Bedless Psychiatry and A Recipe for Remaining Bedless

There is no better marker of the rickety psychiatric infrastructure in the USA than the lack of psychiatric beds.  A close second is how those beds are utilized to basically run patients in an out to maximize hospital profits. It seems like I have said it a thousand times on this blog but I will say it again - hospitals make money by getting psychiatric patients out in advance of the diagnosis related group (DRG) time limit.  These days that it is about 3-4 days. If management believes that the psychiatrist is not discharging people fast enough - they will turn up the heat on them to do so by using either a designated case manager or somebody who sits in team meetings and reports that psychiatrist to his or her superiors if the patients are not out by a maximum of about 6 days.

There are huge problems with that business approach to psychiatric care.  The first is patient complexity. Severe psychiatric disorders place people at risk for significant medical problems and often psychiatric care cannot proceed until those medical problems are stabilized.  During my career for example I had terminal cancer patients and patients with uncontrolled diabetes mellitus and hypertension admitted directly to my care because they had a major psychiatric disorder.  Substance  use disorders complicate at least half of the admissions and psychiatric care typically has to wait until a patient is detoxified from an intoxicant.  Very ill patients with schizophrenia and mood disorders who received outpatient treatment cannot be treated and stabilized in 4-6 days.  Specific problems like suicide risk and delirium often take many weeks of care.  Although brief stays can be useful in the case of event or intoxicant related crises the length of stay on psychiatric units is basically an arbitrary number of days determined by bean counters rather than doctors. They do no reflect clinical reality.

That brings me to the commentary by Sisti, Sinclair, and Sharfstein (1).  They lost me then they had me and then they lost me completely.  My first criticism is the title "Bedless Psychiatry-Rebuilding Behavioral Health Service Capacity."  Ironic that the authors use the managed care buzzword "behavioral health" to suggest that the bed crisis can be addressed by the same carpetbaggers that designed the current system.  I can appreciate a political turn of a phrase as well as the next rhetorician, but in the case it falls very flat.  The only way to address the bed crisis and the destruction of the mental health care infrastructure in this country is to get rid of managed care and all of their buzzwords.  There is no way that companies paid well for rationing care and kicking unstable people out of psychiatric hospitals are going to solve that problem.

From there the authors do an adequate job of describing the problem of a sharp drop in bed capacity in addition to the absurdly short lengths of stay.  They depend on data that may have another agenda.  In a recent post in this blog, I looked at the drop in state hospitals beds in Minnesota and the Medical Directors commentary on why that will never be reversed.  The same organization that authored the report used by the authors to describe the drop in beds (National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) is on record stating that "Building more inpatient bed capacity to meet demand is unsustainable".  State Mental Health Program Directors are all accountable to state politicians and generally run state mental health programs like managed care companies do.  They ration services and limit access to treatment. It is cost effective from their perspective to leave large blocks of people untreated. Better yet put them in jail and give them a baloney sandwich everyday instead of the à la carte fare that medical and surgical patients have come to expect in customer satisfaction based hospitals.  This conflict of interest and lack of interest in looking at whether bed capacities are too low is a bias that any reader of the report should be aware of.   They also consider OECD data and suggest that psychiatric bed capacity in the USA is 4th from the lowest bed capacity in the countries studied.

They go on to discuss the "types" of beds  and suggest that the notion that bed capacity may be too abstract.  They favor bed descriptions based on the function of the unit that they reside on - forensic, acute care, intermediate, and long term care.  They discuss beds in the grey zones between corrections and mental health.  For example in my discussion of the Minnesota situation, I did not include beds operated by the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP).  That program houses 726 clients at two large facilities or about three times the state bed capacity for all of the committed patients with mental illness in the state.  In a bizarre end run around psychiatry, sex offenders in the state are essentially granted mental illness status.  This occurs in order to allow the state to indefinitely commit them.  MSOP clients are essentially never discharged while committed patients back up and crowd local hospital psychiatric units and shut them to new admissions while they are waiting to be transferred into the state hospital system.  The argument about no new beds at the state level does not apply to sex offenders.

The authors close by saying the concept of a psychiatric "bed" may need to be "jettisoned" in order to more accurately address the needs of patients and system capacity.  They end with the idea that "targeted payment reforms" are necessary to increase psychiatric bed capacity.  I think that they have it wrong on both accounts.  We have had 30 years of "incentives" that really are not incentives.  The DRG payment itself was allegedly a payment for what was the average amount of care for a particular diagnosis.  Instead, it became a way that managed care companies could game the system while they rationed care.  It may not be as easy to determine (another bean counter bias) - but looking at the flow though systems and where services are short is a better idea.  Classic examples are outpatient psychiatrists who are not able to refer one of their outpatients to an inpatient unit in the same system for purposes of detox, electroconvulsive therapy, or stabilization.  Whenever that happens it should be taken as a sign that health plan needs to improve their bed capacity.

Bed quality is as least as important as bed inventory.  Beds are worth less if there are problems with the physical structure or staffing problems.  Beds are worth less if a therapeutic environment cannot be maintained. Beds that can contain aggressive behavior are generally at a premium because fewer people can work in that setting. In every state there are only a few psychiatric units that will address aggression as a psychiatric problem.  Specialty units to treat depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, substance use in addition to mental illnesses, or medically ill psychiatric patients are rare.  There appears to be no interest in either the quality or specialty side.  DRG payments create an incentive to get people out as soon as possible and provide the lowest level of quality.

A very basic comparison with any systems of high quality beds that address the medical problem with state of the art care is instructive. Any middle aged person in the US who presents to the emergency department with chest pain who has cardiac risk factors will be admitted to a telemetry unit, get the necessary blood testing, and (if all of those tests are negative) will probably get an echocardiogram and cardiac stress test before they leave the next day. That same person presenting to the emergency department with hallucinations or mania or severe depression or delusions will only be admitted unless they are determined to be "dangerous".  The standard definition of dangerousness being "imminent risk of harm to yourself or others."  Dangerousness is the managed care approach to psychiatric hospitalizations.  It contaminates emergency assessment and it contaminates what happens on the inpatient side.  When the overriding treatment dimension is dangerousness - inpatient units become holding tanks where nothing therapeutic occurs. Patients sit around and look at one another all day long waiting for someone to proclaim that they are no longer dangerous - so they can be discharged.  Beds that operate under this punitive model should probably not be counted. 

The authors' commentary seems to continue the same policy wonk approach that has contaminated practically all medical journals - basically a number of administrators sitting around and speculating.  Unfortunately we know that a lot of bad ideas get started this way. We also know that hypotheticals and incentives have have been the order of the day for a generation and that very process knocked out bed capacity and led to all of this low quality care.

To improve the bed capacity it will take a psychiatrist who is aware of the problems and how they can be addressed in each state.  Being on the ground as the inpatient beds and any quality they had were rationed away would be a plus.  Knowing how to build increased capacity and quality is the best possible approach. 


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



References:

1:  Sisti DA, Sinclair EA, Sharfstein SS. Bedless Psychiatry—Rebuilding Behavioral Health Service Capacity. JAMA Psychiatry. Published online March 14, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0219

Graphics Credit:

The above picture of an abandoned state hospital bed is downloaded from Shutterstock per their standard licensing agreement.

There Is No Joy In Medicine

At least not nearly as much as there used to be.

I read a comment by a medical student recently who said that he found nothing in medical school - none  of the clinical rotations to be enjoyable at all.  As I looked back on it, at the interpersonal level there is a lot of subjectivity.  Although it was never stated personalities could make or break a rotation.  There was none of the anonymity of sitting is a large lecture hall and passing three or four tests.  As a medical  student, most of the teams I was on consisted of me, an intern, a resident and occasionally a more senior resident and one or more attending physicians.  Just as in real life, it was common to find people who really did not want to be on those teams.  They were fulfilling some sort of obligation.  As in real life, it was fairly common to be on a team where someone did not like you and if they were personality disordered could make your life a living hell.  But that was relatively rare.  As a medical student, the job was to keep your head down, not make any waves and absorb as much information as possible.

And some of those rotations were a dream.  A perfect combination of senior staff who knew they were there to teach, did a great job of it, and went the extra mile to be as cordial as possible to everyone in the process.  I have written about the last team I was on in medical school as an example.  The Renal Medicine team of of Milwaukee County Medical Center and Froedert Hospital in Milwaukee.  In those days there were three senior attendings who were also Professors in the medical school.  They ran an inpatient unit, outpatient clinic, and hypertension clinic. They also covered all of the inpatient consults. There was an associated group that took care of transplant and dialysis patients and all of the complications.  As a medical student my job was to do the initial patient interviews on the consults and present it to the team and round with the team on all of the inpatients.

It was an inspiring team to be a part of. One of the senior Internal Medicine residents was a guy who I had worked with before.  He was bright and had an incredible sense of humor. The most senior attending would give us all a hard time, but you could tell he was joking.  I never saw him lose his temper.  We were typically putting in 10-12 hour days with both patient care and didactics.  There was scheduled teaching time every day and plenty of teaching on the case presentations. Everyone was interested in the work and flexible. On my absolute last day of medical school the Internal Medicine resident told me they were swamped with admissions.  It was 6 PM and he knew I was graduating the next day.  He let me know that and then asked me if I could see 2 consults that needed to be staffed.  I did and felt good about it.  I lived about 1/2 mile away across the golf course sized county grounds and was ecstatic that night for completing medical school and that rotation.

Enjoyable rotations were not limited to medicine specialties.  I had plenty of contact with neurosurgeons in the same hospital.  The Neurosurgery residents had a grueling schedule starting as second year residents where they were basically on call every night.  They were in surgery in the morning and had to assess and treat acute emergencies in a very hectic emergency department.  The also ran a neurosurgery ICU.  On that service we rounded every morning and tried to get all of the work done on hospitalized patients by  11 AM.  The rest of the day was typically spent dealing with one emergency after another. The head of neurosurgery did not say much and appeared to be brusque, but he was an outstanding surgeon and teacher in the operating room.  We also had Radiology rounds every Saturday morning where he would review all of the imaging studies done on our patients in the previous week. That was a two month rotation for me and very enjoyable.

When I think of the common elements in those rotations that made them implicitly joyous - a few things stand out:

1.  They were intellectually rigorous:

There was no dispute that the teachers and professors knew the field inside and out and were interested in discussing it.  My only regret is that as a medical student - you really don't know enough to ask the best possible questions - at least I didn't.  My standard procedure was to study the problems that were being addressed in detail and in retrospect it might have been easier to ask a lot of questions.  Teaching occurred in detail and at length every day.  It was routine.

2.  They managed their own services:

These days practically all hospitalized patients are managed by hospitalists. Hospitalists will call in specialists as needed, but they basically assess the patient and leave a note in the chart.  People will say this is more efficient and have that same argument about primary care physicians not seeing their own patients in the hospital - but a lot is lost in the process.  Teaching is an obvious casualty. Are you going to learn more about a patient who is on your service 24/7 or one who you drop by and leave a note for the hospitalist team?  I have seen medical students following consultants around and they often look bewildered.  As a team, there is a sense of belonging and typically a place to hang your hat and discuss the work every day.

3.  There was no outside interference by the business world:  

The hospital landscape has become bizarre relative to the hospitals I trained in. Instead of morning rounds - you might see a team of physicians in a "huddle" in the morning.  That huddle may contain non-medical staff and administrators who have no role in patient care. There are really there to manage physicians. Some might tell physicians when to discharge patients.  Others are just there to report what physicians are doing to senior management.  Let me clarify that these are not multidisciplinary treatment teams. I had 20 years of those teams meetings that were clinically focused and then one day there was a case manager in that group and she was reporting what I was doing to a hostile medical director who threatened to override my decisions. At a team level there was an equally malignant administrator trying to undermine the relationship between medical and nursing staff.  It is clear from my medical school experience that none of the managers were necessary and they made the clinical situation much worse. Add utilization review and prior authorization done by companies with an obvious conflict of interest and the hospital landscape suddenly becomes a complete nightmare.  I found myself in the position of needing to go though 2 hours of prior authorization time in order to discharge patients on the same medications that they came in on. In other words the medications were already authorized but I had to do it again.

4: Physicians weren't treated like criminals:  

Physicians tend to not be very good with politics and have a short memory but I don't.  In the 1990s, a billing and coding system was introduced that was supposed to capture physician work and provide commensurate reimbursement.  Unfortunately the inventors of this system did not realize that it was totally subjective and far too detailed. In the only study ever done on the validity of the system, the chance that any two coders could agree on the same billing code was a coin toss. In the meantime, at some point during that decade my hospital colleagues and I were cloistered in a lecture hall and told that any mistakes on our documents were a crime and if a billing statement went out based on that crime - we could be prosecuted under federal racketeering charges. In the meantime, the FBI was raiding doctors offices and trying to make documentation errors into a federal crime.  Eventually the federal government must have seen this was a bit heavy handed and they turned enforcement over to compliance monitors in organizations.  I was awarded the "best documentation" one year by a compliance officer and the next year it was the worst. Over that year, I had made no changes to my documentation. Today there is a mountain of worthless documentation that takes each physician about 3-4 extra hours per day to produce that is the direct result of this initiative. If I was back on my neurosurgery rotation - the document would have been 3-4 handwritten lines.

5: Everybody was an expert - not pretending to be one:

Fake medical news is common across all social media.  Journalists commonly print the story that they want rather than reality.  A common story on this blog is is how physicians were bought off by (often trivial) gifts and this led to inappropriate prescribing and massive drug company profits. It was a good story while it lasted and some media is still trying to push it but when gifts to physicians were eliminated, the USA still has by far the most expensive pharmaceuticals in the world.  There are even more provocative headlines out there that don't pass the smell test.  It is in the best interest of click-bait journalists and business administrators to make it seem like knowledge in medicine is relative and anyone can possess it.

6:  Clinical care was cohesive and not fragmented: 

Business innovations in medicine leave a lot to be desired.  When the field is structured around the ideas of business managers and some of these problematic ideas are published as commentaries in prestigious medical journals - adequate care becomes an increasingly remote possibility.  On the services I mentioned patients were triaged to receive the state of the art care of the day.  They did not end up seeing a series of physicians or providers who had no clue about how to address the problem and hoping to see the appropriate specialist.  In fact one of the most embarrassing developments of managed care was the idea that they were going to put specialists out of business or install a gatekeeper to see who gets referred to a specialist.  There are ample examples on this blog of the importance of seeing the appropriate specialist without having to deal with any administrator erected obstruction.  The main fracture in medicine at this point has been the destruction of the psychiatric infrastructure and the incarceration of the mentally ill.

Just a few obvious reasons why my most joyous experience in medicine happened in medical school over 30 years ago.  I think it could all be distilled down to the basic truths of autonomy, professionalism, a singular patient focus, an intellectual approach to the field, and doing the right thing. That is when you have hard working physicians who enjoy the work and are not burned out.  Medicine is currently creaking under the weight of bad ideas from politicians and bureaucrats and all of the associated rationalizations.

It is no wonder that I often find myself thinking about my old renal medicine and neurosurgery teams and whether future physicians will ever be able to capture that joy again.

It is no wonder that when Grace Slick sings with conviction over my Bluetooth player that I am focused on those first 4 lines.......



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA




Graphics Credit:

Photo licensed directly from Gijsbert Hanekroot Fotografie. Title below:

Jefferson Airplane Perfornm Live At Kralingen Festival
ROTTERDAM, NETHERLANDS - JUNE 26: Grace Slick and Jorma Kaukonen from Jefferson Airplane perform live at Kralingen Festival in Rotterdam, Holland on June 26 1970 (Photo by Gijsbert Hanekroot/Redferns)


Lyrics:

From the song Somebody To Love performed by Jefferson Airplane.  Words and music by Darby Slick.


Supplementary:

Interested in Grace Slick photos from around the time of the release of this song. Contact me if interested.

The NEJM Depressed and Recovered Surgeon Commentary

In the March 1, 2018 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine is the story of a surgeon and told by that surgeon about lifelong depression and severe depression that required both involuntary treatment and electroconvulsive therapy.  The essay has been widely hailed on Twitter and elsewhere as a story that illustrates the problems in medicine as well as problems when physicians develop mental illnesses and need treatment.

The first few paragraphs are written in an interesting style reminiscent of one of my all time favorite books Zen and the Art or Motorcycle Maintenance (ZAMM) by Robert M. Pirsig.  In that book. Pirsig details a very personal and spiritual journey on a motorcycle trip across the northern USA from Minnesota to California.  He describes his journey through life at that point including his academic failures and accomplishments.  He talks about the relationships with the people on the trip including his son, another couple, and the friends they are scheduled to meet along the way.  He explores Eastern and Western philosophy and discusses personal difficulties that he has had along the way, including a psychiatric admission to a hospital and a series of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) that left him delirious, confused, and obliterated a previous alter ego - Phaedrus. Much of his discussion focuses on threads he recalls about Phaedrus and the problems he encountered.

I started reading this book when I was in the Peace Corps in about 1976.  I say started because if you are like me and many other people - this book had a profound effect on you and you kept reading it.  I was reading it a decade before I finally became a psychiatrist.  I was discussing it with enthusiastic fellow Peace Corps volunteers - very energetic and bright people.  Like a lot of people, I look back on that as a very exciting part of my life.   I really don't have any regrets and don't miss those days.  I can still recall them with a great deal of excitement.  When people ask me what I got out of the Peace Corps - I always tell them that meeting and relating to the people I was with was the best part of the experience.  ZAAM  was part of that for me and it still is.

My first read through the book was chilling when I read the passage about ECT:

"He (Phaedrus) was dead. Destroyed by order of the court, enforced by transmission of high-voltage alternating current through the lobes of his brain. Approximately 800 mills of amperage at durations of 0.5 to 1.5 seconds had been applied on twenty-eight consecutive occasions in a process known technologically as "Annihilation ECS." A whole personality had been liquidated without a trace in a technologically faultless act that has defined our relationship ever since.  I have never met him. Never will."

Reading about it later confirmed that Pirsig had been hospitalized and treated with ECT.  He was misdiagnosed with schizophrenia and eventually diagnosed with depression.  He apparently had more than one course of ECT.  I thought about Pirsig's description of ECT in ZAAM.  The ECT would have happened about a decade before he wrote the book.  In many biographic pieces, Pirsig is described as having a genius IQ, high in that range.  He wrote a book that some reviewers equated to Moby Dick  - commonly seen as one of the greatest American novels.  After the book he moved from his job as a technical writer to an academic and was in the English department at the University of Minnesota for a number of years.

I thought about the description of ECT a lot as I learned it as a resident and referred many patients to our ECT consultants for treatment.  In one of the very first cases, I saw a patient depressed and completely immobilized in a coronary care unit by severe depression.  He was unable to eat and he was dying.  In those days we had few medications that we could safely give him and even they would not work fast enough.  When he consented to ECT, he got significantly better, started eating and within two weeks was back home.

Dr. Weinstein's article is a more matter-of-fact presentation. The Pirsig paragraph is a little dramatic and obsessive.  I can speculate on what happened during the ECT treatment and what happened to Phaedrus, but I won't.  Another element barely mentioned but easily overlooked in both pieces is that treatment was involuntary.  Both patients were ordered by a court to be in a hospital and accept the treatment offered.

Going into my career as a psychiatrist, it is common to have reservations about both ECT and involuntary treatment.  You don't have a lot of time to think about it because of the illness severity of the people you are treating.  In my career on inpatient settings it was common to be seeing people who had attempted suicide or homicide and barely missed completing the act.  I have treated many people who were admitted to hospitals because they had killed someone due to a severe mental illness.  I have also been called years after leaving a clinical setting to be informed about the suicide or homicides committed by patients that I had treated.  An even larger group of patients required treatment because they were unable to function and they were starving to death, not able to take care of their medical needs, or had judgment so poor that they were at high risk of accidental injury or death.  The only way any of these patients got better was with medical treatment by psychiatrists including antidepressants, antipsychotics, lithium, and electroconvulsive therapy.

To those people who are thankful that Dr. Weinstein published his experience in the NEJM, I agree with that opinion.  But to me as an inpatient psychiatrist who saw all of the people that are too ill to be included in clinical trials of antidepressants and in many cases too ill to consent to treatment there is a much bigger lesson here.  That lesson is that involuntary treatment, antidepressant medication, mood stabilizing medication, antipsychotic medication, and electroconvulsive therapy all work.  If you are a person with a severe disorder, see a psychiatrist who prefers treating severe problems. If you are a concerned family member, make sure that involuntary treatment is an option.  If it is not, find out why the county you live in is not protecting the most vulnerable people in our society.

But most of all don't let the the media circus about whether antidepressants work or all of the problems with psychiatric medications throw you off.  Psychiatrists know what they are doing and they are good at their job.  Health care corporations and governments do their best to restrict access to psychiatrists but this current paper is evidence why this access is critical and needs to greatly increase.

Nobody should be disabled by severe depression.  Nobody should die from it. The only acceptable outcome is complete recovery of a stable mood and ability to function.       


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA




References:

1: Weinstein MS. Out of the Straitjacket. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar1;378(9):793-795. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1715418. PubMed PMID: 29490178.

2:  Robert M. Pirsig.  Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.  Bantam Books, New York.  Copyright 1974 by Robert M. Pirsig, p. 77.


Graphic Credit:

The photo at the top of this post is downloaded from Shutterstock and licensed per their standard agreement.

Drinking Your Way To Your 90s.

The headlines recently have been unmistakable:

Drinking alcohol key to living past 90, study says

Drinking Tied To Long Life In New Study

Drinking alcohol increases longevity more than exercise, according to study

Alcohol more important than exercise for living past 90, study claims


Could these headlines be true?  After all, wasn't there a recent headline that said drinking alcohol was the largest single modifiable risk factor for dementia (1)?  Buried in some of those headlines are also secondary stories about political decisions that did not go well for the producers of some alcoholic beverages.  France's Health Minister Agnès Buzyn - a physician stated recently that alcohol is alcohol.  She went on to say that contrary to what French citizens are taught to believe about the health effects of wine it is no  different than drinking beer or distilled spirits and it is bad for health.  I think that we have been in the midst of a tremendous  amount of hype about alcohol, the specific types of alcohol, secondary natural products, the purported metabolic effects and the effect of alcohol on longevity.  The current headlines were the only ones I can recall where the positive effects of drinking alcohol was estimated to be on par with exercise.

I come at the problem from the perspective of an acute care and addiction psychiatrist. For 22 years, I worked at a tertiary care center that was also a Level 1 Trauma Center and it contained a burn unit.  At one point our medical director surveyed our admissions and determined that at least 50% across the entire hospital were there because of drugs or alcohol.  We saw every type of injury and chronic illness due to intoxicants and the patients with those insults often had markedly shorter life spans than expected.  How could alcohol use extend life?  Why was it seen as a common finding? Most importantly - why were all of these headlines surfacing right now?

Some of the articles named Claudia Kawas, MD and her work in the 90+ Study and Leisure World Cohort Study as the source for the headlines (2-4).  The Leisure World Cohort Study (LWCS) followed a group of 8,371 women and 4,828 men from a media baseline age of 74 for a period of 28 years or until death.  The group was located in a retirement community and were described as predominately white, middle class and well educated.  They were sampled at intervals with questionnaires that asked about their dietary habit including beverage intake in terms of alcohol and caffeine containing beverages and other types,  a number of activity levels, and total amount of exercise.  A large number of papers resulted from this study and are still being written as the continuation study of the members that survived into their 90s.  Dr. Kawas gave a presentation at a recent American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting on some of her findings and that appears to be what the headlines based on.

 From the LWCS group, there were several notable findings.  In terms of activity level (2), any activity of 1/2 hour per day or more reduced mortality risk 15-30%.  A broad range of exercise of various levels of intensity and whether they were done inside or outside.  Level of activity at age 40 was a predictor of activity in old age.  Relative Risks (RR) for all cause mortality were calculated for the activities and their duration. as well as the time spent.  After 3/4 of an hour per day the RR effect tapered off.  Sedentary activities like watching television had no significant impact on the RR.  The greatest observed risk occurred when activity levels were reduced due to injury or illness.  They found no survival advantage for a high activity level (1+ hours per day) compared to a moderate level of 1/2 to 3/4 hours per day.

The same group looked at the issue of alcohol intake in the LWCS group.  In their introduction they note that 4% of the annual mortality in the world is caused by alcohol.  They review some of the previous literature and the purported J - or - U shaped mortality curves for alcohol consumption - meaning higher mortality rates for abstainers, lower mortality rates for moderate drinkers (1-2 standard drinks per day), and higher mortality rates for higher levels of drinking. The response choices on the survey were for 1, 2, 3, and 4 or more drinks per day.  They also broke the sample down based on their responses drinking surveys in 1992 and 1998 to to stable non-drinkers, stable drinkers, starters, and quitters based on comparing their survey answers.  Three quarter of the sample drank.  Two drinks a day conferred a 14-16%  in decreased mortality irrespective of the type of alcohol.  At follow up there were more non drinkers than at baseline (36% versus 26%).  The quitters and starters acquired the expected mortality risks in each group.  They conclude that there was a small beneficial risk of alcohol on mortality of about 15% but qualify the result based on the study limitations.

The final dimension in this sample of the LWCS paper was a look at non-alcoholic beverages and caffeine content.  They looked a coffee, decaffeinated coffee, black or green tea, cola drinks (sugar or artificially sweetened), other soft drinks and sweetener combinations, and the amount of chocolate eaten (daily versus a few times per month.)  They found that there was a U-shaped mortality curve for caffeine consumption with peak protection at about the 100-399 mg/day.  They also found that consuming as little as one can a week of artificially sweetened soft drinks had a small increased risk of death (11-24%).  They looked at specifics and determined that 1-3 cups of regular coffee/day reduced mortality risk by 5-10% and drinking decaffeinated coffee or tea reduced risk by 5-9%.   Drinking sugar sweetened cola - had an 8% lower risk of death.  Infrequent chocolate users also had a reduced risk of death (3-9%).

Taken all together these three papers suggest that moderate levels of alcohol, caffeine, and activity are all consistent with longevity.  In order to look at the alcohol findings in perspective, I searched the literature for a meta-analysis of all of the alcohol x longevity studies and came up with an outstanding paper by Stockwell, et al  (5).  In it the authors look at and extensive analysis of existing alcohol effect on mortality studies and initially duplicated a J-shaped mortality curve based on 87 studies they included in their analysis.  They went back into that sample and corrected for abstainer biases such as including including former and occasional drinkers in the abstainer category.  They model four types of abstainer bias in their in the paper.  When those corrections are made or when only very high quality studies are used - the purported mortality advantage of moderate (1-2 standard drinks per day) - disappears completely.  I could not find any data from the LWCS studies used in this meta-analysis.  According to the author's selection criteria the LWCS data probably would have been eliminated because it was a cross sectional study.

That alcohol is not a heath food should not come as a surprise.  Any cohort of drinkers in their 90s suggests to me that they are biologically selected to survive the alcohol and that is probably why they are drinking into their 90s and not because of it.  Since the activity, caffeine, and diet soda effects noted in this study were collected using similar methodologies, that can be a cause for concern. The authors were careful to cite supporting data  and discuss the limitations.  Observational studies like the LWCS and 90+ Study add to the literature but it is necessary to keep these findings in perspective and consider the potential biases of the design.

At this time I have not found a similar meta-analysis for each of the other cases (activity level, caffeine consumption).

 

 George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


References:

All linked papers below are to free full text articles.


1: Schwarzinger M, Pollock BG, Hasan OSM, Dufouil C, Rehm J; QalyDays Study Group. Contribution of alcohol use disorders to the burden of dementia in France 2008-13: a nationwide retrospective cohort study. Lancet Public Health. 2018 Feb 20. pii: S2468-2667(18)30022-7. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30022-7. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 29475810.

2:  Paganini-Hill A, Kawas CH, Corrada MM. Activities and mortality in the elderly: the Leisure World cohort study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011 May;66(5):559-67. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glq237. Epub 2011 Feb 24. PubMed PMID:21350247.

3:  Paganini-Hill A, Kawas CH, Corrada MM. Type of alcohol consumed, changes in intake over time and mortality: the Leisure World Cohort Study. Age Ageing. 2007 Mar;36(2):203-9. PubMed PMID: 17350977.

4:  Paganini-Hill A, Kawas CH, Corrada MM. Non-alcoholic beverage and caffeine consumption and mortality: the Leisure World Cohort Study. Prev Med. 2007 Apr;44(4):305-10. Epub 2006 Dec 29. PubMed PMID: 17275898.

5:  Stockwell T, Zhao J, Panwar S, Roemer A, Naimi T, Chikritzhs T. Do "Moderate" Drinkers Have Reduced Mortality Risk? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Alcohol Consumption and All-Cause Mortality. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2016 Mar;77(2):185-98. Review. PubMed PMID: 26997174.