Search This Blog

Sunday, December 23, 2018

All That Glitters on Your Christmas Cookies May Not Be Safe to Eat


Some of those decorative glitters and dusts you’re planning to use in your holiday baking aren’t meant to be eaten, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns.
These products are widely available online and in craft and bakery supply stores. They’re also often featured in online instructional videos, blogs and articles about decorating foods such as cakes, cupcakes, cookies and cake pops. And they often have names such as luster dust, sparkle dust, disco dust, pearl dust and shimmer powder.
While some of these glitters and dusts are produced specifically for use on foods and are edible, others are not.
Check the label of any decorative product you’re planning to use in foods, the FDA said in an agency news release. Edible glitters and dusts are required by law to have a list of ingredients on the label.
Common ingredients in edible glitter or dust include sugar, acacia (gum arabic), maltodextrin, cornstarch, and color additives specifically approved for food use.
Most edible glitters and dusts are labeled as “edible.” If the label simply says “non-toxic” or “for decorative purposes only” and does not include an ingredients list, it’s best not to use the product on foods, the FDA said.
If you decorate a food item with decorations that are not edible, remove the decorations before serving and eating the food.
At the bakery, ask if decorative products on baked goods are made with all edible ingredients. If you still have doubts, ask to see the labels of the decorative products, the FDA said.
If you’re shopping online for glitter and dust products for foods, ask the seller to provide ingredient information from the manufacturer, the agency said.
More information
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more on food safety.
SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, news release

Camurus: FDA tentative OK of extended-release med for opioid abuse


Camurus (NASDAQ STO: CAMX) announced today that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued Camurus’ US partner Braeburn a tentative approval of Brixadi™ (buprenorphine) extended-release injection for subcutaneous use, 8 mg, 16 mg, 24 mg, 32 mg (weekly) and 64 mg, 96 mg, 128 mg (monthly). The tentative approval is for use of Brixadi for the treatment of moderate-to-severe opioid use disorder (OUD) in patients who have initiated treatment with a single dose of a transmucosal buprenorphine product or who are already being treated with buprenorphine.
With the tentative approval, Brixadi has met all regulatory standards of clinical and non-clinical safety, efficacy and quality for US approval. However, final approval of a monthly depot is according to the FDA subject to the expiration of an exclusivity period granted to Sublocade™. The restriction period may not last longer than November 2020, but both the scope and duration could be reduced if successfully challenged.

Bavarian Nordic: FDA Priority Review of Application for Smallpox Vaccine


Bavarian Nordic A/S (OMX: BAVA, OTC: BVNRY) announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has accepted its Biologics License Application (BLA) for the liquid-frozen version of the MVA-BN for active immunization against smallpox in adults age 18 years and older. The FDA has granted priority review to the BLA, which means that the agency is targeting completion of the review in six months rather than the standard time of ten months. Priority review is granted by the FDA to applications for medicines that, if approved, would offer a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions. If approved, MVA-BN would be the first and only approved non-replicating smallpox vaccine in the U.S.
“The acceptance of our BLA is a significant milestone for Bavarian Nordic, and for our long-standing collaboration with the U.S. Government on the development of MVA-BN to address public health threats, such as smallpox,” said Paul Chaplin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Bavarian Nordic. “While MVA-BN has already been approved in the EU and in Canada, an FDA approval would represent an important acknowledgment of our core platform technology, which we are actively investigating across multiple infectious disease and cancer indications.”

Teva Canada recalls lenscare product with labelling error


Teva Canada is voluntarily recalling one lot (Lot 150261) of two products because of a labelling error. While the outer carton of Equate brand Lens Care System is correctly labelled, the bottle within the carton is mislabelled as Equate brand Multi-Purpose Solution. Because of the labelling error, the company is recalling both products labelled with Lot 150261.
Bottles labelled as Equate Multi-Purpose Solution should contain a 0.0001% w/v polyhexanide based disinfecting solution for rinsing. The mislabelled bottles contain the Equate Lens Care System, which is a 3.3% hydrogen peroxide cleaning and disinfecting solution and should not be used for rinsing. The labelling error could cause consumers to use the product in a way that is not intended, such as rinsing contact lenses before insertion. This could lead to temporary adverse health effects, such as eye stinging, burning or irritation, which could require medical treatment.
Who is affected
  • Consumers who have bought or used Equate Lens Care System or Equate Multi-Purpose Solution with Lot 150261.
Affected products

Brand
Name
Product Name
Size
On Bottle and/or
Outer Carton
DIN
UPC
EQUATE
LENS CARE SYSTEM
360 mL
Lot 150261
02387638
628915095111
EQUATE
MULTI-PURPOSE SOLUTION
355 mL
Lot 150261
02291126
628915166156

The affected product lot involves 996 bottles manufactured in December 2017 with an expiry date of December 5, 2020. It was first distributed in Canada on August 20, 2018.
What consumers should do
  • Check the lot number on the bottle and/or outer carton to see whether your product is affected. If it has Lot 150261 on the label, stop using the product and return it to the place of purchase.
  • As noted by Teva Canada, if a stinging sensation occurs after inserting contact lenses, remove the lenses from eyes immediately and thoroughly rinse eyes with running water for a few minutes. If burning and/or irritation of the eyes persist, seek assistance from an eye care practitioner.
  • Contact Teva Canada if you have questions about this recall by emailing druginfo@tevacanada.com or calling toll-free at 1-800-268-4127, option 3.
  • Report any health product-related adverse reactions or complaints to Health Canada.
What Health Canada is doing
Health Canada is monitoring the effectiveness of the company’s recall. Should additional safety concerns be identified related to this issue, Health Canada will take appropriate action and inform Canadians as necessary.

Biotech week ahead, Dec. 24


Biotech stocks extended losses for the third straight week amid the markedly negative sentiment blanketing the broader market. This is despite the announcement of a major deal in the pharma space and optimism over record new molecule approvals.
Here are the key catalysts that could sway stocks in the biotech space this week.

PDUFA Dates

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co BMY 0.54%‘s sBLA for its Sprycel, in combination with chemotherapy, for treating pediatric patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia is pending before the FDA for review (Saturday, Dec. 29).

Clinical Trial Results (Expected Q4, Year-End Releases)

  • Marinus Pharmaceuticals Inc MRNS 20.2% – Phase 2 data for Ganaxolone (refractory status epilepticus)
  • Kamada Ltd. KMDA – Interim analysis of Phase 2 data for Alpha-1 antitrypsin (for preventing lung transplant rejection)
  • Vistagen Therapeutics Inc VTGN 1.53% – Phase 2 data for AV-101 (as monotherapy treatment for major depressive disorder)
  • Gilead Sciences, Inc. GILD 2.72% – 24-week endpoint of Phase 2 study of Tirabrutinib, codenamed GS-4059 (chronic lymphocytic leukemia)
  • Merus NV MRUS 15.14% – early activity data from the Phase 1 trial for MCLA-117 (acute myeloid leukemia, or AMLA)
  • Dynavax Technologies Corporation DVAX 8.02% – Phase 1 safety and biomarker data for DV281 (non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC)
  • AC Immune SA ACIU 3.44% – Interim Phase 1/2 data for ACI-24 vaccine (treating Alzheimer’s disease-like characteristics in individuals with Down syndrome)
  • Sesen Bio Inc SESN 5.62% – 12-month data from Phase 3 study of Vicinium (non-muscle invasive bladder cancer)
  • Sanofi SA SNY 1.87% – Phase 3 data for influenza vaccine Fluzone quadrivalent (influenza)
  • Heat Biologics Inc HTBX 6.49% – Interim Phase 2 data for HS-110 in combination with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co BMY 0.54%‘s Opdivo (NSCLC)
  • Spark Therapeutics Inc ONCE 7.5% – Updated Phase 1/2 for SPK-7001 (Choroideremia)
  • Entera Bio Ltd ENTX 1.48% – Phase 2 pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data for EB612 (hypoparathyroidism)
  • Celgene Corporation CELG 5.6% – 1) Phase 3 for oral Azacitidine (post-induction AML maintenance), 2) Phase 3 data for Abraxane (adjuvant therapy in surgically resected pancreatic cancer), 3) Phase 3 data for Revlimid (first-line ABC diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or DLBCL)
  • Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. LXRX 8.65% – Phase 1b data for LX2761 (Type 2 diabetes)
  • ContraFect Corp CFRX 1.33% – Phase 2 data for CF-301 (serious infections caused by Staph aureus including MRSA)
  • Merck & Co., Inc. MRK 0.84% – 1) Phase 3 data for Keytruda (classical Hodgkin Lymphoma), 2) Phase 3 data for Keytruda (triple-negative breast cancer)
  • Deciphera Pharmaceuticals Inc DCPH 5.47% – Updated Phase 1 data for DCC-3014 (solid tumors or hematological malignancies)
  • Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc RARE 8.02% – low-dose cohort data from Phase 1/2 study of DTX401 (GSD1)
  • Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated CORT 7.9% – Phase 2 pancreatic data for Relacorilant (solid tumors)

  • Aeglea Bio Therapeutics Inc AGLE 8.35% – top-line safety and clinical data for Pegzilarginase along with Merck’s Keytruda (small cell lung cancer, or SCLC)
  • FibroGen Inc FGEN 5.21% & AstraZeneca plc AZN 1.38% – Pooled MACE safety data for Roxadustat (anemia in chronic kidney disease)
  • Portola Pharmaceuticals Inc PTLA 5.33% – Prior Approval Supplement, or PAS for Andexxa, a factor Xa inhibitor reversal agent
  • AstraZeneca – Phase 3 TULIP 3 data for Anifrolumab (lupus)
  • Novo Nordisk A/S NVO 1.92% – Phase 2 data from a study dubbed EXPLORER 4 for Concizumab (hemophilia A)
  • Amgen, Inc. AMGN 2.68% – Phase 2 data for AMG301 (migraine)
  • Marker Therapeutics Inc MRKR 8.5% – Interim Phase 2 data for TPIV200+durvalumab (platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer)
  • ProQR Therapeutics NV PRQR 2.14% – Interim Phase 1/2 data for QR-313 (epidermolysis bullosa)
  • Aerpio Pharmaceuticals Inc ARPO 3.89% – Phase 1 multiple ascending dose data for AKB-4924 (ulcerative colitis)
  • SCYNEXIS Inc SCYX 1.11% – Preliminary Phase 3 data for SCY-078 (invasive candidiasis)
  • Flexion Therapeutics Inc FLXN 5.76% – top-line Phase 2 data for Zilretta (osteoarthritis of the shoulder and hip)
  • Cocrystal Pharma Inc COCP 4.11% – Initial Phase 2a data for CC-31244 (hepatitis C)
  • ASLAN PHARMACEUTICALS ADR REP 5 ORD ASLN 4.11% – Phase 2 data for Varlitinib (gastric cancer)
  • TRACON Pharmaceuticals Inc TCON 36.14% – 1) Phase 1 data for TRC105 + Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Opdivo (NSCLC), 2) top-line data from Phase 2 data for TRC105 + Inlyta (renal cell carcinoma)
  • Palatin Technologies, Inc. PTN 11.52% – Phase 1 data for PL-8177 (inflammatory bowel disease)
  • Sienna Biopharmaceuticals Inc SNNA 1.08% – top-line data from the Phase 1/2 trial of SNA-125 (atopic dermatitis)
  • Aquestive Therapeutics Inc AQST 5.36% – top-line data from the Phase 3 trial of AQST-117 (amyotropic lateral sclerosis)
  • Cytori Therapeutics Inc CYTX 7.49% – Phase 2 data for Scleradec 2 (Scleroderma)
  • Pain Therapeutics, Inc. PTIE 4.24% – Preliminary data from the first cohort for PTI-428+ PTI-801 + PTI-808 (cystic fibrosis)
  • BioXcel Therapeutics Inc BTAI 0.78% – Phase 1 data for BXCL501 (Schizophrenia and senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type)
  • Savara Inc SVRA 0.48% – Interim Phase 2a data for Molgradex (non-tuberculous mycobacteria)
  • Pfizer Inc. PFE – Phase 3 data for Xtandi based on ARCHES study (Metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer)

How Freaked Out Should We Be About Possible Asbestos in Baby Powder?


Recent blockbuster investigations from Reuters and the New York Times allege that for decades, there was asbestos lurking in bottles of Johnson & Johnson baby powder, that the company knew about it, and that it did not share that information with the public. It sounds terrible: A cover-up, a mineral that can cause cancer after even tiny amounts of exposure, and a contaminated product that is marketed for use on infants. And it is terrible. But none of the reports answered the fundamental question for consumers: If you’ve used Johnson & Johnson baby powder on yourself or your children, just how scared should you be?
Over the last six days, I talked to two experts in the fields of environmental and occupational health, and consulted a slew of papers and fact sheets from independent sources. And while they all agree that the news reports are concerning, the topline takeaway is that individual consumers don’t have to worry as much as the terrifying word salad of “asbestos baby powder” would suggest.
Let’s back up. The Reuters investigation is pegged to the story of Darlene Coker, who sued Johnson & Johnson in 1997, and alleged that the company’s baby powder had given her a rare form of cancer, mesothelioma, which is closely linked to asbestos. Coker lost her case due to a lack of evidence to support the claim that the company’s baby powder contained any amount of the dangerous mineral. She died from mesothelioma in 2009. But now, new suits from thousands of plaintiffs alleging that the company’s products caused their cancers (not just mesothelioma) has forced Johnson & Johnson to share more documents, including a set the company had kept internal during the entire Coker suit. Some of these suggest that the company knew that some samples of baby powder contained trace amounts of asbestos from the 1970s, when the harms of asbestos were clear, into the early 2000s. That’s the cover-up, and it’s bad.
But why would baby powder contain asbestos to begin with? Because it’s made from talc, a natural mineral that is found in the earth, sometimes alongside asbestos. Knowing that, it’s easy to see how some asbestos could wind up in baby powder, and these new documents make clear that it did at least sometimes. But that still doesn’t make it certain that baby powder caused Coker’s cancer. We don’t know how much made its way into how many bottles, and in turn, how much of that contaminated powder Coker used. We don’t know if Coker had other exposures to asbestos.
Has baby powder been proven to cause mesothelioma more generally? We simply don’t know. “You couldn’t even design a study,” says Marc Schenker, founding director of the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health at the University of California–Davis. His stance on baby powder that is known to contain asbestos is clear: “I wouldn’t touch it.” And yet, even among those who do interact with asbestos, like miners and factory workers, mesothelioma remains a rare cancer, which is why multiple experts I spoke to noted that individuals who have used baby powder on their kids should not be too alarmed by this news.
Basically, what we do know is a paradox: Asbestos shouldn’t be in baby powder. And most people will not be affected in the least by the fact that it was. (There’s also no evidence that Johnson & Johnson baby powder currently contains asbestos.)
Mesothelioma is hard to study, both because it’s exceedingly rare, and it tends to take decades after exposure to develop. Each year, there are 14 deaths per 1 million people over the age of 25; more people die in car accidents in a single day than from mesothelioma per year even though, like cars, asbestos is to some extent ubiquitous in our environment—in the air, in car brakes, and in older buildings. We’re all exposed to asbestos “just from living,” says James Kelly, manager of environmental surveillance and assessment at the Minnesota Department of Health. “Obviously, it doesn’t cause everyone to become sick.” Even most asbestos miners do not get mesothelioma: the risk of the disease can increase a hundredfold for miners (the exact number depends on the specific conditions), but the number of people who actually get it is a small percentage of those exposed. In one cohort of 903 miners in Finland, for example, just four got the disease. (It further complicates things that there are different kinds of asbestos, and the type that made those four miners ill—a type also linked to an ore deposit that supplied talc for Johnson & Johnson—was a bit less inclined to cause mesothelioma, researchers concluded.)
How much asbestos reliably causes illness is impossible to pinpoint. There’s a saying: “One fiber can kill.” That’s an exaggeration, but when I pressed experts on exactly how much of an exaggeration it is, they could not offer an answer. The slogan serves to emphasize that even a short exposure can spark cancer years down the line, and therefore asbestos should be avoided at all reasonable costs. Most people who develop mesothelioma have a history of exposure, but some 15 percent can’t recall a clear incident, according to Schenker. They might have been unknowingly exposed to a tiny amount, they might have forgotten about a clearer exposure incident, or they might have developed the cancer spontaneously, without any asbestos at all. This is not to say that dosage does not matter—even though small amounts of exposure can cause mesothelioma, the more exposure you have, the greater the risk. (Mesothelioma is also not the only cancer linked to asbestos exposure, but it is most common one, according to the National Cancer Institute.)
How did Johnson & Johnson justify selling asbestos baby powder? As the recent reporting reveals, the company argued internally that it had successfully met the regulatory standard required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In a test to show that some cancerous fibers here and there were fine, Johnson & Johnson researchers put baby powder on a doll and sampled the air around it to determine how much powder would float up and stand to be inhaled (asbestos is dangerous when it gets into your lungs). Johnson & Johnson researchers determined that exposure would be below the OHSA limit of five fibers per milliliter of air, “even if talc were pure asbestos,” according to meeting minutes from 1974 obtained by Reuters. It’s worth noting that this experiment was conducted by the company rather than an independent party, but it seems to have cleared the bar.
So, bad cover-up and a fatal illness. But—still no clear indication that small amounts of asbestos in baby powder was the cause. Which is why you shouldn’t worry too much if you put baby powder on your kids during the asbestos years, experts say. The chance of a large exposure is slim, and the chance of an exposure causing the disease is slimmer still. “If I’d had used it on my own kids, it wouldn’t bother me appreciably,” says Kelly.
When I asked Slate parents if they had used baby powder on their kids, several told me that they hadn’t, due to some vague sense that it was dangerous. That matches nationwide trends: Johnson & Johnson baby product use has been on the decline in recent years, likely in part due to another Johnson & Johnson scandal (and lawsuits) surrounding the connection between talc and ovarian cancer. (The exact lines of causation in those cases are also quite complicated.) But ultimately, rather than continuing to try to nail down the precise risk baby powder poses, the easier question might be: What is the benefit? In other words, is Johnson & Johnson baby powder essential enough to warrant all this hassle?
Not really. Johnson & Johnson has spent a lot of money trying to convince us that its powder is a wonderful way to bond with our children. But despite having been around for decades, there have always been legitimate questions about how good the powder is at its job: ’”Its absorptive capability is small, its lubricating properties are minimal and its perfume aspects are short-lived,” wrote one doctor in 1985. For years, the company has marketed baby powder as something more than just a talc. But the reality is that there are plenty of other products that will do the same job (soothing diaper rash–y skin). You don’t have to worry about your baby powder usage—but there’s really no good reason to keep using it, either.

Should We Bring Back Public Psychiatric Hospitals?


Consider for a moment this situation: Your adult daughter suffers from a serious mental illness. You have tried to get help for her, but it has not worked out, and you were told that unless she’s a danger to herself or someone else, she can’t be hospitalized. Now she’s living on the street and you have no idea how she is faring. You worry constantly and dread getting a certain phone call. You wish desperately there was some sort of safe haven for her, but you know you cannot afford a private care facility. Maybe at this point, a publicly funded psychiatric hospital sounds like a good idea — as long as it isn’t what they were known for back in the 1950s and 1960s.
The closing of psychiatric hospitals began during those decades and has continued since; today, there are very few left, with about 11 state psychiatric hospital beds per 100,000 people. That’s the same ratio we had in 1850, according to a 2012 report by the Treatment Advocacy Center. Do we need more public psychiatric hospitals?
This question recently drew a standing-room-only crowd at Fountain House, a nonprofit community and social services center for the seriously mentally ill in New York City, where a panel of experts discussed the issue. (Watch a video of the discussion here.) The question exists within the context of a mental health crisis in the United States, and the related statistics are disturbing:
  • Having serious mental illness, such as bipolar disease or schizophrenia, will shorten your lifespan by 25 years. This is not because of suicide, but because many health issues (diabetes, heart disease, obesity, smoking) go untreated in the mentally ill, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI).
  • In nearly every U.S. state, people with serious mental illness are more likely to be jailed than sent to a hospital. In 2014, the number of mentally ill people behind bars was 10 times that of patients in state psychiatric hospitals, according to a study by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a national nonprofit based in Arlington, Va. New Hampshire is currently facing a backlash for placing into jails seriously mentally ill people who haven’t been arrested.
  • Some jails are inhumane for mentally ill people, and they are extremely costly. Incarceration can cost $100,000 per person per year, according to a 2014 Washington state survey.
  • One quarter of mentally ill people are homeless, according to NAMI. Some are discharged directly from jails, emergency rooms and mental hospitals to the streets.
  • Only about 63 percent of adults with serious mental illness received mental health services in the past year, NAMI says.

Bring Back Public Psychiatric Hospitals?

To treat this rising crisis, some experts argue for reinstituting mental health/psychiatric asylums — though the word “asylum” is loaded. In the strict sense of the word, asylums are meant to be places of safety and sanctuary. But for most people, the term conjures images of some of the worst state psychiatric hospitals of America’s past, including lobotomies, electric shock treatments and restraints for people locked up against their will.
None of the panelists at the Fountain House discussion were in favor of bringing back the old asylums. Instead, they want to create compassionate places where people with mental illness can heal and return to society.

Boomers Among the Most Affected

If you are a family caregiver of an adult with a serious mental illness, you are among a large population in the United States, and many of these caregivers are 50 or older. This is according to a 2016 study by The National Alliance for Caregiving and NAMI, which found that mental health caregivers are 54 on average, and typically tend to an adult son or daughter, providing 32 hours of care each week. About half of these caregivers report that their child lives with, and is financially dependent on, them. Few have plans in place for their child’s care once they can no longer provide it. And 62 percent of these parents said caregiving has made their own health worse.
“A parent shouldn’t have to be a caregiver who provides what amounts to mental health care because our system won’t do it,” said John Snook, a panelist during the Fountain House discussion and executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center. Snook said mental illness should be treated — and covered by insurance — like any other illness.
Snook added that although some excellent mental health facilities exist, they are tremendously expensive and beyond the reach of many. Not all people with serious mental illness need to be in an institution, but there does need to be some sort of long-term care for those who do, he said.

What Are We Willing to Do?

The panelists agreed that there is a crisis in the United States and an urgent need for solutions so people with serious mental illness receive proper treatment and shelter. The problem, the experts said, comes down to what society and government are willing to do, and government funding doesn’t come easy, said Dr. Ralph Aquila, medical director at Fountain House and the Sidney R. Baer Jr. Center in New York City.
“When it comes to resources and allocating funds, there are other priorities,” he said.

Clubhouses Work Well for Many

The discussion included the “clubhouse model” of mental illness rehabilitation, of which Fountain House is an example. These organizations are local community centers that support people with mental illness in a variety of ways, including help in finding mental health treatment, safe and affordable housing, employment and socialization.
Fountain House members are free to come and go as they wish. They are evaluated and prescribed medications when needed. They can work in the kitchen or horticulture department, create artwork to be sold in the Fountain House gallery and get help going back to school or finding a job. Most of all, they have a place to go that’s safe, where they have friends and community.
The clubhouse model is far more cost-effective than a psychiatric hospital.
For example, New Yorkers with mental illness have an average of a 50 percent rehospitalization rate, which costs $28,000 for a two-week stay in a psychiatric facility. Members of Fountain House have a rehospitalization rate of just 10 percent. And for about the same cost as that two-week hospital stay, the program — which is free to members — provides one year of housing, community support services, employment, as well as educational and social opportunities. Fountain House covers these costs through public funding and private donations. With members working and paying taxes, they are not draining public funds, Fountain House says.
Joel Corcoran, executive director of Clubhouse International, a nonprofit that helps people launch and grow clubhouses around the world, attended the Fountain House event and facilitated a small-group discussion afterward. He said clubhouse programs work because they provide a much-needed community to their members.
“People need a safe place, a feeling of being needed and wanted, something to do on a Friday night — and someone to do it with,” he said.
The model has taken off. Since Clubhouse International spun off from Fountain House in 1977, it has helped start about 300 clubhouses in more than 30 countries.

A Variety of Solutions Needed

Clubhouses work well for many people with mental illness, but the panel agreed that the United States needs a variety of solutions to match the diversity of mental health needs among the population.
For many people, inpatient psychiatric care is necessary, and bringing back public hospitals might be the solution for those who cannot afford private institutions.