Neurology Reviews

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.

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

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

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

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

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

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

Treatment with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone may offer the greatest protection against dementia for older adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of stroke or ischemic heart disease, new research suggests.

Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.

However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.

“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.

This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.

The results were published online in Neurology.
 

Dose-response relationship

Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.

This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.

Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.

Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.

Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.

There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).

A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
 

Several limitations

The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).

The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.

The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).

“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.

However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.

The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.

There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
 

More data needed

In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”

However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.

They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.

They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.

“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.

For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone may offer the greatest protection against dementia for older adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of stroke or ischemic heart disease, new research suggests.

Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.

However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.

“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.

This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.

The results were published online in Neurology.
 

Dose-response relationship

Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.

This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.

Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.

Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.

Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.

There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).

A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
 

Several limitations

The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).

The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.

The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).

“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.

However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.

The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.

There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
 

More data needed

In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”

However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.

They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.

They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.

“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.

For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone may offer the greatest protection against dementia for older adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of stroke or ischemic heart disease, new research suggests.

Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.

However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.

“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.

This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.

The results were published online in Neurology.
 

Dose-response relationship

Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.

This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.

Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.

Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.

Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.

There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).

A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
 

Several limitations

The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).

The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.

The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).

“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.

However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.

The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.

There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
 

More data needed

In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”

However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.

They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.

They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.

“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.

For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A frustrated physician recently voiced some strong words in Medscape’s US Physician Burnout & Depression Report: “Only a sociopath could work for a large health system and not be burned out. Anyone who cares about patients is doomed to burnout.”

It’s no secret that today’s large health care organizations are leaving physicians feeling overwhelmed, beaten up, and exhausted. Medscape’s report showed that 53% of physicians feel burned out by job requirements; 65% say that burnout has impacted their relationships, and other statistics say that physicians are leaving clinical medicine because of all this pressure.

What is it about being employed by large organizations that can be so negative?  In another study, MEMO – Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcomes – researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 400 doctors to learn about how their working environments corresponded with medical errors. More than half of the physicians reported time pressures when conducting physical examinations. Nearly a third felt they needed at least 50% more time than was allotted for this patient care function, and nearly a quarter said they needed at least 50% more time for follow-up appointments.

Some have asked: Can anyone, then, thrive in today’s health care environment and avoid burnout?

Although the frustrated physician noted above may sardonically say that a doctor needs to be sociopathic to enjoy it – lacking in feelings for others – “It’s a very small number of doctors who get in it for the wrong reasons and therefore care about their own benefit and not their patients,” said psychiatrist Wendy Dean, MD, CEO and cofounder of Moral Injury of Healthcare, a nonprofit organization addressing workforce distress in health care. “Those are the outliers.”

The vast majority of physicians do care about their patients – deeply, said Dr. Dean. They struggle under the weight of the health care system and yet must find ways to get through. Today, thriving in an imperfect system requires honing new skills, asking for help when needed, and pushing for systemic and cultural change.

“We’ve been assessing and trying to address burnout for half a century,” said Dr. Dean. “Despite all the good intentions, and people dedicating their entire careers to solving the issue, we’ve barely made a dent.”

With the advent of new technological requirements on the job and more demands from increasingly larger health care organizations, the risk for burnout is higher than ever before. “There’s an increased burden of regulatory-mandated and cumbersome administrative workload per patient,” said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, cofounder of Evinature. “Often the computer/paperwork before and after a procedure is much longer than the procedure itself.”

Meeting insurance requirements is increasingly cumbersome, too, and preauthorizations and debates with payers over medical approval may put physicians frustratingly in the middle.

“This increases the psychological burden for physicians who may feel responsible for wrongdoing no matter which option they deem better,” Dr. Ben-Horin said. “Add in physician accessibility around the clock via mobile phones, emails, and apps, and you end up on call even if you’re not officially on call.”
 

Why some physicians suffer more

Some physicians are more likely to suffer burnout than others, said Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “The self-valuation concept comes into play here,” she said. “If you make a mistake, do you blame yourself or see it as a growth opportunity? If it’s the former, you’re more likely to burn out.”

Dr. Ben-Horin added that the most patient-centric doctors are the ones who struggle most. “These are the doctors we’d all love to have as a patient,” he said. “But they are burdened by the extra tasks of the job, and they are the most stressed by the environment.”

So too are those physicians who never master compartmentalizing their feelings and emotions. “We learn in training to compartmentalize our emotions,” said Dr. Dean. “You can’t allow yourself to get emotional while performing chest compressions on an 18-year-old kid. So you shut it all away; otherwise, you might lose the patient.”

This turn-off switch becomes automatic, but it also comes at a cost. “When doctors were interviewed about [Buffalo Bills player] Damar Hamlin going into cardiac arrest on the football field, they talked about how a life-and-death situation is so common that they have to put the emotions away, work on the patient, and move onto the next,” said Dr. Dean. “The next patient needs you just as much. We must lock away our feelings and manage the situation.”

Dr. Gold explained that burying feelings, however, is a symptom of burnout. “We have to remove ourselves from the situation to protect ourselves,” she said. “We can’t cry in these situations, but we can’t bury our feelings either.”

Instead, Dr. Gold suggested, a good medium may exist. “You may not be able to address them in the moment, but you should sometime after,” she said.

This is just a starting point on how to remain a dedicated, caring physician without burning out. “The system is pretty broken, and to survive it first means wanting to survive it,” Dr. Gold said. “There’s a lot of focus on resiliency and lack thereof if a physician expresses burnout, but that’s a false notion. Doctors are a resilient bunch but even they get burned out.”

Change for the better must come from several places. One is asking for help, something that can be hard for a group conditioned to keeping a stiff upper lip. “Just because your peers might look healthy (emotionally) doesn’t mean they are,” said Dr. Gold. “We’ve normalized this culture of burying feelings, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”

Dr. Ben-Horin also advocates diversifying your work. This might include engaging in research and academics, for instance. “This not only makes you a better broad-perspective doctor but allows you to psychologically switch gears on research days,” he said.

The biggest place to make change, however, is within the health care system culture itself. The AMA created a series of recommendations to address burnout at the resident and fellow level, a good starting point to carry through into staff work. The steps include creating a well-being framework, gathering a team to support a well-being program, developing the program in a way to foster fun and connectivity among the staff, fostering individual well-being that addresses emotional and physical well-being, and confronting burnout and creating a sustainable culture of well-being.

On a personal level, it’s essential that physicians keep close tabs on themselves and peers. “Understand the signs and symptoms of burnout by taking stock of where you are emotionally,” said Dr. Gold. “Have a place and time at the end of a hard day to reflect or find a ritual that helps you and stay with it.”

You might also reach out to a therapist or a peer when you’re struggling. Having honest conversations with peers can go a long way. “Find a confidant that allows you to be vulnerable,” Dr. Gold recommended. “Acknowledge that this is hard and that you might need help taking care of yourself. The system needs to change, but we can also learn to survive in the meantime. You don’t have to be a sociopath to make it.”

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

A frustrated physician recently voiced some strong words in Medscape’s US Physician Burnout & Depression Report: “Only a sociopath could work for a large health system and not be burned out. Anyone who cares about patients is doomed to burnout.”

It’s no secret that today’s large health care organizations are leaving physicians feeling overwhelmed, beaten up, and exhausted. Medscape’s report showed that 53% of physicians feel burned out by job requirements; 65% say that burnout has impacted their relationships, and other statistics say that physicians are leaving clinical medicine because of all this pressure.

What is it about being employed by large organizations that can be so negative?  In another study, MEMO – Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcomes – researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 400 doctors to learn about how their working environments corresponded with medical errors. More than half of the physicians reported time pressures when conducting physical examinations. Nearly a third felt they needed at least 50% more time than was allotted for this patient care function, and nearly a quarter said they needed at least 50% more time for follow-up appointments.

Some have asked: Can anyone, then, thrive in today’s health care environment and avoid burnout?

Although the frustrated physician noted above may sardonically say that a doctor needs to be sociopathic to enjoy it – lacking in feelings for others – “It’s a very small number of doctors who get in it for the wrong reasons and therefore care about their own benefit and not their patients,” said psychiatrist Wendy Dean, MD, CEO and cofounder of Moral Injury of Healthcare, a nonprofit organization addressing workforce distress in health care. “Those are the outliers.”

The vast majority of physicians do care about their patients – deeply, said Dr. Dean. They struggle under the weight of the health care system and yet must find ways to get through. Today, thriving in an imperfect system requires honing new skills, asking for help when needed, and pushing for systemic and cultural change.

“We’ve been assessing and trying to address burnout for half a century,” said Dr. Dean. “Despite all the good intentions, and people dedicating their entire careers to solving the issue, we’ve barely made a dent.”

With the advent of new technological requirements on the job and more demands from increasingly larger health care organizations, the risk for burnout is higher than ever before. “There’s an increased burden of regulatory-mandated and cumbersome administrative workload per patient,” said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, cofounder of Evinature. “Often the computer/paperwork before and after a procedure is much longer than the procedure itself.”

Meeting insurance requirements is increasingly cumbersome, too, and preauthorizations and debates with payers over medical approval may put physicians frustratingly in the middle.

“This increases the psychological burden for physicians who may feel responsible for wrongdoing no matter which option they deem better,” Dr. Ben-Horin said. “Add in physician accessibility around the clock via mobile phones, emails, and apps, and you end up on call even if you’re not officially on call.”
 

Why some physicians suffer more

Some physicians are more likely to suffer burnout than others, said Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “The self-valuation concept comes into play here,” she said. “If you make a mistake, do you blame yourself or see it as a growth opportunity? If it’s the former, you’re more likely to burn out.”

Dr. Ben-Horin added that the most patient-centric doctors are the ones who struggle most. “These are the doctors we’d all love to have as a patient,” he said. “But they are burdened by the extra tasks of the job, and they are the most stressed by the environment.”

So too are those physicians who never master compartmentalizing their feelings and emotions. “We learn in training to compartmentalize our emotions,” said Dr. Dean. “You can’t allow yourself to get emotional while performing chest compressions on an 18-year-old kid. So you shut it all away; otherwise, you might lose the patient.”

This turn-off switch becomes automatic, but it also comes at a cost. “When doctors were interviewed about [Buffalo Bills player] Damar Hamlin going into cardiac arrest on the football field, they talked about how a life-and-death situation is so common that they have to put the emotions away, work on the patient, and move onto the next,” said Dr. Dean. “The next patient needs you just as much. We must lock away our feelings and manage the situation.”

Dr. Gold explained that burying feelings, however, is a symptom of burnout. “We have to remove ourselves from the situation to protect ourselves,” she said. “We can’t cry in these situations, but we can’t bury our feelings either.”

Instead, Dr. Gold suggested, a good medium may exist. “You may not be able to address them in the moment, but you should sometime after,” she said.

This is just a starting point on how to remain a dedicated, caring physician without burning out. “The system is pretty broken, and to survive it first means wanting to survive it,” Dr. Gold said. “There’s a lot of focus on resiliency and lack thereof if a physician expresses burnout, but that’s a false notion. Doctors are a resilient bunch but even they get burned out.”

Change for the better must come from several places. One is asking for help, something that can be hard for a group conditioned to keeping a stiff upper lip. “Just because your peers might look healthy (emotionally) doesn’t mean they are,” said Dr. Gold. “We’ve normalized this culture of burying feelings, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”

Dr. Ben-Horin also advocates diversifying your work. This might include engaging in research and academics, for instance. “This not only makes you a better broad-perspective doctor but allows you to psychologically switch gears on research days,” he said.

The biggest place to make change, however, is within the health care system culture itself. The AMA created a series of recommendations to address burnout at the resident and fellow level, a good starting point to carry through into staff work. The steps include creating a well-being framework, gathering a team to support a well-being program, developing the program in a way to foster fun and connectivity among the staff, fostering individual well-being that addresses emotional and physical well-being, and confronting burnout and creating a sustainable culture of well-being.

On a personal level, it’s essential that physicians keep close tabs on themselves and peers. “Understand the signs and symptoms of burnout by taking stock of where you are emotionally,” said Dr. Gold. “Have a place and time at the end of a hard day to reflect or find a ritual that helps you and stay with it.”

You might also reach out to a therapist or a peer when you’re struggling. Having honest conversations with peers can go a long way. “Find a confidant that allows you to be vulnerable,” Dr. Gold recommended. “Acknowledge that this is hard and that you might need help taking care of yourself. The system needs to change, but we can also learn to survive in the meantime. You don’t have to be a sociopath to make it.”

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

A frustrated physician recently voiced some strong words in Medscape’s US Physician Burnout & Depression Report: “Only a sociopath could work for a large health system and not be burned out. Anyone who cares about patients is doomed to burnout.”

It’s no secret that today’s large health care organizations are leaving physicians feeling overwhelmed, beaten up, and exhausted. Medscape’s report showed that 53% of physicians feel burned out by job requirements; 65% say that burnout has impacted their relationships, and other statistics say that physicians are leaving clinical medicine because of all this pressure.

What is it about being employed by large organizations that can be so negative?  In another study, MEMO – Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcomes – researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 400 doctors to learn about how their working environments corresponded with medical errors. More than half of the physicians reported time pressures when conducting physical examinations. Nearly a third felt they needed at least 50% more time than was allotted for this patient care function, and nearly a quarter said they needed at least 50% more time for follow-up appointments.

Some have asked: Can anyone, then, thrive in today’s health care environment and avoid burnout?

Although the frustrated physician noted above may sardonically say that a doctor needs to be sociopathic to enjoy it – lacking in feelings for others – “It’s a very small number of doctors who get in it for the wrong reasons and therefore care about their own benefit and not their patients,” said psychiatrist Wendy Dean, MD, CEO and cofounder of Moral Injury of Healthcare, a nonprofit organization addressing workforce distress in health care. “Those are the outliers.”

The vast majority of physicians do care about their patients – deeply, said Dr. Dean. They struggle under the weight of the health care system and yet must find ways to get through. Today, thriving in an imperfect system requires honing new skills, asking for help when needed, and pushing for systemic and cultural change.

“We’ve been assessing and trying to address burnout for half a century,” said Dr. Dean. “Despite all the good intentions, and people dedicating their entire careers to solving the issue, we’ve barely made a dent.”

With the advent of new technological requirements on the job and more demands from increasingly larger health care organizations, the risk for burnout is higher than ever before. “There’s an increased burden of regulatory-mandated and cumbersome administrative workload per patient,” said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, cofounder of Evinature. “Often the computer/paperwork before and after a procedure is much longer than the procedure itself.”

Meeting insurance requirements is increasingly cumbersome, too, and preauthorizations and debates with payers over medical approval may put physicians frustratingly in the middle.

“This increases the psychological burden for physicians who may feel responsible for wrongdoing no matter which option they deem better,” Dr. Ben-Horin said. “Add in physician accessibility around the clock via mobile phones, emails, and apps, and you end up on call even if you’re not officially on call.”
 

Why some physicians suffer more

Some physicians are more likely to suffer burnout than others, said Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “The self-valuation concept comes into play here,” she said. “If you make a mistake, do you blame yourself or see it as a growth opportunity? If it’s the former, you’re more likely to burn out.”

Dr. Ben-Horin added that the most patient-centric doctors are the ones who struggle most. “These are the doctors we’d all love to have as a patient,” he said. “But they are burdened by the extra tasks of the job, and they are the most stressed by the environment.”

So too are those physicians who never master compartmentalizing their feelings and emotions. “We learn in training to compartmentalize our emotions,” said Dr. Dean. “You can’t allow yourself to get emotional while performing chest compressions on an 18-year-old kid. So you shut it all away; otherwise, you might lose the patient.”

This turn-off switch becomes automatic, but it also comes at a cost. “When doctors were interviewed about [Buffalo Bills player] Damar Hamlin going into cardiac arrest on the football field, they talked about how a life-and-death situation is so common that they have to put the emotions away, work on the patient, and move onto the next,” said Dr. Dean. “The next patient needs you just as much. We must lock away our feelings and manage the situation.”

Dr. Gold explained that burying feelings, however, is a symptom of burnout. “We have to remove ourselves from the situation to protect ourselves,” she said. “We can’t cry in these situations, but we can’t bury our feelings either.”

Instead, Dr. Gold suggested, a good medium may exist. “You may not be able to address them in the moment, but you should sometime after,” she said.

This is just a starting point on how to remain a dedicated, caring physician without burning out. “The system is pretty broken, and to survive it first means wanting to survive it,” Dr. Gold said. “There’s a lot of focus on resiliency and lack thereof if a physician expresses burnout, but that’s a false notion. Doctors are a resilient bunch but even they get burned out.”

Change for the better must come from several places. One is asking for help, something that can be hard for a group conditioned to keeping a stiff upper lip. “Just because your peers might look healthy (emotionally) doesn’t mean they are,” said Dr. Gold. “We’ve normalized this culture of burying feelings, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”

Dr. Ben-Horin also advocates diversifying your work. This might include engaging in research and academics, for instance. “This not only makes you a better broad-perspective doctor but allows you to psychologically switch gears on research days,” he said.

The biggest place to make change, however, is within the health care system culture itself. The AMA created a series of recommendations to address burnout at the resident and fellow level, a good starting point to carry through into staff work. The steps include creating a well-being framework, gathering a team to support a well-being program, developing the program in a way to foster fun and connectivity among the staff, fostering individual well-being that addresses emotional and physical well-being, and confronting burnout and creating a sustainable culture of well-being.

On a personal level, it’s essential that physicians keep close tabs on themselves and peers. “Understand the signs and symptoms of burnout by taking stock of where you are emotionally,” said Dr. Gold. “Have a place and time at the end of a hard day to reflect or find a ritual that helps you and stay with it.”

You might also reach out to a therapist or a peer when you’re struggling. Having honest conversations with peers can go a long way. “Find a confidant that allows you to be vulnerable,” Dr. Gold recommended. “Acknowledge that this is hard and that you might need help taking care of yourself. The system needs to change, but we can also learn to survive in the meantime. You don’t have to be a sociopath to make it.”

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