Connect with us

Health

More using pot for depression, but it may not help, researchers say

Published

on

Folks struggling with depression are much more likely to turn to marijuana to ease their symptoms these days, and that’s not necessarily a good thing, researchers report.

Depressed people are more than twice as likely to have used pot within the last month and three times more likely to use it nearly every day in 2015-2016, a far higher number than 10 years before, the new study found.

Experts say this boom in use among the depressed is probably linked to the spread of marijuana legalization across the United States, particularly for medical purposes.

“Its accessibility has increased over the specific time period that this study measures,” noted Michael Wetter, director of adolescent and young adult medicine with the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine.

The problem is that previous studies have shown pot actually can worsen mood disorders like anxiety or depression, said Dr. Elie Aoun, assistant professor of clinical psychiatry with the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Marijuana does not change anything in the underlying brain pathology that contributes to depression,” Aoun said. “It just numbs your feelings so you can get through a couple of hours without thinking about your problems. When the effect dissipates, you’re going to be more depressed than you were before.” He and Wetter were not part of the research.

The new study relied on data drawn from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a federal poll regularly conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The researchers, led by Deborah Hasin, from Columbia University Medical Center, analyzed responses from two periods — 2005-2006 and 2015-2016 — to identify people with symptoms of depression and track their self-reported marijuana use.

A depressed person had 2.3 times greater odds of reporting any cannabis use during the previous month in 2015-2016, a nearly threefold increase in risk from the decade before, researchers found.

The odds of daily use were nearly 3.2 times higher, an almost sixfold increase from 2005-2006.

Because the study is observational, it can’t say in which direction this association runs — if depressed people are more likely to turn to pot, or if marijuana use fuels depression.

“I think it’s probably both of these things at the same time,” Aoun said. “Marijuana could be causing depressive symptoms. Also, people who are depressed who are looking for treatment are seeking out options to help reduce the impact or burden of their depressive symptoms. When traditional treatment options are insufficient, they are turning to marijuana.”

THC, the chemical in pot that causes intoxication, has been shown to increase levels of dopamine in the brain, Wetter said. Dopamine is a “feel good” neurotransmitter that directly stimulates the pleasure centers in the brain.

That might make a depressed person feel better temporarily, but it’s really masking feelings that will return, Aoun said.

“Drugs don’t introduce new feelings that you don’t have in you,” Aoun said. “They just allow for disinhibition. If you’re depressed and you smoke marijuana, it’s not going to cure your depression.”

What’s more, these dopamine rushes alter your brain chemistry in ways that can exacerbate your depression.

“It requires more use in order to feel good,” Wetter said. “When you don’t have that, you will start to feel the symptoms of more increased depression. You experience the crash, if you will.”

Eleven states have adopted laws permitting recreational marijuana use, but Aoun said he’s more concerned about the 34 states that have passed laws allowing medical marijuana.

“When states are pushing for the legalization of medical marijuana without credible evidence, you’re sending so many wrong messages,” Aoun said.

Not enough medical research has been done to firmly establish marijuana’s health benefits, but legalization has nonetheless made pot into a seemingly legitimate alternative for folks struggling with a mood disorder, Aoun said.

He compared pot to insulin, a treatment for diabetes tested in large-scale research studies before it became available to patients.

“With marijuana, it’s been a completely different story where these decisions are really driven primarily by companies with a significant financial interest in promoting marijuana use,” Aoun said.

People with depression or anxiety would be better off talking to their doctor about taking an approved prescription medication, Wetter said.

“People will tend to say I would rather use something that is natural and organic versus something synthetic, like Prozac or an SSRI,” Wetter said. “It is organic, it is natural, so it can’t be bad for you. If you’re feeling bad and this makes you feel better, how can it be bad? How can it be wrong?”

The new study was published recently in JAMA Network Open.

More information

The U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse has more about marijuana and psychiatric disorders.

Copyright 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Health

‘Green prescriptions’ could cancel mental health benefits for some

Published

on

So-called “green prescriptions” may end up being counterproductive for people with mental health conditions, researchers say.

Spending time in nature is believed to benefit mental health, so some doctors are beginning to “prescribe” outdoor time for their patients.

That led researchers to investigate whether being in nature helps actually does help people with issues such as anxiety and depression. They collected data from more than 18,000 people in 18 countries.

The takeaway: Time in nature does provide several benefits for people with mental health conditions, but only if they choose on their own to visit green spaces.

While being advised to spend time outdoors can encourage such activity, it can also undermine the potential emotional benefits, according to the authors of the study published this month in the journal Scientific Reports.

The researchers said they were surprised to find that people with depression were spending time in nature as often as folks with no mental health issues, and that people with anxiety were doing so much more often.

While in nature, those with depression and anxiety tended to feel happy and reported low anxiety. But those benefits appeared to be undermined when the visits were done at others’ urging, the investigators found.

The more external pressure people with depression and anxiety felt to visit nature, the less motivated they were to do so and the more anxious they felt.

“These findings are consistent with wider research that suggests that urban natural environments provide spaces for people to relax and recover from stress,” said study leader Michelle Tester-Jones, a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

But the findings also show that health care practitioners and loved ones should be sensitive about recommending time in nature for people who have mental health issues.

“It could be helpful to encourage them to spend more time in places that people already enjoy visiting, so they feel comfortable and can make the most of the experience,” Tester-Jones said in a university news release.

More information

For more on the benefits of green spaces, go to the National Recreation and Park Association.

Copyright 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading

Health

Study: Nearly half of ‘essential workers’ in U.S. at risk for severe COVID-19

Published

on

Nov. 9 (UPI) — Nearly half of those classified as “essential workers” in the United States are at increased risk for severe COVID-19, according to an analysis published Monday by JAMA Internal Medicine.

This means that more than 74 million workers and those with whom they live could be at risk for serious illness, based on disease risk guidelines developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the researchers said.

“Many parts of the country face high and rising infection rates, [and] we should not think about work exposure and health risks in isolation, given that workers and persons at increased risk often live in the same households,” study co-author Thomas M. Selden told UPI.

“Insofar as we can reduce the prevalence of COVID-19 in our communities, we can reduce the extent to which policymakers have to choose between the economy and keeping the population safe,” said Selden, an economist with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic spread to the United States in March, states and cities across the country have instituted lockdown measures designed to limit the spread of the disease.

Many of these measures entailed closing schools and non-essential businesses, with only banks, grocery stores, pharmacies and other businesses deemed to provide vital services allowed to stay open.

For this study, Selden and his colleagues analyzed data on the U.S. workforce to examine how many people were in essential jobs, how often they were able to work at home, their risk for severe COVID-19 and the potential health risks for their household members.

Of the more than 157 million workers across the country, 72% are in jobs deemed essential — based on U.S. Department of Homeland Security criteria — and more than three-fourths of all essential workers are unable to work at home, Selden said.

Essential workers include those in the medical and healthcare, telecommunications, information technology systems, defense, food and agriculture, transportation and logistics and energy, water and wastewater industries, as well as those in law enforcement and public works, the DHS criteria stipulates.

The study notes that up to 60% of these workers have underlying health issues, placing them at increased risk for severe COVID-19 if they get infected, as defined by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.

Those with diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and chronic respiratory conditions like asthma are considered to be at high risk for serious illness, the CDC says.

Based on these findings, between roughly 57 million and 74 million adults working in on-site essential jobs — and their families — are at increased risk for serious illness, Selden and his colleagues estimated.

“Policymakers face important decisions about how to balance the economic benefits of keeping workers employed and the public health benefits of protecting those with increased risk of severe COVID-19,” Selden said.

“These issues arise in the context of decisions to close segments of the economy and decisions about how to distribute vaccines, which will initially be available only with limited supply, [and] become all the more difficult when the prevalence of infection rises in parts of the country,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Health

Study: Hydroxychloroquine no better than placebo for hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Published

on

Nov. 9 (UPI) — COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine showed no signs of significant improvement in “clinical status” compared with those given a placebo, a study published Monday by JAMA found.

Patients given a five-day course of the drug were scored as “category six” based on the World Health Organization’s seven-category COVID Ordinal Outcomes Scale, the same as those given a placebo, the researchers said.

Also, 28 days after they started treatment, 10.4% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died, just slightly lower than the 10.6% fatality rate in the placebo group.

“The results show that hydroxychloroquine did not help patients recover from COVID-19,” study co-author Dr. Wesley H. Self told UPI.

“In the study, patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and those treated with a placebo had nearly identical outcomes, [so] I do not foresee any role for hydroxychloroquine in acutely ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19,” said Self, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Hydroxychloroquine is an immunosuppressive and anti-parasitic drug that is used to treat malaria.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, it was touted by President Donald Trump and others as a potential treatment for the virus, despite the lack of any scientific data supporting its use.

Given its effectiveness helping those sickened with malaria — a mosquito-borne infection — to recover, “there was a strong rationale for why hydroxychloroquine may have been beneficial for patients with COVID-19,” according to Self.

However, in July, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned against the drug’s use in the treatment of those infected with the new coronavirus, due to potentially serious heart-related side effects.

For this study, Self and his colleagues treated 433 COVID-19 patients at 34 hospitals across the United States with either the drug or a placebo for a period of five days.

Patients assigned to the hydroxychloroquine group received 400 milligrams of the drug in pill form twice a day for the first two doses and then 200 mg. in pill form twice a day for the next eight doses, for a total of 10 doses over the five days.

All of the patients were then assessed based on the WHO’s COVID Ordinal Outcomes Scale, which categorizes those infected according to disease severity.

Most of the patients in both the hydroxycholorquine group and the placebo group were in “category six,” meaning they were hospitalized and receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or invasive mechanical ventilation to maintain their breathing, the researchers said.

“Our results, especially when combined from other studies conducted in the United Kingdom and Brazil, are good evidence that hydroxychloroquine does not provide benefit for patients hospitalized with COVID-19,” Self said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending