment, according to a new study released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In an analysis of 256 individuals, over the 12 months before they joined the IOP, 28.7% and 24.8% had inpatient and emergency department encounters, respectively, according to the researchers. Afterward, those numbers fell to 15.9% (P < .01) and 18.2% (P = .04), respectively.

“Engagement in IOP for patients with PTSD may help avoid the need for higher levels of care such as residential or inpatient treatment,” Nathan Lingafelter, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

Dr. Lingafelter described IOP programs as typically “offering patients a combination of individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management all at an increased frequency of about 3 half-days per week. IOPs are thought to be helpful in helping patients with severe symptoms while they are still in the community – i.e., living in their homes, with their families, occasionally still working at reduced time.”

While other studies have examined the effects of IOP, “the existing literature focuses on how IOP reduces symptoms, rather than looking at how IOP involvement might be associated with patients utilizing different acute care resources,” he said. “Prior studies have also been conducted mostly in veteran populations and in populations with less diversity than our population in Oakland.”

For the new study, researchers tracked 256 IOP participants (83% female; mean age = 39; 44% White, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 7% Asian). The wide majority – 85% – had comorbid depressive disorders.

“Patients are assigned a case manager when they enter the program who they can meet with individually, and they spend time attending group therapy sessions. Patients are also able to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss medications,” Dr. Lingafelter said. “A major component in both the group and individual therapy is helping patients identify which kind of interventions work for them and what we can do now that will help. IOP can really help clarify for patients what their trauma responses are and how to start treatments that actually fit their symptoms.”

The subjects had a mean 0.3 psychiatric encounters in the year before joining the program and 0.2 in the year after (P < .01). Their mean emergency department visits related to mental health fell from 0.5 to 0.3 (P = .03).

The study has limitations. Participants took part in IOP therapy from 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic disrupted mental health treatment. It does not examine whether medication use changed after IOP treatment. It is retrospective and doesn’t confirm that IOP had any positive effect.
 

Multiple benefits of IOP

In an interview, Deborah C. Beidel, PhD, director of UCF RESTORES at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said IOP has several advantages as a treatment for PTSD. Her clinic, which focuses on PTSD treatment for military veterans, has used the approach to treat hundreds of people.

“First, IOPs can address the stigma that surrounds mental health treatment. If you have a physical injury, you take time off from work to go to physical therapy, which is time-limited. If you have a stress injury, why not do the same? Take a few weeks, get it treated, and get back to work,” she said. “The second reason is that the most effective treatment for PTSD is exposure therapy, which is more effective when treatment sessions occur in a daily as opposed to a weekly or monthly time frame. Third, from a cost and feasibility perspective, an intensive program could reduce overall medical costs and get people back to work sooner.”

The new study is “definitely useful” since it examines the impact of IOP over a longer term, Dr. Beidel said. This kind of data “can influence policy, particularly with insurance companies. If we can build the evidence that short, intensive treatment produces better long-term outcomes, insurance companies will be more likely to pay for the IOP.”

The University of Central Florida program is funded by federal research grants and state funding, she said. “When we calculate the cost, it comes to about $10,000 in therapy time plus an average of about $3,000 in travel related costs – transportation, lodging, meals – for those who travel from out of state for our program.”

What’s next? “Further study is needed to characterize whether these findings are applicable to other practice settings, including virtual treatment programs; the long-term durability of these findings; and whether similar patterns of reduced resource use extend to non–mental health–specific care utilization,” said Dr. Lingafelter, the study’s lead author.

No study funding and no author disclosures were reported. Dr. Beidel disclosed IOP-related research support from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command–Military Operational Medicine Research Program.

NEW ORLEANS – Adult patients who completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly less likely over the following year to require inpatient or emergency psychiatric treatment, according to a new study released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In an analysis of 256 individuals, over the 12 months before they joined the IOP, 28.7% and 24.8% had inpatient and emergency department encounters, respectively, according to the researchers. Afterward, those numbers fell to 15.9% (P < .01) and 18.2% (P = .04), respectively.

“Engagement in IOP for patients with PTSD may help avoid the need for higher levels of care such as residential or inpatient treatment,” Nathan Lingafelter, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

Dr. Lingafelter described IOP programs as typically “offering patients a combination of individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management all at an increased frequency of about 3 half-days per week. IOPs are thought to be helpful in helping patients with severe symptoms while they are still in the community – i.e., living in their homes, with their families, occasionally still working at reduced time.”

While other studies have examined the effects of IOP, “the existing literature focuses on how IOP reduces symptoms, rather than looking at how IOP involvement might be associated with patients utilizing different acute care resources,” he said. “Prior studies have also been conducted mostly in veteran populations and in populations with less diversity than our population in Oakland.”

For the new study, researchers tracked 256 IOP participants (83% female; mean age = 39; 44% White, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 7% Asian). The wide majority – 85% – had comorbid depressive disorders.

“Patients are assigned a case manager when they enter the program who they can meet with individually, and they spend time attending group therapy sessions. Patients are also able to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss medications,” Dr. Lingafelter said. “A major component in both the group and individual therapy is helping patients identify which kind of interventions work for them and what we can do now that will help. IOP can really help clarify for patients what their trauma responses are and how to start treatments that actually fit their symptoms.”

The subjects had a mean 0.3 psychiatric encounters in the year before joining the program and 0.2 in the year after (P < .01). Their mean emergency department visits related to mental health fell from 0.5 to 0.3 (P = .03).

The study has limitations. Participants took part in IOP therapy from 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic disrupted mental health treatment. It does not examine whether medication use changed after IOP treatment. It is retrospective and doesn’t confirm that IOP had any positive effect.
 

Multiple benefits of IOP

In an interview, Deborah C. Beidel, PhD, director of UCF RESTORES at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said IOP has several advantages as a treatment for PTSD. Her clinic, which focuses on PTSD treatment for military veterans, has used the approach to treat hundreds of people.

“First, IOPs can address the stigma that surrounds mental health treatment. If you have a physical injury, you take time off from work to go to physical therapy, which is time-limited. If you have a stress injury, why not do the same? Take a few weeks, get it treated, and get back to work,” she said. “The second reason is that the most effective treatment for PTSD is exposure therapy, which is more effective when treatment sessions occur in a daily as opposed to a weekly or monthly time frame. Third, from a cost and feasibility perspective, an intensive program could reduce overall medical costs and get people back to work sooner.”

The new study is “definitely useful” since it examines the impact of IOP over a longer term, Dr. Beidel said. This kind of data “can influence policy, particularly with insurance companies. If we can build the evidence that short, intensive treatment produces better long-term outcomes, insurance companies will be more likely to pay for the IOP.”

The University of Central Florida program is funded by federal research grants and state funding, she said. “When we calculate the cost, it comes to about $10,000 in therapy time plus an average of about $3,000 in travel related costs – transportation, lodging, meals – for those who travel from out of state for our program.”

What’s next? “Further study is needed to characterize whether these findings are applicable to other practice settings, including virtual treatment programs; the long-term durability of these findings; and whether similar patterns of reduced resource use extend to non–mental health–specific care utilization,” said Dr. Lingafelter, the study’s lead author.

No study funding and no author disclosures were reported. Dr. Beidel disclosed IOP-related research support from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command–Military Operational Medicine Research Program.

NEW ORLEANS – Adult patients who completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for post-traumatic stress disorder were significantly less likely over the following year to require inpatient or emergency psychiatric treatment, according to a new study released at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In an analysis of 256 individuals, over the 12 months before they joined the IOP, 28.7% and 24.8% had inpatient and emergency department encounters, respectively, according to the researchers. Afterward, those numbers fell to 15.9% (P < .01) and 18.2% (P = .04), respectively.

“Engagement in IOP for patients with PTSD may help avoid the need for higher levels of care such as residential or inpatient treatment,” Nathan Lingafelter, MD, a psychiatrist and researcher at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said in an interview.

Dr. Lingafelter described IOP programs as typically “offering patients a combination of individual therapy, group therapy, and medication management all at an increased frequency of about 3 half-days per week. IOPs are thought to be helpful in helping patients with severe symptoms while they are still in the community – i.e., living in their homes, with their families, occasionally still working at reduced time.”

While other studies have examined the effects of IOP, “the existing literature focuses on how IOP reduces symptoms, rather than looking at how IOP involvement might be associated with patients utilizing different acute care resources,” he said. “Prior studies have also been conducted mostly in veteran populations and in populations with less diversity than our population in Oakland.”

For the new study, researchers tracked 256 IOP participants (83% female; mean age = 39; 44% White, 27% Black, 14% Hispanic, and 7% Asian). The wide majority – 85% – had comorbid depressive disorders.

“Patients are assigned a case manager when they enter the program who they can meet with individually, and they spend time attending group therapy sessions. Patients are also able to meet with a psychiatrist to discuss medications,” Dr. Lingafelter said. “A major component in both the group and individual therapy is helping patients identify which kind of interventions work for them and what we can do now that will help. IOP can really help clarify for patients what their trauma responses are and how to start treatments that actually fit their symptoms.”

The subjects had a mean 0.3 psychiatric encounters in the year before joining the program and 0.2 in the year after (P < .01). Their mean emergency department visits related to mental health fell from 0.5 to 0.3 (P = .03).

The study has limitations. Participants took part in IOP therapy from 2017 to 2018, before the pandemic disrupted mental health treatment. It does not examine whether medication use changed after IOP treatment. It is retrospective and doesn’t confirm that IOP had any positive effect.
 

Multiple benefits of IOP

In an interview, Deborah C. Beidel, PhD, director of UCF RESTORES at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, said IOP has several advantages as a treatment for PTSD. Her clinic, which focuses on PTSD treatment for military veterans, has used the approach to treat hundreds of people.

“First, IOPs can address the stigma that surrounds mental health treatment. If you have a physical injury, you take time off from work to go to physical therapy, which is time-limited. If you have a stress injury, why not do the same? Take a few weeks, get it treated, and get back to work,” she said. “The second reason is that the most effective treatment for PTSD is exposure therapy, which is more effective when treatment sessions occur in a daily as opposed to a weekly or monthly time frame. Third, from a cost and feasibility perspective, an intensive program could reduce overall medical costs and get people back to work sooner.”

The new study is “definitely useful” since it examines the impact of IOP over a longer term, Dr. Beidel said. This kind of data “can influence policy, particularly with insurance companies. If we can build the evidence that short, intensive treatment produces better long-term outcomes, insurance companies will be more likely to pay for the IOP.”

The University of Central Florida program is funded by federal research grants and state funding, she said. “When we calculate the cost, it comes to about $10,000 in therapy time plus an average of about $3,000 in travel related costs – transportation, lodging, meals – for those who travel from out of state for our program.”

What’s next? “Further study is needed to characterize whether these findings are applicable to other practice settings, including virtual treatment programs; the long-term durability of these findings; and whether similar patterns of reduced resource use extend to non–mental health–specific care utilization,” said Dr. Lingafelter, the study’s lead author.

No study funding and no author disclosures were reported. Dr. Beidel disclosed IOP-related research support from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command–Military Operational Medicine Research Program.

NEW ORLEANS – Recent studies have confirmed that posttraumatic stress disorder can be triggered by health-related stress such as stints in the ICU and life-threatening medical emergencies, but most psychiatrists may not be aware of the latest research, according to an expert in mental trauma.

“This is true among children as well as adults, but it is not generally appreciated by psychiatrists and not at all by non-physicians,” said Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas at Austin’s Dell Medical School, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “It’s something that we all need to educate our colleagues about.”

Courtesy University of Texas, Austin

PTSD is unique

Dr. Nemeroff noted that PTSD is the only diagnosis in the DSM-5 that’s directly linked to an environmental event. Specifically, he said, PTSD is caused by “very unexpected traumatic events that occur outside the normal repertoire of human behavior.”

In response, “most people that have an acute stress disorder response will fundamentally extinguish it and end up returning to the baseline level of functioning,” he said. But those with PTSD do not recover.

Dr. Nemeroff recommends the use of the 20-question self-report tool known as PCL-5. “It’s your friend,” he said. “It takes a few minutes for the patients to fill out while in the front office, and it doesn’t cost anything. Most patients who have PTSD will have a score of 50-55, maybe 60. You’re going to try to get them down to below 30, and you’re going to give this to them every time they come to your office to follow their progress. It works like a charm.”

As for treatment, psychotherapy and medications remain standard, he said, although “PTSD is a tough disorder to treat.”

According to him, brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) – 4-5 sessions – has shown the greatest benefit and highest level of evidence in support when initiated within 4-30 days of trauma. Group therapy may be helpful, while it’s not clear if spiritual support and “psychological first aid” are useful during this time period.

There’s no evidence that medications such as SSRIs and atypical antipsychotics will prevent PTSD from developing; typical antipsychotics are not recommended. Individual or group “debriefing” is highly not recommended, Dr. Nemeroff said, because the experience can re-traumatize patients, as researchers learned after 9/11 when encouraging people to relive their experiences triggered PTSD and heartbreak.

Also not recommended: Benzodiazepines and formal psychotherapy in people without symptoms.

Exposure-based CBT has been proven to be successful, Dr. Nemeroff said, but it must be provided by a trained professional. “Going for a weekend course isn’t sufficient,” he said, and research suggests that group CBT is not as helpfulas individual CBT.

As for medication over the longer term, research supports SNRIs and SSRIs such as sertaline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil). Dr. Nemeroff is a fan of venlafaxine (Effexor): “It has a wide dose range. I can go from 75 to 150 milligrams at the low end and 450 and even 600 milligrams at the high end. I’ve had some amazing successes.”

In addition, atypical antipsychotics can be helpful in non-responders or psychotic PTSD patients, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff said he’s skeptical of ketamine as a treatment for PTSD, but he’s most hopeful about MDMA-assisted therapy due to “impressive data” regarding PTSD that was released last year. A bid for FDA approval is in the works, he said.

He added that data is promising from trials examining transcranial magnetic stimulationand (in work by his own team) electroconvulsive therapy. Both therapies are worth considering, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff reported multiple disclosures including research/grant support, stock holdings, scientific advisory board service, consulting relationships, board of director service, and patents.

NEW ORLEANS – Recent studies have confirmed that posttraumatic stress disorder can be triggered by health-related stress such as stints in the ICU and life-threatening medical emergencies, but most psychiatrists may not be aware of the latest research, according to an expert in mental trauma.

“This is true among children as well as adults, but it is not generally appreciated by psychiatrists and not at all by non-physicians,” said Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas at Austin’s Dell Medical School, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “It’s something that we all need to educate our colleagues about.”

Courtesy University of Texas, Austin

PTSD is unique

Dr. Nemeroff noted that PTSD is the only diagnosis in the DSM-5 that’s directly linked to an environmental event. Specifically, he said, PTSD is caused by “very unexpected traumatic events that occur outside the normal repertoire of human behavior.”

In response, “most people that have an acute stress disorder response will fundamentally extinguish it and end up returning to the baseline level of functioning,” he said. But those with PTSD do not recover.

Dr. Nemeroff recommends the use of the 20-question self-report tool known as PCL-5. “It’s your friend,” he said. “It takes a few minutes for the patients to fill out while in the front office, and it doesn’t cost anything. Most patients who have PTSD will have a score of 50-55, maybe 60. You’re going to try to get them down to below 30, and you’re going to give this to them every time they come to your office to follow their progress. It works like a charm.”

As for treatment, psychotherapy and medications remain standard, he said, although “PTSD is a tough disorder to treat.”

According to him, brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) – 4-5 sessions – has shown the greatest benefit and highest level of evidence in support when initiated within 4-30 days of trauma. Group therapy may be helpful, while it’s not clear if spiritual support and “psychological first aid” are useful during this time period.

There’s no evidence that medications such as SSRIs and atypical antipsychotics will prevent PTSD from developing; typical antipsychotics are not recommended. Individual or group “debriefing” is highly not recommended, Dr. Nemeroff said, because the experience can re-traumatize patients, as researchers learned after 9/11 when encouraging people to relive their experiences triggered PTSD and heartbreak.

Also not recommended: Benzodiazepines and formal psychotherapy in people without symptoms.

Exposure-based CBT has been proven to be successful, Dr. Nemeroff said, but it must be provided by a trained professional. “Going for a weekend course isn’t sufficient,” he said, and research suggests that group CBT is not as helpfulas individual CBT.

As for medication over the longer term, research supports SNRIs and SSRIs such as sertaline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil). Dr. Nemeroff is a fan of venlafaxine (Effexor): “It has a wide dose range. I can go from 75 to 150 milligrams at the low end and 450 and even 600 milligrams at the high end. I’ve had some amazing successes.”

In addition, atypical antipsychotics can be helpful in non-responders or psychotic PTSD patients, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff said he’s skeptical of ketamine as a treatment for PTSD, but he’s most hopeful about MDMA-assisted therapy due to “impressive data” regarding PTSD that was released last year. A bid for FDA approval is in the works, he said.

He added that data is promising from trials examining transcranial magnetic stimulationand (in work by his own team) electroconvulsive therapy. Both therapies are worth considering, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff reported multiple disclosures including research/grant support, stock holdings, scientific advisory board service, consulting relationships, board of director service, and patents.

NEW ORLEANS – Recent studies have confirmed that posttraumatic stress disorder can be triggered by health-related stress such as stints in the ICU and life-threatening medical emergencies, but most psychiatrists may not be aware of the latest research, according to an expert in mental trauma.

“This is true among children as well as adults, but it is not generally appreciated by psychiatrists and not at all by non-physicians,” said Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas at Austin’s Dell Medical School, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “It’s something that we all need to educate our colleagues about.”

Courtesy University of Texas, Austin

PTSD is unique

Dr. Nemeroff noted that PTSD is the only diagnosis in the DSM-5 that’s directly linked to an environmental event. Specifically, he said, PTSD is caused by “very unexpected traumatic events that occur outside the normal repertoire of human behavior.”

In response, “most people that have an acute stress disorder response will fundamentally extinguish it and end up returning to the baseline level of functioning,” he said. But those with PTSD do not recover.

Dr. Nemeroff recommends the use of the 20-question self-report tool known as PCL-5. “It’s your friend,” he said. “It takes a few minutes for the patients to fill out while in the front office, and it doesn’t cost anything. Most patients who have PTSD will have a score of 50-55, maybe 60. You’re going to try to get them down to below 30, and you’re going to give this to them every time they come to your office to follow their progress. It works like a charm.”

As for treatment, psychotherapy and medications remain standard, he said, although “PTSD is a tough disorder to treat.”

According to him, brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) – 4-5 sessions – has shown the greatest benefit and highest level of evidence in support when initiated within 4-30 days of trauma. Group therapy may be helpful, while it’s not clear if spiritual support and “psychological first aid” are useful during this time period.

There’s no evidence that medications such as SSRIs and atypical antipsychotics will prevent PTSD from developing; typical antipsychotics are not recommended. Individual or group “debriefing” is highly not recommended, Dr. Nemeroff said, because the experience can re-traumatize patients, as researchers learned after 9/11 when encouraging people to relive their experiences triggered PTSD and heartbreak.

Also not recommended: Benzodiazepines and formal psychotherapy in people without symptoms.

Exposure-based CBT has been proven to be successful, Dr. Nemeroff said, but it must be provided by a trained professional. “Going for a weekend course isn’t sufficient,” he said, and research suggests that group CBT is not as helpfulas individual CBT.

As for medication over the longer term, research supports SNRIs and SSRIs such as sertaline (Zoloft) and paroxetine (Paxil). Dr. Nemeroff is a fan of venlafaxine (Effexor): “It has a wide dose range. I can go from 75 to 150 milligrams at the low end and 450 and even 600 milligrams at the high end. I’ve had some amazing successes.”

In addition, atypical antipsychotics can be helpful in non-responders or psychotic PTSD patients, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff said he’s skeptical of ketamine as a treatment for PTSD, but he’s most hopeful about MDMA-assisted therapy due to “impressive data” regarding PTSD that was released last year. A bid for FDA approval is in the works, he said.

He added that data is promising from trials examining transcranial magnetic stimulationand (in work by his own team) electroconvulsive therapy. Both therapies are worth considering, he said.

Dr. Nemeroff reported multiple disclosures including research/grant support, stock holdings, scientific advisory board service, consulting relationships, board of director service, and patents.