Neurology Reviews

Edema in the feet and legs is a common complaint in our practices. It can cause pain, weakness, heaviness, discomfort, limited movement, and a negative body image. Medications can contribute to edema, either alone or in combination with other health issues.

Edema is also associated with advanced age, female sex, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, pain, lack of physical activity, and mobility limitations. These factors often necessitate medication prescriptions, which can aggravate the problem. Therefore, it is important to know how to treat or prevent medication-induced edema.

There are four main causes of edema, and all can facilitate medication-induced edema.

• Increased capillary pressure. Conditions such as heart failure, renal dysfunction, venous insufficiency, deep vein thrombosis, and cirrhosis can increase capillary pressure, leading to edema.
• Decreased oncotic pressure. Hypoalbuminemia, a primary cause of reduced colloid oncotic pressure, can result from nephrotic syndrome, diabetic nephropathy, lupus nephropathy, amyloidosis, nephropathies, cirrhosis, chronic liver disease, and malabsorption or malnutrition.
• Increased capillary permeability. Vascular injury, often associated with diabetes, can increase capillary permeability and contribute to edema.
• Impaired lymphatic drainage. Lymphatic obstruction is common in patients with lymphedema, tumors, inflammation, fibrosis, certain infections, surgery, and congenital anomalies. Conditions such as thyroid disorders can also cause an increase in interstitial albumin and other proteins without a corresponding increase in lymphatic flow, leading to lymphedema.

Medications That Can Cause Edema

• Calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Drugs such as nifedipine and amlodipine can increase hydrostatic pressure by causing selective vasodilation of precapillary vessels, leading to increased intracapillary pressures. Newer lipophilic CCBs (eg, levamlodipine) exhibit lower rates of edema. Reducing the dose is often effective. Diuretics are not very effective for vasodilation-induced edema. Combining CCBs with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which induce postcapillary dilation and normalize intracapillary pressure, may reduce fluid leakage into the interstitial space. This combination may be more beneficial than high-dose CCB monotherapy.
• Thiazolidinedione (eg, pioglitazone). These increase vascular permeability and hydrostatic pressure. They work by stimulating the peroxisome proliferator–activated gamma receptor, increasing vascular endothelial permeability, vascular endothelial growth factor secretion, and renal retention of sodium and fluids. Because of other adverse effects, their use is now limited.
• Agents for neuropathic pain (gabapentin and pregabalin). These drugs can induce selective vasodilation of arterioles through a mechanism similar to that of CCBs, causing increased intracapillary pressures. Edema usually begins within the first month of treatment or dose increase and often regresses after dose reduction or drug discontinuation.
• Antiparkinsonian dopamine agonists. These increase hydrostatic pressure by reducing sympathetic tone and dilating arterioles through alpha-2 adrenergic receptor activity.
• New antipsychotics. Drugs like clozapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone can increase hydrostatic pressure through antagonistic effects on alpha-1 adrenergic receptors, causing vasodilation.
• Nitrates. These drugs increase hydrostatic pressure by causing preferential venous dilation, leading to increased venous pooling.
• Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These drugs can increase hydrostatic pressure by inhibiting vasodilation of afferent renal arterioles, decreasing the glomerular filtration rate, and stimulating the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which leads to sodium and water retention. These adverse effects warrant cautious use of these agents.
• ACE inhibitors. Drugs such as enalapril and ramipril can increase vascular permeability. They reduce the metabolism and accumulation of bradykinin, which increases vascular permeability and fluid leakage. These effects are rare and are usually related to allergic responses.
• Insulin. Insulin decreases capillary oncotic pressure and increases vascular permeability. Rapid correction of hyperglycemia can cause a loss of oncotic pressure, while chronic hyperglycemia can damage vascular membranes, increasing permeability. These effects are generally benign and can be managed with careful dose titration, sodium restriction, or diuretics.
• Steroids. Steroids with mineralocorticoid activity can increase renal sodium and water retention, leading to increased blood volume. Fludrocortisone has the highest mineralocorticoid activity, while dexamethasone and methylprednisolone have negligible activity.

Implications

Understanding how these medications cause edema is important for effective management. For example, in the case of those causing edema due to reduced oncotic pressure, like insulin, slow dose titrations can help adapt to osmolarity changes. For drugs causing edema due to increased hydrostatic pressure, diuretics are more effective in acute management.

The key takeaways from this review are:

• Awareness of drug-induced edema. Many drugs besides CCBs can cause edema.
• Combination therapy. Combining ACE inhibitors or ARBs with CCBs can prevent or reduce CCB-induced edema.
• Edema management strategies. Strategies to manage or prevent edema should include dose reductions or replacement of the problematic medication, especially in severe or refractory cases.

Dr. Wajngarten, professor of cardiology, University of São Paulo, Brazil, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Edema in the feet and legs is a common complaint in our practices. It can cause pain, weakness, heaviness, discomfort, limited movement, and a negative body image. Medications can contribute to edema, either alone or in combination with other health issues.

Edema is also associated with advanced age, female sex, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, pain, lack of physical activity, and mobility limitations. These factors often necessitate medication prescriptions, which can aggravate the problem. Therefore, it is important to know how to treat or prevent medication-induced edema.

There are four main causes of edema, and all can facilitate medication-induced edema.

• Increased capillary pressure. Conditions such as heart failure, renal dysfunction, venous insufficiency, deep vein thrombosis, and cirrhosis can increase capillary pressure, leading to edema.
• Decreased oncotic pressure. Hypoalbuminemia, a primary cause of reduced colloid oncotic pressure, can result from nephrotic syndrome, diabetic nephropathy, lupus nephropathy, amyloidosis, nephropathies, cirrhosis, chronic liver disease, and malabsorption or malnutrition.
• Increased capillary permeability. Vascular injury, often associated with diabetes, can increase capillary permeability and contribute to edema.
• Impaired lymphatic drainage. Lymphatic obstruction is common in patients with lymphedema, tumors, inflammation, fibrosis, certain infections, surgery, and congenital anomalies. Conditions such as thyroid disorders can also cause an increase in interstitial albumin and other proteins without a corresponding increase in lymphatic flow, leading to lymphedema.

Medications That Can Cause Edema

• Calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Drugs such as nifedipine and amlodipine can increase hydrostatic pressure by causing selective vasodilation of precapillary vessels, leading to increased intracapillary pressures. Newer lipophilic CCBs (eg, levamlodipine) exhibit lower rates of edema. Reducing the dose is often effective. Diuretics are not very effective for vasodilation-induced edema. Combining CCBs with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which induce postcapillary dilation and normalize intracapillary pressure, may reduce fluid leakage into the interstitial space. This combination may be more beneficial than high-dose CCB monotherapy.
• Thiazolidinedione (eg, pioglitazone). These increase vascular permeability and hydrostatic pressure. They work by stimulating the peroxisome proliferator–activated gamma receptor, increasing vascular endothelial permeability, vascular endothelial growth factor secretion, and renal retention of sodium and fluids. Because of other adverse effects, their use is now limited.
• Agents for neuropathic pain (gabapentin and pregabalin). These drugs can induce selective vasodilation of arterioles through a mechanism similar to that of CCBs, causing increased intracapillary pressures. Edema usually begins within the first month of treatment or dose increase and often regresses after dose reduction or drug discontinuation.
• Antiparkinsonian dopamine agonists. These increase hydrostatic pressure by reducing sympathetic tone and dilating arterioles through alpha-2 adrenergic receptor activity.
• New antipsychotics. Drugs like clozapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone can increase hydrostatic pressure through antagonistic effects on alpha-1 adrenergic receptors, causing vasodilation.
• Nitrates. These drugs increase hydrostatic pressure by causing preferential venous dilation, leading to increased venous pooling.
• Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These drugs can increase hydrostatic pressure by inhibiting vasodilation of afferent renal arterioles, decreasing the glomerular filtration rate, and stimulating the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which leads to sodium and water retention. These adverse effects warrant cautious use of these agents.
• ACE inhibitors. Drugs such as enalapril and ramipril can increase vascular permeability. They reduce the metabolism and accumulation of bradykinin, which increases vascular permeability and fluid leakage. These effects are rare and are usually related to allergic responses.
• Insulin. Insulin decreases capillary oncotic pressure and increases vascular permeability. Rapid correction of hyperglycemia can cause a loss of oncotic pressure, while chronic hyperglycemia can damage vascular membranes, increasing permeability. These effects are generally benign and can be managed with careful dose titration, sodium restriction, or diuretics.
• Steroids. Steroids with mineralocorticoid activity can increase renal sodium and water retention, leading to increased blood volume. Fludrocortisone has the highest mineralocorticoid activity, while dexamethasone and methylprednisolone have negligible activity.

Implications

Understanding how these medications cause edema is important for effective management. For example, in the case of those causing edema due to reduced oncotic pressure, like insulin, slow dose titrations can help adapt to osmolarity changes. For drugs causing edema due to increased hydrostatic pressure, diuretics are more effective in acute management.

The key takeaways from this review are:

• Awareness of drug-induced edema. Many drugs besides CCBs can cause edema.
• Combination therapy. Combining ACE inhibitors or ARBs with CCBs can prevent or reduce CCB-induced edema.
• Edema management strategies. Strategies to manage or prevent edema should include dose reductions or replacement of the problematic medication, especially in severe or refractory cases.

Dr. Wajngarten, professor of cardiology, University of São Paulo, Brazil, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Edema in the feet and legs is a common complaint in our practices. It can cause pain, weakness, heaviness, discomfort, limited movement, and a negative body image. Medications can contribute to edema, either alone or in combination with other health issues.

Edema is also associated with advanced age, female sex, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, pain, lack of physical activity, and mobility limitations. These factors often necessitate medication prescriptions, which can aggravate the problem. Therefore, it is important to know how to treat or prevent medication-induced edema.

There are four main causes of edema, and all can facilitate medication-induced edema.

• Increased capillary pressure. Conditions such as heart failure, renal dysfunction, venous insufficiency, deep vein thrombosis, and cirrhosis can increase capillary pressure, leading to edema.
• Decreased oncotic pressure. Hypoalbuminemia, a primary cause of reduced colloid oncotic pressure, can result from nephrotic syndrome, diabetic nephropathy, lupus nephropathy, amyloidosis, nephropathies, cirrhosis, chronic liver disease, and malabsorption or malnutrition.
• Increased capillary permeability. Vascular injury, often associated with diabetes, can increase capillary permeability and contribute to edema.
• Impaired lymphatic drainage. Lymphatic obstruction is common in patients with lymphedema, tumors, inflammation, fibrosis, certain infections, surgery, and congenital anomalies. Conditions such as thyroid disorders can also cause an increase in interstitial albumin and other proteins without a corresponding increase in lymphatic flow, leading to lymphedema.

Medications That Can Cause Edema

• Calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Drugs such as nifedipine and amlodipine can increase hydrostatic pressure by causing selective vasodilation of precapillary vessels, leading to increased intracapillary pressures. Newer lipophilic CCBs (eg, levamlodipine) exhibit lower rates of edema. Reducing the dose is often effective. Diuretics are not very effective for vasodilation-induced edema. Combining CCBs with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which induce postcapillary dilation and normalize intracapillary pressure, may reduce fluid leakage into the interstitial space. This combination may be more beneficial than high-dose CCB monotherapy.
• Thiazolidinedione (eg, pioglitazone). These increase vascular permeability and hydrostatic pressure. They work by stimulating the peroxisome proliferator–activated gamma receptor, increasing vascular endothelial permeability, vascular endothelial growth factor secretion, and renal retention of sodium and fluids. Because of other adverse effects, their use is now limited.
• Agents for neuropathic pain (gabapentin and pregabalin). These drugs can induce selective vasodilation of arterioles through a mechanism similar to that of CCBs, causing increased intracapillary pressures. Edema usually begins within the first month of treatment or dose increase and often regresses after dose reduction or drug discontinuation.
• Antiparkinsonian dopamine agonists. These increase hydrostatic pressure by reducing sympathetic tone and dilating arterioles through alpha-2 adrenergic receptor activity.
• New antipsychotics. Drugs like clozapine, iloperidone, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone can increase hydrostatic pressure through antagonistic effects on alpha-1 adrenergic receptors, causing vasodilation.
• Nitrates. These drugs increase hydrostatic pressure by causing preferential venous dilation, leading to increased venous pooling.
• Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These drugs can increase hydrostatic pressure by inhibiting vasodilation of afferent renal arterioles, decreasing the glomerular filtration rate, and stimulating the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which leads to sodium and water retention. These adverse effects warrant cautious use of these agents.
• ACE inhibitors. Drugs such as enalapril and ramipril can increase vascular permeability. They reduce the metabolism and accumulation of bradykinin, which increases vascular permeability and fluid leakage. These effects are rare and are usually related to allergic responses.
• Insulin. Insulin decreases capillary oncotic pressure and increases vascular permeability. Rapid correction of hyperglycemia can cause a loss of oncotic pressure, while chronic hyperglycemia can damage vascular membranes, increasing permeability. These effects are generally benign and can be managed with careful dose titration, sodium restriction, or diuretics.
• Steroids. Steroids with mineralocorticoid activity can increase renal sodium and water retention, leading to increased blood volume. Fludrocortisone has the highest mineralocorticoid activity, while dexamethasone and methylprednisolone have negligible activity.

Implications

Understanding how these medications cause edema is important for effective management. For example, in the case of those causing edema due to reduced oncotic pressure, like insulin, slow dose titrations can help adapt to osmolarity changes. For drugs causing edema due to increased hydrostatic pressure, diuretics are more effective in acute management.

The key takeaways from this review are:

• Awareness of drug-induced edema. Many drugs besides CCBs can cause edema.
• Combination therapy. Combining ACE inhibitors or ARBs with CCBs can prevent or reduce CCB-induced edema.
• Edema management strategies. Strategies to manage or prevent edema should include dose reductions or replacement of the problematic medication, especially in severe or refractory cases.

Dr. Wajngarten, professor of cardiology, University of São Paulo, Brazil, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This story was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2019, 57 million people worldwide were living with dementia, a figure expected to soar to 153 million by 2050. A recent Lancet Commission report suggests that nearly half of dementia cases could be prevented or delayed by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors, including impaired vision. 

The report’s authors recommend that vision-loss screening and treatment be universally available. But are these recommendations warranted? What is the evidence? What is the potential mechanism? And what are the potential implications for clinical practice? 

Worldwide, the prevalence of avoidable vision loss and blindness in adults aged 50 years or older is estimated to hover around 13%.

“There is now overwhelming evidence that vision impairment in later life is associated with more rapid cognitive decline and an increased risk of dementia,” said Joshua Ehrlich, MD, MPH, associate professor in ophthalmology and visual sciences, the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

The evidence includes a meta-analysis of 14 prospective cohort studies with roughly 6.2 million older adults who were cognitively intact at baseline. Over the course of up to 14 years, 171,888 developed dementia. Vision loss was associated with a pooled relative risk (RR) for dementia of 1.47. 

A separate meta-analysis also identified an increased risk for dementia (RR, 1.38) with visual loss. When broken down into different eye conditions, an increased dementia risk was associated with cataracts and diabetic retinopathy but not with glaucoma or age-related macular degeneration.

A US study that followed roughly 3000 older adults with cataracts and normal cognition at baseline for more than 20 years found that those who had cataract extraction had significantly reduced risk for dementia compared with those who did not have cataract extraction (hazard ratio, 0.71), after controlling for age, race, APOE genotype, education, smoking, and an extensive list of comorbidities. 
 

Causation or Coincidence?

The mechanisms behind these associations might be related to underlying illness, such as diabetes, which is a risk factor for dementia; vision loss itself, as might be suggested by a possible effect of cataract surgery; or shared neuropathologic processes in the retina and the brain. 

A longitudinal study from Korea that included roughly 6 million adults showed that dementia risk increased with severity of visual loss, which supports the hypothesis that vision loss in itself might be causal or that there is a dose-response effect to a shared causal factor. 

“Work is still needed to sort out” exactly how visual deficits may raise dementia risk, although several hypotheses exist, Dr. Ehrlich said. 

For example, “decreased input to the brain via the visual pathways may directly induce brain changes. Also, consequences of vision loss, like social isolation, physical inactivity, and depression, are themselves risk factors for dementia and may explain the pathways through which vision impairment increases risk,” he said. 

Is the link causal? “We’ll never know definitively because we can’t randomize people to not get cataract surgery versus getting cataract surgery, because we know that improving vision improves quality of life, so we’d never want to do that. But the new evidence that’s come in over the last 5 years or so is pretty promising,” said Esme Fuller-Thomson, PhD, director of the Institute for Life Course and Aging and professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Faculty of Nursing, at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

She noted that results of two studies that have looked at this “seem to indicate that those who have cataract surgery are not nearly at as high risk of dementia as those who have cataracts but don’t have the surgery. That’s leaning towards causality.”

A study published in July suggests that cataracts increase dementia risk through vascular and non–Alzheimer’s disease mechanisms. 
 

Clear Clinical Implications 

Dr. Ehrlich said that evidence for an association between untreated vision loss and dementia risk and potential modification by treatment has clear implications for care. 

“Loss of vision impacts so many aspects of people’s lives beyond just how they see the world and losing vision in later life is not a normal part of aging. Thus, when older adults experience vision loss, this should be a cause for concern and prompt an immediate referral to an eye care professional,” he noted. 

Dr. Fuller-Thomson agrees. “Addressing vision loss will certainly help people see better and function at a higher level and improve quality of life, and it seems probable that it might decrease dementia risk so it’s a win-win,” she said.

In her own research, Dr. Fuller-Thomson has found that the combination of hearing loss and vision loss is linked to an eightfold increased risk for cognitive impairment.

“The idea is that vision and/or hearing loss makes it harder for you to be physically active, to be socially engaged, to be mentally stimulated. They are equally important in terms of social isolation, which could lead to loneliness, and we know that loneliness is not good for dementia,” she said.

“With dual sensory impairment, you don’t have as much information coming in — your brain is not engaged as much — and having an engaged brain, doing hobbies, having intellectually stimulating conversation, all of those are factors are associated with lowering risk of dementia,” Dr. Fuller-Thomson said.

The latest Lancet Commission report noted that treatment for visual loss is “effective and cost-effective” for an estimated 90% of people. However, across the world, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, visual loss often goes untreated. 

“A clear opportunity for dementia prevention exists with treatment of visual loss,” the report concluded.

Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Fuller-Thomson have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2019, 57 million people worldwide were living with dementia, a figure expected to soar to 153 million by 2050. A recent Lancet Commission report suggests that nearly half of dementia cases could be prevented or delayed by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors, including impaired vision. 

The report’s authors recommend that vision-loss screening and treatment be universally available. But are these recommendations warranted? What is the evidence? What is the potential mechanism? And what are the potential implications for clinical practice? 

Worldwide, the prevalence of avoidable vision loss and blindness in adults aged 50 years or older is estimated to hover around 13%.

“There is now overwhelming evidence that vision impairment in later life is associated with more rapid cognitive decline and an increased risk of dementia,” said Joshua Ehrlich, MD, MPH, associate professor in ophthalmology and visual sciences, the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

The evidence includes a meta-analysis of 14 prospective cohort studies with roughly 6.2 million older adults who were cognitively intact at baseline. Over the course of up to 14 years, 171,888 developed dementia. Vision loss was associated with a pooled relative risk (RR) for dementia of 1.47. 

A separate meta-analysis also identified an increased risk for dementia (RR, 1.38) with visual loss. When broken down into different eye conditions, an increased dementia risk was associated with cataracts and diabetic retinopathy but not with glaucoma or age-related macular degeneration.

A US study that followed roughly 3000 older adults with cataracts and normal cognition at baseline for more than 20 years found that those who had cataract extraction had significantly reduced risk for dementia compared with those who did not have cataract extraction (hazard ratio, 0.71), after controlling for age, race, APOE genotype, education, smoking, and an extensive list of comorbidities. 
 

Causation or Coincidence?

The mechanisms behind these associations might be related to underlying illness, such as diabetes, which is a risk factor for dementia; vision loss itself, as might be suggested by a possible effect of cataract surgery; or shared neuropathologic processes in the retina and the brain. 

A longitudinal study from Korea that included roughly 6 million adults showed that dementia risk increased with severity of visual loss, which supports the hypothesis that vision loss in itself might be causal or that there is a dose-response effect to a shared causal factor. 

“Work is still needed to sort out” exactly how visual deficits may raise dementia risk, although several hypotheses exist, Dr. Ehrlich said. 

For example, “decreased input to the brain via the visual pathways may directly induce brain changes. Also, consequences of vision loss, like social isolation, physical inactivity, and depression, are themselves risk factors for dementia and may explain the pathways through which vision impairment increases risk,” he said. 

Is the link causal? “We’ll never know definitively because we can’t randomize people to not get cataract surgery versus getting cataract surgery, because we know that improving vision improves quality of life, so we’d never want to do that. But the new evidence that’s come in over the last 5 years or so is pretty promising,” said Esme Fuller-Thomson, PhD, director of the Institute for Life Course and Aging and professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Faculty of Nursing, at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

She noted that results of two studies that have looked at this “seem to indicate that those who have cataract surgery are not nearly at as high risk of dementia as those who have cataracts but don’t have the surgery. That’s leaning towards causality.”

A study published in July suggests that cataracts increase dementia risk through vascular and non–Alzheimer’s disease mechanisms. 
 

Clear Clinical Implications 

Dr. Ehrlich said that evidence for an association between untreated vision loss and dementia risk and potential modification by treatment has clear implications for care. 

“Loss of vision impacts so many aspects of people’s lives beyond just how they see the world and losing vision in later life is not a normal part of aging. Thus, when older adults experience vision loss, this should be a cause for concern and prompt an immediate referral to an eye care professional,” he noted. 

Dr. Fuller-Thomson agrees. “Addressing vision loss will certainly help people see better and function at a higher level and improve quality of life, and it seems probable that it might decrease dementia risk so it’s a win-win,” she said.

In her own research, Dr. Fuller-Thomson has found that the combination of hearing loss and vision loss is linked to an eightfold increased risk for cognitive impairment.

“The idea is that vision and/or hearing loss makes it harder for you to be physically active, to be socially engaged, to be mentally stimulated. They are equally important in terms of social isolation, which could lead to loneliness, and we know that loneliness is not good for dementia,” she said.

“With dual sensory impairment, you don’t have as much information coming in — your brain is not engaged as much — and having an engaged brain, doing hobbies, having intellectually stimulating conversation, all of those are factors are associated with lowering risk of dementia,” Dr. Fuller-Thomson said.

The latest Lancet Commission report noted that treatment for visual loss is “effective and cost-effective” for an estimated 90% of people. However, across the world, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, visual loss often goes untreated. 

“A clear opportunity for dementia prevention exists with treatment of visual loss,” the report concluded.

Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Fuller-Thomson have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2019, 57 million people worldwide were living with dementia, a figure expected to soar to 153 million by 2050. A recent Lancet Commission report suggests that nearly half of dementia cases could be prevented or delayed by addressing 14 modifiable risk factors, including impaired vision. 

The report’s authors recommend that vision-loss screening and treatment be universally available. But are these recommendations warranted? What is the evidence? What is the potential mechanism? And what are the potential implications for clinical practice? 

Worldwide, the prevalence of avoidable vision loss and blindness in adults aged 50 years or older is estimated to hover around 13%.

“There is now overwhelming evidence that vision impairment in later life is associated with more rapid cognitive decline and an increased risk of dementia,” said Joshua Ehrlich, MD, MPH, associate professor in ophthalmology and visual sciences, the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

The evidence includes a meta-analysis of 14 prospective cohort studies with roughly 6.2 million older adults who were cognitively intact at baseline. Over the course of up to 14 years, 171,888 developed dementia. Vision loss was associated with a pooled relative risk (RR) for dementia of 1.47. 

A separate meta-analysis also identified an increased risk for dementia (RR, 1.38) with visual loss. When broken down into different eye conditions, an increased dementia risk was associated with cataracts and diabetic retinopathy but not with glaucoma or age-related macular degeneration.

A US study that followed roughly 3000 older adults with cataracts and normal cognition at baseline for more than 20 years found that those who had cataract extraction had significantly reduced risk for dementia compared with those who did not have cataract extraction (hazard ratio, 0.71), after controlling for age, race, APOE genotype, education, smoking, and an extensive list of comorbidities. 
 

Causation or Coincidence?

The mechanisms behind these associations might be related to underlying illness, such as diabetes, which is a risk factor for dementia; vision loss itself, as might be suggested by a possible effect of cataract surgery; or shared neuropathologic processes in the retina and the brain. 

A longitudinal study from Korea that included roughly 6 million adults showed that dementia risk increased with severity of visual loss, which supports the hypothesis that vision loss in itself might be causal or that there is a dose-response effect to a shared causal factor. 

“Work is still needed to sort out” exactly how visual deficits may raise dementia risk, although several hypotheses exist, Dr. Ehrlich said. 

For example, “decreased input to the brain via the visual pathways may directly induce brain changes. Also, consequences of vision loss, like social isolation, physical inactivity, and depression, are themselves risk factors for dementia and may explain the pathways through which vision impairment increases risk,” he said. 

Is the link causal? “We’ll never know definitively because we can’t randomize people to not get cataract surgery versus getting cataract surgery, because we know that improving vision improves quality of life, so we’d never want to do that. But the new evidence that’s come in over the last 5 years or so is pretty promising,” said Esme Fuller-Thomson, PhD, director of the Institute for Life Course and Aging and professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Faculty of Nursing, at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

She noted that results of two studies that have looked at this “seem to indicate that those who have cataract surgery are not nearly at as high risk of dementia as those who have cataracts but don’t have the surgery. That’s leaning towards causality.”

A study published in July suggests that cataracts increase dementia risk through vascular and non–Alzheimer’s disease mechanisms. 
 

Clear Clinical Implications 

Dr. Ehrlich said that evidence for an association between untreated vision loss and dementia risk and potential modification by treatment has clear implications for care. 

“Loss of vision impacts so many aspects of people’s lives beyond just how they see the world and losing vision in later life is not a normal part of aging. Thus, when older adults experience vision loss, this should be a cause for concern and prompt an immediate referral to an eye care professional,” he noted. 

Dr. Fuller-Thomson agrees. “Addressing vision loss will certainly help people see better and function at a higher level and improve quality of life, and it seems probable that it might decrease dementia risk so it’s a win-win,” she said.

In her own research, Dr. Fuller-Thomson has found that the combination of hearing loss and vision loss is linked to an eightfold increased risk for cognitive impairment.

“The idea is that vision and/or hearing loss makes it harder for you to be physically active, to be socially engaged, to be mentally stimulated. They are equally important in terms of social isolation, which could lead to loneliness, and we know that loneliness is not good for dementia,” she said.

“With dual sensory impairment, you don’t have as much information coming in — your brain is not engaged as much — and having an engaged brain, doing hobbies, having intellectually stimulating conversation, all of those are factors are associated with lowering risk of dementia,” Dr. Fuller-Thomson said.

The latest Lancet Commission report noted that treatment for visual loss is “effective and cost-effective” for an estimated 90% of people. However, across the world, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, visual loss often goes untreated. 

“A clear opportunity for dementia prevention exists with treatment of visual loss,” the report concluded.

Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Fuller-Thomson have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching. 

It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.” 

courtesy Dr. Andrea Austin

Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing. 

With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout. 

“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.” 
 

Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?

Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”

courtesy Michael Hanlon

The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”

Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare. 

Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
 

Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices

Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach. 

Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”

Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life. 

courtesy Dr. Jattu Senesie

The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”

Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
 

Should You Stay or Should You Go?

Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back. 

“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.” 

Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.” 

Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.” 

According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
 

When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach

Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:

• You need help setting boundaries at work.
• You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
• You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
• You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.

If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.” 

Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education. 

Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”

Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves. 
 

A Side Gig or a New Career Path

After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”

When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.” 

Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.” 

There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.

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

When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching. 

It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.” 

courtesy Dr. Andrea Austin

Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing. 

With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout. 

“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.” 
 

Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?

Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”

courtesy Michael Hanlon

The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”

Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare. 

Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
 

Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices

Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach. 

Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”

Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life. 

courtesy Dr. Jattu Senesie

The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”

Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
 

Should You Stay or Should You Go?

Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back. 

“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.” 

Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.” 

Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.” 

According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
 

When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach

Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:

• You need help setting boundaries at work.
• You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
• You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
• You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.

If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.” 

Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education. 

Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”

Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves. 
 

A Side Gig or a New Career Path

After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”

When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.” 

Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.” 

There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.

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

When Andrea Austin, MD, an emergency medicine specialist, left the military in 2020, she knew the adjustment to civilian life and practice might be difficult. To help smooth the transition, she reached out to a physician mentor who also had a professional coaching certificate. After a conversation, Dr. Austin signed up for 6 months of career coaching. 

It was time well spent, according to Dr. Austin, who today is a coach herself. “It was really the first time I had the ability to choose what I wanted to do, and that required a mindset shift,” she explains. “A big part of coaching is helping physicians discover their agency so that they can make the best career choices.” 

courtesy Dr. Andrea Austin

Physicians have long lacked the coaching resources typically made available to corporate executives. But that’s changing. In today’s high-pressure environment, where doctors are burning out at a rapid pace, coaching can sometimes be an avenue to staying in the field, especially if that coach is a fellow physician who understands what you’re facing. 

With a physician shortage that the Association of American Medical Colleges expects to hit 86,000 in the next decade or so, coaching could be a stone worth turning over. A 2024 report in JAMA Network Open found that coaching provided by physician peers led to a significant reduction in interpersonal disengagement and burnout. 

“What I think is exciting about coaching is that it allows you to better understand yourself and know your strengths and weaknesses,” said Dr. Austin. “It might seem simple, but many ‘soft skills’ aren’t considered mainstream in medicine. Coaching allows us to understand them and ourselves better.” 
 

Why Are Doctors Using Coaches?

Although it’s hard to put a number on how many physicians are turning to coaches, the number of coaches available for doctors is growing rapidly. The American Medical Women’s Association maintains a database of physician coaches. According to deputy director Jodi Godfrey, MS, RDN, the number of members who have added coaching to their skill set has tripled in the past 4 years. “Many cite burnout as the reason they sought coaching support, and then they decided to go on to get certified in coaching.”

courtesy Michael Hanlon

The pandemic is one reason physician coaching has grown, said Elizabeth Esparaz, MD, an ophthalmologist and physician coach. “Since the pandemic, the word ‘burnout’ is thrown around a good deal.” And the causes are clear. “Doctors are facing longer hours, they must make split-second decisions, they’re multitasking, and they have less support staff.”

Among her coaching clients, Dr. Austin has noticed other common struggles: fears of litigation, time scarcity with patients, declining reimbursement that hasn’t kept up with inflation, and loss of autonomy because of the corporatization of healthcare. 

Coaching, Dr. Esparaz believes, can be an antidote to many of these issues. “Coaches help doctors see their strengths and find better ways of applying them,” she said. “We help them move forward, and also see their blind spots.”
 

Clarity, Goals, and Making the Right Choices

Physician coaching comes in a variety of flavors — some one on one, and others in the form of group sessions. All, however, serve the purpose of helping physicians gain career clarity. “Sometimes clients realize their job may not be working for them, but that there are things they can do to change that without having to leave the field,” said Jattu Senesie, MD, a former ob.gyn. who is now a physician coach. 

Dr. Esparaz works with doctors to establish SMART goals: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time based. She gave the example of learning how to set boundaries. “If a physician is asked to create a presentation for work, I encourage them to ask for compensation or administrative time before committing to unpaid tasks.”

Another big issue: charting. It’s increasingly burdensome, and many doctors find it encroaching on their home lives. “If we can identify a problem like that, we can come up with a strategy for mitigating it,” Dr. Esparaz said. This might include setting a goal of getting 80% of charting completed immediately after the patient encounter on the busiest clinic day of the week. The client tests the experiment and then revisits it with the coach to discuss what worked and what didn’t, refining the process until it has freed up the physician’s home life. 

courtesy Dr. Jattu Senesie

The younger generation of doctors often struggles with career choices, too, because it’s the first time they are without structure, said Dr. Senesie. There’s med school and residency, which puts a framework around every move a doctor makes. But once they become attending physicians, the choices are endless. “Coaching can help them find a new structure and systems that will allow them to thrive.”

Although mentoring has been a well-embraced concept for decades, it “hits a wall,” at some point in terms of what it can offer, Dr. Austin said. That’s where coaching can take over. “There’s a point where a mentor cannot help someone self-actualize. As a coach, you don’t need to know everything about a doctor’s life, but you can help them learn to ask themselves the right questions to solve problems.”
 

Should You Stay or Should You Go?

Dr. Austin’s approach begins with the premise that healthcare today is challenging and dysfunctional — but doctors still have agency. She has worked with clients on the verge of leaving the field and helped them find their way back. 

“They have a light bulb moment and open up to the idea that they have much to give still,” she said. “We take an inventory to help them better communicate their needs and make changes, and I help them connect to their values. Sometimes that exercise allows them to reframe their current work environment.” 

Not every doctor who goes through coaching remains in the field. But “that’s the exception, not the rule,” Dr. Austin said. And that’s okay. “If that’s the outcome, coaching probably helped them get to that point faster, and with an informed decision.” 

Dr. Senesie has been coaching for about a decade, and in that time, she’s seen a shift that goes beyond figuring out career goals. “Doctors are more aware of the need for well-being today. The pandemic made it impossible to ignore what doesn’t work for us. When I work with clients, we look for ways to make the job more tenable.” 

According to Dr. Senesie, younger doctors are looking for that balance at the outset. “They want to be physicians, but they also want a life,” she said. “It’s a challenge for them because in addition to that mindset, they’re also coming out with more debt than older generations. They want out from underneath that.”
 

When It’s Time to Find a Physician Coach

Wondering whether coaching is right for you? Consider these symptoms:

• You need help setting boundaries at work.
• You feel like you’re sacrificing your own well-being for your job.
• You’re using maladaptive strategies to cope with the stress at work.
• You’ve reached a point where you are considering leaving the field.

If you’re interested in finding a physician coach, there are several places to begin your search, word of mouth being one of them. “Conferences and social media can also expose you to coaches,” suggested Dr. Esparaz. There are different methods and approaches to coaching. So, as you research, “make sure the coach you choose has techniques and a framework that fit what you’re after.” 

Dr. Austin warned that it is an unregulated industry, so buyer beware. To ensure you’re getting an accredited physician coach, look for people who have obtained an International Coach Federation (ICF) accreditation. These coaches will hold an associate certified coach credential, which requires at least 60 hours of coaching-specific training approved by the ICF, in addition to other assessments and education. 

Ensure that the coach you choose is within your budget. “There are some people charging astronomical rates out there,” Dr. Austin said. “If you’re burned out or struggling, it can be easy to reach for your credit card.”

Dr. Austin also cautioned doctors seeking a coach to avoid promises that sound too good to be true. Some coaching can have a gaslighting quality to it, she warned, “suggesting it can allow you to endure any environment.” But positive self-talk alone won’t cure an abusive or discriminatory situation. “If a client describes a toxic work environment,” the coach has an “ethical imperative” to help that person protect themselves. 
 

A Side Gig or a New Career Path

After Dr. Austin’s experience with her coach, she made the choice to continue as an emergency physician part-time while starting her own coaching business. “It’s important for me personally to keep in touch with what’s happening on the ground, but I have no judgment for anyone who chooses to leave clinical practice to become a coach.”

When Dr. Senesie looks back on her own struggles as a clinician, she recognizes the state of burnout she was in 10 years ago. “I knew there was an issue, but I didn’t have the mindset to find a way to make it work,” she said. “I left the field when I was at my depths of burnout, which is generally not the best way to go about it.” 

Guidance might have allowed her to take into account other avenues and helped her remain in the field, said Dr. Senesie. She has since learned that “there are many ways to practice medicine, and the way we’ve gone about it traditionally has worked for some, but not necessarily for everyone.” 

There may be more possibilities than you think. By helping you assess your path and make meaningful changes, a physician coach might be the key to remaining in the field you love.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I usually report five or six studies in the field of neurology that were published in the last months, but July was a vacation month.

I decided to cover another topic, which is the role of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonists beyond diabetes and obesity, and in particular, for the field of neurology and psychiatry. Until a few years ago, the treatment of diabetes with traditional antidiabetic drugs was frustrating for vascular neurologists.

These drugs would lower glucose and had an impact on small-vessel disease, but they had no impact on large-vessel disease, stroke, and vascular mortality. This changed with the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 antagonists because these drugs were not only effective for diabetes, but they also lowered cardiac mortality, in particular, in patients with cardiac failure.

The next generation of antidiabetic drugs were the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the combined GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists. These two polypeptides and their receptors play a very important role in diabetes and in obesity. The receptors are found not only in the pancreas but also in the intestinal system, the liver, and the central nervous system.

We have a number of preclinical models, mostly in transgenic mice, which show that these drugs are not effective only in diabetes and obesity, but also in liver disease, kidney failure, and neurodegenerative diseases. GLP-1 receptor agonists also have powerful anti-inflammatory properties. These drugs reduce body weight, and they have positive effects on blood pressure and lipid metabolism. 

In the studies on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in diabetes, a meta-analysis with more than 58,000 patients showed a significant risk reduction for stroke compared with placebo, and this risk reduction was in the range of 80%.
 

Stroke, Smoking, and Alcohol

A meta-analysis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in over 30,000 nondiabetic patients with obesity found a significant reduction in blood pressure, mortality, and the risk of myocardial infarction. There was no significant decrease in the risk of stroke, but most probably this is due to the fact that strokes are much less frequent in obesity than in diabetes.

You all know that obesity is also a major risk factor for sleep apnea syndrome. Recently, two large studies with the GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide found a significant improvement in sleep apnea syndrome compared to placebo, regardless of whether patients needed continuous positive airway pressure therapy or not.

In the therapy studies on diabetes and obesity, there were indications that some smokers in the studies stopped their nicotine consumption. A small pilot study with exenatide in 84 overweight patients who were smokers showed that 46% of patients on exenatide stopped smoking compared with 27% in the placebo group. This could be an indication that GLP-1 receptor agonists have activity on the reward system in the brain. Currently, there are a number of larger placebo-controlled trials ongoing. 

Another aspect is alcohol consumption. An epidemiologic study in Denmark using data from the National Health Registry showed that the incidence of alcohol-related events decreased significantly in almost 40,000 patients with diabetes when they were treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with other antidiabetic drugs.

A retrospective cohort study from the United States with over 80,000 patients with obesity showed that treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists was associated with a 50%-60% lower risk for occurrence or recurrence of high alcohol consumption. There is only one small study with exenatide, which was not really informative.

There are a number of studies underway for GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with placebo in patients with alcohol dependence or alcohol consumption. Preclinical models also indicate that these drugs might be effective in cocaine abuse, and there is one placebo-controlled study ongoing. 
 

Parkinson’s Disease

Let’s come to neurology. Preclinical models of Parkinson’s disease have shown neuroprotective activities of GLP-1. Until now, we have three randomized placebo-controlled trials with exenatide, NLY01, and lixisenatide. Two of these studies were positive, showing that the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease were stable over time and deteriorated with placebo. One study was neutral. This means we need more large-scale placebo-controlled studies in the early phases of Parkinson’s disease. 

Another potential use of GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists is in dementia. These substances, as you know, have positive effects on high blood pressure and vascular risk factors. 

A working group in China analyzed 27 studies on the treatment of diabetes. A small number of randomized studies and a large number of cohort studies showed that modern antidiabetic drugs reduce the risk for dementia. The risk reduction for dementia for the GLP-1 receptor agonists was 75%. At the moment, there are only small prospective studies and they are not conclusive. Again, we need large-scale placebo-controlled studies.

The most important limitation at the moment beyond the cost is the other adverse drug reactions with the GLP-1 receptor agonists; these include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. There might be a slightly increased risk for pancreatitis. The US Food and Drug Administration recently reported there is no increased risk for suicide. Another potential adverse drug reaction is nonatherosclerotic anterior optic neuropathy. 

These drugs, GLP-1 receptor agonists and GIP agonists, are also investigated in a variety of other non-neurologic diseases. The focus here is on metabolic liver disease, such as fatty liver and kidney diseases. Smaller, positive studies have been conducted in this area, and large placebo-controlled trials for both indications are currently underway.

If these diverse therapeutic properties would turn out to be really the case with GLP-1 receptor agonists, this would lead to a significant expansion of the range of indications. If we consider cost, this would be the end of our healthcare systems because we cannot afford this. In addition, the new antidiabetic drugs and the treatment of obesity are available only to a limited extent.

Finally, at least for neurology, it’s unclear whether the impact of these diseases is in the brain or whether it’s indirect, due to the effectiveness on vascular risk factors and concomitant diseases. In the next 5 years, we will learn whether GLP-1 or GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists are the new wonder drugs in medicine.
 

Dr. Diener is Professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; he has disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I usually report five or six studies in the field of neurology that were published in the last months, but July was a vacation month.

I decided to cover another topic, which is the role of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonists beyond diabetes and obesity, and in particular, for the field of neurology and psychiatry. Until a few years ago, the treatment of diabetes with traditional antidiabetic drugs was frustrating for vascular neurologists.

These drugs would lower glucose and had an impact on small-vessel disease, but they had no impact on large-vessel disease, stroke, and vascular mortality. This changed with the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 antagonists because these drugs were not only effective for diabetes, but they also lowered cardiac mortality, in particular, in patients with cardiac failure.

The next generation of antidiabetic drugs were the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the combined GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists. These two polypeptides and their receptors play a very important role in diabetes and in obesity. The receptors are found not only in the pancreas but also in the intestinal system, the liver, and the central nervous system.

We have a number of preclinical models, mostly in transgenic mice, which show that these drugs are not effective only in diabetes and obesity, but also in liver disease, kidney failure, and neurodegenerative diseases. GLP-1 receptor agonists also have powerful anti-inflammatory properties. These drugs reduce body weight, and they have positive effects on blood pressure and lipid metabolism. 

In the studies on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in diabetes, a meta-analysis with more than 58,000 patients showed a significant risk reduction for stroke compared with placebo, and this risk reduction was in the range of 80%.
 

Stroke, Smoking, and Alcohol

A meta-analysis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in over 30,000 nondiabetic patients with obesity found a significant reduction in blood pressure, mortality, and the risk of myocardial infarction. There was no significant decrease in the risk of stroke, but most probably this is due to the fact that strokes are much less frequent in obesity than in diabetes.

You all know that obesity is also a major risk factor for sleep apnea syndrome. Recently, two large studies with the GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide found a significant improvement in sleep apnea syndrome compared to placebo, regardless of whether patients needed continuous positive airway pressure therapy or not.

In the therapy studies on diabetes and obesity, there were indications that some smokers in the studies stopped their nicotine consumption. A small pilot study with exenatide in 84 overweight patients who were smokers showed that 46% of patients on exenatide stopped smoking compared with 27% in the placebo group. This could be an indication that GLP-1 receptor agonists have activity on the reward system in the brain. Currently, there are a number of larger placebo-controlled trials ongoing. 

Another aspect is alcohol consumption. An epidemiologic study in Denmark using data from the National Health Registry showed that the incidence of alcohol-related events decreased significantly in almost 40,000 patients with diabetes when they were treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with other antidiabetic drugs.

A retrospective cohort study from the United States with over 80,000 patients with obesity showed that treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists was associated with a 50%-60% lower risk for occurrence or recurrence of high alcohol consumption. There is only one small study with exenatide, which was not really informative.

There are a number of studies underway for GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with placebo in patients with alcohol dependence or alcohol consumption. Preclinical models also indicate that these drugs might be effective in cocaine abuse, and there is one placebo-controlled study ongoing. 
 

Parkinson’s Disease

Let’s come to neurology. Preclinical models of Parkinson’s disease have shown neuroprotective activities of GLP-1. Until now, we have three randomized placebo-controlled trials with exenatide, NLY01, and lixisenatide. Two of these studies were positive, showing that the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease were stable over time and deteriorated with placebo. One study was neutral. This means we need more large-scale placebo-controlled studies in the early phases of Parkinson’s disease. 

Another potential use of GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists is in dementia. These substances, as you know, have positive effects on high blood pressure and vascular risk factors. 

A working group in China analyzed 27 studies on the treatment of diabetes. A small number of randomized studies and a large number of cohort studies showed that modern antidiabetic drugs reduce the risk for dementia. The risk reduction for dementia for the GLP-1 receptor agonists was 75%. At the moment, there are only small prospective studies and they are not conclusive. Again, we need large-scale placebo-controlled studies.

The most important limitation at the moment beyond the cost is the other adverse drug reactions with the GLP-1 receptor agonists; these include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. There might be a slightly increased risk for pancreatitis. The US Food and Drug Administration recently reported there is no increased risk for suicide. Another potential adverse drug reaction is nonatherosclerotic anterior optic neuropathy. 

These drugs, GLP-1 receptor agonists and GIP agonists, are also investigated in a variety of other non-neurologic diseases. The focus here is on metabolic liver disease, such as fatty liver and kidney diseases. Smaller, positive studies have been conducted in this area, and large placebo-controlled trials for both indications are currently underway.

If these diverse therapeutic properties would turn out to be really the case with GLP-1 receptor agonists, this would lead to a significant expansion of the range of indications. If we consider cost, this would be the end of our healthcare systems because we cannot afford this. In addition, the new antidiabetic drugs and the treatment of obesity are available only to a limited extent.

Finally, at least for neurology, it’s unclear whether the impact of these diseases is in the brain or whether it’s indirect, due to the effectiveness on vascular risk factors and concomitant diseases. In the next 5 years, we will learn whether GLP-1 or GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists are the new wonder drugs in medicine.
 

Dr. Diener is Professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; he has disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I usually report five or six studies in the field of neurology that were published in the last months, but July was a vacation month.

I decided to cover another topic, which is the role of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonists beyond diabetes and obesity, and in particular, for the field of neurology and psychiatry. Until a few years ago, the treatment of diabetes with traditional antidiabetic drugs was frustrating for vascular neurologists.

These drugs would lower glucose and had an impact on small-vessel disease, but they had no impact on large-vessel disease, stroke, and vascular mortality. This changed with the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 antagonists because these drugs were not only effective for diabetes, but they also lowered cardiac mortality, in particular, in patients with cardiac failure.

The next generation of antidiabetic drugs were the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the combined GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists. These two polypeptides and their receptors play a very important role in diabetes and in obesity. The receptors are found not only in the pancreas but also in the intestinal system, the liver, and the central nervous system.

We have a number of preclinical models, mostly in transgenic mice, which show that these drugs are not effective only in diabetes and obesity, but also in liver disease, kidney failure, and neurodegenerative diseases. GLP-1 receptor agonists also have powerful anti-inflammatory properties. These drugs reduce body weight, and they have positive effects on blood pressure and lipid metabolism. 

In the studies on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in diabetes, a meta-analysis with more than 58,000 patients showed a significant risk reduction for stroke compared with placebo, and this risk reduction was in the range of 80%.
 

Stroke, Smoking, and Alcohol

A meta-analysis on the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in over 30,000 nondiabetic patients with obesity found a significant reduction in blood pressure, mortality, and the risk of myocardial infarction. There was no significant decrease in the risk of stroke, but most probably this is due to the fact that strokes are much less frequent in obesity than in diabetes.

You all know that obesity is also a major risk factor for sleep apnea syndrome. Recently, two large studies with the GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide found a significant improvement in sleep apnea syndrome compared to placebo, regardless of whether patients needed continuous positive airway pressure therapy or not.

In the therapy studies on diabetes and obesity, there were indications that some smokers in the studies stopped their nicotine consumption. A small pilot study with exenatide in 84 overweight patients who were smokers showed that 46% of patients on exenatide stopped smoking compared with 27% in the placebo group. This could be an indication that GLP-1 receptor agonists have activity on the reward system in the brain. Currently, there are a number of larger placebo-controlled trials ongoing. 

Another aspect is alcohol consumption. An epidemiologic study in Denmark using data from the National Health Registry showed that the incidence of alcohol-related events decreased significantly in almost 40,000 patients with diabetes when they were treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with other antidiabetic drugs.

A retrospective cohort study from the United States with over 80,000 patients with obesity showed that treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists was associated with a 50%-60% lower risk for occurrence or recurrence of high alcohol consumption. There is only one small study with exenatide, which was not really informative.

There are a number of studies underway for GLP-1 receptor agonists compared with placebo in patients with alcohol dependence or alcohol consumption. Preclinical models also indicate that these drugs might be effective in cocaine abuse, and there is one placebo-controlled study ongoing. 
 

Parkinson’s Disease

Let’s come to neurology. Preclinical models of Parkinson’s disease have shown neuroprotective activities of GLP-1. Until now, we have three randomized placebo-controlled trials with exenatide, NLY01, and lixisenatide. Two of these studies were positive, showing that the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease were stable over time and deteriorated with placebo. One study was neutral. This means we need more large-scale placebo-controlled studies in the early phases of Parkinson’s disease. 

Another potential use of GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists is in dementia. These substances, as you know, have positive effects on high blood pressure and vascular risk factors. 

A working group in China analyzed 27 studies on the treatment of diabetes. A small number of randomized studies and a large number of cohort studies showed that modern antidiabetic drugs reduce the risk for dementia. The risk reduction for dementia for the GLP-1 receptor agonists was 75%. At the moment, there are only small prospective studies and they are not conclusive. Again, we need large-scale placebo-controlled studies.

The most important limitation at the moment beyond the cost is the other adverse drug reactions with the GLP-1 receptor agonists; these include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. There might be a slightly increased risk for pancreatitis. The US Food and Drug Administration recently reported there is no increased risk for suicide. Another potential adverse drug reaction is nonatherosclerotic anterior optic neuropathy. 

These drugs, GLP-1 receptor agonists and GIP agonists, are also investigated in a variety of other non-neurologic diseases. The focus here is on metabolic liver disease, such as fatty liver and kidney diseases. Smaller, positive studies have been conducted in this area, and large placebo-controlled trials for both indications are currently underway.

If these diverse therapeutic properties would turn out to be really the case with GLP-1 receptor agonists, this would lead to a significant expansion of the range of indications. If we consider cost, this would be the end of our healthcare systems because we cannot afford this. In addition, the new antidiabetic drugs and the treatment of obesity are available only to a limited extent.

Finally, at least for neurology, it’s unclear whether the impact of these diseases is in the brain or whether it’s indirect, due to the effectiveness on vascular risk factors and concomitant diseases. In the next 5 years, we will learn whether GLP-1 or GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists are the new wonder drugs in medicine.
 

Dr. Diener is Professor in the Department of Neurology, Stroke Center-Headache Center, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany; he has disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

In 2016, medical device giant Abbott issued a recall for its MitraClip cardiac device — “a Class I recall, the most serious type,” the FDA said.

“Use of this device may cause serious injuries or death,” an FDA notice about the recall said.

But neither the manufacturer nor the FDA actually recalled the device or suspended its use. They allowed doctors to continue implanting the clips in leaky heart valves in what has become a common procedure.

In a notice, the manufacturer explained, “Abbott is not removing product from commercial distribution.” Rather, Abbott revised instructions for use and required doctors who implant the clips to undergo training.

When it comes to medical devices, recalls can include not only “removals,” in which the device is removed from where it is used or sold, but also “corrections,” which address the problem in the field — for instance, by repairing, adjusting, relabeling, or inspecting a device.

“It’s very oxymoronic,” said Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California-San Francisco and former editor-in-chief of the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. “A recall makes it sound like it’s recalled. But that is not actually what it means.”

Though the FDA and federal regulations call these actions recalls, they might be described more aptly as “non-recalls.” And they have happened repeatedly in recent years. For instance, in addition to other Abbott devices, products made by Medtronic, Abiomed, and Getinge have had recalls that left them in use.
 

Safeguarding the Public

Recalls that leave what the FDA identifies as potentially dangerous products in the marketplace can raise the question: Do they do enough to protect the public?

There are other ways to handle recalls. In announcements about products as varied as crib bumpers, pool drain covers, bicycle helmets, and coffee mugs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission routinely alerts consumers to stop using recalled products and contact the manufacturers for refunds, repairs, or replacements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regularly advises consumers to bring recalled cars back to the dealer to have them fixed. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA announce food recalls, they routinely tell consumers to return or discard the food.

In some cases, a medical device that is the subject of a recall can be kept on the market safely because there is a simple fix, said Sanket Dhruva, a cardiologist and an associate professor at UCSF who has studied FDA oversight of devices. In other cases, recalls that don’t remove devices from the market can provide unwarranted reassurance and leave the public at risk, Dhruva said.

From 2019 through 2023, there were 338 Class I medical device recalls, 164 of which were corrections and 174 of which were removals, FDA spokesperson Amanda Hils said.

Some products undergo recall after recall while they remain on the market. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three rounds of recalls, none of which removed devices from use.

“When deciding whether a recall warrants device removal from the field, the FDA considers the frequency and severity of adverse events, effectiveness of the corrective actions that have been executed, and the benefits and risks of preserving patient access to the device,” FDA spokesperson Audra Harrison said.

Where recalled devices have already been implanted, “removal” doesn’t necessarily mean removing them from patients’ bodies. “When an implanted device has the potential to fail unexpectedly, companies often tell doctors to contact their patients to discuss the risk of removing the device compared to the risk of leaving it in place,” the FDA website says.

The FDA allowed the recalled MitraClip devices to remain in use “because the agency believed that the overall benefits of the device continued to outweigh the risks and the firm’s recall strategy was appropriate and adequate,” Harrison said.

The FDA reviews the recall strategies that manufacturers propose and often provides input to ensure the public will be protected, Hils said. The agency also monitors the effectiveness of recalls and, before terminating them, makes sure the strategy was carried out, Hils said.

Abbott, the maker of MitraClip, said the device has been proven safe and effective “based on more than 20 years of clinical evidence and has profoundly improved the lives of people living with mitral regurgitation,” a condition in which blood flows backward through the heart’s mitral valve. The condition can lead to heart failure and death.

“With MitraClip, we’re addressing the needs of people with MR who often have no other options,” company spokesperson Brent Tippen said.

Speaking of the MitraClip recalls, Redberg said, “So hard to imagine these are effective actions in protecting patients.”

In 2021, for Medtronic’s StealthStation S7 cranial software, the company and the FDA sent a different message.

StealthStation is an elaborate system of screens and other equipment that guides neurosurgeons using instruments in the brain — for instance, to biopsy or cut out tumors. Drawing from CT scans, MRIs, and other imaging, it’s meant to show the location of the surgical instruments.

In connection with a Class I November 2021 recall, the FDA website said potential inaccuracies in a biopsy depth gauge could result in “life-threatening injury (such as hemorrhage, unintended tissue damage, or permanent neurological injury), which could lead to death.”

The FDA website explained what Medtronic was doing about it.

“The recalling firm will provide a warning and instructional placard to be applied to impacted systems,” the website said. “Until a software update is available, ensure you are following the instructions below to prevent the issue from occurring,” it advised doctors.

In a statement to KFF Health News, Medtronic spokesperson Erika Winkels said the safety and well-being of patients is the company’s primary concern, and certain issues “can be safely and effectively remedied with a correction on site.”

Richard Everson, a neurosurgeon and an assistant professor at UCLA, noted that the 2021 recall allowed doctors to continue using unaffected StealthStation features, a benefit for patients and facilities depending on them.

“But, I mean, then you could ask, ‘Well, why don’t they just disable the view [of the brain] that’s bugged?’” Everson said. “Why would they give you the option of looking at an inaccurate one?”

“That’s kind of a strange solution,” he said.

The FDA lists the 2021 recall as still open, explaining “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

That recall was not the last word on problems with StealthStation. Since then, the manufacturer has submitted adverse event reports to the FDA describing trouble in cases involving various versions of StealthStation.

In a September 2022 case, guidance provided by a StealthStation device was allegedly off the mark, a procedure was aborted, and, when the patient awoke, they “had almost no speech for two days,” according to a Medtronic report. In the report, Medtronic said there was “insufficient information to determine the relationship of the software to the reported issue.”

In a February 2024 case, after brain surgery, an MRI found that the operation “missed the tumor” and that other tissue was removed instead, according to a report Medtronic submitted to the FDA. In the report, Medtronic said that when a company representative tested the system, it performed as intended.

In March 2024, Medtronic recalled versions of StealthStation S8 without removing them from hospitals. The company said at the time that it would provide a software update.

“Software updates are available to correct the anomalies identified in the 2021 S7 and 2024 S8 recalls and are actively being deployed,” Medtronic’s Winkels told KFF Health News in a July email. “While the software updates for the 2021 S7 recall are complete in the US, they remain ongoing in some international regions.”

In June 2023, Abiomed issued an urgent medical device correction for its Impella 2.5 intravascular micro axial blood pump, which supports the heart. In patients with a certain type of replacement heart valve, there was a risk of “destruction of the impeller blades,” which could cause “low flow” and “embolization of the fractured impeller material,” an entry on the FDA website said.

“Clinicians are cautioned to position the Impella system carefully in patients,” the FDA website said, among other instructions.

The updated instructions “provide technical guidance to mitigate the risk of rare complications,” Abiomed spokesperson Ryan Carbain said. There were no product removals and no reports of adverse events “related to product design or manufacturing,” Carbain said.

Another set of medical devices, Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps made by Getinge of Sweden, have failed persistently, according to FDA records.

The devices — which are placed in the aorta, a major artery, to assist the heart — were the subject of eight Class I recalls from December 2022 to July 2023. All were corrections rather than removals, a KFF Health News analysis found.

In a May 2024 letter to health care providers, the FDA said that, in the previous 12 months, it had received almost 3,000 adverse event reports related to the balloon pumps. It was referring to reports of malfunctions and cases in which the products might have caused or contributed to a death or injury. Of those, 15 reportedly involved serious injury or death, the FDA said.

During the summer of 2023, the FDA noted that “alternative treatments are limited” and said the devices could continue to be used.

But, in May, the FDA changed its stance. The agency advised health care facilities to “transition away from these devices and seek alternatives, if possible.”

“These recommendations are based on our continued concerns” that the manufacturer “has not sufficiently addressed the problems and risks with these recalled devices.”

Getinge sent KFF Health News written answers from Elin Frostehav, the company’s president of Acute Care Therapies.

“There is no question that we would have liked to have solved these issues in full much earlier,” she said.

As a result of the FDA’s May action, the company “immediately paused proactive marketing” of the balloon pumps in the United States, and it is selling them only to customers who have no alternatives, Frostehav said.

“We are working with the agency to finalize remediation and product update solutions,” Frostehav said.
 

‘Known Possible Complications’

Abbott’s MitraClip system includes tiny clips implanted in the heart’s mitral valve and the equipment used to implant them. The apparatus features a steering mechanism with hand controls and a catheter that is threaded through a major vein, typically from an incision in the groin, to place one or more clips in the heart.

Worldwide, more than 200,000 people have been treated with MitraClip, according to an Abbott website.

The 2016 MitraClip recall described cases in which “the user was unable to separate the implantable Clip from the delivery system.”

In a news release at the time, Abbott said it had “received a small number of reports” in which that happened.

Those cases “resulted in surgical interventions to remove the delivery system or replace the mitral valve, and it is expected that any future similar incidents would also require surgery to correct the problem,” the FDA said in a 2016 notice. “There was one patient death in these cases as a result of severe comorbidities following surgery.”

Years later, something similar happened.

In February 2021, a clip was implanted in an 81-year-old patient but the doctor couldn’t separate the clip from the delivery system, according to a report Abbott filed with the FDA. The patient was transferred to surgery, where the delivery system “had to be cut down in order to detach the clip.”

The patient then underwent an operation to replace the mitral valve, and, hours later, the patient was brought back to surgery to address bleeding, the report said.

The patient “coded” the next day and died from an aortic bleed, the report said.

In the report to the FDA, the manufacturer blamed “case-specific circumstances.”

“Cardiac arrest, hemorrhage and death are listed” in the device instructions “as known possible complications associated with mitraclip procedures,” the company said. “There is no indication of a product issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.”

The third MitraClip recall, initiated in September 2022, cited an “increase in clip locking malfunctions.”

Most of the reported malfunctions were not associated with adverse outcomes, the FDA said then. Treatment with MitraClip “remains within the anticipated risk levels,” the company told customers.

As with the two earlier recalls, the third advised doctors to follow the device’s instructions. But the 2022 recall identified a contributing factor: the way the device was made.

“Abbott has identified a contributing cause … as a change in the material properties of one of the Clip locking components,” the company said in a 2022 letter to customers.

“Abbott is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material,” the company wrote. In the same letter, Abbott told doctors that, in the meantime, they could use the devices they had in stock.

Six days later, a clip opened while locked and a patient died, according to a report the manufacturer submitted to the FDA.

“There is no evidence that death was related to the device but it was likely related to the procedure,” Abbott wrote.

Now, almost two years later, the 2022 recall remains open, according to the FDA website, and “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

In 2016, medical device giant Abbott issued a recall for its MitraClip cardiac device — “a Class I recall, the most serious type,” the FDA said.

“Use of this device may cause serious injuries or death,” an FDA notice about the recall said.

But neither the manufacturer nor the FDA actually recalled the device or suspended its use. They allowed doctors to continue implanting the clips in leaky heart valves in what has become a common procedure.

In a notice, the manufacturer explained, “Abbott is not removing product from commercial distribution.” Rather, Abbott revised instructions for use and required doctors who implant the clips to undergo training.

When it comes to medical devices, recalls can include not only “removals,” in which the device is removed from where it is used or sold, but also “corrections,” which address the problem in the field — for instance, by repairing, adjusting, relabeling, or inspecting a device.

“It’s very oxymoronic,” said Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California-San Francisco and former editor-in-chief of the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. “A recall makes it sound like it’s recalled. But that is not actually what it means.”

Though the FDA and federal regulations call these actions recalls, they might be described more aptly as “non-recalls.” And they have happened repeatedly in recent years. For instance, in addition to other Abbott devices, products made by Medtronic, Abiomed, and Getinge have had recalls that left them in use.
 

Safeguarding the Public

Recalls that leave what the FDA identifies as potentially dangerous products in the marketplace can raise the question: Do they do enough to protect the public?

There are other ways to handle recalls. In announcements about products as varied as crib bumpers, pool drain covers, bicycle helmets, and coffee mugs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission routinely alerts consumers to stop using recalled products and contact the manufacturers for refunds, repairs, or replacements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regularly advises consumers to bring recalled cars back to the dealer to have them fixed. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA announce food recalls, they routinely tell consumers to return or discard the food.

In some cases, a medical device that is the subject of a recall can be kept on the market safely because there is a simple fix, said Sanket Dhruva, a cardiologist and an associate professor at UCSF who has studied FDA oversight of devices. In other cases, recalls that don’t remove devices from the market can provide unwarranted reassurance and leave the public at risk, Dhruva said.

From 2019 through 2023, there were 338 Class I medical device recalls, 164 of which were corrections and 174 of which were removals, FDA spokesperson Amanda Hils said.

Some products undergo recall after recall while they remain on the market. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three rounds of recalls, none of which removed devices from use.

“When deciding whether a recall warrants device removal from the field, the FDA considers the frequency and severity of adverse events, effectiveness of the corrective actions that have been executed, and the benefits and risks of preserving patient access to the device,” FDA spokesperson Audra Harrison said.

Where recalled devices have already been implanted, “removal” doesn’t necessarily mean removing them from patients’ bodies. “When an implanted device has the potential to fail unexpectedly, companies often tell doctors to contact their patients to discuss the risk of removing the device compared to the risk of leaving it in place,” the FDA website says.

The FDA allowed the recalled MitraClip devices to remain in use “because the agency believed that the overall benefits of the device continued to outweigh the risks and the firm’s recall strategy was appropriate and adequate,” Harrison said.

The FDA reviews the recall strategies that manufacturers propose and often provides input to ensure the public will be protected, Hils said. The agency also monitors the effectiveness of recalls and, before terminating them, makes sure the strategy was carried out, Hils said.

Abbott, the maker of MitraClip, said the device has been proven safe and effective “based on more than 20 years of clinical evidence and has profoundly improved the lives of people living with mitral regurgitation,” a condition in which blood flows backward through the heart’s mitral valve. The condition can lead to heart failure and death.

“With MitraClip, we’re addressing the needs of people with MR who often have no other options,” company spokesperson Brent Tippen said.

Speaking of the MitraClip recalls, Redberg said, “So hard to imagine these are effective actions in protecting patients.”

In 2021, for Medtronic’s StealthStation S7 cranial software, the company and the FDA sent a different message.

StealthStation is an elaborate system of screens and other equipment that guides neurosurgeons using instruments in the brain — for instance, to biopsy or cut out tumors. Drawing from CT scans, MRIs, and other imaging, it’s meant to show the location of the surgical instruments.

In connection with a Class I November 2021 recall, the FDA website said potential inaccuracies in a biopsy depth gauge could result in “life-threatening injury (such as hemorrhage, unintended tissue damage, or permanent neurological injury), which could lead to death.”

The FDA website explained what Medtronic was doing about it.

“The recalling firm will provide a warning and instructional placard to be applied to impacted systems,” the website said. “Until a software update is available, ensure you are following the instructions below to prevent the issue from occurring,” it advised doctors.

In a statement to KFF Health News, Medtronic spokesperson Erika Winkels said the safety and well-being of patients is the company’s primary concern, and certain issues “can be safely and effectively remedied with a correction on site.”

Richard Everson, a neurosurgeon and an assistant professor at UCLA, noted that the 2021 recall allowed doctors to continue using unaffected StealthStation features, a benefit for patients and facilities depending on them.

“But, I mean, then you could ask, ‘Well, why don’t they just disable the view [of the brain] that’s bugged?’” Everson said. “Why would they give you the option of looking at an inaccurate one?”

“That’s kind of a strange solution,” he said.

The FDA lists the 2021 recall as still open, explaining “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

That recall was not the last word on problems with StealthStation. Since then, the manufacturer has submitted adverse event reports to the FDA describing trouble in cases involving various versions of StealthStation.

In a September 2022 case, guidance provided by a StealthStation device was allegedly off the mark, a procedure was aborted, and, when the patient awoke, they “had almost no speech for two days,” according to a Medtronic report. In the report, Medtronic said there was “insufficient information to determine the relationship of the software to the reported issue.”

In a February 2024 case, after brain surgery, an MRI found that the operation “missed the tumor” and that other tissue was removed instead, according to a report Medtronic submitted to the FDA. In the report, Medtronic said that when a company representative tested the system, it performed as intended.

In March 2024, Medtronic recalled versions of StealthStation S8 without removing them from hospitals. The company said at the time that it would provide a software update.

“Software updates are available to correct the anomalies identified in the 2021 S7 and 2024 S8 recalls and are actively being deployed,” Medtronic’s Winkels told KFF Health News in a July email. “While the software updates for the 2021 S7 recall are complete in the US, they remain ongoing in some international regions.”

In June 2023, Abiomed issued an urgent medical device correction for its Impella 2.5 intravascular micro axial blood pump, which supports the heart. In patients with a certain type of replacement heart valve, there was a risk of “destruction of the impeller blades,” which could cause “low flow” and “embolization of the fractured impeller material,” an entry on the FDA website said.

“Clinicians are cautioned to position the Impella system carefully in patients,” the FDA website said, among other instructions.

The updated instructions “provide technical guidance to mitigate the risk of rare complications,” Abiomed spokesperson Ryan Carbain said. There were no product removals and no reports of adverse events “related to product design or manufacturing,” Carbain said.

Another set of medical devices, Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps made by Getinge of Sweden, have failed persistently, according to FDA records.

The devices — which are placed in the aorta, a major artery, to assist the heart — were the subject of eight Class I recalls from December 2022 to July 2023. All were corrections rather than removals, a KFF Health News analysis found.

In a May 2024 letter to health care providers, the FDA said that, in the previous 12 months, it had received almost 3,000 adverse event reports related to the balloon pumps. It was referring to reports of malfunctions and cases in which the products might have caused or contributed to a death or injury. Of those, 15 reportedly involved serious injury or death, the FDA said.

During the summer of 2023, the FDA noted that “alternative treatments are limited” and said the devices could continue to be used.

But, in May, the FDA changed its stance. The agency advised health care facilities to “transition away from these devices and seek alternatives, if possible.”

“These recommendations are based on our continued concerns” that the manufacturer “has not sufficiently addressed the problems and risks with these recalled devices.”

Getinge sent KFF Health News written answers from Elin Frostehav, the company’s president of Acute Care Therapies.

“There is no question that we would have liked to have solved these issues in full much earlier,” she said.

As a result of the FDA’s May action, the company “immediately paused proactive marketing” of the balloon pumps in the United States, and it is selling them only to customers who have no alternatives, Frostehav said.

“We are working with the agency to finalize remediation and product update solutions,” Frostehav said.
 

‘Known Possible Complications’

Abbott’s MitraClip system includes tiny clips implanted in the heart’s mitral valve and the equipment used to implant them. The apparatus features a steering mechanism with hand controls and a catheter that is threaded through a major vein, typically from an incision in the groin, to place one or more clips in the heart.

Worldwide, more than 200,000 people have been treated with MitraClip, according to an Abbott website.

The 2016 MitraClip recall described cases in which “the user was unable to separate the implantable Clip from the delivery system.”

In a news release at the time, Abbott said it had “received a small number of reports” in which that happened.

Those cases “resulted in surgical interventions to remove the delivery system or replace the mitral valve, and it is expected that any future similar incidents would also require surgery to correct the problem,” the FDA said in a 2016 notice. “There was one patient death in these cases as a result of severe comorbidities following surgery.”

Years later, something similar happened.

In February 2021, a clip was implanted in an 81-year-old patient but the doctor couldn’t separate the clip from the delivery system, according to a report Abbott filed with the FDA. The patient was transferred to surgery, where the delivery system “had to be cut down in order to detach the clip.”

The patient then underwent an operation to replace the mitral valve, and, hours later, the patient was brought back to surgery to address bleeding, the report said.

The patient “coded” the next day and died from an aortic bleed, the report said.

In the report to the FDA, the manufacturer blamed “case-specific circumstances.”

“Cardiac arrest, hemorrhage and death are listed” in the device instructions “as known possible complications associated with mitraclip procedures,” the company said. “There is no indication of a product issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.”

The third MitraClip recall, initiated in September 2022, cited an “increase in clip locking malfunctions.”

Most of the reported malfunctions were not associated with adverse outcomes, the FDA said then. Treatment with MitraClip “remains within the anticipated risk levels,” the company told customers.

As with the two earlier recalls, the third advised doctors to follow the device’s instructions. But the 2022 recall identified a contributing factor: the way the device was made.

“Abbott has identified a contributing cause … as a change in the material properties of one of the Clip locking components,” the company said in a 2022 letter to customers.

“Abbott is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material,” the company wrote. In the same letter, Abbott told doctors that, in the meantime, they could use the devices they had in stock.

Six days later, a clip opened while locked and a patient died, according to a report the manufacturer submitted to the FDA.

“There is no evidence that death was related to the device but it was likely related to the procedure,” Abbott wrote.

Now, almost two years later, the 2022 recall remains open, according to the FDA website, and “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

In 2016, medical device giant Abbott issued a recall for its MitraClip cardiac device — “a Class I recall, the most serious type,” the FDA said.

“Use of this device may cause serious injuries or death,” an FDA notice about the recall said.

But neither the manufacturer nor the FDA actually recalled the device or suspended its use. They allowed doctors to continue implanting the clips in leaky heart valves in what has become a common procedure.

In a notice, the manufacturer explained, “Abbott is not removing product from commercial distribution.” Rather, Abbott revised instructions for use and required doctors who implant the clips to undergo training.

When it comes to medical devices, recalls can include not only “removals,” in which the device is removed from where it is used or sold, but also “corrections,” which address the problem in the field — for instance, by repairing, adjusting, relabeling, or inspecting a device.

“It’s very oxymoronic,” said Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California-San Francisco and former editor-in-chief of the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. “A recall makes it sound like it’s recalled. But that is not actually what it means.”

Though the FDA and federal regulations call these actions recalls, they might be described more aptly as “non-recalls.” And they have happened repeatedly in recent years. For instance, in addition to other Abbott devices, products made by Medtronic, Abiomed, and Getinge have had recalls that left them in use.
 

Safeguarding the Public

Recalls that leave what the FDA identifies as potentially dangerous products in the marketplace can raise the question: Do they do enough to protect the public?

There are other ways to handle recalls. In announcements about products as varied as crib bumpers, pool drain covers, bicycle helmets, and coffee mugs, the Consumer Product Safety Commission routinely alerts consumers to stop using recalled products and contact the manufacturers for refunds, repairs, or replacements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regularly advises consumers to bring recalled cars back to the dealer to have them fixed. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the FDA announce food recalls, they routinely tell consumers to return or discard the food.

In some cases, a medical device that is the subject of a recall can be kept on the market safely because there is a simple fix, said Sanket Dhruva, a cardiologist and an associate professor at UCSF who has studied FDA oversight of devices. In other cases, recalls that don’t remove devices from the market can provide unwarranted reassurance and leave the public at risk, Dhruva said.

From 2019 through 2023, there were 338 Class I medical device recalls, 164 of which were corrections and 174 of which were removals, FDA spokesperson Amanda Hils said.

Some products undergo recall after recall while they remain on the market. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three rounds of recalls, none of which removed devices from use.

“When deciding whether a recall warrants device removal from the field, the FDA considers the frequency and severity of adverse events, effectiveness of the corrective actions that have been executed, and the benefits and risks of preserving patient access to the device,” FDA spokesperson Audra Harrison said.

Where recalled devices have already been implanted, “removal” doesn’t necessarily mean removing them from patients’ bodies. “When an implanted device has the potential to fail unexpectedly, companies often tell doctors to contact their patients to discuss the risk of removing the device compared to the risk of leaving it in place,” the FDA website says.

The FDA allowed the recalled MitraClip devices to remain in use “because the agency believed that the overall benefits of the device continued to outweigh the risks and the firm’s recall strategy was appropriate and adequate,” Harrison said.

The FDA reviews the recall strategies that manufacturers propose and often provides input to ensure the public will be protected, Hils said. The agency also monitors the effectiveness of recalls and, before terminating them, makes sure the strategy was carried out, Hils said.

Abbott, the maker of MitraClip, said the device has been proven safe and effective “based on more than 20 years of clinical evidence and has profoundly improved the lives of people living with mitral regurgitation,” a condition in which blood flows backward through the heart’s mitral valve. The condition can lead to heart failure and death.

“With MitraClip, we’re addressing the needs of people with MR who often have no other options,” company spokesperson Brent Tippen said.

Speaking of the MitraClip recalls, Redberg said, “So hard to imagine these are effective actions in protecting patients.”

In 2021, for Medtronic’s StealthStation S7 cranial software, the company and the FDA sent a different message.

StealthStation is an elaborate system of screens and other equipment that guides neurosurgeons using instruments in the brain — for instance, to biopsy or cut out tumors. Drawing from CT scans, MRIs, and other imaging, it’s meant to show the location of the surgical instruments.

In connection with a Class I November 2021 recall, the FDA website said potential inaccuracies in a biopsy depth gauge could result in “life-threatening injury (such as hemorrhage, unintended tissue damage, or permanent neurological injury), which could lead to death.”

The FDA website explained what Medtronic was doing about it.

“The recalling firm will provide a warning and instructional placard to be applied to impacted systems,” the website said. “Until a software update is available, ensure you are following the instructions below to prevent the issue from occurring,” it advised doctors.

In a statement to KFF Health News, Medtronic spokesperson Erika Winkels said the safety and well-being of patients is the company’s primary concern, and certain issues “can be safely and effectively remedied with a correction on site.”

Richard Everson, a neurosurgeon and an assistant professor at UCLA, noted that the 2021 recall allowed doctors to continue using unaffected StealthStation features, a benefit for patients and facilities depending on them.

“But, I mean, then you could ask, ‘Well, why don’t they just disable the view [of the brain] that’s bugged?’” Everson said. “Why would they give you the option of looking at an inaccurate one?”

“That’s kind of a strange solution,” he said.

The FDA lists the 2021 recall as still open, explaining “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

That recall was not the last word on problems with StealthStation. Since then, the manufacturer has submitted adverse event reports to the FDA describing trouble in cases involving various versions of StealthStation.

In a September 2022 case, guidance provided by a StealthStation device was allegedly off the mark, a procedure was aborted, and, when the patient awoke, they “had almost no speech for two days,” according to a Medtronic report. In the report, Medtronic said there was “insufficient information to determine the relationship of the software to the reported issue.”

In a February 2024 case, after brain surgery, an MRI found that the operation “missed the tumor” and that other tissue was removed instead, according to a report Medtronic submitted to the FDA. In the report, Medtronic said that when a company representative tested the system, it performed as intended.

In March 2024, Medtronic recalled versions of StealthStation S8 without removing them from hospitals. The company said at the time that it would provide a software update.

“Software updates are available to correct the anomalies identified in the 2021 S7 and 2024 S8 recalls and are actively being deployed,” Medtronic’s Winkels told KFF Health News in a July email. “While the software updates for the 2021 S7 recall are complete in the US, they remain ongoing in some international regions.”

In June 2023, Abiomed issued an urgent medical device correction for its Impella 2.5 intravascular micro axial blood pump, which supports the heart. In patients with a certain type of replacement heart valve, there was a risk of “destruction of the impeller blades,” which could cause “low flow” and “embolization of the fractured impeller material,” an entry on the FDA website said.

“Clinicians are cautioned to position the Impella system carefully in patients,” the FDA website said, among other instructions.

The updated instructions “provide technical guidance to mitigate the risk of rare complications,” Abiomed spokesperson Ryan Carbain said. There were no product removals and no reports of adverse events “related to product design or manufacturing,” Carbain said.

Another set of medical devices, Cardiosave Hybrid and Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps made by Getinge of Sweden, have failed persistently, according to FDA records.

The devices — which are placed in the aorta, a major artery, to assist the heart — were the subject of eight Class I recalls from December 2022 to July 2023. All were corrections rather than removals, a KFF Health News analysis found.

In a May 2024 letter to health care providers, the FDA said that, in the previous 12 months, it had received almost 3,000 adverse event reports related to the balloon pumps. It was referring to reports of malfunctions and cases in which the products might have caused or contributed to a death or injury. Of those, 15 reportedly involved serious injury or death, the FDA said.

During the summer of 2023, the FDA noted that “alternative treatments are limited” and said the devices could continue to be used.

But, in May, the FDA changed its stance. The agency advised health care facilities to “transition away from these devices and seek alternatives, if possible.”

“These recommendations are based on our continued concerns” that the manufacturer “has not sufficiently addressed the problems and risks with these recalled devices.”

Getinge sent KFF Health News written answers from Elin Frostehav, the company’s president of Acute Care Therapies.

“There is no question that we would have liked to have solved these issues in full much earlier,” she said.

As a result of the FDA’s May action, the company “immediately paused proactive marketing” of the balloon pumps in the United States, and it is selling them only to customers who have no alternatives, Frostehav said.

“We are working with the agency to finalize remediation and product update solutions,” Frostehav said.
 

‘Known Possible Complications’

Abbott’s MitraClip system includes tiny clips implanted in the heart’s mitral valve and the equipment used to implant them. The apparatus features a steering mechanism with hand controls and a catheter that is threaded through a major vein, typically from an incision in the groin, to place one or more clips in the heart.

Worldwide, more than 200,000 people have been treated with MitraClip, according to an Abbott website.

The 2016 MitraClip recall described cases in which “the user was unable to separate the implantable Clip from the delivery system.”

In a news release at the time, Abbott said it had “received a small number of reports” in which that happened.

Those cases “resulted in surgical interventions to remove the delivery system or replace the mitral valve, and it is expected that any future similar incidents would also require surgery to correct the problem,” the FDA said in a 2016 notice. “There was one patient death in these cases as a result of severe comorbidities following surgery.”

Years later, something similar happened.

In February 2021, a clip was implanted in an 81-year-old patient but the doctor couldn’t separate the clip from the delivery system, according to a report Abbott filed with the FDA. The patient was transferred to surgery, where the delivery system “had to be cut down in order to detach the clip.”

The patient then underwent an operation to replace the mitral valve, and, hours later, the patient was brought back to surgery to address bleeding, the report said.

The patient “coded” the next day and died from an aortic bleed, the report said.

In the report to the FDA, the manufacturer blamed “case-specific circumstances.”

“Cardiac arrest, hemorrhage and death are listed” in the device instructions “as known possible complications associated with mitraclip procedures,” the company said. “There is no indication of a product issue with respect to manufacture, design or labeling.”

The third MitraClip recall, initiated in September 2022, cited an “increase in clip locking malfunctions.”

Most of the reported malfunctions were not associated with adverse outcomes, the FDA said then. Treatment with MitraClip “remains within the anticipated risk levels,” the company told customers.

As with the two earlier recalls, the third advised doctors to follow the device’s instructions. But the 2022 recall identified a contributing factor: the way the device was made.

“Abbott has identified a contributing cause … as a change in the material properties of one of the Clip locking components,” the company said in a 2022 letter to customers.

“Abbott is working on producing new lots with updated manufacturing processing and raw material,” the company wrote. In the same letter, Abbott told doctors that, in the meantime, they could use the devices they had in stock.

Six days later, a clip opened while locked and a patient died, according to a report the manufacturer submitted to the FDA.

“There is no evidence that death was related to the device but it was likely related to the procedure,” Abbott wrote.

Now, almost two years later, the 2022 recall remains open, according to the FDA website, and “not all products have been corrected or removed.”

KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.
 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

People over age 60 who drink alcohol regularly are at an increased risk of early death, particularly from cancer or issues related to the heart and blood vessels.

That’s according to the findings of a new, large study that was published in JAMA Network Openand build upon numerous other recent studies concluding that any amount of alcohol consumption is linked to significant health risks. That’s a change from decades of public health messaging suggesting that moderate alcohol intake (one or two drinks per day) wasn’t dangerous. Recently, experts have uncovered flaws in how researchers came to those earlier conclusions.

In this latest study, researchers in Spain analyzed health data for more than 135,000 people, all of whom were at least 60 years old, lived in the United Kingdom, and provided their health information to the UK Biobank database. The average age of people at the start of the analysis period was 64.

The researchers compared 12 years of health outcomes for occasional drinkers with those who averaged drinking at least some alcohol on a daily basis. The greatest health risks were seen between occasional drinkers and those whom the researchers labeled “high risk.” Occasional drinkers had less than about two drinks per week. The high-risk group included men who averaged nearly three drinks per day or more, and women who averaged about a drink and a half per day or more. The analysis showed that, compared with occasional drinking, high-risk drinking was linked to a 33% increased risk of early death, a 39% increased risk of dying from cancer, and a 21% increased risk of dying from problems with the heart and blood vessels.

More moderate drinking habits were also linked to an increased risk of early death and dying from cancer, and even just averaging about one drink or less daily was associated with an 11% higher risk of dying from cancer. Low and moderate drinkers were most at risk if they also had health problems or experienced socioeconomic factors like living in less affluent neighborhoods.

The findings also suggested the potential that mostly drinking wine, or drinking mostly with meals, may be lower risk, but the researchers called for further study on those topics since “it may mostly reflect the effect of healthier lifestyles, slower alcohol absorption, or nonalcoholic components of beverages.”

A recent Gallup poll showed that overall, Americans’ attitudes toward the health impacts of alcohol are changing, with 65% of young adults (ages 18-34) saying that drinking can have negative health effects. But just 39% of adults age 55 or older agreed that drinking is bad for a person’s health. The gap in perspectives between younger and older adults about drinking is the largest on record, Gallup reported.

The study investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

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

At least 25% of unresponsive patients with a disorder of consciousness show signs of brain activity, an estimate that is higher than previous studies suggest.

“We found that at least 1 in 4 patients who are unresponsive to commands might actually be quite present and highly cognitive,” said study investigator Nicholas D. Schiff, MD, Feil Family Brain & Mind Research Institute and Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, Rockefeller University Hospital, New York.

“In other words, if you go to the bedside and carefully examine someone with a severe brain injury and find no evidence of responsiveness, no one has been able to give you an a priori number to say how likely you are to be wrong in thinking this person is actually unaware, not processing language, and not capable of high-level cognitive work. And the answer to that now is at least 1 in 4 times.”

The findings were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Clinical Implications? 

Cognitive motor dissociation (CMD) is a condition whereby patients with a severe brain injury who are unresponsive to commands at the bedside show brain activity on functional MRI (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG) when presented with selective motor imagery commands, such as “imagine playing tennis,” or “ imagine opening and closing your hand.”

Previous research shows that CMD is present in 10%-20% of people with a disorder of consciousness, a rate similar to that in patients with acute or chronic brain injury.

Understanding that a patient who appears unconscious has signs of cognitive processing could change the way clinicians and family interact with such individuals. Unresponsive patients who are aware may eventually be able to harness emerging communication technologies such as brain-computer interfaces.

In addition, knowing an individual’s CMD status could aid in prognosis. “We know from one study that there’s a four times increased likelihood that patients will be independent in a year in their function if they have cognitive motor dissociation,” said Dr. Schiff.

Unlike most previous studies of CMD, which were conducted at single sites and had relatively small cohorts, this new study included 353 adults with a disorder of consciousness (mean age, 37.9 years; 64% male) at six multinational sites.

Participants were recruited using a variety of methods, including consecutive enrollment of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit and enrollment of those with chronic illness or injury who were in the postacute phase of brain injury.
 

Response to Commands

Study participants were at different stages of recovery from an acute brain injury that had occurred an average of 8 months before the study started.

To determine the presence or absence of an observable response to commands among participants, trained staff used the Coma Recovery Scale–Revised (CRS-R); scores on this instrument range from 0 to 23, and higher scores indicate better neurobehavioral function.

About 40% of individuals were diagnosed with coma or vegetative state, 29% with minimally conscious state–minus, and 22% with minimally conscious state–plus. In all, 10% had emerged from a minimally conscious state.

Researchers assessed response to timed and repeated commands using fMRI or EEG in participants without an observable response to verbal commands, including those with a behavioral diagnosis of coma, vegetative state, or minimally conscious state–minus, and in participants with an observable response to verbal commands.

Of the 353 study participants, 61% underwent at least one fMRI assessment and 74% at least one EEG assessment. Both fMRI and EEG were performed in 35% of participants.

Dr. Schiff explained the two assessment types provide slightly different information, in that they measuring different types of brain signals. He also noted that although “every medical center in the world” has EEG, many do not have fMRI.

The brain imaging assessments captured brain activity within the motor area of the frontal cortex when tasked with motor imagery.

Of the 241 participants deemed to be in a coma or vegetative state or minimally conscious state–minus on the basis of CRS-R score, 60 (25%) had a response to commands on task-based fMRI, task-based EEG, or both.

The percentage of participants with CMD varied across study sites, from 2% to 45%, but Dr. Schiff said the reason for this is unclear. 

The proportion of participants with CMD may have been even higher if all individuals had been assessed with both imaging techniques, he said.
 

Higher Rate of Awareness Than in Previous Research

The investigators noted that the percentage of participants with CMD in their study was up to 10 percentage points higher than in previous studies. This may be due to the multimodal approach that classified participants undergoing assessment with both fMRI and EEG on the basis of responses on either technique, they said. 

The median age was lower among participants with CMD than those without CMD (30.5 years vs 45.3 years).

Compared with participants without CMD, a higher percentage of those with such dissociation had brain trauma as an etiologic factor (65% vs 38%) and a diagnosis of minimally conscious state–minus on the CRS-R (53% vs 38%).

Among people with CMD, 18% were assessed with fMRI only, 22% with EEG only, and 60% with both fMRI and EEG.

Dr. Schiff noted that the use of both fMRI and EEG appears to be more sensitive in detecting brain activity during tasks compared with use of one of these techniques alone.

Of the 112 participants with a diagnosis of minimally conscious state–plus or who had emerged from the minimally conscious state, 38% had a response to commands on task-based fMRI, task-based EEG, or both. Among these participants, 23% were assessed with fMRI only, 19% with EEG only, and 58% with both fMRI and EEG.

Research shows “it’s very clear that people with severe brain injury continue to get better over time,” noted Dr. Schiff. “Every month and week matters, and so it probably is the case that a lot of these patients are picking up the level of recovery, and the later we go out to measure them, the more likely we are to find people who are CMD than not.”

These new results should prompt further study to explore whether detection of CMD can lead to improved outcomes, the investigators noted. “In addition, the standardization, validation, and simplification of task-based fMRI and EEG methods that are used to detect cognitive motor dissociation are needed to prompt widespread clinical integration of these techniques and investigation of the bioethical implications of the findings.”

All study participants with chronic brain injury had survived their initial illness or injury and had access to a research facility with advanced fMRI and EEG capabilities. “This survival bias may reflect greater cognitive reserve and resilience over time among the participants. As such, the results of our study may not be generalizable to the overall population of patients with cognitive motor dissociation,” the investigators wrote.

Another study limitation was that participating sites used heterogeneous strategies to acquire, analyze, and interpret data, which led to differences in the number, type, and ordering of the cognitive tasks assessed on fMRI and EEG.

“These differences, along with variations in recruitment strategies and participant characteristics, may have contributed to the unequal percentage of participants with cognitive motor dissociation observed at each site. Our findings may therefore not be generalizable across all centers,” the researchers wrote. 

Only a few academic medical centers have the specially trained personnel and techniques needed to assess patients for CMD — which, the researchers noted, limits the feasibility of performing these assessments in general practice.
 

Challenging Research

Commenting on the research, Aarti Sarwal, MD, professor of neurology and section chief, Neurocritical Care, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, noted that this was a “very challenging” study to perform, given that only a few academic centers are equipped to perform both fMRI and quantitative EEG analysis.

“In general, finding patients this far out, who have access to clinical, radiological, and electrophysiological testing and were provided good care enough to receive these, is a mammoth task in itself.” 

Dr. Sarwal said the study builds on efforts of the Curing Coma campaign , a clinical, scientific, and public health effort of the Neurocritical Care Society to tackle the concept of coma as a treatable medical entity.

“It continues to highlight the challenges of prognostication in acute brain injured patients by showing a higher presence of cognitive function than previously perceived,” she said.

Dr. Sarwal believes that the study’s largest impact is underscoring the need for more research into understanding the degree and quality of cognitive processing in patients with a disorder of consciousness. But it also underlines the need for a “healthy debate” on the cost/benefit analysis of pursuing such research, given the limited number of patients with access to resources. 

“This debate needs to include the caregivers and families outside the traditional realms of stakeholders overseeing the science.” 

Although communication with comatose patients is still “a ways away,” this research is “a step in the right direction,” said Dr. Sarwal. 

The study was funded by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and others. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Sarwal report no relevant financial disclosures.
 

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

At least 25% of unresponsive patients with a disorder of consciousness show signs of brain activity, an estimate that is higher than previous studies suggest.

“We found that at least 1 in 4 patients who are unresponsive to commands might actually be quite present and highly cognitive,” said study investigator Nicholas D. Schiff, MD, Feil Family Brain & Mind Research Institute and Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, Rockefeller University Hospital, New York.

“In other words, if you go to the bedside and carefully examine someone with a severe brain injury and find no evidence of responsiveness, no one has been able to give you an a priori number to say how likely you are to be wrong in thinking this person is actually unaware, not processing language, and not capable of high-level cognitive work. And the answer to that now is at least 1 in 4 times.”

The findings were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Clinical Implications? 

Cognitive motor dissociation (CMD) is a condition whereby patients with a severe brain injury who are unresponsive to commands at the bedside show brain activity on functional MRI (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG) when presented with selective motor imagery commands, such as “imagine playing tennis,” or “ imagine opening and closing your hand.”

Previous research shows that CMD is present in 10%-20% of people with a disorder of consciousness, a rate similar to that in patients with acute or chronic brain injury.

Understanding that a patient who appears unconscious has signs of cognitive processing could change the way clinicians and family interact with such individuals. Unresponsive patients who are aware may eventually be able to harness emerging communication technologies such as brain-computer interfaces.

In addition, knowing an individual’s CMD status could aid in prognosis. “We know from one study that there’s a four times increased likelihood that patients will be independent in a year in their function if they have cognitive motor dissociation,” said Dr. Schiff.

Unlike most previous studies of CMD, which were conducted at single sites and had relatively small cohorts, this new study included 353 adults with a disorder of consciousness (mean age, 37.9 years; 64% male) at six multinational sites.

Participants were recruited using a variety of methods, including consecutive enrollment of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit and enrollment of those with chronic illness or injury who were in the postacute phase of brain injury.
 

Response to Commands

Study participants were at different stages of recovery from an acute brain injury that had occurred an average of 8 months before the study started.

To determine the presence or absence of an observable response to commands among participants, trained staff used the Coma Recovery Scale–Revised (CRS-R); scores on this instrument range from 0 to 23, and higher scores indicate better neurobehavioral function.

About 40% of individuals were diagnosed with coma or vegetative state, 29% with minimally conscious state–minus, and 22% with minimally conscious state–plus. In all, 10% had emerged from a minimally conscious state.

Researchers assessed response to timed and repeated commands using fMRI or EEG in participants without an observable response to verbal commands, including those with a behavioral diagnosis of coma, vegetative state, or minimally conscious state–minus, and in participants with an observable response to verbal commands.

Of the 353 study participants, 61% underwent at least one fMRI assessment and 74% at least one EEG assessment. Both fMRI and EEG were performed in 35% of participants.

Dr. Schiff explained the two assessment types provide slightly different information, in that they measuring different types of brain signals. He also noted that although “every medical center in the world” has EEG, many do not have fMRI.

The brain imaging assessments captured brain activity within the motor area of the frontal cortex when tasked with motor imagery.

Of the 241 participants deemed to be in a coma or vegetative state or minimally conscious state–minus on the basis of CRS-R score, 60 (25%) had a response to commands on task-based fMRI, task-based EEG, or both.

The percentage of participants with CMD varied across study sites, from 2% to 45%, but Dr. Schiff said the reason for this is unclear. 

The proportion of participants with CMD may have been even higher if all individuals had been assessed with both imaging techniques, he said.
 

Higher Rate of Awareness Than in Previous Research

The investigators noted that the percentage of participants with CMD in their study was up to 10 percentage points higher than in previous studies. This may be due to the multimodal approach that classified participants undergoing assessment with both fMRI and EEG on the basis of responses on either technique, they said. 

The median age was lower among participants with CMD than those without CMD (30.5 years vs 45.3 years).

Compared with participants without CMD, a higher percentage of those with such dissociation had brain trauma as an etiologic factor (65% vs 38%) and a diagnosis of minimally conscious state–minus on the CRS-R (53% vs 38%).

Among people with CMD, 18% were assessed with fMRI only, 22% with EEG only, and 60% with both fMRI and EEG.

Dr. Schiff noted that the use of both fMRI and EEG appears to be more sensitive in detecting brain activity during tasks compared with use of one of these techniques alone.

Of the 112 participants with a diagnosis of minimally conscious state–plus or who had emerged from the minimally conscious state, 38% had a response to commands on task-based fMRI, task-based EEG, or both. Among these participants, 23% were assessed with fMRI only, 19% with EEG only, and 58% with both fMRI and EEG.

Research shows “it’s very clear that people with severe brain injury continue to get better over time,” noted Dr. Schiff. “Every month and week matters, and so it probably is the case that a lot of these patients are picking up the level of recovery, and the later we go out to measure them, the more likely we are to find people who are CMD than not.”

These new results should prompt further study to explore whether detection of CMD can lead to improved outcomes, the investigators noted. “In addition, the standardization, validation, and simplification of task-based fMRI and EEG methods that are used to detect cognitive motor dissociation are needed to prompt widespread clinical integration of these techniques and investigation of the bioethical implications of the findings.”

All study participants with chronic brain injury had survived their initial illness or injury and had access to a research facility with advanced fMRI and EEG capabilities. “This survival bias may reflect greater cognitive reserve and resilience over time among the participants. As such, the results of our study may not be generalizable to the overall population of patients with cognitive motor dissociation,” the investigators wrote.

Another study limitation was that participating sites used heterogeneous strategies to acquire, analyze, and interpret data, which led to differences in the number, type, and ordering of the cognitive tasks assessed on fMRI and EEG.

“These differences, along with variations in recruitment strategies and participant characteristics, may have contributed to the unequal percentage of participants with cognitive motor dissociation observed at each site. Our findings may therefore not be generalizable across all centers,” the researchers wrote. 

Only a few academic medical centers have the specially trained personnel and techniques needed to assess patients for CMD — which, the researchers noted, limits the feasibility of performing these assessments in general practice.
 

Challenging Research

Commenting on the research, Aarti Sarwal, MD, professor of neurology and section chief, Neurocritical Care, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, noted that this was a “very challenging” study to perform, given that only a few academic centers are equipped to perform both fMRI and quantitative EEG analysis.

“In general, finding patients this far out, who have access to clinical, radiological, and electrophysiological testing and were provided good care enough to receive these, is a mammoth task in itself.” 

Dr. Sarwal said the study builds on efforts of the Curing Coma campaign , a clinical, scientific, and public health effort of the Neurocritical Care Society to tackle the concept of coma as a treatable medical entity.

“It continues to highlight the challenges of prognostication in acute brain injured patients by showing a higher presence of cognitive function than previously perceived,” she said.

Dr. Sarwal believes that the study’s largest impact is underscoring the need for more research into understanding the degree and quality of cognitive processing in patients with a disorder of consciousness. But it also underlines the need for a “healthy debate” on the cost/benefit analysis of pursuing such research, given the limited number of patients with access to resources. 

“This debate needs to include the caregivers and families outside the traditional realms of stakeholders overseeing the science.” 

Although communication with comatose patients is still “a ways away,” this research is “a step in the right direction,” said Dr. Sarwal. 

The study was funded by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and others. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Sarwal report no relevant financial disclosures.
 

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

At least 25% of unresponsive patients with a disorder of consciousness show signs of brain activity, an estimate that is higher than previous studies suggest.

“We found that at least 1 in 4 patients who are unresponsive to commands might actually be quite present and highly cognitive,” said study investigator Nicholas D. Schiff, MD, Feil Family Brain & Mind Research Institute and Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, Rockefeller University Hospital, New York.

“In other words, if you go to the bedside and carefully examine someone with a severe brain injury and find no evidence of responsiveness, no one has been able to give you an a priori number to say how likely you are to be wrong in thinking this person is actually unaware, not processing language, and not capable of high-level cognitive work. And the answer to that now is at least 1 in 4 times.”

The findings were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Clinical Implications? 

Cognitive motor dissociation (CMD) is a condition whereby patients with a severe brain injury who are unresponsive to commands at the bedside show brain activity on functional MRI (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG) when presented with selective motor imagery commands, such as “imagine playing tennis,” or “ imagine opening and closing your hand.”

Previous research shows that CMD is present in 10%-20% of people with a disorder of consciousness, a rate similar to that in patients with acute or chronic brain injury.

Understanding that a patient who appears unconscious has signs of cognitive processing could change the way clinicians and family interact with such individuals. Unresponsive patients who are aware may eventually be able to harness emerging communication technologies such as brain-computer interfaces.

In addition, knowing an individual’s CMD status could aid in prognosis. “We know from one study that there’s a four times increased likelihood that patients will be independent in a year in their function if they have cognitive motor dissociation,” said Dr. Schiff.

Unlike most previous studies of CMD, which were conducted at single sites and had relatively small cohorts, this new study included 353 adults with a disorder of consciousness (mean age, 37.9 years; 64% male) at six multinational sites.

Participants were recruited using a variety of methods, including consecutive enrollment of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit and enrollment of those with chronic illness or injury who were in the postacute phase of brain injury.
 

Response to Commands

Study participants were at different stages of recovery from an acute brain injury that had occurred an average of 8 months before the study started.

To determine the presence or absence of an observable response to commands among participants, trained staff used the Coma Recovery Scale–Revised (CRS-R); scores on this instrument range from 0 to 23, and higher scores indicate better neurobehavioral function.

About 40% of individuals were diagnosed with coma or vegetative state, 29% with minimally conscious state–minus, and 22% with minimally conscious state–plus. In all, 10% had emerged from a minimally conscious state.

Researchers assessed response to timed and repeated commands using fMRI or EEG in participants without an observable response to verbal commands, including those with a behavioral diagnosis of coma, vegetative state, or minimally conscious state–minus, and in participants with an observable response to verbal commands.

Of the 353 study participants, 61% underwent at least one fMRI assessment and 74% at least one EEG assessment. Both fMRI and EEG were performed in 35% of participants.

Dr. Schiff explained the two assessment types provide slightly different information, in that they measuring different types of brain signals. He also noted that although “every medical center in the world” has EEG, many do not have fMRI.

The brain imaging assessments captured brain activity within the motor area of the frontal cortex when tasked with motor imagery.

Of the 241 participants deemed to be in a coma or vegetative state or minimally conscious state–minus on the basis of CRS-R score, 60 (25%) had a response to commands on task-based fMRI, task-based EEG, or both.

The percentage of participants with CMD varied across study sites, from 2% to 45%, but Dr. Schiff said the reason for this is unclear. 

The proportion of participants with CMD may have been even higher if all individuals had been assessed with both imaging techniques, he said.
 

Higher Rate of Awareness Than in Previous Research

The investigators noted that the percentage of participants with CMD in their study was up to 10 percentage points higher than in previous studies. This may be due to the multimodal approach that classified participants undergoing assessment with both fMRI and EEG on the basis of responses on either technique, they said. 

The median age was lower among participants with CMD than those without CMD (30.5 years vs 45.3 years).

Compared with participants without CMD, a higher percentage of those with such dissociation had brain trauma as an etiologic factor (65% vs 38%) and a diagnosis of minimally conscious state–minus on the CRS-R (53% vs 38%).

Among people with CMD, 18% were assessed with fMRI only, 22% with EEG only, and 60% with both fMRI and EEG.

Dr. Schiff noted that the use of both fMRI and EEG appears to be more sensitive in detecting brain activity during tasks compared with use of one of these techniques alone.

Of the 112 participants with a diagnosis of minimally conscious state–plus or who had emerged from the minimally conscious state, 38% had a response to commands on task-based fMRI, task-based EEG, or both. Among these participants, 23% were assessed with fMRI only, 19% with EEG only, and 58% with both fMRI and EEG.

Research shows “it’s very clear that people with severe brain injury continue to get better over time,” noted Dr. Schiff. “Every month and week matters, and so it probably is the case that a lot of these patients are picking up the level of recovery, and the later we go out to measure them, the more likely we are to find people who are CMD than not.”

These new results should prompt further study to explore whether detection of CMD can lead to improved outcomes, the investigators noted. “In addition, the standardization, validation, and simplification of task-based fMRI and EEG methods that are used to detect cognitive motor dissociation are needed to prompt widespread clinical integration of these techniques and investigation of the bioethical implications of the findings.”

All study participants with chronic brain injury had survived their initial illness or injury and had access to a research facility with advanced fMRI and EEG capabilities. “This survival bias may reflect greater cognitive reserve and resilience over time among the participants. As such, the results of our study may not be generalizable to the overall population of patients with cognitive motor dissociation,” the investigators wrote.

Another study limitation was that participating sites used heterogeneous strategies to acquire, analyze, and interpret data, which led to differences in the number, type, and ordering of the cognitive tasks assessed on fMRI and EEG.

“These differences, along with variations in recruitment strategies and participant characteristics, may have contributed to the unequal percentage of participants with cognitive motor dissociation observed at each site. Our findings may therefore not be generalizable across all centers,” the researchers wrote. 

Only a few academic medical centers have the specially trained personnel and techniques needed to assess patients for CMD — which, the researchers noted, limits the feasibility of performing these assessments in general practice.
 

Challenging Research

Commenting on the research, Aarti Sarwal, MD, professor of neurology and section chief, Neurocritical Care, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, noted that this was a “very challenging” study to perform, given that only a few academic centers are equipped to perform both fMRI and quantitative EEG analysis.

“In general, finding patients this far out, who have access to clinical, radiological, and electrophysiological testing and were provided good care enough to receive these, is a mammoth task in itself.” 

Dr. Sarwal said the study builds on efforts of the Curing Coma campaign , a clinical, scientific, and public health effort of the Neurocritical Care Society to tackle the concept of coma as a treatable medical entity.

“It continues to highlight the challenges of prognostication in acute brain injured patients by showing a higher presence of cognitive function than previously perceived,” she said.

Dr. Sarwal believes that the study’s largest impact is underscoring the need for more research into understanding the degree and quality of cognitive processing in patients with a disorder of consciousness. But it also underlines the need for a “healthy debate” on the cost/benefit analysis of pursuing such research, given the limited number of patients with access to resources. 

“This debate needs to include the caregivers and families outside the traditional realms of stakeholders overseeing the science.” 

Although communication with comatose patients is still “a ways away,” this research is “a step in the right direction,” said Dr. Sarwal. 

The study was funded by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and others. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Sarwal report no relevant financial disclosures.
 

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

A new report on the preventability of dementia is both exciting and paradigm-shifting. The new study, published in The Lancet by the Lancet Commission on Dementia, estimates that close to 50% of cases of dementia worldwide can be prevented or delayed by improving 14 modifiable risk factors. 

This is paradigm-shifting because dementia is often perceived as an inevitable consequence of the aging process, with a major genetic component. But this study suggests that modifying these risk factors can benefit everyone, irrespective of genetic risk, and that it’s important to have a life-course approach. It’s never too early or too late to start to modify these factors. 

We’ve known for a long time that many chronic diseases are highly preventable and modifiable. Some that come to mind are type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, and even certain forms of cancer. Modifiable risk factors include cigarette smoking, diet, physical activity, and maintaining a healthy weight. This study suggests that many of the same risk factors and more are relevant to reducing risk for dementia. 

Let’s go through the risk factors, many of which are behavioral. These risk factors include lifestyle factors such as lack of physical activity, cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and obesity. The cardiovascular or vascular-specific risk factors include not only those behavioral factors but also hypertension, high LDL cholesterol, and diabetes. Cognitive engagement–specific risk factors include social isolation, which is a major risk factor for dementia, as well as untreated hearing or vision loss, which can exacerbate social isolation and depression, and low educational attainment, which can be related to less cognitive engagement.

They also mention traumatic brain injury from an accident or contact sports without head protection as a risk factor, and the environmental risk factor of air pollution or poor air quality. 

Two of these risk factors are new since the previous report in 2020: elevated LDL cholesterol and untreated vision loss, both of which are quite treatable. Overall, these findings suggest that a lot can be done to lower dementia risk, but it requires individual behavior modifications as well as a comprehensive approach with involvement of the healthcare system for improved screening, access, and public policy to reduce air pollution.

Some of these risk factors are more relevant to women, especially the social isolation that is so common later in life in women. In the United States, close to two out of three patients with dementia are women.

So, informing our patients about these risk factors and what can be done in terms of behavior modification, increased screening, and treatment for these conditions can go a long way in helping our patients reduce their risk for dementia.
 

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and past president, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012. She disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new report on the preventability of dementia is both exciting and paradigm-shifting. The new study, published in The Lancet by the Lancet Commission on Dementia, estimates that close to 50% of cases of dementia worldwide can be prevented or delayed by improving 14 modifiable risk factors. 

This is paradigm-shifting because dementia is often perceived as an inevitable consequence of the aging process, with a major genetic component. But this study suggests that modifying these risk factors can benefit everyone, irrespective of genetic risk, and that it’s important to have a life-course approach. It’s never too early or too late to start to modify these factors. 

We’ve known for a long time that many chronic diseases are highly preventable and modifiable. Some that come to mind are type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, and even certain forms of cancer. Modifiable risk factors include cigarette smoking, diet, physical activity, and maintaining a healthy weight. This study suggests that many of the same risk factors and more are relevant to reducing risk for dementia. 

Let’s go through the risk factors, many of which are behavioral. These risk factors include lifestyle factors such as lack of physical activity, cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and obesity. The cardiovascular or vascular-specific risk factors include not only those behavioral factors but also hypertension, high LDL cholesterol, and diabetes. Cognitive engagement–specific risk factors include social isolation, which is a major risk factor for dementia, as well as untreated hearing or vision loss, which can exacerbate social isolation and depression, and low educational attainment, which can be related to less cognitive engagement.

They also mention traumatic brain injury from an accident or contact sports without head protection as a risk factor, and the environmental risk factor of air pollution or poor air quality. 

Two of these risk factors are new since the previous report in 2020: elevated LDL cholesterol and untreated vision loss, both of which are quite treatable. Overall, these findings suggest that a lot can be done to lower dementia risk, but it requires individual behavior modifications as well as a comprehensive approach with involvement of the healthcare system for improved screening, access, and public policy to reduce air pollution.

Some of these risk factors are more relevant to women, especially the social isolation that is so common later in life in women. In the United States, close to two out of three patients with dementia are women.

So, informing our patients about these risk factors and what can be done in terms of behavior modification, increased screening, and treatment for these conditions can go a long way in helping our patients reduce their risk for dementia.
 

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and past president, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012. She disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new report on the preventability of dementia is both exciting and paradigm-shifting. The new study, published in The Lancet by the Lancet Commission on Dementia, estimates that close to 50% of cases of dementia worldwide can be prevented or delayed by improving 14 modifiable risk factors. 

This is paradigm-shifting because dementia is often perceived as an inevitable consequence of the aging process, with a major genetic component. But this study suggests that modifying these risk factors can benefit everyone, irrespective of genetic risk, and that it’s important to have a life-course approach. It’s never too early or too late to start to modify these factors. 

We’ve known for a long time that many chronic diseases are highly preventable and modifiable. Some that come to mind are type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, and even certain forms of cancer. Modifiable risk factors include cigarette smoking, diet, physical activity, and maintaining a healthy weight. This study suggests that many of the same risk factors and more are relevant to reducing risk for dementia. 

Let’s go through the risk factors, many of which are behavioral. These risk factors include lifestyle factors such as lack of physical activity, cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and obesity. The cardiovascular or vascular-specific risk factors include not only those behavioral factors but also hypertension, high LDL cholesterol, and diabetes. Cognitive engagement–specific risk factors include social isolation, which is a major risk factor for dementia, as well as untreated hearing or vision loss, which can exacerbate social isolation and depression, and low educational attainment, which can be related to less cognitive engagement.

They also mention traumatic brain injury from an accident or contact sports without head protection as a risk factor, and the environmental risk factor of air pollution or poor air quality. 

Two of these risk factors are new since the previous report in 2020: elevated LDL cholesterol and untreated vision loss, both of which are quite treatable. Overall, these findings suggest that a lot can be done to lower dementia risk, but it requires individual behavior modifications as well as a comprehensive approach with involvement of the healthcare system for improved screening, access, and public policy to reduce air pollution.

Some of these risk factors are more relevant to women, especially the social isolation that is so common later in life in women. In the United States, close to two out of three patients with dementia are women.

So, informing our patients about these risk factors and what can be done in terms of behavior modification, increased screening, and treatment for these conditions can go a long way in helping our patients reduce their risk for dementia.
 

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, chief, Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and past president, North American Menopause Society, 2011-2012. She disclosed receiving study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a bid to reduce stigma and improve treatment rates, a small group of clinicians, as well as military personnel, is lobbying the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to change the name of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to posttraumatic stress injury (PTSI) for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). The APA’s policy is that a rolling name change is available if the current term is determined to be harmful.

Currently led by anesthesiologist Eugene Lipov, MD, clinical assistant professor, University of Illinois Chicago, and chief medical officer of Stella Center, also in Chicago, the formal request for the proposed name change to the APA’s DSM-5-TR Steering Committee in August 2023.

The APA Steering Committee rejected the proposed name change in November 2023, citing a “lack of convincing evidence.” However, Dr. Lipov and colleagues remain undeterred and continue to advocate for the change.

“The word ‘disorder’ is both imprecise and stigmatizing,” Dr. Lipov said. “Because of stigma, many people with PTSD — especially those in the military — don’t get help, which my research has demonstrated.”

Patients are more likely to seek help if their symptoms are framed as manifestations of an injury that is diagnosable and treatable, like a broken leg, Dr. Lipov said. “Stigma can kill in very real ways, since delayed care or lack of care can directly lead to suicides, thus satisfying the reduce harm requirement for the name change.”
 

Neurobiology of Trauma

Dr. Lipov grew up with a veteran father affected by PTSD and a mother with debilitating depression who eventually took her life. “I understand the impact of trauma very well,” he said.

Although not a psychiatrist, Dr. Lipov pioneered a highly successful treatment for PTSD by adapting an anesthetic technique — the stellate ganglion block (SGB) — to reverse many trauma symptoms through the process of “rebooting.”

This involves reversing the activity of the sympathetic nervous system — the fight-or-flight response — to the pretrauma state by anesthetizing the sympathetic ganglion in the neck. Investigating how SGB can help ameliorate the symptoms of PTSD led him to investigate and describe the neurobiology of PTSD and the mechanism of action of SGB.

The impact of SGD on PTSD was supported by a small neuroimaging study demonstrating that the right amygdala — the area of the brain associated with the fear response — was overactivated in patients with PTSD but that this region was deactivated after the administration of SGB, Dr. Lipov said.

“I believe that psychiatric conditions are actually physiologic brain changes that can be measured by advanced neuroimaging technologies and then physiologically treated,” he stated.

He noted that a growing body of literature suggests that use of the SGB for PTSD can be effective “because PTSD has a neurobiological basis and is essentially caused by an actual injury to the brain.”
 

A Natural Response, Not a Disorder

Dr. Lipov’s clinical work treating PTSD as a brain injury led him to connect with Frank Ochberg, MD, a founding board member of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, former associate director of the National Institute of Mental Health, and former director of the Michigan Department of Mental Health.

In 2012, Dr. Ochberg teamed up with retired Army General Peter Chiarelli and Jonathan Shay, MD, PhD, author of Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, to petition the DSM-5 Steering Committee to change the name of PTSD to PTSI in the upcoming DSM-5.

Dr. Ochberg explained that Gen. Chiarelli believed the term “disorder” suggests a preexisting issue prior to enlistment, potentially making an individual appear “weak.” He noted that this stigma is particularly troubling for military personnel, who often avoid seeking so they are not perceived as vulnerable, which can lead to potentially dire consequences, including suicide.

“We received endorsements from many quarters, not only advocates for service members or veterans,” Dr. Ochberg said.

This included feminists like Gloria Steinem, who championed the rights of women who had survived rape, incest, and domestic violence. As one advocate put it: “The natural human reaction to a life-threatening event should not be labeled a disorder.”

The DSM-5 Steering Committee declined to change the name. “Their feeling was that if we change the word ‘disorder’ to something else, we’d have to change every condition in the DSM that’s called a ‘disorder’. And they felt there really was nothing wrong with the word,” said Dr. Ochberg.

However, Dr. Lipov noted that other diagnoses have undergone name changes in the DSM for the sake of accuracy or stigma reduction. For example, the term mental retardation (DSM-IV) was changed to intellectual disability in DSM-5, and gender identity disorder was changed to gender dysphoria.

A decade later, Dr. Lipov decided to try again. To bolster his contention, he conducted a telephone survey of 1025 individuals. Of these, about 50% had a PTSD diagnosis.

Approximately two thirds of respondents agreed that a name change to PTSI would reduce the stigma associated with the term “PTSD.” Over half said it would increase the likelihood they would seek medical help. Those diagnosed with PTSD were most likely to endorse the name change.

Dr. Lipov conducts an ongoing survey of psychiatrists to ascertain their views on the potential name change and hopes to include findings in future research and communication with the DSM-5 Steering Committee. In addition, he has developed a new survey that expands upon his original survey, which specifically looked at individuals with PTSD.

“The new survey includes a wide range of people, many of whom have never been diagnosed. One of the questions we ask is whether they’ve ever heard of PTSD, and then we ask them about their reaction to the term,” he said.
 

A Barrier to Care

Psychiatrist Marcel Green, MD, director of Hudson Mind in New York City, refers to himself as an “interventional psychiatrist,” as he employs a comprehensive approach that includes not only medication and psychotherapy but also specialized techniques like SBG for severe anxiety-related physical symptoms and certain pain conditions.

Dr. Green, who is not involved in the name change initiative, agrees that the term “disorder” carries more stigma than “injury” for many groups, including those who have experienced childhood trauma, those struggling with substance abuse, or who are from backgrounds or peer groups where seeking mental health care is stigmatized.

Patients like these “are looking to me to give them a language to frame what they’re going through, and I tell them their symptoms are consistent with PTSD,” he said. “But they tell me don’t see themselves as having a disorder, which hinders their pursuit of care.”

Framing the condition as an “injury” also aligns with the approach of using biologic interventions to address the injury. Dr. Green has found SGB helpful in treating substance abuse disorder too, “which is a form of escape from the hyperactivation that accompanies PTSD.” And after the procedure, “they’re more receptive to therapy.”

Unfortunately, said Dr. Lipov, the DSM Steering Committee rejected his proposed name change, stating that the “concept of disorder as a dividing line from, eg, normal reactions to stress, is a core concept in the DSM, and the term has only rarely been removed.”

Moreover, the committee “did not see sufficient evidence ... that the name PTSD is stigmatizing and actually deters people with the disorder from seeking treatment who would not be deterred from doing so by PTSI.”
 

‘An Avenue for Dignity’

Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), noted that the organization does not have an official position on this issue. However, he shared his own personal perspective.

There may be merit in the proposed name change, said Dr. Duckworth, but more evidence is needed. “If it’s clear, after rigorous studies have been performed and there’s compelling data, that calling it a ‘disorder’ rather than an ‘injury’ is actually preventing people from getting the care they need, then it merits serious attention.”

If so, Dr. Duckworth would be “interested in having a conversation with the policy team at NAMI to start to see if we could activate the DSM Committee.”

Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, said the name change initiative is a “really interesting proposal.”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation, also in Toronto, who is not involved in the initiative, has also heard “many people say that the term ‘disorder’ is stigmatizing and might even come across as pejorative in some ways.”

By contrast, “the word ‘injury’ parallels physical injury, and what we currently call ‘PTSD’ is a psychological or emotional injury no less devastating than torn tissue or broken bones,” added Dr. McIntyre, who is also the chairman of the board of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance.

Dr. Ochberg agreed. “In the military, ‘injury’ opens up an avenue for dignity, for a medal. Being injured and learning how to deal with an injury is part of having yet another honorable task that comes from being an honorable person who did an honorable thing.”

While disappointed, Dr. Lipov does not plan to give up on his vision. “I will continue to amass evidence that the word ‘PTSD’ is stigmatizing and indeed does prevent people from seeking care and will resubmit the proposal to the DSM Steering Committee when I have gathered a larger body of compelling evidence.”

Currently, Dr. Lipov is in active discussions with the special operations force of the US Army to obtain more evidence. “This will be the follow-up to bolster the opinion of Peter Chiarelli,” he said. “It is known that suicide and PTSD are highly related. This is especially urgent and relevant because recent data suggest suicide rate of military personnel in the VA may be as high as 44 per day,” Dr. Lipov said.

Dr. Lipov is the chief medical officer and an investor in the Stella Center. Dr. Green performs SGBs as part of his psychiatric practice. Drs. Ochberg, McIntyre, and Duckworth reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a bid to reduce stigma and improve treatment rates, a small group of clinicians, as well as military personnel, is lobbying the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to change the name of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to posttraumatic stress injury (PTSI) for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). The APA’s policy is that a rolling name change is available if the current term is determined to be harmful.

Currently led by anesthesiologist Eugene Lipov, MD, clinical assistant professor, University of Illinois Chicago, and chief medical officer of Stella Center, also in Chicago, the formal request for the proposed name change to the APA’s DSM-5-TR Steering Committee in August 2023.

The APA Steering Committee rejected the proposed name change in November 2023, citing a “lack of convincing evidence.” However, Dr. Lipov and colleagues remain undeterred and continue to advocate for the change.

“The word ‘disorder’ is both imprecise and stigmatizing,” Dr. Lipov said. “Because of stigma, many people with PTSD — especially those in the military — don’t get help, which my research has demonstrated.”

Patients are more likely to seek help if their symptoms are framed as manifestations of an injury that is diagnosable and treatable, like a broken leg, Dr. Lipov said. “Stigma can kill in very real ways, since delayed care or lack of care can directly lead to suicides, thus satisfying the reduce harm requirement for the name change.”
 

Neurobiology of Trauma

Dr. Lipov grew up with a veteran father affected by PTSD and a mother with debilitating depression who eventually took her life. “I understand the impact of trauma very well,” he said.

Although not a psychiatrist, Dr. Lipov pioneered a highly successful treatment for PTSD by adapting an anesthetic technique — the stellate ganglion block (SGB) — to reverse many trauma symptoms through the process of “rebooting.”

This involves reversing the activity of the sympathetic nervous system — the fight-or-flight response — to the pretrauma state by anesthetizing the sympathetic ganglion in the neck. Investigating how SGB can help ameliorate the symptoms of PTSD led him to investigate and describe the neurobiology of PTSD and the mechanism of action of SGB.

The impact of SGD on PTSD was supported by a small neuroimaging study demonstrating that the right amygdala — the area of the brain associated with the fear response — was overactivated in patients with PTSD but that this region was deactivated after the administration of SGB, Dr. Lipov said.

“I believe that psychiatric conditions are actually physiologic brain changes that can be measured by advanced neuroimaging technologies and then physiologically treated,” he stated.

He noted that a growing body of literature suggests that use of the SGB for PTSD can be effective “because PTSD has a neurobiological basis and is essentially caused by an actual injury to the brain.”
 

A Natural Response, Not a Disorder

Dr. Lipov’s clinical work treating PTSD as a brain injury led him to connect with Frank Ochberg, MD, a founding board member of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, former associate director of the National Institute of Mental Health, and former director of the Michigan Department of Mental Health.

In 2012, Dr. Ochberg teamed up with retired Army General Peter Chiarelli and Jonathan Shay, MD, PhD, author of Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, to petition the DSM-5 Steering Committee to change the name of PTSD to PTSI in the upcoming DSM-5.

Dr. Ochberg explained that Gen. Chiarelli believed the term “disorder” suggests a preexisting issue prior to enlistment, potentially making an individual appear “weak.” He noted that this stigma is particularly troubling for military personnel, who often avoid seeking so they are not perceived as vulnerable, which can lead to potentially dire consequences, including suicide.

“We received endorsements from many quarters, not only advocates for service members or veterans,” Dr. Ochberg said.

This included feminists like Gloria Steinem, who championed the rights of women who had survived rape, incest, and domestic violence. As one advocate put it: “The natural human reaction to a life-threatening event should not be labeled a disorder.”

The DSM-5 Steering Committee declined to change the name. “Their feeling was that if we change the word ‘disorder’ to something else, we’d have to change every condition in the DSM that’s called a ‘disorder’. And they felt there really was nothing wrong with the word,” said Dr. Ochberg.

However, Dr. Lipov noted that other diagnoses have undergone name changes in the DSM for the sake of accuracy or stigma reduction. For example, the term mental retardation (DSM-IV) was changed to intellectual disability in DSM-5, and gender identity disorder was changed to gender dysphoria.

A decade later, Dr. Lipov decided to try again. To bolster his contention, he conducted a telephone survey of 1025 individuals. Of these, about 50% had a PTSD diagnosis.

Approximately two thirds of respondents agreed that a name change to PTSI would reduce the stigma associated with the term “PTSD.” Over half said it would increase the likelihood they would seek medical help. Those diagnosed with PTSD were most likely to endorse the name change.

Dr. Lipov conducts an ongoing survey of psychiatrists to ascertain their views on the potential name change and hopes to include findings in future research and communication with the DSM-5 Steering Committee. In addition, he has developed a new survey that expands upon his original survey, which specifically looked at individuals with PTSD.

“The new survey includes a wide range of people, many of whom have never been diagnosed. One of the questions we ask is whether they’ve ever heard of PTSD, and then we ask them about their reaction to the term,” he said.
 

A Barrier to Care

Psychiatrist Marcel Green, MD, director of Hudson Mind in New York City, refers to himself as an “interventional psychiatrist,” as he employs a comprehensive approach that includes not only medication and psychotherapy but also specialized techniques like SBG for severe anxiety-related physical symptoms and certain pain conditions.

Dr. Green, who is not involved in the name change initiative, agrees that the term “disorder” carries more stigma than “injury” for many groups, including those who have experienced childhood trauma, those struggling with substance abuse, or who are from backgrounds or peer groups where seeking mental health care is stigmatized.

Patients like these “are looking to me to give them a language to frame what they’re going through, and I tell them their symptoms are consistent with PTSD,” he said. “But they tell me don’t see themselves as having a disorder, which hinders their pursuit of care.”

Framing the condition as an “injury” also aligns with the approach of using biologic interventions to address the injury. Dr. Green has found SGB helpful in treating substance abuse disorder too, “which is a form of escape from the hyperactivation that accompanies PTSD.” And after the procedure, “they’re more receptive to therapy.”

Unfortunately, said Dr. Lipov, the DSM Steering Committee rejected his proposed name change, stating that the “concept of disorder as a dividing line from, eg, normal reactions to stress, is a core concept in the DSM, and the term has only rarely been removed.”

Moreover, the committee “did not see sufficient evidence ... that the name PTSD is stigmatizing and actually deters people with the disorder from seeking treatment who would not be deterred from doing so by PTSI.”
 

‘An Avenue for Dignity’

Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), noted that the organization does not have an official position on this issue. However, he shared his own personal perspective.

There may be merit in the proposed name change, said Dr. Duckworth, but more evidence is needed. “If it’s clear, after rigorous studies have been performed and there’s compelling data, that calling it a ‘disorder’ rather than an ‘injury’ is actually preventing people from getting the care they need, then it merits serious attention.”

If so, Dr. Duckworth would be “interested in having a conversation with the policy team at NAMI to start to see if we could activate the DSM Committee.”

Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, said the name change initiative is a “really interesting proposal.”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation, also in Toronto, who is not involved in the initiative, has also heard “many people say that the term ‘disorder’ is stigmatizing and might even come across as pejorative in some ways.”

By contrast, “the word ‘injury’ parallels physical injury, and what we currently call ‘PTSD’ is a psychological or emotional injury no less devastating than torn tissue or broken bones,” added Dr. McIntyre, who is also the chairman of the board of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance.

Dr. Ochberg agreed. “In the military, ‘injury’ opens up an avenue for dignity, for a medal. Being injured and learning how to deal with an injury is part of having yet another honorable task that comes from being an honorable person who did an honorable thing.”

While disappointed, Dr. Lipov does not plan to give up on his vision. “I will continue to amass evidence that the word ‘PTSD’ is stigmatizing and indeed does prevent people from seeking care and will resubmit the proposal to the DSM Steering Committee when I have gathered a larger body of compelling evidence.”

Currently, Dr. Lipov is in active discussions with the special operations force of the US Army to obtain more evidence. “This will be the follow-up to bolster the opinion of Peter Chiarelli,” he said. “It is known that suicide and PTSD are highly related. This is especially urgent and relevant because recent data suggest suicide rate of military personnel in the VA may be as high as 44 per day,” Dr. Lipov said.

Dr. Lipov is the chief medical officer and an investor in the Stella Center. Dr. Green performs SGBs as part of his psychiatric practice. Drs. Ochberg, McIntyre, and Duckworth reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a bid to reduce stigma and improve treatment rates, a small group of clinicians, as well as military personnel, is lobbying the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to change the name of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to posttraumatic stress injury (PTSI) for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). The APA’s policy is that a rolling name change is available if the current term is determined to be harmful.

Currently led by anesthesiologist Eugene Lipov, MD, clinical assistant professor, University of Illinois Chicago, and chief medical officer of Stella Center, also in Chicago, the formal request for the proposed name change to the APA’s DSM-5-TR Steering Committee in August 2023.

The APA Steering Committee rejected the proposed name change in November 2023, citing a “lack of convincing evidence.” However, Dr. Lipov and colleagues remain undeterred and continue to advocate for the change.

“The word ‘disorder’ is both imprecise and stigmatizing,” Dr. Lipov said. “Because of stigma, many people with PTSD — especially those in the military — don’t get help, which my research has demonstrated.”

Patients are more likely to seek help if their symptoms are framed as manifestations of an injury that is diagnosable and treatable, like a broken leg, Dr. Lipov said. “Stigma can kill in very real ways, since delayed care or lack of care can directly lead to suicides, thus satisfying the reduce harm requirement for the name change.”
 

Neurobiology of Trauma

Dr. Lipov grew up with a veteran father affected by PTSD and a mother with debilitating depression who eventually took her life. “I understand the impact of trauma very well,” he said.

Although not a psychiatrist, Dr. Lipov pioneered a highly successful treatment for PTSD by adapting an anesthetic technique — the stellate ganglion block (SGB) — to reverse many trauma symptoms through the process of “rebooting.”

This involves reversing the activity of the sympathetic nervous system — the fight-or-flight response — to the pretrauma state by anesthetizing the sympathetic ganglion in the neck. Investigating how SGB can help ameliorate the symptoms of PTSD led him to investigate and describe the neurobiology of PTSD and the mechanism of action of SGB.

The impact of SGD on PTSD was supported by a small neuroimaging study demonstrating that the right amygdala — the area of the brain associated with the fear response — was overactivated in patients with PTSD but that this region was deactivated after the administration of SGB, Dr. Lipov said.

“I believe that psychiatric conditions are actually physiologic brain changes that can be measured by advanced neuroimaging technologies and then physiologically treated,” he stated.

He noted that a growing body of literature suggests that use of the SGB for PTSD can be effective “because PTSD has a neurobiological basis and is essentially caused by an actual injury to the brain.”
 

A Natural Response, Not a Disorder

Dr. Lipov’s clinical work treating PTSD as a brain injury led him to connect with Frank Ochberg, MD, a founding board member of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, former associate director of the National Institute of Mental Health, and former director of the Michigan Department of Mental Health.

In 2012, Dr. Ochberg teamed up with retired Army General Peter Chiarelli and Jonathan Shay, MD, PhD, author of Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character, to petition the DSM-5 Steering Committee to change the name of PTSD to PTSI in the upcoming DSM-5.

Dr. Ochberg explained that Gen. Chiarelli believed the term “disorder” suggests a preexisting issue prior to enlistment, potentially making an individual appear “weak.” He noted that this stigma is particularly troubling for military personnel, who often avoid seeking so they are not perceived as vulnerable, which can lead to potentially dire consequences, including suicide.

“We received endorsements from many quarters, not only advocates for service members or veterans,” Dr. Ochberg said.

This included feminists like Gloria Steinem, who championed the rights of women who had survived rape, incest, and domestic violence. As one advocate put it: “The natural human reaction to a life-threatening event should not be labeled a disorder.”

The DSM-5 Steering Committee declined to change the name. “Their feeling was that if we change the word ‘disorder’ to something else, we’d have to change every condition in the DSM that’s called a ‘disorder’. And they felt there really was nothing wrong with the word,” said Dr. Ochberg.

However, Dr. Lipov noted that other diagnoses have undergone name changes in the DSM for the sake of accuracy or stigma reduction. For example, the term mental retardation (DSM-IV) was changed to intellectual disability in DSM-5, and gender identity disorder was changed to gender dysphoria.

A decade later, Dr. Lipov decided to try again. To bolster his contention, he conducted a telephone survey of 1025 individuals. Of these, about 50% had a PTSD diagnosis.

Approximately two thirds of respondents agreed that a name change to PTSI would reduce the stigma associated with the term “PTSD.” Over half said it would increase the likelihood they would seek medical help. Those diagnosed with PTSD were most likely to endorse the name change.

Dr. Lipov conducts an ongoing survey of psychiatrists to ascertain their views on the potential name change and hopes to include findings in future research and communication with the DSM-5 Steering Committee. In addition, he has developed a new survey that expands upon his original survey, which specifically looked at individuals with PTSD.

“The new survey includes a wide range of people, many of whom have never been diagnosed. One of the questions we ask is whether they’ve ever heard of PTSD, and then we ask them about their reaction to the term,” he said.
 

A Barrier to Care

Psychiatrist Marcel Green, MD, director of Hudson Mind in New York City, refers to himself as an “interventional psychiatrist,” as he employs a comprehensive approach that includes not only medication and psychotherapy but also specialized techniques like SBG for severe anxiety-related physical symptoms and certain pain conditions.

Dr. Green, who is not involved in the name change initiative, agrees that the term “disorder” carries more stigma than “injury” for many groups, including those who have experienced childhood trauma, those struggling with substance abuse, or who are from backgrounds or peer groups where seeking mental health care is stigmatized.

Patients like these “are looking to me to give them a language to frame what they’re going through, and I tell them their symptoms are consistent with PTSD,” he said. “But they tell me don’t see themselves as having a disorder, which hinders their pursuit of care.”

Framing the condition as an “injury” also aligns with the approach of using biologic interventions to address the injury. Dr. Green has found SGB helpful in treating substance abuse disorder too, “which is a form of escape from the hyperactivation that accompanies PTSD.” And after the procedure, “they’re more receptive to therapy.”

Unfortunately, said Dr. Lipov, the DSM Steering Committee rejected his proposed name change, stating that the “concept of disorder as a dividing line from, eg, normal reactions to stress, is a core concept in the DSM, and the term has only rarely been removed.”

Moreover, the committee “did not see sufficient evidence ... that the name PTSD is stigmatizing and actually deters people with the disorder from seeking treatment who would not be deterred from doing so by PTSI.”
 

‘An Avenue for Dignity’

Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), noted that the organization does not have an official position on this issue. However, he shared his own personal perspective.

There may be merit in the proposed name change, said Dr. Duckworth, but more evidence is needed. “If it’s clear, after rigorous studies have been performed and there’s compelling data, that calling it a ‘disorder’ rather than an ‘injury’ is actually preventing people from getting the care they need, then it merits serious attention.”

If so, Dr. Duckworth would be “interested in having a conversation with the policy team at NAMI to start to see if we could activate the DSM Committee.”

Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto in Ontario, Canada, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, said the name change initiative is a “really interesting proposal.”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation, also in Toronto, who is not involved in the initiative, has also heard “many people say that the term ‘disorder’ is stigmatizing and might even come across as pejorative in some ways.”

By contrast, “the word ‘injury’ parallels physical injury, and what we currently call ‘PTSD’ is a psychological or emotional injury no less devastating than torn tissue or broken bones,” added Dr. McIntyre, who is also the chairman of the board of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance.

Dr. Ochberg agreed. “In the military, ‘injury’ opens up an avenue for dignity, for a medal. Being injured and learning how to deal with an injury is part of having yet another honorable task that comes from being an honorable person who did an honorable thing.”

While disappointed, Dr. Lipov does not plan to give up on his vision. “I will continue to amass evidence that the word ‘PTSD’ is stigmatizing and indeed does prevent people from seeking care and will resubmit the proposal to the DSM Steering Committee when I have gathered a larger body of compelling evidence.”

Currently, Dr. Lipov is in active discussions with the special operations force of the US Army to obtain more evidence. “This will be the follow-up to bolster the opinion of Peter Chiarelli,” he said. “It is known that suicide and PTSD are highly related. This is especially urgent and relevant because recent data suggest suicide rate of military personnel in the VA may be as high as 44 per day,” Dr. Lipov said.

Dr. Lipov is the chief medical officer and an investor in the Stella Center. Dr. Green performs SGBs as part of his psychiatric practice. Drs. Ochberg, McIntyre, and Duckworth reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.