MDedge Neurology

Drinking two or more cups of coffee a day was associated with twice the risk of death from cardiovascular disease among people with severe hypertension, according to researchers at Institute for Global Health Policy Research, Bureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

What to know

People with severely high blood pressure who drink two or more cups of caffeinated coffee each day could double their risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke, or any type of cardiovascular disease.

Too much coffee may raise blood pressure and lead to anxiety, heart palpitations, and difficulty sleeping.

An 8-ounce cup of coffee has 80-100 mg of caffeine, while an 8-ounce cup of green or black tea has 30-50 mg.

Drinking one cup of coffee a day or any amount of green tea was not associated with risk of death across any blood pressure categories, and drinking green tea was not associated with increased risk of death related to cardiovascular disease at any blood pressure level.

Frequent consumers of coffee were more likely to be younger, current smokers, current drinkers, to eat fewer vegetables, and to have higher total cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure regardless of their blood pressure category.

This is a summary of the article “Coffee and Green Tea Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among People With and Without Hypertension,” published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

Drinking two or more cups of coffee a day was associated with twice the risk of death from cardiovascular disease among people with severe hypertension, according to researchers at Institute for Global Health Policy Research, Bureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

What to know

People with severely high blood pressure who drink two or more cups of caffeinated coffee each day could double their risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke, or any type of cardiovascular disease.

Too much coffee may raise blood pressure and lead to anxiety, heart palpitations, and difficulty sleeping.

An 8-ounce cup of coffee has 80-100 mg of caffeine, while an 8-ounce cup of green or black tea has 30-50 mg.

Drinking one cup of coffee a day or any amount of green tea was not associated with risk of death across any blood pressure categories, and drinking green tea was not associated with increased risk of death related to cardiovascular disease at any blood pressure level.

Frequent consumers of coffee were more likely to be younger, current smokers, current drinkers, to eat fewer vegetables, and to have higher total cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure regardless of their blood pressure category.

This is a summary of the article “Coffee and Green Tea Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among People With and Without Hypertension,” published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

Drinking two or more cups of coffee a day was associated with twice the risk of death from cardiovascular disease among people with severe hypertension, according to researchers at Institute for Global Health Policy Research, Bureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo.

What to know

People with severely high blood pressure who drink two or more cups of caffeinated coffee each day could double their risk of dying from a heart attack, stroke, or any type of cardiovascular disease.

Too much coffee may raise blood pressure and lead to anxiety, heart palpitations, and difficulty sleeping.

An 8-ounce cup of coffee has 80-100 mg of caffeine, while an 8-ounce cup of green or black tea has 30-50 mg.

Drinking one cup of coffee a day or any amount of green tea was not associated with risk of death across any blood pressure categories, and drinking green tea was not associated with increased risk of death related to cardiovascular disease at any blood pressure level.

Frequent consumers of coffee were more likely to be younger, current smokers, current drinkers, to eat fewer vegetables, and to have higher total cholesterol levels and lower systolic blood pressure regardless of their blood pressure category.

This is a summary of the article “Coffee and Green Tea Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality Among People With and Without Hypertension,” published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

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

If a patient refuses care from a health care practitioner because of their race or sex, should their request be accommodated?

In a recent blog on Medscape titled “No, You Can’t See a Different Doctor: We Need Zero Tolerance of Patient Bias,” Cleveland Francis Jr., MD, argued no.

Dr. Francis, who is Black, is a recently retired cardiologist who practiced for 50 years. He is currently Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisor at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va.

When Francis was a medical student and was preparing to take a patient’s history and perform a medical exam, the patient refused and requested a “White doctor,” he recounted.

“I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday,” he wrote.

The blog, especially the title, drew strong reactions. Close to 500 readers weighed in.

“The title of my blog sounds harsh,” Dr. Francis said, “but in reality, a simple conversation with the patient usually resolves these issues. The difference is that in the old days, there was utter silence, and the wishes of the patient would be granted”

Health care practitioners “should expect to be treated with respect,” he concluded his blog.

Readers agreed on that point, but they debated whether being uncomfortable with a health care practitioner of a different sex or race always constituted “patient bias.”

Some noted that difficulty understanding a practitioner’s accent, for example, is a legitimate reason for asking for another clinician.
 

Accents and understanding

“If I am struggling to understand you because your accent is too thick or ... because hearing aids can only do so much, I need to ask for someone else,” a reader commented.

Another chimed in: “My elderly parents changed PCPs frequently during the final years of their lives, mainly due to language barriers encountered with foreign-born providers. Due to progressive hearing loss, they simply couldn’t understand them.”

“It is important to remember that there is a Patient Bill of Rights,” she noted, “the first part of which states, ‘You have the right to safe, considerate, and respectful care, provided in a manner consistent with your beliefs.’ ”

A former charge nurse added: “If a request for change was substantive (poor communication, perceived incompetence, trauma history, etc.), I would move mountains to accommodate it, but IMHO [in my humble opinion], the belief in honoring patient preference doesn’t necessarily need to include rearranging the world in order to accommodate racism, sexism, etc.”

Bias against female doctors, male nurses

Many commenters described how they gladly traded when a patient requested a practitioner of the opposite sex.

A female hospitalist related how she contacted the senior male doctor working with her to arrange a patient trade, adding, “I do agree that racial discrimination ought to be discouraged.”

Similarly, a male ICU RN commented: “Over 13 years, I have had a handful of female (usually older) patients request a female nurse. I have always strived to make this happen.”

However, an older woman related how at first she “had some bias against a male nurse touching me and also felt self-conscious,” she said. “So, I tried to relax ... and let him do his job. He was one of the most compassionate, kind, and sensitive nurses I’ve ever had.”

“I think in some cases,” she noted, “some women have had a history of some sort of abuse by a male, whether it’s sexual or psychological,” but in other cases, “it’s often just a personal preference, not a bias.”

A physician assistant (PA) who worked in a rural ED recounted how “there was only one physician and one PA on at any given evening/night shift, both usually White males.”

“Sometimes, you just have to cope as best you can with whomever is available, and in doing so,” he said, “they might just end up being pleasantly surprised.”
 

Don’t take it personally, move on

“If a patient doesn’t want to see me for whatever reason, then I would rather not treat them,” was a common sentiment.

Patients “should feel comfortable with their provider even if it’s with someone other than myself,” a reader wrote.

A female physician chimed in: “I frequently have older male patients refuse to see me. ... While this is irritating on several levels, I recognize that it is the patient’s choice, sigh, and move on to the next patient.”

“There are many more patients who specifically ask to see me, so I don’t waste my time and energy on being bothered by those who refuse.”

Similarly, a female mental health provider and sometimes patient wrote: “If any patient tells me that they prefer a male ... or someone of a particular race or religion or whatever, I don’t take it personally.”

A female Hispanic doctor chimed in: “Honestly, if a patient does not want to see me due to my race, I’m OK with that. Patients need to feel comfortable with me for the relationship to be therapeutic and effective,” she said.

“Forcing the patient to see me is adding injury to insult to ME! Not to mention increase[d] workload since that patient will take [so] much more time.”

Similarly, an Asian American doctor commented: “There are people who choose not to see me because of my ethnicity. However, I strongly believe that it should always be the patient’s preference. Whatever the reason, do not force the patient to see you in the name of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, or whatever hurts your feeling. Let the patient go.”
 

Patient bias vs. patient preference

A physician referring to Dr. Francis’s experience suggested that “perhaps there was an opportunity to explore this misconception directly with the patient. If not, your supervising senior resident or attending should have been informed and brought into the process and conversation.”

“If/when I were rejected by a patient for whatever reason,” another physician commented, “I would gracefully accede, and hope that my colleague would tactfully point out to the patient their error.”

“Having a nurse ask the patient ... what they need style-wise (keeping race, gender, etc., out of it) might help identify whether or not the underlying issue(s) are based on style/needs mismatch match rather than bias,” a reader suggested.

A health care worker commented: “We generally assure patients that we are professionals and think nothing of situations that they might find uncomfortable, but don’t realize that our comfort does not translate to theirs.”
 

Maybe a different strategy is needed

“Having been the target of bias many times,” a reader said, “I understand the pain that is inflicted. Unfortunately, a patient bias policy, while a good idea, will not prevent patient bias. This is a much larger societal problem. But we can at least tell patients that it is not okay. On the other hand, I would not want to be the provider for a patient who was biased against me and held me in disdain.”

“I do not like Zero Tolerance policies ever. They are too absolute,” another reader commented. “Sometimes, there are reasons and we do have to listen to our patients for why. ... I do not think a policy of zero tolerance will fix the problem of racism.”

“Instead of trying to educate the general public about how not to be jerks,” another reader suggested, “perhaps it would be easier to provide elective classes for doctors and employees who believe themselves to be at-risk for discrimination, providing them with a ‘toolkit’ of strategies for responding to discrimination in the moment, processing it emotionally later on, and reporting the most egregious events through designated channels.”

Another commenter agreed and wrote that, “While we as doctors need and deserve protection, we are also called to act with compassion. So, rather than ask the system for ‘zero-tolerance’ in either direction, we could encourage our health systems to provide education, support, and mediation to any party who feels or fears that they are not being well served. Such a model would include support for physicians who have been the victims of bias and hurt.”

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

If a patient refuses care from a health care practitioner because of their race or sex, should their request be accommodated?

In a recent blog on Medscape titled “No, You Can’t See a Different Doctor: We Need Zero Tolerance of Patient Bias,” Cleveland Francis Jr., MD, argued no.

Dr. Francis, who is Black, is a recently retired cardiologist who practiced for 50 years. He is currently Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisor at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va.

When Francis was a medical student and was preparing to take a patient’s history and perform a medical exam, the patient refused and requested a “White doctor,” he recounted.

“I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday,” he wrote.

The blog, especially the title, drew strong reactions. Close to 500 readers weighed in.

“The title of my blog sounds harsh,” Dr. Francis said, “but in reality, a simple conversation with the patient usually resolves these issues. The difference is that in the old days, there was utter silence, and the wishes of the patient would be granted”

Health care practitioners “should expect to be treated with respect,” he concluded his blog.

Readers agreed on that point, but they debated whether being uncomfortable with a health care practitioner of a different sex or race always constituted “patient bias.”

Some noted that difficulty understanding a practitioner’s accent, for example, is a legitimate reason for asking for another clinician.
 

Accents and understanding

“If I am struggling to understand you because your accent is too thick or ... because hearing aids can only do so much, I need to ask for someone else,” a reader commented.

Another chimed in: “My elderly parents changed PCPs frequently during the final years of their lives, mainly due to language barriers encountered with foreign-born providers. Due to progressive hearing loss, they simply couldn’t understand them.”

“It is important to remember that there is a Patient Bill of Rights,” she noted, “the first part of which states, ‘You have the right to safe, considerate, and respectful care, provided in a manner consistent with your beliefs.’ ”

A former charge nurse added: “If a request for change was substantive (poor communication, perceived incompetence, trauma history, etc.), I would move mountains to accommodate it, but IMHO [in my humble opinion], the belief in honoring patient preference doesn’t necessarily need to include rearranging the world in order to accommodate racism, sexism, etc.”

Bias against female doctors, male nurses

Many commenters described how they gladly traded when a patient requested a practitioner of the opposite sex.

A female hospitalist related how she contacted the senior male doctor working with her to arrange a patient trade, adding, “I do agree that racial discrimination ought to be discouraged.”

Similarly, a male ICU RN commented: “Over 13 years, I have had a handful of female (usually older) patients request a female nurse. I have always strived to make this happen.”

However, an older woman related how at first she “had some bias against a male nurse touching me and also felt self-conscious,” she said. “So, I tried to relax ... and let him do his job. He was one of the most compassionate, kind, and sensitive nurses I’ve ever had.”

“I think in some cases,” she noted, “some women have had a history of some sort of abuse by a male, whether it’s sexual or psychological,” but in other cases, “it’s often just a personal preference, not a bias.”

A physician assistant (PA) who worked in a rural ED recounted how “there was only one physician and one PA on at any given evening/night shift, both usually White males.”

“Sometimes, you just have to cope as best you can with whomever is available, and in doing so,” he said, “they might just end up being pleasantly surprised.”
 

Don’t take it personally, move on

“If a patient doesn’t want to see me for whatever reason, then I would rather not treat them,” was a common sentiment.

Patients “should feel comfortable with their provider even if it’s with someone other than myself,” a reader wrote.

A female physician chimed in: “I frequently have older male patients refuse to see me. ... While this is irritating on several levels, I recognize that it is the patient’s choice, sigh, and move on to the next patient.”

“There are many more patients who specifically ask to see me, so I don’t waste my time and energy on being bothered by those who refuse.”

Similarly, a female mental health provider and sometimes patient wrote: “If any patient tells me that they prefer a male ... or someone of a particular race or religion or whatever, I don’t take it personally.”

A female Hispanic doctor chimed in: “Honestly, if a patient does not want to see me due to my race, I’m OK with that. Patients need to feel comfortable with me for the relationship to be therapeutic and effective,” she said.

“Forcing the patient to see me is adding injury to insult to ME! Not to mention increase[d] workload since that patient will take [so] much more time.”

Similarly, an Asian American doctor commented: “There are people who choose not to see me because of my ethnicity. However, I strongly believe that it should always be the patient’s preference. Whatever the reason, do not force the patient to see you in the name of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, or whatever hurts your feeling. Let the patient go.”
 

Patient bias vs. patient preference

A physician referring to Dr. Francis’s experience suggested that “perhaps there was an opportunity to explore this misconception directly with the patient. If not, your supervising senior resident or attending should have been informed and brought into the process and conversation.”

“If/when I were rejected by a patient for whatever reason,” another physician commented, “I would gracefully accede, and hope that my colleague would tactfully point out to the patient their error.”

“Having a nurse ask the patient ... what they need style-wise (keeping race, gender, etc., out of it) might help identify whether or not the underlying issue(s) are based on style/needs mismatch match rather than bias,” a reader suggested.

A health care worker commented: “We generally assure patients that we are professionals and think nothing of situations that they might find uncomfortable, but don’t realize that our comfort does not translate to theirs.”
 

Maybe a different strategy is needed

“Having been the target of bias many times,” a reader said, “I understand the pain that is inflicted. Unfortunately, a patient bias policy, while a good idea, will not prevent patient bias. This is a much larger societal problem. But we can at least tell patients that it is not okay. On the other hand, I would not want to be the provider for a patient who was biased against me and held me in disdain.”

“I do not like Zero Tolerance policies ever. They are too absolute,” another reader commented. “Sometimes, there are reasons and we do have to listen to our patients for why. ... I do not think a policy of zero tolerance will fix the problem of racism.”

“Instead of trying to educate the general public about how not to be jerks,” another reader suggested, “perhaps it would be easier to provide elective classes for doctors and employees who believe themselves to be at-risk for discrimination, providing them with a ‘toolkit’ of strategies for responding to discrimination in the moment, processing it emotionally later on, and reporting the most egregious events through designated channels.”

Another commenter agreed and wrote that, “While we as doctors need and deserve protection, we are also called to act with compassion. So, rather than ask the system for ‘zero-tolerance’ in either direction, we could encourage our health systems to provide education, support, and mediation to any party who feels or fears that they are not being well served. Such a model would include support for physicians who have been the victims of bias and hurt.”

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

If a patient refuses care from a health care practitioner because of their race or sex, should their request be accommodated?

In a recent blog on Medscape titled “No, You Can’t See a Different Doctor: We Need Zero Tolerance of Patient Bias,” Cleveland Francis Jr., MD, argued no.

Dr. Francis, who is Black, is a recently retired cardiologist who practiced for 50 years. He is currently Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisor at Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va.

When Francis was a medical student and was preparing to take a patient’s history and perform a medical exam, the patient refused and requested a “White doctor,” he recounted.

“I can remember the hurt and embarrassment as if it were yesterday,” he wrote.

The blog, especially the title, drew strong reactions. Close to 500 readers weighed in.

“The title of my blog sounds harsh,” Dr. Francis said, “but in reality, a simple conversation with the patient usually resolves these issues. The difference is that in the old days, there was utter silence, and the wishes of the patient would be granted”

Health care practitioners “should expect to be treated with respect,” he concluded his blog.

Readers agreed on that point, but they debated whether being uncomfortable with a health care practitioner of a different sex or race always constituted “patient bias.”

Some noted that difficulty understanding a practitioner’s accent, for example, is a legitimate reason for asking for another clinician.
 

Accents and understanding

“If I am struggling to understand you because your accent is too thick or ... because hearing aids can only do so much, I need to ask for someone else,” a reader commented.

Another chimed in: “My elderly parents changed PCPs frequently during the final years of their lives, mainly due to language barriers encountered with foreign-born providers. Due to progressive hearing loss, they simply couldn’t understand them.”

“It is important to remember that there is a Patient Bill of Rights,” she noted, “the first part of which states, ‘You have the right to safe, considerate, and respectful care, provided in a manner consistent with your beliefs.’ ”

A former charge nurse added: “If a request for change was substantive (poor communication, perceived incompetence, trauma history, etc.), I would move mountains to accommodate it, but IMHO [in my humble opinion], the belief in honoring patient preference doesn’t necessarily need to include rearranging the world in order to accommodate racism, sexism, etc.”

Bias against female doctors, male nurses

Many commenters described how they gladly traded when a patient requested a practitioner of the opposite sex.

A female hospitalist related how she contacted the senior male doctor working with her to arrange a patient trade, adding, “I do agree that racial discrimination ought to be discouraged.”

Similarly, a male ICU RN commented: “Over 13 years, I have had a handful of female (usually older) patients request a female nurse. I have always strived to make this happen.”

However, an older woman related how at first she “had some bias against a male nurse touching me and also felt self-conscious,” she said. “So, I tried to relax ... and let him do his job. He was one of the most compassionate, kind, and sensitive nurses I’ve ever had.”

“I think in some cases,” she noted, “some women have had a history of some sort of abuse by a male, whether it’s sexual or psychological,” but in other cases, “it’s often just a personal preference, not a bias.”

A physician assistant (PA) who worked in a rural ED recounted how “there was only one physician and one PA on at any given evening/night shift, both usually White males.”

“Sometimes, you just have to cope as best you can with whomever is available, and in doing so,” he said, “they might just end up being pleasantly surprised.”
 

Don’t take it personally, move on

“If a patient doesn’t want to see me for whatever reason, then I would rather not treat them,” was a common sentiment.

Patients “should feel comfortable with their provider even if it’s with someone other than myself,” a reader wrote.

A female physician chimed in: “I frequently have older male patients refuse to see me. ... While this is irritating on several levels, I recognize that it is the patient’s choice, sigh, and move on to the next patient.”

“There are many more patients who specifically ask to see me, so I don’t waste my time and energy on being bothered by those who refuse.”

Similarly, a female mental health provider and sometimes patient wrote: “If any patient tells me that they prefer a male ... or someone of a particular race or religion or whatever, I don’t take it personally.”

A female Hispanic doctor chimed in: “Honestly, if a patient does not want to see me due to my race, I’m OK with that. Patients need to feel comfortable with me for the relationship to be therapeutic and effective,” she said.

“Forcing the patient to see me is adding injury to insult to ME! Not to mention increase[d] workload since that patient will take [so] much more time.”

Similarly, an Asian American doctor commented: “There are people who choose not to see me because of my ethnicity. However, I strongly believe that it should always be the patient’s preference. Whatever the reason, do not force the patient to see you in the name of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, or whatever hurts your feeling. Let the patient go.”
 

Patient bias vs. patient preference

A physician referring to Dr. Francis’s experience suggested that “perhaps there was an opportunity to explore this misconception directly with the patient. If not, your supervising senior resident or attending should have been informed and brought into the process and conversation.”

“If/when I were rejected by a patient for whatever reason,” another physician commented, “I would gracefully accede, and hope that my colleague would tactfully point out to the patient their error.”

“Having a nurse ask the patient ... what they need style-wise (keeping race, gender, etc., out of it) might help identify whether or not the underlying issue(s) are based on style/needs mismatch match rather than bias,” a reader suggested.

A health care worker commented: “We generally assure patients that we are professionals and think nothing of situations that they might find uncomfortable, but don’t realize that our comfort does not translate to theirs.”
 

Maybe a different strategy is needed

“Having been the target of bias many times,” a reader said, “I understand the pain that is inflicted. Unfortunately, a patient bias policy, while a good idea, will not prevent patient bias. This is a much larger societal problem. But we can at least tell patients that it is not okay. On the other hand, I would not want to be the provider for a patient who was biased against me and held me in disdain.”

“I do not like Zero Tolerance policies ever. They are too absolute,” another reader commented. “Sometimes, there are reasons and we do have to listen to our patients for why. ... I do not think a policy of zero tolerance will fix the problem of racism.”

“Instead of trying to educate the general public about how not to be jerks,” another reader suggested, “perhaps it would be easier to provide elective classes for doctors and employees who believe themselves to be at-risk for discrimination, providing them with a ‘toolkit’ of strategies for responding to discrimination in the moment, processing it emotionally later on, and reporting the most egregious events through designated channels.”

Another commenter agreed and wrote that, “While we as doctors need and deserve protection, we are also called to act with compassion. So, rather than ask the system for ‘zero-tolerance’ in either direction, we could encourage our health systems to provide education, support, and mediation to any party who feels or fears that they are not being well served. Such a model would include support for physicians who have been the victims of bias and hurt.”

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

One-eyed, one-horned, flying purple veggie eater

Big Fruits and Vegetables is at it again. You notice how they’re always like “Oh, vegetables are good for your health,” and “Eating fruits every day makes you live longer,” but come on. It’s a marketing ploy, leading us astray from our personal savior, McDonald’s.

PxHere

Just look at this latest bit of research: According to researchers from Finland, eating purple vegetables can protect against diabetes. Considering nearly 40 million Americans have diabetes (and nearly 100 million have prediabetes), anything to reduce the incidence of diabetes (people with diabetes account for one-fourth of every dollar spent in U.S. health care) would be beneficial. So, let’s humor the fruits and veggies people this time and hear them out.

It all comes down to a chemical called anthocyanin, which is a pigment that gives fruits and vegetables such as blueberries, radishes, and red cabbages their purplish color. Anthocyanin also has probiotic and anti-inflammatory effects, meaning it can help improve intestinal lining health and regulate glucose and lipid metabolic pathways. Obviously, good things if you want to avoid diabetes.

The investigators also found that, while standard anthocyanin was beneficial, acylated anthocyanin (which has an acyl group added to the sugar molecules of anthocyanin) is really what you want to go for. The acylated version, found in abundance in purple potatoes, purple carrots, radishes, and red cabbages, is tougher to digest, but the positive effects it has in the body are enhanced over the standard version.

Now, this all a compelling bit of research, but at the end of the day, you’re still eating fruits and vegetables, and we are red-blooded Americans here. We don’t do healthy foods. Although, if you were to dye our burgers with anthocyanin and make them purple, you’d have our attention. Purple is our favorite color.
 

Manuka honey better as building material than antibiotic

Milk, according to the old saying, builds strong bones, but when it comes to patients with bone loss caused by various medical reasons, researchers found that manuka honey, produced only in New Zealand and some parts of Australia, may also do the job. They soaked collagen scaffolds used for bone implants in various concentrations of the honey and found that 5% led to higher mineral formation and osteoprotegerin production, which suggests increased bone production.

Marley Dewey

But, and this is a pretty big one, the other half of the study – testing manuka honey’s ability to ward off bacteria – wasn’t so successful. Bone implants, apparently, count for almost half of all hospital-acquired infections, which obviously can put a damper on the healing process. The hope was that a biomaterial would be more effective than something like metal in lessening bacteria formation. Nope.

When the researchers soaked paper disks in honey and added them to cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus, none of the various concentrations stopped bacterial growth in the scaffolding, even when they added antibiotics.

The sticky conclusion, you could say, is more bitter than sweet.
 

It may sound like Korn, but can it play ‘Freak on a Leash’?

Like all right-thinking Americans, we love corn, corn-based products, and almost corn. Corn on the cob grilled in the husk? Mmm. Plus, we’re big fans of the band Korn. Also, we once had a reporter here named Tim Kirn. And don’t even get us started with Karn. Best Family Feud host ever.

Quorn

But what about Quorn? Oh sure, the fungi-based meat alternative is full of yummy mycoprotein, but can it prevent colorectal cancer? Can we add Quorn to our favorites list? Let’s see what Science has to say.

Researchers at Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, fed a group of 20 men some meat (240 g/day) for 2 weeks – hopefully, they were allowed to eat some other food as well – and then gave them the same amount of Quorn, excuse us, fungi-derived mycoprotein equivalents, for 2 more weeks, with a 4-week washout period in between.

Levels of cancer-causing chemicals known as genotoxins fell significantly in the mycoprotein phase but rose during the meat phase. The mycoprotein diet also improved gut health “by increasing the abundance of protective bacteria such as Lactobacilli, Roseburia, and Akkermansia, which are associated with offering protection against chemically induced tumours, inflammation and bowel cancer,” they said in a statement from the university.

The meat phase, on the other hand, resulted in an increase in “gut bacteria linked with issues such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, weight gain and other negative health outcomes,” they noted.

Science, then, seems to approve of Quorn, and that’s good enough for us. We’re adding Quorn to our diet, starting with a fungi-derived mycoproteinburger tonight while we’re watching the Cornell Big Red take the court against their archrivals, the Big Green of Dartmouth College. GO RED!

One-eyed, one-horned, flying purple veggie eater

Big Fruits and Vegetables is at it again. You notice how they’re always like “Oh, vegetables are good for your health,” and “Eating fruits every day makes you live longer,” but come on. It’s a marketing ploy, leading us astray from our personal savior, McDonald’s.

PxHere

Just look at this latest bit of research: According to researchers from Finland, eating purple vegetables can protect against diabetes. Considering nearly 40 million Americans have diabetes (and nearly 100 million have prediabetes), anything to reduce the incidence of diabetes (people with diabetes account for one-fourth of every dollar spent in U.S. health care) would be beneficial. So, let’s humor the fruits and veggies people this time and hear them out.

It all comes down to a chemical called anthocyanin, which is a pigment that gives fruits and vegetables such as blueberries, radishes, and red cabbages their purplish color. Anthocyanin also has probiotic and anti-inflammatory effects, meaning it can help improve intestinal lining health and regulate glucose and lipid metabolic pathways. Obviously, good things if you want to avoid diabetes.

The investigators also found that, while standard anthocyanin was beneficial, acylated anthocyanin (which has an acyl group added to the sugar molecules of anthocyanin) is really what you want to go for. The acylated version, found in abundance in purple potatoes, purple carrots, radishes, and red cabbages, is tougher to digest, but the positive effects it has in the body are enhanced over the standard version.

Now, this all a compelling bit of research, but at the end of the day, you’re still eating fruits and vegetables, and we are red-blooded Americans here. We don’t do healthy foods. Although, if you were to dye our burgers with anthocyanin and make them purple, you’d have our attention. Purple is our favorite color.
 

Manuka honey better as building material than antibiotic

Milk, according to the old saying, builds strong bones, but when it comes to patients with bone loss caused by various medical reasons, researchers found that manuka honey, produced only in New Zealand and some parts of Australia, may also do the job. They soaked collagen scaffolds used for bone implants in various concentrations of the honey and found that 5% led to higher mineral formation and osteoprotegerin production, which suggests increased bone production.

Marley Dewey

But, and this is a pretty big one, the other half of the study – testing manuka honey’s ability to ward off bacteria – wasn’t so successful. Bone implants, apparently, count for almost half of all hospital-acquired infections, which obviously can put a damper on the healing process. The hope was that a biomaterial would be more effective than something like metal in lessening bacteria formation. Nope.

When the researchers soaked paper disks in honey and added them to cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus, none of the various concentrations stopped bacterial growth in the scaffolding, even when they added antibiotics.

The sticky conclusion, you could say, is more bitter than sweet.
 

It may sound like Korn, but can it play ‘Freak on a Leash’?

Like all right-thinking Americans, we love corn, corn-based products, and almost corn. Corn on the cob grilled in the husk? Mmm. Plus, we’re big fans of the band Korn. Also, we once had a reporter here named Tim Kirn. And don’t even get us started with Karn. Best Family Feud host ever.

Quorn

But what about Quorn? Oh sure, the fungi-based meat alternative is full of yummy mycoprotein, but can it prevent colorectal cancer? Can we add Quorn to our favorites list? Let’s see what Science has to say.

Researchers at Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, fed a group of 20 men some meat (240 g/day) for 2 weeks – hopefully, they were allowed to eat some other food as well – and then gave them the same amount of Quorn, excuse us, fungi-derived mycoprotein equivalents, for 2 more weeks, with a 4-week washout period in between.

Levels of cancer-causing chemicals known as genotoxins fell significantly in the mycoprotein phase but rose during the meat phase. The mycoprotein diet also improved gut health “by increasing the abundance of protective bacteria such as Lactobacilli, Roseburia, and Akkermansia, which are associated with offering protection against chemically induced tumours, inflammation and bowel cancer,” they said in a statement from the university.

The meat phase, on the other hand, resulted in an increase in “gut bacteria linked with issues such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, weight gain and other negative health outcomes,” they noted.

Science, then, seems to approve of Quorn, and that’s good enough for us. We’re adding Quorn to our diet, starting with a fungi-derived mycoproteinburger tonight while we’re watching the Cornell Big Red take the court against their archrivals, the Big Green of Dartmouth College. GO RED!

One-eyed, one-horned, flying purple veggie eater

Big Fruits and Vegetables is at it again. You notice how they’re always like “Oh, vegetables are good for your health,” and “Eating fruits every day makes you live longer,” but come on. It’s a marketing ploy, leading us astray from our personal savior, McDonald’s.

PxHere

Just look at this latest bit of research: According to researchers from Finland, eating purple vegetables can protect against diabetes. Considering nearly 40 million Americans have diabetes (and nearly 100 million have prediabetes), anything to reduce the incidence of diabetes (people with diabetes account for one-fourth of every dollar spent in U.S. health care) would be beneficial. So, let’s humor the fruits and veggies people this time and hear them out.

It all comes down to a chemical called anthocyanin, which is a pigment that gives fruits and vegetables such as blueberries, radishes, and red cabbages their purplish color. Anthocyanin also has probiotic and anti-inflammatory effects, meaning it can help improve intestinal lining health and regulate glucose and lipid metabolic pathways. Obviously, good things if you want to avoid diabetes.

The investigators also found that, while standard anthocyanin was beneficial, acylated anthocyanin (which has an acyl group added to the sugar molecules of anthocyanin) is really what you want to go for. The acylated version, found in abundance in purple potatoes, purple carrots, radishes, and red cabbages, is tougher to digest, but the positive effects it has in the body are enhanced over the standard version.

Now, this all a compelling bit of research, but at the end of the day, you’re still eating fruits and vegetables, and we are red-blooded Americans here. We don’t do healthy foods. Although, if you were to dye our burgers with anthocyanin and make them purple, you’d have our attention. Purple is our favorite color.
 

Manuka honey better as building material than antibiotic

Milk, according to the old saying, builds strong bones, but when it comes to patients with bone loss caused by various medical reasons, researchers found that manuka honey, produced only in New Zealand and some parts of Australia, may also do the job. They soaked collagen scaffolds used for bone implants in various concentrations of the honey and found that 5% led to higher mineral formation and osteoprotegerin production, which suggests increased bone production.

Marley Dewey

But, and this is a pretty big one, the other half of the study – testing manuka honey’s ability to ward off bacteria – wasn’t so successful. Bone implants, apparently, count for almost half of all hospital-acquired infections, which obviously can put a damper on the healing process. The hope was that a biomaterial would be more effective than something like metal in lessening bacteria formation. Nope.

When the researchers soaked paper disks in honey and added them to cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus, none of the various concentrations stopped bacterial growth in the scaffolding, even when they added antibiotics.

The sticky conclusion, you could say, is more bitter than sweet.
 

It may sound like Korn, but can it play ‘Freak on a Leash’?

Like all right-thinking Americans, we love corn, corn-based products, and almost corn. Corn on the cob grilled in the husk? Mmm. Plus, we’re big fans of the band Korn. Also, we once had a reporter here named Tim Kirn. And don’t even get us started with Karn. Best Family Feud host ever.

Quorn

But what about Quorn? Oh sure, the fungi-based meat alternative is full of yummy mycoprotein, but can it prevent colorectal cancer? Can we add Quorn to our favorites list? Let’s see what Science has to say.

Researchers at Northumbria University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, fed a group of 20 men some meat (240 g/day) for 2 weeks – hopefully, they were allowed to eat some other food as well – and then gave them the same amount of Quorn, excuse us, fungi-derived mycoprotein equivalents, for 2 more weeks, with a 4-week washout period in between.

Levels of cancer-causing chemicals known as genotoxins fell significantly in the mycoprotein phase but rose during the meat phase. The mycoprotein diet also improved gut health “by increasing the abundance of protective bacteria such as Lactobacilli, Roseburia, and Akkermansia, which are associated with offering protection against chemically induced tumours, inflammation and bowel cancer,” they said in a statement from the university.

The meat phase, on the other hand, resulted in an increase in “gut bacteria linked with issues such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, weight gain and other negative health outcomes,” they noted.

Science, then, seems to approve of Quorn, and that’s good enough for us. We’re adding Quorn to our diet, starting with a fungi-derived mycoproteinburger tonight while we’re watching the Cornell Big Red take the court against their archrivals, the Big Green of Dartmouth College. GO RED!

Physician groups saw staff-to-physician ratios decline even as their workforce expenses rose between 2019 and 2021, according to recent reports from the American Medical Group Association (AMGA) and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).

As patients started to return to doctors’ offices as the pandemic eased in 2021, physician groups found it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain lower-level clinicians, including medical assistants and LPNs, officials from both associations told this news organization. Many clinics had to raise their pay scales to be competitive with employers in other fields, and some had to hire higher-priced RNs to keep their practices running.

The AMGA report was based largely on data from groups of over 500 physicians, mostly affiliated with health systems. According to a news release accompanying the report, the ratio between full-time equivalent (FTE) clinic staff and health care professionals in direct patient care dropped by 11.3% between 2019 and 2021. The ratio of medical assistants (MAs) to clinicians declined by a greater percentage.

In the MGMA report, which represented about 4,000 practices ranging from very small (two doctors) to very large groups, total support staff per FTE primary-care physician dropped by 18% from 2019 to 2021 in independent groups and by 13% in hospital-affiliated groups. The ratios decreased by smaller amounts in surgical practices.

In contrast, nonsurgical specialty groups under both types of ownership saw their staffing ratios rise slightly.

Although it’s unclear why medical specialties increased their staff while other types of specialties lost employees, Ron Holder, MHA, chief operating officer of MGMA, said that some specialists may have opened more ancillary facilities and hired new employees to recoup revenue lost during the pandemic.
 

Expenses rise sharply

The AMGA report found that staffing expenses for the surveyed groups increased by 15% between 2019 and 2021.

“We saw a decrease in staff and an increase in expenses during that time period, and there are a few reasons for that,” Rose Wagner, RN, chief operating officer of AMGA, said. “Groups increased salaries to maintain staff. We also saw lower-paid staff find other jobs outside of health care. For example, medical assistants and receptionists could find jobs outside of health care that paid more. [Open positions] got back-filled with other higher paid staff, such as RNs, doing lower skilled jobs.”

Mr. Holder added that rising wages in other sectors made leaving physician groups more attractive for employees.

“Three years ago, there weren’t many positions in a medical practice where you were competing with Chick-fil-A or Taco Bell,” he said. In Denver, where Mr. Holder is based, “every restaurant in town is now advertising $17-$19 [hourly] starting pay just to do fast food. That causes practices to either lose employees or pay more for the employees they have. So that raises per-employee expense significantly,” he said.

Mr. Holder noted that inflation also has driven up wages as employees demand higher pay to keep up with the cost of living.
 

Unusual exodus of employees

Fred Horton, MHA, president of AMGA Consulting, said he has never seen so many people leaving health care for other occupations.

Some exits resulted from practices laying people off early in the pandemic, but most staff members who left practices were seeking higher pay, he said. In addition, Ms. Wagner noted, some staff members didn’t want to be exposed to COVID at work.

“There was an exodus from health care that was different from what we’d experienced in the past,” Mr. Horton added. “It’s still extremely challenging to get up to the staffing levels that are appropriate.”

Mr. Holder, however, said that the situation is slowly improving. “Health care is fairly recession-proof, because people need it. So when you see companies in other industries closing shop or reducing their head count, that actually helps health care recruiting in some jobs. And people are coming back to the workplace who previously were worried about COVID or didn’t want to get the vaccine.”
 

Paying more for nurses

In 2021, groups adopted a variety of tactics to adapt to the pandemic and respond to patient demand, the AMGA survey shows. Forty percent of system-affiliated groups and 18% of independent practices changed registered nurses’ responsibilities, in many cases having them do the work of medical assistants who were in short supply.

Some practices hired RNs, who have historically been utilized less by primary care than by surgical specialties, Mr. Holder noted. Other clinics paid temp agencies to supply nurses at a steep cost.

“When you’re short staffed, you end up paying more overtime, you end up paying temporary agencies at higher dollars, and you hire higher skilled people to do lower-skilled work,” Ms. Wagner said.

Meanwhile, many physician groups tried to cope with the physician shortage by bringing on more advanced practice clinicians (APCs), including nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Seventy percent of the AMGA groups used this strategy, the report revealed.

“The use of APCs has been steadily increasing as groups try to adopt a lower-cost care model in the midst of a nationwide physician shortage,” Ms. Wagner said in the press release.
 

Changes in patient care

About half of the groups in the AMGA survey said they changed their staff structure to allow APCs to carry their own patient panels. Although most of these clinicians were probably under physician supervision, nearly half of the states now allow NPs to practice autonomously.

Mr. Horton cautioned that APCs can’t fully substitute for physicians and require the same support staff that doctors do if they have their own panels. In primary care groups, Mr. Holder noted, the average salary of an APC “is continuing to rise, and there isn’t a huge difference between what they and doctors make.”

Nevertheless, he added, “there are more NPs and PAs being added to the marketplace all the time, whereas [physician] residency programs aren’t really growing. There are caps on the number of residency positions, and some physicians are retiring. So the clock is ticking to the point where someday doctors will be grossly outnumbered by NPs.”

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

Physician groups saw staff-to-physician ratios decline even as their workforce expenses rose between 2019 and 2021, according to recent reports from the American Medical Group Association (AMGA) and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).

As patients started to return to doctors’ offices as the pandemic eased in 2021, physician groups found it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain lower-level clinicians, including medical assistants and LPNs, officials from both associations told this news organization. Many clinics had to raise their pay scales to be competitive with employers in other fields, and some had to hire higher-priced RNs to keep their practices running.

The AMGA report was based largely on data from groups of over 500 physicians, mostly affiliated with health systems. According to a news release accompanying the report, the ratio between full-time equivalent (FTE) clinic staff and health care professionals in direct patient care dropped by 11.3% between 2019 and 2021. The ratio of medical assistants (MAs) to clinicians declined by a greater percentage.

In the MGMA report, which represented about 4,000 practices ranging from very small (two doctors) to very large groups, total support staff per FTE primary-care physician dropped by 18% from 2019 to 2021 in independent groups and by 13% in hospital-affiliated groups. The ratios decreased by smaller amounts in surgical practices.

In contrast, nonsurgical specialty groups under both types of ownership saw their staffing ratios rise slightly.

Although it’s unclear why medical specialties increased their staff while other types of specialties lost employees, Ron Holder, MHA, chief operating officer of MGMA, said that some specialists may have opened more ancillary facilities and hired new employees to recoup revenue lost during the pandemic.
 

Expenses rise sharply

The AMGA report found that staffing expenses for the surveyed groups increased by 15% between 2019 and 2021.

“We saw a decrease in staff and an increase in expenses during that time period, and there are a few reasons for that,” Rose Wagner, RN, chief operating officer of AMGA, said. “Groups increased salaries to maintain staff. We also saw lower-paid staff find other jobs outside of health care. For example, medical assistants and receptionists could find jobs outside of health care that paid more. [Open positions] got back-filled with other higher paid staff, such as RNs, doing lower skilled jobs.”

Mr. Holder added that rising wages in other sectors made leaving physician groups more attractive for employees.

“Three years ago, there weren’t many positions in a medical practice where you were competing with Chick-fil-A or Taco Bell,” he said. In Denver, where Mr. Holder is based, “every restaurant in town is now advertising $17-$19 [hourly] starting pay just to do fast food. That causes practices to either lose employees or pay more for the employees they have. So that raises per-employee expense significantly,” he said.

Mr. Holder noted that inflation also has driven up wages as employees demand higher pay to keep up with the cost of living.
 

Unusual exodus of employees

Fred Horton, MHA, president of AMGA Consulting, said he has never seen so many people leaving health care for other occupations.

Some exits resulted from practices laying people off early in the pandemic, but most staff members who left practices were seeking higher pay, he said. In addition, Ms. Wagner noted, some staff members didn’t want to be exposed to COVID at work.

“There was an exodus from health care that was different from what we’d experienced in the past,” Mr. Horton added. “It’s still extremely challenging to get up to the staffing levels that are appropriate.”

Mr. Holder, however, said that the situation is slowly improving. “Health care is fairly recession-proof, because people need it. So when you see companies in other industries closing shop or reducing their head count, that actually helps health care recruiting in some jobs. And people are coming back to the workplace who previously were worried about COVID or didn’t want to get the vaccine.”
 

Paying more for nurses

In 2021, groups adopted a variety of tactics to adapt to the pandemic and respond to patient demand, the AMGA survey shows. Forty percent of system-affiliated groups and 18% of independent practices changed registered nurses’ responsibilities, in many cases having them do the work of medical assistants who were in short supply.

Some practices hired RNs, who have historically been utilized less by primary care than by surgical specialties, Mr. Holder noted. Other clinics paid temp agencies to supply nurses at a steep cost.

“When you’re short staffed, you end up paying more overtime, you end up paying temporary agencies at higher dollars, and you hire higher skilled people to do lower-skilled work,” Ms. Wagner said.

Meanwhile, many physician groups tried to cope with the physician shortage by bringing on more advanced practice clinicians (APCs), including nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Seventy percent of the AMGA groups used this strategy, the report revealed.

“The use of APCs has been steadily increasing as groups try to adopt a lower-cost care model in the midst of a nationwide physician shortage,” Ms. Wagner said in the press release.
 

Changes in patient care

About half of the groups in the AMGA survey said they changed their staff structure to allow APCs to carry their own patient panels. Although most of these clinicians were probably under physician supervision, nearly half of the states now allow NPs to practice autonomously.

Mr. Horton cautioned that APCs can’t fully substitute for physicians and require the same support staff that doctors do if they have their own panels. In primary care groups, Mr. Holder noted, the average salary of an APC “is continuing to rise, and there isn’t a huge difference between what they and doctors make.”

Nevertheless, he added, “there are more NPs and PAs being added to the marketplace all the time, whereas [physician] residency programs aren’t really growing. There are caps on the number of residency positions, and some physicians are retiring. So the clock is ticking to the point where someday doctors will be grossly outnumbered by NPs.”

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

Physician groups saw staff-to-physician ratios decline even as their workforce expenses rose between 2019 and 2021, according to recent reports from the American Medical Group Association (AMGA) and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).

As patients started to return to doctors’ offices as the pandemic eased in 2021, physician groups found it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain lower-level clinicians, including medical assistants and LPNs, officials from both associations told this news organization. Many clinics had to raise their pay scales to be competitive with employers in other fields, and some had to hire higher-priced RNs to keep their practices running.

The AMGA report was based largely on data from groups of over 500 physicians, mostly affiliated with health systems. According to a news release accompanying the report, the ratio between full-time equivalent (FTE) clinic staff and health care professionals in direct patient care dropped by 11.3% between 2019 and 2021. The ratio of medical assistants (MAs) to clinicians declined by a greater percentage.

In the MGMA report, which represented about 4,000 practices ranging from very small (two doctors) to very large groups, total support staff per FTE primary-care physician dropped by 18% from 2019 to 2021 in independent groups and by 13% in hospital-affiliated groups. The ratios decreased by smaller amounts in surgical practices.

In contrast, nonsurgical specialty groups under both types of ownership saw their staffing ratios rise slightly.

Although it’s unclear why medical specialties increased their staff while other types of specialties lost employees, Ron Holder, MHA, chief operating officer of MGMA, said that some specialists may have opened more ancillary facilities and hired new employees to recoup revenue lost during the pandemic.
 

Expenses rise sharply

The AMGA report found that staffing expenses for the surveyed groups increased by 15% between 2019 and 2021.

“We saw a decrease in staff and an increase in expenses during that time period, and there are a few reasons for that,” Rose Wagner, RN, chief operating officer of AMGA, said. “Groups increased salaries to maintain staff. We also saw lower-paid staff find other jobs outside of health care. For example, medical assistants and receptionists could find jobs outside of health care that paid more. [Open positions] got back-filled with other higher paid staff, such as RNs, doing lower skilled jobs.”

Mr. Holder added that rising wages in other sectors made leaving physician groups more attractive for employees.

“Three years ago, there weren’t many positions in a medical practice where you were competing with Chick-fil-A or Taco Bell,” he said. In Denver, where Mr. Holder is based, “every restaurant in town is now advertising $17-$19 [hourly] starting pay just to do fast food. That causes practices to either lose employees or pay more for the employees they have. So that raises per-employee expense significantly,” he said.

Mr. Holder noted that inflation also has driven up wages as employees demand higher pay to keep up with the cost of living.
 

Unusual exodus of employees

Fred Horton, MHA, president of AMGA Consulting, said he has never seen so many people leaving health care for other occupations.

Some exits resulted from practices laying people off early in the pandemic, but most staff members who left practices were seeking higher pay, he said. In addition, Ms. Wagner noted, some staff members didn’t want to be exposed to COVID at work.

“There was an exodus from health care that was different from what we’d experienced in the past,” Mr. Horton added. “It’s still extremely challenging to get up to the staffing levels that are appropriate.”

Mr. Holder, however, said that the situation is slowly improving. “Health care is fairly recession-proof, because people need it. So when you see companies in other industries closing shop or reducing their head count, that actually helps health care recruiting in some jobs. And people are coming back to the workplace who previously were worried about COVID or didn’t want to get the vaccine.”
 

Paying more for nurses

In 2021, groups adopted a variety of tactics to adapt to the pandemic and respond to patient demand, the AMGA survey shows. Forty percent of system-affiliated groups and 18% of independent practices changed registered nurses’ responsibilities, in many cases having them do the work of medical assistants who were in short supply.

Some practices hired RNs, who have historically been utilized less by primary care than by surgical specialties, Mr. Holder noted. Other clinics paid temp agencies to supply nurses at a steep cost.

“When you’re short staffed, you end up paying more overtime, you end up paying temporary agencies at higher dollars, and you hire higher skilled people to do lower-skilled work,” Ms. Wagner said.

Meanwhile, many physician groups tried to cope with the physician shortage by bringing on more advanced practice clinicians (APCs), including nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Seventy percent of the AMGA groups used this strategy, the report revealed.

“The use of APCs has been steadily increasing as groups try to adopt a lower-cost care model in the midst of a nationwide physician shortage,” Ms. Wagner said in the press release.
 

Changes in patient care

About half of the groups in the AMGA survey said they changed their staff structure to allow APCs to carry their own patient panels. Although most of these clinicians were probably under physician supervision, nearly half of the states now allow NPs to practice autonomously.

Mr. Horton cautioned that APCs can’t fully substitute for physicians and require the same support staff that doctors do if they have their own panels. In primary care groups, Mr. Holder noted, the average salary of an APC “is continuing to rise, and there isn’t a huge difference between what they and doctors make.”

Nevertheless, he added, “there are more NPs and PAs being added to the marketplace all the time, whereas [physician] residency programs aren’t really growing. There are caps on the number of residency positions, and some physicians are retiring. So the clock is ticking to the point where someday doctors will be grossly outnumbered by NPs.”

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

Testing for nonictal cephalic allodynia can help predict response to the anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) galcanezumab (Emgality, Eli Lilly) for patients with migraine, new research suggests.

The ictal phase refers to “sensitization occurring during a time when central trigeminovascular neurons receive massive nociceptive input from active meningeal nociceptors,” whereas the nonictal phase refers to “sensitization occurring during a time when central trigeminovascular neurons receive no or subliminal nociceptive input from meningeal nociceptors,” investigators noted.

In an observational, open-label cohort study, pretreatment nonictal cephalic allodynia identified galcanezumab responders with nearly 80% accuracy, and it identified nonresponders with nearly 85% accuracy.

“Detection of nonictal allodynia with a simplified paradigm of Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) may provide a quick, affordable, noninvasive, and patient-friendly way to prospectively distinguish between responders and nonresponders to the prophylactic treatment of chronic and high-frequency episodic migraine with drugs that reduce CGRP signaling,” Sait Ashina, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in Cephalalgia.
 

Immediate clinical relevance

Investigator Rami Burstein, PhD, also with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, developed the concept of predicting response to anti-CGRP treatment by testing for the presence or absence of nonictal cephalic allodynia in collaboration with the company CGRP Diagnostics.

In 43 anti–CGRP-naive patients with migraine, the researchers used a simplified QST algorithm to determine the presence/absence of cephalic or extracephalic allodynia during the nonictal phase of migraine – defined as the period from less than 12 hours after a migraine attack to less than 12 hours before the next attack.

Patients were considered to have allodynia if heat pain thresholds were between 32° C and 40° C, if cold pain thresholds were between 32° C and 20° C, or if the mechanical pain was threshold was less than 60 g.

Using these strict criteria, pretreatment nonictal cephalic allodynia was a statistically significant predictor of response to anti-CGRP therapy. It was present in 84% of the 19 nonresponders and was absent in 79% of the 24 responders, for an overall accuracy rate of 86% (P < .0001).

Nonictal cephalic allodynia was “consistently” predictive of response for patients with chronic migraine as well as for those with high-frequency episodic migraine, the researchers reported.

In contrast, they noted that assessing nonictal extracephalic allodynia with QST missed nearly 50% of the patients with allodynia among the nonresponders (accuracy rate of 42%) and added little to the assessment of allodynia among the responders.

Mark Hasleton, PhD, CEO of CGRP Diagnostics, said in an interview that the study shows it’s possible to determine response to anti-CGRP therapy and to prescribe these medications to patients who are most likely to respond.

Dr. Hasleton, who was not personally involved with the current study, noted that pretreatment testing for nonictal cephalic allodynia may also allow for earlier prescription of anti-CGRP therapy and potentially dispense without the need for the current trial-and-error approach to prescribing. He noted that if one anti-CGRP fails the patient, it is highly likely that others will also fail.

Given the “very high correlation of the presence of nonictal cephalic allodynia in responders to galcanezumab, our recommendation would be to routinely pretest all potential anti-CGRP candidates prior to prescription,” he said.
 

End of trial-and-error prescribing

In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said this research is “very noteworthy, moving us one step closer to predictive, precision medicine and away from the practice of trial-and-error prescribing.

“The trial-and-error approach to migraine management is daunting. These are very costly therapies, and when they don’t work, there is continued tremendous suffering and loss of quality of life for patients,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.

He added that the failure of drugs to benefit individual patients “may lead to distrust of the health care provider” and to the system as a whole, which in turn could lead to less access to care for other conditions or for preventive measures.

“I envision a time when these predictive measures collectively (interictal allodynia, as in this study, plus biobehavioral data) will assist us neurologists in appropriately selecting migraine therapies,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“Beyond that, we will eventually test new therapies not in cells, animals, and even humans but in silico. In the very near future, we will have solutions tailored to not people suffering a disease but to you – an individual with a unique genetic, protein, physical, developmental, psychological, and behavioral makeup,” he added.

The study was funded in part by Eli Lilly, the National Institutes of Health, and the anesthesia department at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Galcanezumab was provided by Eli Lilly. Dr. Lakhan reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Testing for nonictal cephalic allodynia can help predict response to the anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) galcanezumab (Emgality, Eli Lilly) for patients with migraine, new research suggests.

The ictal phase refers to “sensitization occurring during a time when central trigeminovascular neurons receive massive nociceptive input from active meningeal nociceptors,” whereas the nonictal phase refers to “sensitization occurring during a time when central trigeminovascular neurons receive no or subliminal nociceptive input from meningeal nociceptors,” investigators noted.

In an observational, open-label cohort study, pretreatment nonictal cephalic allodynia identified galcanezumab responders with nearly 80% accuracy, and it identified nonresponders with nearly 85% accuracy.

“Detection of nonictal allodynia with a simplified paradigm of Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) may provide a quick, affordable, noninvasive, and patient-friendly way to prospectively distinguish between responders and nonresponders to the prophylactic treatment of chronic and high-frequency episodic migraine with drugs that reduce CGRP signaling,” Sait Ashina, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in Cephalalgia.
 

Immediate clinical relevance

Investigator Rami Burstein, PhD, also with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, developed the concept of predicting response to anti-CGRP treatment by testing for the presence or absence of nonictal cephalic allodynia in collaboration with the company CGRP Diagnostics.

In 43 anti–CGRP-naive patients with migraine, the researchers used a simplified QST algorithm to determine the presence/absence of cephalic or extracephalic allodynia during the nonictal phase of migraine – defined as the period from less than 12 hours after a migraine attack to less than 12 hours before the next attack.

Patients were considered to have allodynia if heat pain thresholds were between 32° C and 40° C, if cold pain thresholds were between 32° C and 20° C, or if the mechanical pain was threshold was less than 60 g.

Using these strict criteria, pretreatment nonictal cephalic allodynia was a statistically significant predictor of response to anti-CGRP therapy. It was present in 84% of the 19 nonresponders and was absent in 79% of the 24 responders, for an overall accuracy rate of 86% (P < .0001).

Nonictal cephalic allodynia was “consistently” predictive of response for patients with chronic migraine as well as for those with high-frequency episodic migraine, the researchers reported.

In contrast, they noted that assessing nonictal extracephalic allodynia with QST missed nearly 50% of the patients with allodynia among the nonresponders (accuracy rate of 42%) and added little to the assessment of allodynia among the responders.

Mark Hasleton, PhD, CEO of CGRP Diagnostics, said in an interview that the study shows it’s possible to determine response to anti-CGRP therapy and to prescribe these medications to patients who are most likely to respond.

Dr. Hasleton, who was not personally involved with the current study, noted that pretreatment testing for nonictal cephalic allodynia may also allow for earlier prescription of anti-CGRP therapy and potentially dispense without the need for the current trial-and-error approach to prescribing. He noted that if one anti-CGRP fails the patient, it is highly likely that others will also fail.

Given the “very high correlation of the presence of nonictal cephalic allodynia in responders to galcanezumab, our recommendation would be to routinely pretest all potential anti-CGRP candidates prior to prescription,” he said.
 

End of trial-and-error prescribing

In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said this research is “very noteworthy, moving us one step closer to predictive, precision medicine and away from the practice of trial-and-error prescribing.

“The trial-and-error approach to migraine management is daunting. These are very costly therapies, and when they don’t work, there is continued tremendous suffering and loss of quality of life for patients,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.

He added that the failure of drugs to benefit individual patients “may lead to distrust of the health care provider” and to the system as a whole, which in turn could lead to less access to care for other conditions or for preventive measures.

“I envision a time when these predictive measures collectively (interictal allodynia, as in this study, plus biobehavioral data) will assist us neurologists in appropriately selecting migraine therapies,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“Beyond that, we will eventually test new therapies not in cells, animals, and even humans but in silico. In the very near future, we will have solutions tailored to not people suffering a disease but to you – an individual with a unique genetic, protein, physical, developmental, psychological, and behavioral makeup,” he added.

The study was funded in part by Eli Lilly, the National Institutes of Health, and the anesthesia department at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Galcanezumab was provided by Eli Lilly. Dr. Lakhan reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Testing for nonictal cephalic allodynia can help predict response to the anti–calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) galcanezumab (Emgality, Eli Lilly) for patients with migraine, new research suggests.

The ictal phase refers to “sensitization occurring during a time when central trigeminovascular neurons receive massive nociceptive input from active meningeal nociceptors,” whereas the nonictal phase refers to “sensitization occurring during a time when central trigeminovascular neurons receive no or subliminal nociceptive input from meningeal nociceptors,” investigators noted.

In an observational, open-label cohort study, pretreatment nonictal cephalic allodynia identified galcanezumab responders with nearly 80% accuracy, and it identified nonresponders with nearly 85% accuracy.

“Detection of nonictal allodynia with a simplified paradigm of Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) may provide a quick, affordable, noninvasive, and patient-friendly way to prospectively distinguish between responders and nonresponders to the prophylactic treatment of chronic and high-frequency episodic migraine with drugs that reduce CGRP signaling,” Sait Ashina, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in Cephalalgia.
 

Immediate clinical relevance

Investigator Rami Burstein, PhD, also with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, developed the concept of predicting response to anti-CGRP treatment by testing for the presence or absence of nonictal cephalic allodynia in collaboration with the company CGRP Diagnostics.

In 43 anti–CGRP-naive patients with migraine, the researchers used a simplified QST algorithm to determine the presence/absence of cephalic or extracephalic allodynia during the nonictal phase of migraine – defined as the period from less than 12 hours after a migraine attack to less than 12 hours before the next attack.

Patients were considered to have allodynia if heat pain thresholds were between 32° C and 40° C, if cold pain thresholds were between 32° C and 20° C, or if the mechanical pain was threshold was less than 60 g.

Using these strict criteria, pretreatment nonictal cephalic allodynia was a statistically significant predictor of response to anti-CGRP therapy. It was present in 84% of the 19 nonresponders and was absent in 79% of the 24 responders, for an overall accuracy rate of 86% (P < .0001).

Nonictal cephalic allodynia was “consistently” predictive of response for patients with chronic migraine as well as for those with high-frequency episodic migraine, the researchers reported.

In contrast, they noted that assessing nonictal extracephalic allodynia with QST missed nearly 50% of the patients with allodynia among the nonresponders (accuracy rate of 42%) and added little to the assessment of allodynia among the responders.

Mark Hasleton, PhD, CEO of CGRP Diagnostics, said in an interview that the study shows it’s possible to determine response to anti-CGRP therapy and to prescribe these medications to patients who are most likely to respond.

Dr. Hasleton, who was not personally involved with the current study, noted that pretreatment testing for nonictal cephalic allodynia may also allow for earlier prescription of anti-CGRP therapy and potentially dispense without the need for the current trial-and-error approach to prescribing. He noted that if one anti-CGRP fails the patient, it is highly likely that others will also fail.

Given the “very high correlation of the presence of nonictal cephalic allodynia in responders to galcanezumab, our recommendation would be to routinely pretest all potential anti-CGRP candidates prior to prescription,” he said.
 

End of trial-and-error prescribing

In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said this research is “very noteworthy, moving us one step closer to predictive, precision medicine and away from the practice of trial-and-error prescribing.

“The trial-and-error approach to migraine management is daunting. These are very costly therapies, and when they don’t work, there is continued tremendous suffering and loss of quality of life for patients,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.

He added that the failure of drugs to benefit individual patients “may lead to distrust of the health care provider” and to the system as a whole, which in turn could lead to less access to care for other conditions or for preventive measures.

“I envision a time when these predictive measures collectively (interictal allodynia, as in this study, plus biobehavioral data) will assist us neurologists in appropriately selecting migraine therapies,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“Beyond that, we will eventually test new therapies not in cells, animals, and even humans but in silico. In the very near future, we will have solutions tailored to not people suffering a disease but to you – an individual with a unique genetic, protein, physical, developmental, psychological, and behavioral makeup,” he added.

The study was funded in part by Eli Lilly, the National Institutes of Health, and the anesthesia department at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Galcanezumab was provided by Eli Lilly. Dr. Lakhan reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study published in JAMA suggests that doctors with one paid malpractice claim are almost four times more likely than their peers to have additional paid claims in the future, regardless of specialty or whether a state publicly discloses paid claims.

In this retrospective case-control study, law and public health researchers from Georgetown University, the National Opinion Research Center, the University of Colorado, and Northwestern University analyzed paid malpractice claims for all licensed U.S. physicians.

The findings suggest that a single malpractice claim may not be a random stroke of bad luck but instead holds some predictive power into the risk for future paid claims.

“A four times increase in risk is huge, particularly since we observe a similar increase in both high-risk and lower-risk specialties,” David Hyman, JD, MD, professor of health law and policy at Georgetown University, Washington, and lead researcher on the study, told this news organization. “There are surely some false positives, but there must be lots of actual negligence too, or we would not see these results.”

For the 881,876 physicians analyzed, researchers looked at malpractice claims paid during two 5-year periods: 2009-2013 and 2014-2018. Nearly 96% of physicians had no paid malpractice claims between 2009 and 2013; 3% had one, and less than 1% had multiple claims. The proportion of physicians with paid claims between 2014 and 2018 was similar.

Compared with physicians with no 2009-2013 claims, a physician with just one paid claim in that time period had a 3.7 times higher risk for a future paid claim. Physicians with two paid claims were nearly 7 times more likely to have a future paid claim, and those with three or more paid claims were more than 11 times more likely to have one.

Approximately 3% of physicians with no paid claims between 2009 and 2013 had a future paid claim, growing to 12.4% of those with one paid claim during that time.

The study’s findings may have implications for medical licensing boards and hospitals granting staff privileges.

“After some number of paid claims, there should be an official response” from these entities, such as a hands-on assessment of technical skills or assignment of a peer mentor, said Dr. Hyman, who is also coauthor of a book titled “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works, Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” A graduated set of interventions, whether voluntary or mandatory, can reduce future claim risk and patient harm, Dr. Hyman added.

Interventions may include error avoidance and post-error communication training, counseling to improve bedside skills, and encouragement to move into nonclinical practice. Either way, Dr. Hyman says a nuanced intervention strategy would be a welcome shift away from the current “all or nothing approach” that too often ends in the revocation of a physician’s medical license.

Although there are strategies to proactively identify physicians with excess risk for malpractice claims and implement preventive measures – like Vanderbilt University’s Patient Advocacy Reporting System, for example – most hospitals and physician groups fail to initiate even informal interventions after a malpractice settlement or verdict, which is a missed opportunity, Dr. Hyman said.

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

A new study published in JAMA suggests that doctors with one paid malpractice claim are almost four times more likely than their peers to have additional paid claims in the future, regardless of specialty or whether a state publicly discloses paid claims.

In this retrospective case-control study, law and public health researchers from Georgetown University, the National Opinion Research Center, the University of Colorado, and Northwestern University analyzed paid malpractice claims for all licensed U.S. physicians.

The findings suggest that a single malpractice claim may not be a random stroke of bad luck but instead holds some predictive power into the risk for future paid claims.

“A four times increase in risk is huge, particularly since we observe a similar increase in both high-risk and lower-risk specialties,” David Hyman, JD, MD, professor of health law and policy at Georgetown University, Washington, and lead researcher on the study, told this news organization. “There are surely some false positives, but there must be lots of actual negligence too, or we would not see these results.”

For the 881,876 physicians analyzed, researchers looked at malpractice claims paid during two 5-year periods: 2009-2013 and 2014-2018. Nearly 96% of physicians had no paid malpractice claims between 2009 and 2013; 3% had one, and less than 1% had multiple claims. The proportion of physicians with paid claims between 2014 and 2018 was similar.

Compared with physicians with no 2009-2013 claims, a physician with just one paid claim in that time period had a 3.7 times higher risk for a future paid claim. Physicians with two paid claims were nearly 7 times more likely to have a future paid claim, and those with three or more paid claims were more than 11 times more likely to have one.

Approximately 3% of physicians with no paid claims between 2009 and 2013 had a future paid claim, growing to 12.4% of those with one paid claim during that time.

The study’s findings may have implications for medical licensing boards and hospitals granting staff privileges.

“After some number of paid claims, there should be an official response” from these entities, such as a hands-on assessment of technical skills or assignment of a peer mentor, said Dr. Hyman, who is also coauthor of a book titled “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works, Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” A graduated set of interventions, whether voluntary or mandatory, can reduce future claim risk and patient harm, Dr. Hyman added.

Interventions may include error avoidance and post-error communication training, counseling to improve bedside skills, and encouragement to move into nonclinical practice. Either way, Dr. Hyman says a nuanced intervention strategy would be a welcome shift away from the current “all or nothing approach” that too often ends in the revocation of a physician’s medical license.

Although there are strategies to proactively identify physicians with excess risk for malpractice claims and implement preventive measures – like Vanderbilt University’s Patient Advocacy Reporting System, for example – most hospitals and physician groups fail to initiate even informal interventions after a malpractice settlement or verdict, which is a missed opportunity, Dr. Hyman said.

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

A new study published in JAMA suggests that doctors with one paid malpractice claim are almost four times more likely than their peers to have additional paid claims in the future, regardless of specialty or whether a state publicly discloses paid claims.

In this retrospective case-control study, law and public health researchers from Georgetown University, the National Opinion Research Center, the University of Colorado, and Northwestern University analyzed paid malpractice claims for all licensed U.S. physicians.

The findings suggest that a single malpractice claim may not be a random stroke of bad luck but instead holds some predictive power into the risk for future paid claims.

“A four times increase in risk is huge, particularly since we observe a similar increase in both high-risk and lower-risk specialties,” David Hyman, JD, MD, professor of health law and policy at Georgetown University, Washington, and lead researcher on the study, told this news organization. “There are surely some false positives, but there must be lots of actual negligence too, or we would not see these results.”

For the 881,876 physicians analyzed, researchers looked at malpractice claims paid during two 5-year periods: 2009-2013 and 2014-2018. Nearly 96% of physicians had no paid malpractice claims between 2009 and 2013; 3% had one, and less than 1% had multiple claims. The proportion of physicians with paid claims between 2014 and 2018 was similar.

Compared with physicians with no 2009-2013 claims, a physician with just one paid claim in that time period had a 3.7 times higher risk for a future paid claim. Physicians with two paid claims were nearly 7 times more likely to have a future paid claim, and those with three or more paid claims were more than 11 times more likely to have one.

Approximately 3% of physicians with no paid claims between 2009 and 2013 had a future paid claim, growing to 12.4% of those with one paid claim during that time.

The study’s findings may have implications for medical licensing boards and hospitals granting staff privileges.

“After some number of paid claims, there should be an official response” from these entities, such as a hands-on assessment of technical skills or assignment of a peer mentor, said Dr. Hyman, who is also coauthor of a book titled “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works, Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” A graduated set of interventions, whether voluntary or mandatory, can reduce future claim risk and patient harm, Dr. Hyman added.

Interventions may include error avoidance and post-error communication training, counseling to improve bedside skills, and encouragement to move into nonclinical practice. Either way, Dr. Hyman says a nuanced intervention strategy would be a welcome shift away from the current “all or nothing approach” that too often ends in the revocation of a physician’s medical license.

Although there are strategies to proactively identify physicians with excess risk for malpractice claims and implement preventive measures – like Vanderbilt University’s Patient Advocacy Reporting System, for example – most hospitals and physician groups fail to initiate even informal interventions after a malpractice settlement or verdict, which is a missed opportunity, Dr. Hyman said.

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

There are millions of immature connections between the neurons in brains of adults that remain inactive until they’re recruited to help form new memories, according to neuroscientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

What to know:

• An estimated 30% of all synapses in the brain’s cortex are silent and become active to allow the adult brain to continually form new memories and leave existing conventional synapses unmodified.
• Silent synapses are looking for new connections, and when important new information is presented, connections between the relevant neurons are strengthened to allow the brain to remember new things.
• Using the silent synapses for the new memories does not overwrite the important memories stored in more mature synapses, which are harder to change.
• The brain’s neurons display a wide range of plasticity mechanisms that account for how brains can efficiently learn new things and retain them in long-term memory.
• Flexibility of synapses is critical for acquiring new information, and stability is required to retain important information, enabling one to more easily adjust and change behaviors and habits or incorporate new information.

This is a summary of the article, “Filopodia Are a Structural Substrate for Silent Synapses in Adult Neocortex,” published in Nature Nov. 30, 2022. The full article can be found at nature.com .

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

There are millions of immature connections between the neurons in brains of adults that remain inactive until they’re recruited to help form new memories, according to neuroscientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

What to know:

• An estimated 30% of all synapses in the brain’s cortex are silent and become active to allow the adult brain to continually form new memories and leave existing conventional synapses unmodified.
• Silent synapses are looking for new connections, and when important new information is presented, connections between the relevant neurons are strengthened to allow the brain to remember new things.
• Using the silent synapses for the new memories does not overwrite the important memories stored in more mature synapses, which are harder to change.
• The brain’s neurons display a wide range of plasticity mechanisms that account for how brains can efficiently learn new things and retain them in long-term memory.
• Flexibility of synapses is critical for acquiring new information, and stability is required to retain important information, enabling one to more easily adjust and change behaviors and habits or incorporate new information.

This is a summary of the article, “Filopodia Are a Structural Substrate for Silent Synapses in Adult Neocortex,” published in Nature Nov. 30, 2022. The full article can be found at nature.com .

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

There are millions of immature connections between the neurons in brains of adults that remain inactive until they’re recruited to help form new memories, according to neuroscientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

What to know:

• An estimated 30% of all synapses in the brain’s cortex are silent and become active to allow the adult brain to continually form new memories and leave existing conventional synapses unmodified.
• Silent synapses are looking for new connections, and when important new information is presented, connections between the relevant neurons are strengthened to allow the brain to remember new things.
• Using the silent synapses for the new memories does not overwrite the important memories stored in more mature synapses, which are harder to change.
• The brain’s neurons display a wide range of plasticity mechanisms that account for how brains can efficiently learn new things and retain them in long-term memory.
• Flexibility of synapses is critical for acquiring new information, and stability is required to retain important information, enabling one to more easily adjust and change behaviors and habits or incorporate new information.

This is a summary of the article, “Filopodia Are a Structural Substrate for Silent Synapses in Adult Neocortex,” published in Nature Nov. 30, 2022. The full article can be found at nature.com .

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

I’ve worn glasses since I was 8, when a routine school vision test showed I was nearsighted. Except for an ill-fated 3-month attempt at contact lenses when I was 16, glasses have been just another part of my daily routine.

The last time I got new ones was in 2018, and my vision always seemed “off” after that. I took them back to the store a few times and was told I’d adjust to them and that things would be fine, So after a few weeks of doggedly wearing them I adjusted to them. I still felt like something was slightly off, but then I was busy, and then came the pandemic, and then my eye doctor retired and I had to find a new one ... so going to get my glasses prescription rechecked kept getting pushed back.

As so many of us do over time, I’ve gotten used to taking my glasses off to read things up close, like a book, or to do a detailed jigsaw puzzle. This has gotten worse over time, and so finally I made an appointment with a new eye doctor.

I handed him my previous prescription. He did a reading off the lenses, looked at the prescription again, gave me a perplexed look, and started the usual eye exam, asking me to read different lines as he switched lenses around. This went on for 10-15 minutes.

“The right lens wasn’t made correctly,” he told me. “You’ve been working off your left eye for the last 5 years.”

He returned my glasses and I put them on. He covered my left eye and showed me how, without realizing it, I was tilting my head back to bring distant items into focus on the right – the opposite of what I should be doing – and with both eyes would adjust my position to use the left eye.

The next morning, while working at my desk, I realized for the first time that I had my head turned slightly right to bring the left eye a tad closer to the screen. In a job where we’re trained to look for such minutiae in patients I’d missed it on myself. A friend even suggested I submit my story as a case report – “An unusual cause of a head-tilt in a middle-aged male” – to a journal.

It’s an interesting commentary on how adaptable the brain is at handling vision changes. It was several hundred million years ago when the brain figured out how to invert images that were seen upside down, and it continues to find ways to compensate for field cuts, cranial nerve palsies, and other lesions. Including flawed spectacles.

When my new eyeglasses arrive, my brain will have to readjust. This time, though, I’m curious and will try to pay better attention to my own reactions. If I can.

One of the other remarkable things about the brain is how it works very hard to keep us from realizing what it’s doing in the background, so we don’t notice an issue.

Amazing stuff if you think about it.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’ve worn glasses since I was 8, when a routine school vision test showed I was nearsighted. Except for an ill-fated 3-month attempt at contact lenses when I was 16, glasses have been just another part of my daily routine.

The last time I got new ones was in 2018, and my vision always seemed “off” after that. I took them back to the store a few times and was told I’d adjust to them and that things would be fine, So after a few weeks of doggedly wearing them I adjusted to them. I still felt like something was slightly off, but then I was busy, and then came the pandemic, and then my eye doctor retired and I had to find a new one ... so going to get my glasses prescription rechecked kept getting pushed back.

As so many of us do over time, I’ve gotten used to taking my glasses off to read things up close, like a book, or to do a detailed jigsaw puzzle. This has gotten worse over time, and so finally I made an appointment with a new eye doctor.

I handed him my previous prescription. He did a reading off the lenses, looked at the prescription again, gave me a perplexed look, and started the usual eye exam, asking me to read different lines as he switched lenses around. This went on for 10-15 minutes.

“The right lens wasn’t made correctly,” he told me. “You’ve been working off your left eye for the last 5 years.”

He returned my glasses and I put them on. He covered my left eye and showed me how, without realizing it, I was tilting my head back to bring distant items into focus on the right – the opposite of what I should be doing – and with both eyes would adjust my position to use the left eye.

The next morning, while working at my desk, I realized for the first time that I had my head turned slightly right to bring the left eye a tad closer to the screen. In a job where we’re trained to look for such minutiae in patients I’d missed it on myself. A friend even suggested I submit my story as a case report – “An unusual cause of a head-tilt in a middle-aged male” – to a journal.

It’s an interesting commentary on how adaptable the brain is at handling vision changes. It was several hundred million years ago when the brain figured out how to invert images that were seen upside down, and it continues to find ways to compensate for field cuts, cranial nerve palsies, and other lesions. Including flawed spectacles.

When my new eyeglasses arrive, my brain will have to readjust. This time, though, I’m curious and will try to pay better attention to my own reactions. If I can.

One of the other remarkable things about the brain is how it works very hard to keep us from realizing what it’s doing in the background, so we don’t notice an issue.

Amazing stuff if you think about it.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’ve worn glasses since I was 8, when a routine school vision test showed I was nearsighted. Except for an ill-fated 3-month attempt at contact lenses when I was 16, glasses have been just another part of my daily routine.

The last time I got new ones was in 2018, and my vision always seemed “off” after that. I took them back to the store a few times and was told I’d adjust to them and that things would be fine, So after a few weeks of doggedly wearing them I adjusted to them. I still felt like something was slightly off, but then I was busy, and then came the pandemic, and then my eye doctor retired and I had to find a new one ... so going to get my glasses prescription rechecked kept getting pushed back.

As so many of us do over time, I’ve gotten used to taking my glasses off to read things up close, like a book, or to do a detailed jigsaw puzzle. This has gotten worse over time, and so finally I made an appointment with a new eye doctor.

I handed him my previous prescription. He did a reading off the lenses, looked at the prescription again, gave me a perplexed look, and started the usual eye exam, asking me to read different lines as he switched lenses around. This went on for 10-15 minutes.

“The right lens wasn’t made correctly,” he told me. “You’ve been working off your left eye for the last 5 years.”

He returned my glasses and I put them on. He covered my left eye and showed me how, without realizing it, I was tilting my head back to bring distant items into focus on the right – the opposite of what I should be doing – and with both eyes would adjust my position to use the left eye.

The next morning, while working at my desk, I realized for the first time that I had my head turned slightly right to bring the left eye a tad closer to the screen. In a job where we’re trained to look for such minutiae in patients I’d missed it on myself. A friend even suggested I submit my story as a case report – “An unusual cause of a head-tilt in a middle-aged male” – to a journal.

It’s an interesting commentary on how adaptable the brain is at handling vision changes. It was several hundred million years ago when the brain figured out how to invert images that were seen upside down, and it continues to find ways to compensate for field cuts, cranial nerve palsies, and other lesions. Including flawed spectacles.

When my new eyeglasses arrive, my brain will have to readjust. This time, though, I’m curious and will try to pay better attention to my own reactions. If I can.

One of the other remarkable things about the brain is how it works very hard to keep us from realizing what it’s doing in the background, so we don’t notice an issue.

Amazing stuff if you think about it.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Patients with a large cerebral infarction have better functional recovery when they receive endovascular therapy early on in addition to usual medical management, a new study shows.

The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.

Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.

“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Will change practice

Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.

Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.

“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”

But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “

This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.

The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.

The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
 

ANGEL-ASPECT

As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.

The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).

Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).

The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.

IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.

A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.

When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
 

Better functional outcome

The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).

The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.

Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.

“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”

As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).

The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).

The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)

Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).

The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.

Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.

These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.

“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
 

Welcome news

An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.

From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.

“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”

The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with a large cerebral infarction have better functional recovery when they receive endovascular therapy early on in addition to usual medical management, a new study shows.

The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.

Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.

“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Will change practice

Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.

Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.

“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”

But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “

This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.

The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.

The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
 

ANGEL-ASPECT

As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.

The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).

Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).

The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.

IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.

A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.

When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
 

Better functional outcome

The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).

The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.

Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.

“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”

As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).

The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).

The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)

Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).

The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.

Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.

These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.

“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
 

Welcome news

An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.

From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.

“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”

The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with a large cerebral infarction have better functional recovery when they receive endovascular therapy early on in addition to usual medical management, a new study shows.

The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.

Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.

“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Will change practice

Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.

Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.

“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”

But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “

This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.

The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.

The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
 

ANGEL-ASPECT

As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.

The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).

Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).

The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.

IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.

A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.

When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
 

Better functional outcome

The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).

The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.

Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.

“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”

As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).

The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).

The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)

Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).

The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.

Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.

These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.

“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
 

Welcome news

An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.

From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.

“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”

The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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