Neurology Reviews

Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.

CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.

Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.

CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
 

Ongoing debate

The comments submitted to CMS reflect ongoing debate about whether the evidence proves aducanumab provides significant clinical benefit.

The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.

Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.

In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.

Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.

Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
 

Conflicting data

Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.

Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.

In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.

MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.

“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.

MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
 

Legal challenge?

In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.

The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.

Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.

CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.

CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.

CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
 

Health care inequity

In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”

There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.

“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.

Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.

“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.

In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.

However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.

“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
 

Patient health, Medicare at risk

On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.

In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.

“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.

“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.

On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.

In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.

“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.

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

Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.

CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.

Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.

CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
 

Ongoing debate

The comments submitted to CMS reflect ongoing debate about whether the evidence proves aducanumab provides significant clinical benefit.

The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.

Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.

In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.

Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.

Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
 

Conflicting data

Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.

Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.

In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.

MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.

“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.

MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
 

Legal challenge?

In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.

The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.

Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.

CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.

CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.

CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
 

Health care inequity

In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”

There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.

“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.

Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.

“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.

In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.

However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.

“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
 

Patient health, Medicare at risk

On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.

In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.

“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.

“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.

On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.

In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.

“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.

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

Medicare has received a key endorsement of its plan to restrict payment for the controversial Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) – but also drew pleas from other groups for more generous reimbursement of the drug, as well as expected similar medications currently in development.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services received more than 9,900 comments on its plan, according to the current tally posted on its website. However, it is unclear when the final count will be available.

CMS intends to limit federal payment for monoclonal antibodies that target amyloid to clinical trials. Among supporters of this approach is the influential Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an expert panel that helps Congress and CMS manage the federal health program.

Opponents of the CMS plan include several pharmaceutical companies. Patient and consumer groups, individuals, and lawmakers had mixed views.

CMS officials will weigh the feedback provided in the comments when setting a final coverage policy for aducanumab. It is expected the agency’s final decision will be announced on April 11.
 

Ongoing debate

The comments submitted to CMS reflect ongoing debate about whether the evidence proves aducanumab provides significant clinical benefit.

The Food and Drug Administration’s unusual approach to clearing the drug for U.S. sales triggered a review of its management of the accelerated approval process by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services.

The FDA granted an accelerated approval for aducanumab in June based on evidence that the drug clears amyloid in the brain. However, it is unclear whether clearing the protein from the brain results in clinical benefit.

Usually, accelerated approvals precede the completion of phase 3 drug trials, with the FDA allowing early access to a medicine while awaiting confirmatory trials.

In the case of aducanumab, results of the phase 3 confirmatory trials ENGAGE and EMERGE were available at the time of FDA approval. However, interpretation of the findings is controversial.

Biogen contends that the amyloid-clearing effect of the higher dose of aducanumab shown in EMERGE indicates the drug has clinical potential. However, others argue that amyloid clearance does not indicate clinical benefit.

Limiting Medicare coverage of aducanumab for treatment of AD means “the progression of disease, for nearly all beneficiaries, would continue unabated,” Biogen wrote in its comment to CMS.
 

Conflicting data

Supporters of the CMS plan have a different view of the trial data. They note the failure of aducanumab in the companion ENGAGE trial, while also questioning the magnitude of benefit suggested by even the most positive data cited for the drug in the EMERGE trial.

Both studies used the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) score, an 18-point scale measuring cognition and function.

In his comment to CMS, MedPAC chairman Michael E. Chernew, PhD, noted the change in CDR-SB score of 0.39 in EMERGE’s high-dose aducanumab group. CMS has described this as being “less than the 1-2 point change that has been suggested as a minimal clinically important difference,” Dr. Chernew wrote.

MedPAC does not normally comment on Medicare coverage decisions, but did so in this case because of its significance and because of the potential fiscal implications, he noted.

“Though there is only limited, conflicting data on Aduhelm’s clinical effectiveness, Medicare would pay a high price for the product,” Dr. Chernew wrote, pointing out the $28,200 annual U.S. price of the drug.

MedPAC thus endorsed the coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) pathway. Under this approach, Medicare would pay for these drugs when used in clinical trials that meet certain criteria.
 

Legal challenge?

In its comment to CMS, Biogen questioned the agency’s legal grounds for limiting coverage of aducanumab. A mandate on clinical trials as part of the CED proposal “runs afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action,” Biogen said.

The drug company argued that its own planned follow-on studies would provide the kind of data Medicare officials want to see. It also argued for greater use of observational data, including real-world evidence, and of information from Medicare claims.

Roche’s Genentech, which is also developing antiamyloid drugs for AD, echoed some of Biogen’s concerns about the aducanumab plan.

CMS’ CED plan would be “unnecessarily restrictive and discouraging for patients living with this destructive disease,” David Burt, executive director for federal government affairs at Genentech, wrote in a comment to CMS.

CMS should clarify that the CED requirement would not apply to cases of FDA-approved antiamyloid therapies that have demonstrated “clinically meaningful improvement,” Mr. Burt added. He noted there are phase 3 trials of drugs in this class that could soon produce data.

CMS should “fully consider the broad ramifications and significant unintended consequences of prematurely placing unduly severe restrictions on the entire class of antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies,” Mr. Burt wrote.
 

Health care inequity

In its comment to CMS, Biogen also noted the Medicare proposal would “compound the already pervasive inequities in access to treatment and will ultimately prove highly detrimental to health equity.”

There are already concerns about the access of Black and Latinx patients to clinical trials. The planned CED approach would tightly restrict access to aducanumab, as well as expected follow-ons in the amyloid-directed monoclonal antibody (mAb) drug class, the company said.

“Many of the trial sites for Aduhelm, as well as for other amyloid-directed [monoclonal antibodies] are not hospital-based outpatient settings, but include infusion centers, private practices, and medical research centers,” Biogen wrote.

Patient groups such as UsAgainstAlzheimer’s told CMS the CED approach would worsen disparities, despite the aim of Medicare officials to increase participation of Black and Latinx patients in future testing.

“CMS will be hard-pressed to achieve diversity if such hospitals are the only locations where Medicare beneficiaries are able to access mAbs,” USAgainstAlzheimer’s wrote in a Feb. 10 comment.

In contrast, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research praised CMS for what it described as an effort to address a lack of representation of Black and Latinx patients in earlier aducanumab research.

However, the NCHR also suggested CMS revise its plan to mandate that clinical trials include patients who are representative of the national population diagnosed with AD.

“Rather than being concerned about the percentage of patients in specific racial and ethnic groups, we propose that CMS include sufficient numbers of patients in different racial, ethnic, and age groups to ensure that there is enough statistical power for subgroup analyses to determine safety and efficacy for each of the major demographic groups,” the NCHR wrote.
 

Patient health, Medicare at risk

On Feb. 8, a group of House Republican lawmakers asked CMS to reverse its stance. In a publicly released letter, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues urged broader coverage of aducanumab.

In the letter, the group emphasized the idea of aducanumab as a potential treatment for patients with Down syndrome who are at risk for AD.

“The link between Down Syndrome and AD is still being researched by scientists,” Rep. Rodgers and colleagues wrote.

“However, there appears to be a correlation between the additional 21st chromosome present in people with Down Syndrome and the chromosome’s gene that makes amyloid precursor proteins and can cause a build-up of the beta-amyloid plaques common amongst those with AD,” they add.

On the other hand, CMS garnered earlier support from influential Democrats. On Jan. 13, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) released a letter praising CMS for its plan for covering aducanumab.

In addition to the HHS-OIG review of the FDA’s approval of the drug, the two House committees are in the midst of their own investigation of the agency’s decision to clear the drug.

“Any broader coverage determination before there is clarity on Aduhelm’s approval process and findings from the myriad ongoing investigations may put the health of millions of Alzheimer’s patients on the line and the financial stability of the nation’s health insurance program for American seniors at risk,” Rep. Pallone and Rep. Maloney wrote.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

About four in 10 COVID patients have some sort of taste loss, according to a new study.

Many COVID-19 patients report losing their sense of taste as well as their sense of smell, but scientists have been skeptical because the two senses are closely related and it was relatively rare for people to lose their taste sense before the COVID pandemic, says the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a nonprofit research institute in Philadelphia.

But a new Monell Center analysis found that 37% – or about four in every 10 -- of COVID-19 patients actually did lose their sense of taste and that “reports of taste loss are in fact genuine and distinguishable from smell loss.”

Taste dysfunction can be total taste loss, partial taste loss, and taste distortion. It’s an “underrated” symptom that could help doctors better treat COVID patients, the Monell Center said in a news release.

“It is time to turn to the tongue” to learn why taste is affected and to start on how to reverse or repair the loss, said Mackenzie Hannum, PhD, an author of the report and a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Danielle Reed, PhD.

Researchers looked at data regarding 138,785 COVID patients from 241 studies that assessed taste loss and were published between May 15, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Of those patients, 32,918 said they had some form of taste loss. Further, female patients were more likely than males to lose their sense of taste, and people 36-50 years old had the highest rate of taste loss.

The information came from self-reports and direct reports.

“Self-reports are more subjective and can be in the form of questionnaires, interviews, health records, for example,” Dr. Hannum said. “On the other hand, direct measures of taste are more objective. They are conducted using testing kits that contain various sweet, salty, and sometimes bitter and sour solutions given to participants via drops, strips, or sprays.”

Though self-reports were subjective, they proved just as good as direct reports at detecting taste loss, the study said.

“Here self-reports are backed up by direct measures, proving that loss of taste is a real, distinct symptom of COVID-19 that is not to be confused with smell loss,” said study co-author Vicente Ramirez, a visiting scientist at Monell and a doctoral student at the University of California, Merced.

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

About four in 10 COVID patients have some sort of taste loss, according to a new study.

Many COVID-19 patients report losing their sense of taste as well as their sense of smell, but scientists have been skeptical because the two senses are closely related and it was relatively rare for people to lose their taste sense before the COVID pandemic, says the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a nonprofit research institute in Philadelphia.

But a new Monell Center analysis found that 37% – or about four in every 10 -- of COVID-19 patients actually did lose their sense of taste and that “reports of taste loss are in fact genuine and distinguishable from smell loss.”

Taste dysfunction can be total taste loss, partial taste loss, and taste distortion. It’s an “underrated” symptom that could help doctors better treat COVID patients, the Monell Center said in a news release.

“It is time to turn to the tongue” to learn why taste is affected and to start on how to reverse or repair the loss, said Mackenzie Hannum, PhD, an author of the report and a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Danielle Reed, PhD.

Researchers looked at data regarding 138,785 COVID patients from 241 studies that assessed taste loss and were published between May 15, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Of those patients, 32,918 said they had some form of taste loss. Further, female patients were more likely than males to lose their sense of taste, and people 36-50 years old had the highest rate of taste loss.

The information came from self-reports and direct reports.

“Self-reports are more subjective and can be in the form of questionnaires, interviews, health records, for example,” Dr. Hannum said. “On the other hand, direct measures of taste are more objective. They are conducted using testing kits that contain various sweet, salty, and sometimes bitter and sour solutions given to participants via drops, strips, or sprays.”

Though self-reports were subjective, they proved just as good as direct reports at detecting taste loss, the study said.

“Here self-reports are backed up by direct measures, proving that loss of taste is a real, distinct symptom of COVID-19 that is not to be confused with smell loss,” said study co-author Vicente Ramirez, a visiting scientist at Monell and a doctoral student at the University of California, Merced.

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

About four in 10 COVID patients have some sort of taste loss, according to a new study.

Many COVID-19 patients report losing their sense of taste as well as their sense of smell, but scientists have been skeptical because the two senses are closely related and it was relatively rare for people to lose their taste sense before the COVID pandemic, says the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a nonprofit research institute in Philadelphia.

But a new Monell Center analysis found that 37% – or about four in every 10 -- of COVID-19 patients actually did lose their sense of taste and that “reports of taste loss are in fact genuine and distinguishable from smell loss.”

Taste dysfunction can be total taste loss, partial taste loss, and taste distortion. It’s an “underrated” symptom that could help doctors better treat COVID patients, the Monell Center said in a news release.

“It is time to turn to the tongue” to learn why taste is affected and to start on how to reverse or repair the loss, said Mackenzie Hannum, PhD, an author of the report and a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Danielle Reed, PhD.

Researchers looked at data regarding 138,785 COVID patients from 241 studies that assessed taste loss and were published between May 15, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Of those patients, 32,918 said they had some form of taste loss. Further, female patients were more likely than males to lose their sense of taste, and people 36-50 years old had the highest rate of taste loss.

The information came from self-reports and direct reports.

“Self-reports are more subjective and can be in the form of questionnaires, interviews, health records, for example,” Dr. Hannum said. “On the other hand, direct measures of taste are more objective. They are conducted using testing kits that contain various sweet, salty, and sometimes bitter and sour solutions given to participants via drops, strips, or sprays.”

Though self-reports were subjective, they proved just as good as direct reports at detecting taste loss, the study said.

“Here self-reports are backed up by direct measures, proving that loss of taste is a real, distinct symptom of COVID-19 that is not to be confused with smell loss,” said study co-author Vicente Ramirez, a visiting scientist at Monell and a doctoral student at the University of California, Merced.

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

Junk (germs) in the trunk

It’s been a long drive, and you’ve got a long way to go. You pull into a rest stop to use the bathroom and get some food. Quick, which order do you do those things in?

If you’re not a crazy person, you’d use the bathroom and then get your food. Who would bring food into a dirty bathroom? That’s kind of gross. Most people would take care of business, grab food, then get back in the car, eating along the way. Unfortunately, if you’re searching for a sanitary eating environment, your car may not actually be much better than that bathroom, according to new research from Aston University in Birmingham, England.

Robert Couse-Baker/PxHere

Let’s start off with the good news. The steering wheels of the five used cars that were swabbed for bacteria were pretty clean. Definitely cleaner than either of the toilet seats analyzed, likely thanks to increased usage of sanitizer, courtesy of the current pandemic. It’s easy to wipe down the steering wheel. Things break down, though, once we look elsewhere. The interiors of the five cars all contained just as much, if not more, bacteria than the toilet seats, with fecal matter commonly appearing on the driver’s seat.

The car interiors were less than sanitary, but they paled in comparison with the real winner here: the trunk. In each of the five cars, bacteria levels there far exceeded those in the toilets, and included everyone’s favorites – Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.

So, snacking on a bag of chips as you drive along is probably okay, but the food that popped out of its bag and spent the last 5 minutes rolling around the back? Perhaps less okay. You may want to wash it. Or burn it. Or torch the entire car for good measure like we’re about to do. Next time we’ll buy a car without poop in it.
 

Shut the lid when you flush

Maybe you’ve never thought about this, but it’s actually extremely important to shut the toilet lid when you flush. Just think of all those germs flying around from the force of the flush. Is your toothbrush anywhere near the toilet? Ew. Those pesky little bacteria and viruses are everywhere, and we know we can’t really escape them, but we should really do our best once we’re made aware of where to find them.

Marco Verch/ccnull.de/CC by 2.0

It seems like a no-brainer these days since we’ve all been really focused on cleanliness during the pandemic, but according to a poll in the United Kingdom, 55% of the 2,000 participants said they don’t put the lid down while flushing.

The OnePoll survey commissioned by Harpic, a company that makes toilet-cleaning products, also advised that toilet water isn’t even completely clean after flushed several times and can still be contaminated with many germs. Company researchers took specialized pictures of flushing toilets and they looked like tiny little Fourth of July fireworks shows, minus the sparklers. The pictures proved that droplets can go all over the place, including on bathroom users.

“There has never been a more important time to take extra care around our homes, although the risks associated with germ spread in unhygienic bathrooms are high, the solution to keeping them clean is simple,” a Harpic researcher said. Since other studies have shown that coronavirus can be found in feces, it’s become increasingly important to keep ourselves and others safe. Fireworks are pretty, but not when they come out of your toilet.
 

The latest in MRI fashion

Do you see that photo just below? Looks like something you could buy at the Lego store, right? Well, it’s not. Nor is it the proverbial thinking cap come to life.

(Did someone just say “come to life”? That reminds us of our favorite scene from Frosty the Snowman.)

Cydney Scott/Boston University

Anywaaay, about the photo. That funny-looking chapeau is what we in the science business call a metamaterial.

Nope, metamaterials have nothing to do with Facebook parent company Meta. We checked. According to a statement from Boston University, they are engineered structures “created from small unit cells that might be unspectacular alone, but when grouped together in a precise way, get new superpowers not found in nature.”

Superpowers, eh? Who doesn’t want superpowers? Even if they come with a funny hat.

The unit cells, known as resonators, are just plastic tubes wrapped in copper wiring, but when they are grouped in an array and precisely arranged into a helmet, they can channel the magnetic field of the MRI machine during a scan. In theory, that would create “crisper images that can be captured at twice the normal speed,” Xin Zhang, PhD, and her team at BU’s Photonics Center explained in the university statement.

In the future, the metamaterial device could “be used in conjunction with cheaper low-field MRI machines to make the technology more widely available, particularly in the developing world,” they suggested. Or, like so many other superpowers, it could fall into the wrong hands. Like those of Lex Luthor. Or Mark Zuckerberg. Or Frosty the Snowman.
 

The highway of the mind

How fast can you think on your feet? Well, according to a recently published study, it could be a legitimate measure of intelligence. Here’s the science.

Epifantsev/Thinkstock

Researchers from the University of Würzburg in Germany and Indiana University have suggested that a person’s intelligence score measures the ability, based on certain neuronal networks and their communication structures, to switch between resting state and different task states.

The investigators set up a study to observe almost 800 people while they completed seven tasks. By monitoring brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging, the teams found that subjects who had higher intelligence scores required “less adjustment when switching between different cognitive states,” they said in a separate statement.

It comes down to the network architecture of their brains.

Kirsten Hilger, PhD, head of the German group, described it in terms of highways. The resting state of the brain is normal traffic. It’s always moving. Holiday traffic is the task. The ability to handle the increased flow of commuters is a function of the highway infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the higher the intelligence.

So the next time you’re stuck in traffic, think how efficient your brain would be with such a task. The quicker, the better.

Junk (germs) in the trunk

It’s been a long drive, and you’ve got a long way to go. You pull into a rest stop to use the bathroom and get some food. Quick, which order do you do those things in?

If you’re not a crazy person, you’d use the bathroom and then get your food. Who would bring food into a dirty bathroom? That’s kind of gross. Most people would take care of business, grab food, then get back in the car, eating along the way. Unfortunately, if you’re searching for a sanitary eating environment, your car may not actually be much better than that bathroom, according to new research from Aston University in Birmingham, England.

Robert Couse-Baker/PxHere

Let’s start off with the good news. The steering wheels of the five used cars that were swabbed for bacteria were pretty clean. Definitely cleaner than either of the toilet seats analyzed, likely thanks to increased usage of sanitizer, courtesy of the current pandemic. It’s easy to wipe down the steering wheel. Things break down, though, once we look elsewhere. The interiors of the five cars all contained just as much, if not more, bacteria than the toilet seats, with fecal matter commonly appearing on the driver’s seat.

The car interiors were less than sanitary, but they paled in comparison with the real winner here: the trunk. In each of the five cars, bacteria levels there far exceeded those in the toilets, and included everyone’s favorites – Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.

So, snacking on a bag of chips as you drive along is probably okay, but the food that popped out of its bag and spent the last 5 minutes rolling around the back? Perhaps less okay. You may want to wash it. Or burn it. Or torch the entire car for good measure like we’re about to do. Next time we’ll buy a car without poop in it.
 

Shut the lid when you flush

Maybe you’ve never thought about this, but it’s actually extremely important to shut the toilet lid when you flush. Just think of all those germs flying around from the force of the flush. Is your toothbrush anywhere near the toilet? Ew. Those pesky little bacteria and viruses are everywhere, and we know we can’t really escape them, but we should really do our best once we’re made aware of where to find them.

Marco Verch/ccnull.de/CC by 2.0

It seems like a no-brainer these days since we’ve all been really focused on cleanliness during the pandemic, but according to a poll in the United Kingdom, 55% of the 2,000 participants said they don’t put the lid down while flushing.

The OnePoll survey commissioned by Harpic, a company that makes toilet-cleaning products, also advised that toilet water isn’t even completely clean after flushed several times and can still be contaminated with many germs. Company researchers took specialized pictures of flushing toilets and they looked like tiny little Fourth of July fireworks shows, minus the sparklers. The pictures proved that droplets can go all over the place, including on bathroom users.

“There has never been a more important time to take extra care around our homes, although the risks associated with germ spread in unhygienic bathrooms are high, the solution to keeping them clean is simple,” a Harpic researcher said. Since other studies have shown that coronavirus can be found in feces, it’s become increasingly important to keep ourselves and others safe. Fireworks are pretty, but not when they come out of your toilet.
 

The latest in MRI fashion

Do you see that photo just below? Looks like something you could buy at the Lego store, right? Well, it’s not. Nor is it the proverbial thinking cap come to life.

(Did someone just say “come to life”? That reminds us of our favorite scene from Frosty the Snowman.)

Cydney Scott/Boston University

Anywaaay, about the photo. That funny-looking chapeau is what we in the science business call a metamaterial.

Nope, metamaterials have nothing to do with Facebook parent company Meta. We checked. According to a statement from Boston University, they are engineered structures “created from small unit cells that might be unspectacular alone, but when grouped together in a precise way, get new superpowers not found in nature.”

Superpowers, eh? Who doesn’t want superpowers? Even if they come with a funny hat.

The unit cells, known as resonators, are just plastic tubes wrapped in copper wiring, but when they are grouped in an array and precisely arranged into a helmet, they can channel the magnetic field of the MRI machine during a scan. In theory, that would create “crisper images that can be captured at twice the normal speed,” Xin Zhang, PhD, and her team at BU’s Photonics Center explained in the university statement.

In the future, the metamaterial device could “be used in conjunction with cheaper low-field MRI machines to make the technology more widely available, particularly in the developing world,” they suggested. Or, like so many other superpowers, it could fall into the wrong hands. Like those of Lex Luthor. Or Mark Zuckerberg. Or Frosty the Snowman.
 

The highway of the mind

How fast can you think on your feet? Well, according to a recently published study, it could be a legitimate measure of intelligence. Here’s the science.

Epifantsev/Thinkstock

Researchers from the University of Würzburg in Germany and Indiana University have suggested that a person’s intelligence score measures the ability, based on certain neuronal networks and their communication structures, to switch between resting state and different task states.

The investigators set up a study to observe almost 800 people while they completed seven tasks. By monitoring brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging, the teams found that subjects who had higher intelligence scores required “less adjustment when switching between different cognitive states,” they said in a separate statement.

It comes down to the network architecture of their brains.

Kirsten Hilger, PhD, head of the German group, described it in terms of highways. The resting state of the brain is normal traffic. It’s always moving. Holiday traffic is the task. The ability to handle the increased flow of commuters is a function of the highway infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the higher the intelligence.

So the next time you’re stuck in traffic, think how efficient your brain would be with such a task. The quicker, the better.

Junk (germs) in the trunk

It’s been a long drive, and you’ve got a long way to go. You pull into a rest stop to use the bathroom and get some food. Quick, which order do you do those things in?

If you’re not a crazy person, you’d use the bathroom and then get your food. Who would bring food into a dirty bathroom? That’s kind of gross. Most people would take care of business, grab food, then get back in the car, eating along the way. Unfortunately, if you’re searching for a sanitary eating environment, your car may not actually be much better than that bathroom, according to new research from Aston University in Birmingham, England.

Robert Couse-Baker/PxHere

Let’s start off with the good news. The steering wheels of the five used cars that were swabbed for bacteria were pretty clean. Definitely cleaner than either of the toilet seats analyzed, likely thanks to increased usage of sanitizer, courtesy of the current pandemic. It’s easy to wipe down the steering wheel. Things break down, though, once we look elsewhere. The interiors of the five cars all contained just as much, if not more, bacteria than the toilet seats, with fecal matter commonly appearing on the driver’s seat.

The car interiors were less than sanitary, but they paled in comparison with the real winner here: the trunk. In each of the five cars, bacteria levels there far exceeded those in the toilets, and included everyone’s favorites – Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.

So, snacking on a bag of chips as you drive along is probably okay, but the food that popped out of its bag and spent the last 5 minutes rolling around the back? Perhaps less okay. You may want to wash it. Or burn it. Or torch the entire car for good measure like we’re about to do. Next time we’ll buy a car without poop in it.
 

Shut the lid when you flush

Maybe you’ve never thought about this, but it’s actually extremely important to shut the toilet lid when you flush. Just think of all those germs flying around from the force of the flush. Is your toothbrush anywhere near the toilet? Ew. Those pesky little bacteria and viruses are everywhere, and we know we can’t really escape them, but we should really do our best once we’re made aware of where to find them.

Marco Verch/ccnull.de/CC by 2.0

It seems like a no-brainer these days since we’ve all been really focused on cleanliness during the pandemic, but according to a poll in the United Kingdom, 55% of the 2,000 participants said they don’t put the lid down while flushing.

The OnePoll survey commissioned by Harpic, a company that makes toilet-cleaning products, also advised that toilet water isn’t even completely clean after flushed several times and can still be contaminated with many germs. Company researchers took specialized pictures of flushing toilets and they looked like tiny little Fourth of July fireworks shows, minus the sparklers. The pictures proved that droplets can go all over the place, including on bathroom users.

“There has never been a more important time to take extra care around our homes, although the risks associated with germ spread in unhygienic bathrooms are high, the solution to keeping them clean is simple,” a Harpic researcher said. Since other studies have shown that coronavirus can be found in feces, it’s become increasingly important to keep ourselves and others safe. Fireworks are pretty, but not when they come out of your toilet.
 

The latest in MRI fashion

Do you see that photo just below? Looks like something you could buy at the Lego store, right? Well, it’s not. Nor is it the proverbial thinking cap come to life.

(Did someone just say “come to life”? That reminds us of our favorite scene from Frosty the Snowman.)

Cydney Scott/Boston University

Anywaaay, about the photo. That funny-looking chapeau is what we in the science business call a metamaterial.

Nope, metamaterials have nothing to do with Facebook parent company Meta. We checked. According to a statement from Boston University, they are engineered structures “created from small unit cells that might be unspectacular alone, but when grouped together in a precise way, get new superpowers not found in nature.”

Superpowers, eh? Who doesn’t want superpowers? Even if they come with a funny hat.

The unit cells, known as resonators, are just plastic tubes wrapped in copper wiring, but when they are grouped in an array and precisely arranged into a helmet, they can channel the magnetic field of the MRI machine during a scan. In theory, that would create “crisper images that can be captured at twice the normal speed,” Xin Zhang, PhD, and her team at BU’s Photonics Center explained in the university statement.

In the future, the metamaterial device could “be used in conjunction with cheaper low-field MRI machines to make the technology more widely available, particularly in the developing world,” they suggested. Or, like so many other superpowers, it could fall into the wrong hands. Like those of Lex Luthor. Or Mark Zuckerberg. Or Frosty the Snowman.
 

The highway of the mind

How fast can you think on your feet? Well, according to a recently published study, it could be a legitimate measure of intelligence. Here’s the science.

Epifantsev/Thinkstock

Researchers from the University of Würzburg in Germany and Indiana University have suggested that a person’s intelligence score measures the ability, based on certain neuronal networks and their communication structures, to switch between resting state and different task states.

The investigators set up a study to observe almost 800 people while they completed seven tasks. By monitoring brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging, the teams found that subjects who had higher intelligence scores required “less adjustment when switching between different cognitive states,” they said in a separate statement.

It comes down to the network architecture of their brains.

Kirsten Hilger, PhD, head of the German group, described it in terms of highways. The resting state of the brain is normal traffic. It’s always moving. Holiday traffic is the task. The ability to handle the increased flow of commuters is a function of the highway infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the higher the intelligence.

So the next time you’re stuck in traffic, think how efficient your brain would be with such a task. The quicker, the better.

New research shows that men in their 20s and 30s have worse survival from many different types of brain tumors than women of the same age. And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.

Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.

The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.

Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.

Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.

Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.

After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).

Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).

The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.

Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).

The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.

They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.

“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write. 

“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.

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

New research shows that men in their 20s and 30s have worse survival from many different types of brain tumors than women of the same age. And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.

Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.

The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.

Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.

Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.

Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.

After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).

Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).

The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.

Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).

The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.

They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.

“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write. 

“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.

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

New research shows that men in their 20s and 30s have worse survival from many different types of brain tumors than women of the same age. And, researchers say, it’s not exactly clear why.

Differences in treatment may mediate some of the association, but biologic sex itself appears to be a stronger risk factor for death, according to the study published online Feb. 8 in Cancer.

The excess in male deaths is “concerning, and we need more clinical data and more biological tumor data within each histologic type of brain tumor to understand why these young adult men who would be otherwise healthy are dying of these brain tumors,” study author Lindsay Williams, PhD, MPH, with the division of epidemiology and clinical research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told this news organization.

Central nervous system tumors rank among the top five cancers diagnosed in young adults aged 20-39 years.

Dr. Williams and her colleagues previously showed that men are more likely to develop brain tumors. Their latest study shows that men die more frequently from brain tumors as well.

Using the National Cancer Database, they identified 47,560 young adults aged 20-39 (47% male) diagnosed with a CNS tumor between 2004 and 2016.

After adjusting for relevant factors, males had a 47% increased risk of dying after a brain tumor diagnosis compared with females (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53).

Males had significantly worse overall survival than females for all CNS tumors combined and for nine of 16 histologic types – namely, diffuse astrocytoma (HR, 1.30), anaplastic astrocytoma (HR, 1.25), glioblastoma (HR, 1.14), oligodendroglioma (HR, 1.37), oligoastrocytic tumors (HR, 1.22), ependymal tumors (HR, 1.29), other malignant gliomas (HR, 1.43), neuronal and mixed neuronal-glial tumors (HR, 1.52), and meningioma (HR, 2.01; all P < .05).

The researchers identified no histologies where females had worse survival.

Five-year survival differed between females and males by at least 5% for all histologies combined (83.2% female and 71.2% male) as well as for diffuse astrocytoma (75.1% vs. 68.5%), anaplastic astrocytoma (63.5% vs. 57.5%), oligoastrocytic tumors (80.2% vs. 74.7%), other malignant gliomas (74.1% vs. 64.9%), and germ cell tumors (92.4% vs. 86.5%).

The researchers estimated that had survival in men been equal to that of women over the study period, 20% of total deaths and 34% of male deaths could have been avoided.

They say future population-based studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine whether tumor biology or responses to therapy are driving forces of the observed male excess in death from brain tumors.

“We cannot discount the role of sex differences in diagnosis, treatment, or behavioral risk factors that may underlie the better survival for women after a brain tumor diagnosis,” they write. 

“Hopefully, our research will increase awareness of sex differences in brain tumor outcomes in young adults and encourage other researchers with similar datasets to look at this same question and see if they observe a similar trend,” Dr. Williams said in an interview.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Williams has no relevant disclosures. One author, Christopher L. Moertel, MD, is chief medical officer for OX2 Therapeutics, has stock in OX2 Therapeutics, and reports patents relevant to his relationship with OX2 Therapeutics.

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

The risk for acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 appears to be significantly elevated in the first 3 days after the infection, new research shows.

The study among Medicare beneficiaries with COVID-19 also showed that stroke risk is higher for relatively young older adults, those aged 65 to 74 years, and those without a history of stroke.

The study highlights the impact COVID-19 has on the cardiovascular system, said study author Quanhe Yang, PhD, senior scientist, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

“Clinicians and patients should understand that stroke might be one of the very important clinical consequences of COVID-19.”

The study was presented during the hybrid International Stroke Conference held in New Orleans and online. The meeting was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. As an increasing number of people become infected with COVID-19, “it’s important to determine if there’s a relationship between COVID and the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Yang.

Findings from prior research examining the link between stroke and COVID-19 have been inconsistent, he noted. Some studies found an association while others did not, and in still others, the association was not as strong as expected.

Many factors may contribute to these inconsistent findings, said Dr. Yang, including differences in study design, inclusion criteria, comparison groups, sample sizes, and countries where the research was carried out. Dr. Yang pointed out that many of these studies were done in the early stages of the pandemic or didn’t include older adults, the population most at risk for stroke.

The current study included 19,553 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke. The median age at diagnosis of COVID-19 was 80.5 years, 57.5% were women, and more than 75% were non-Hispanic Whites.

To ensure the stroke occurred after a COVID infection, researchers used a self-controlled case series study design, a “within person” comparison between the risk period and the control period.

They divided the study period (Jan. 1, 2019 to Feb. 28, 2021) into the exposure or stroke risk periods after the COVID diagnosis (0-3 days; 4-7 days; 8-15 days; and 15-28 days) and control periods.

Strokes that occurred 7 days before or 28 days after a COVID diagnosis served as a control period. “Any stroke that occurred outside the risk window is in the control period,” explained Dr. Yang.

He added that the control period provides a baseline. “Without COVID-19, this is what I would expect” in terms of the number of strokes.

To estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR), investigators compared the incidence of acute ischemic stroke in the various risk periods with control periods.

The IRR was 10.97 (95% confidence interval, 10.30-11.68) at 0-3 days. The risk then quickly declined but stayed higher than the control period. The IRRs were: 1.59 (95% CI, 1.35-1.87) at 4-7 days; 1.23 (95% CI, 1.07-1.41) at 8-14 days; and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.18) at 15-28 days.

The temporary increase in stroke risk early after an infection isn’t novel; the pattern has been observed with influenza, respiratory infections, and shingles, said Dr. Yang. “But COVID-19 appears to be particularly risky.”

Although the mechanism driving the early increased stroke risk isn’t fully understood, it’s likely tied to an “exaggerated inflammatory response,” said Dr. Yang. This can trigger the cascade of events setting the stage for a stroke – a hypercoagulation state leading to the formation of blood clots that then block arteries to the brain, he said.

It’s also possible the infection directly affects endothelial cells, leading to rupture of plaque, again blocking arteries and raising stroke risks, added Dr. Yang.

The association was stronger among younger beneficiaries, aged 65 to 74 years, compared with those 85 years and older, a finding Dr. Yang said was somewhat surprising. But he noted other studies have found stroke patients with COVID are younger than stroke patients without COVID – by some 5 to 6 years.

“If COVID-19 disproportionately affects younger patients, that may explain the stronger association,” said Dr. Yang. “Stroke risk increases tremendously with age, so if you’re a younger age, your baseline stroke risk is lower.”

The association was also stronger among beneficiaries without a history of stroke. Again, this could be related to the stronger association among younger patients who are less likely to have suffered a stroke. The association was largely consistent across sex and race/ethnicities. 

Dr. Yang stressed that the findings need to be confirmed with further studies.

The study was carried out before widespread use of vaccinations in the U.S. Once those data are available, Dr. Yang and his colleagues plan to determine if vaccinations modify the association between COVID-19 and stroke risk.

The new results contribute to the mounting evidence that a COVID-19 infection “can actually affect multiple human organs structurally or functionally in addition to the impact on [the] respiratory system,” said Dr. Yang.

Some dates of COVID-19 diagnoses may be incorrect due to limited test availability, particularly early in the pandemic. Another limitation of the study was possible misclassification from the use of Medicare real-time preliminary claims.

In a provided statement, Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, chair of the ISC 2022 and professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, noted that the study focused on older adults because it was examining Medicare beneficiaries.

“But everyone is likely at risk for stroke after COVID,” she said. “Any infection is linked to stroke risk, probably because any infection will cause inflammation, and inflammation can cause clots or thrombus, which is the cause of stroke.”

There was no outside funding for the study. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

The risk for acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 appears to be significantly elevated in the first 3 days after the infection, new research shows.

The study among Medicare beneficiaries with COVID-19 also showed that stroke risk is higher for relatively young older adults, those aged 65 to 74 years, and those without a history of stroke.

The study highlights the impact COVID-19 has on the cardiovascular system, said study author Quanhe Yang, PhD, senior scientist, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

“Clinicians and patients should understand that stroke might be one of the very important clinical consequences of COVID-19.”

The study was presented during the hybrid International Stroke Conference held in New Orleans and online. The meeting was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. As an increasing number of people become infected with COVID-19, “it’s important to determine if there’s a relationship between COVID and the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Yang.

Findings from prior research examining the link between stroke and COVID-19 have been inconsistent, he noted. Some studies found an association while others did not, and in still others, the association was not as strong as expected.

Many factors may contribute to these inconsistent findings, said Dr. Yang, including differences in study design, inclusion criteria, comparison groups, sample sizes, and countries where the research was carried out. Dr. Yang pointed out that many of these studies were done in the early stages of the pandemic or didn’t include older adults, the population most at risk for stroke.

The current study included 19,553 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke. The median age at diagnosis of COVID-19 was 80.5 years, 57.5% were women, and more than 75% were non-Hispanic Whites.

To ensure the stroke occurred after a COVID infection, researchers used a self-controlled case series study design, a “within person” comparison between the risk period and the control period.

They divided the study period (Jan. 1, 2019 to Feb. 28, 2021) into the exposure or stroke risk periods after the COVID diagnosis (0-3 days; 4-7 days; 8-15 days; and 15-28 days) and control periods.

Strokes that occurred 7 days before or 28 days after a COVID diagnosis served as a control period. “Any stroke that occurred outside the risk window is in the control period,” explained Dr. Yang.

He added that the control period provides a baseline. “Without COVID-19, this is what I would expect” in terms of the number of strokes.

To estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR), investigators compared the incidence of acute ischemic stroke in the various risk periods with control periods.

The IRR was 10.97 (95% confidence interval, 10.30-11.68) at 0-3 days. The risk then quickly declined but stayed higher than the control period. The IRRs were: 1.59 (95% CI, 1.35-1.87) at 4-7 days; 1.23 (95% CI, 1.07-1.41) at 8-14 days; and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.18) at 15-28 days.

The temporary increase in stroke risk early after an infection isn’t novel; the pattern has been observed with influenza, respiratory infections, and shingles, said Dr. Yang. “But COVID-19 appears to be particularly risky.”

Although the mechanism driving the early increased stroke risk isn’t fully understood, it’s likely tied to an “exaggerated inflammatory response,” said Dr. Yang. This can trigger the cascade of events setting the stage for a stroke – a hypercoagulation state leading to the formation of blood clots that then block arteries to the brain, he said.

It’s also possible the infection directly affects endothelial cells, leading to rupture of plaque, again blocking arteries and raising stroke risks, added Dr. Yang.

The association was stronger among younger beneficiaries, aged 65 to 74 years, compared with those 85 years and older, a finding Dr. Yang said was somewhat surprising. But he noted other studies have found stroke patients with COVID are younger than stroke patients without COVID – by some 5 to 6 years.

“If COVID-19 disproportionately affects younger patients, that may explain the stronger association,” said Dr. Yang. “Stroke risk increases tremendously with age, so if you’re a younger age, your baseline stroke risk is lower.”

The association was also stronger among beneficiaries without a history of stroke. Again, this could be related to the stronger association among younger patients who are less likely to have suffered a stroke. The association was largely consistent across sex and race/ethnicities. 

Dr. Yang stressed that the findings need to be confirmed with further studies.

The study was carried out before widespread use of vaccinations in the U.S. Once those data are available, Dr. Yang and his colleagues plan to determine if vaccinations modify the association between COVID-19 and stroke risk.

The new results contribute to the mounting evidence that a COVID-19 infection “can actually affect multiple human organs structurally or functionally in addition to the impact on [the] respiratory system,” said Dr. Yang.

Some dates of COVID-19 diagnoses may be incorrect due to limited test availability, particularly early in the pandemic. Another limitation of the study was possible misclassification from the use of Medicare real-time preliminary claims.

In a provided statement, Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, chair of the ISC 2022 and professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, noted that the study focused on older adults because it was examining Medicare beneficiaries.

“But everyone is likely at risk for stroke after COVID,” she said. “Any infection is linked to stroke risk, probably because any infection will cause inflammation, and inflammation can cause clots or thrombus, which is the cause of stroke.”

There was no outside funding for the study. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

The risk for acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 appears to be significantly elevated in the first 3 days after the infection, new research shows.

The study among Medicare beneficiaries with COVID-19 also showed that stroke risk is higher for relatively young older adults, those aged 65 to 74 years, and those without a history of stroke.

The study highlights the impact COVID-19 has on the cardiovascular system, said study author Quanhe Yang, PhD, senior scientist, Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

“Clinicians and patients should understand that stroke might be one of the very important clinical consequences of COVID-19.”

The study was presented during the hybrid International Stroke Conference held in New Orleans and online. The meeting was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Stroke is the fifth leading cause of death in the U.S. As an increasing number of people become infected with COVID-19, “it’s important to determine if there’s a relationship between COVID and the risk of stroke,” said Dr. Yang.

Findings from prior research examining the link between stroke and COVID-19 have been inconsistent, he noted. Some studies found an association while others did not, and in still others, the association was not as strong as expected.

Many factors may contribute to these inconsistent findings, said Dr. Yang, including differences in study design, inclusion criteria, comparison groups, sample sizes, and countries where the research was carried out. Dr. Yang pointed out that many of these studies were done in the early stages of the pandemic or didn’t include older adults, the population most at risk for stroke.

The current study included 19,553 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years and older diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke. The median age at diagnosis of COVID-19 was 80.5 years, 57.5% were women, and more than 75% were non-Hispanic Whites.

To ensure the stroke occurred after a COVID infection, researchers used a self-controlled case series study design, a “within person” comparison between the risk period and the control period.

They divided the study period (Jan. 1, 2019 to Feb. 28, 2021) into the exposure or stroke risk periods after the COVID diagnosis (0-3 days; 4-7 days; 8-15 days; and 15-28 days) and control periods.

Strokes that occurred 7 days before or 28 days after a COVID diagnosis served as a control period. “Any stroke that occurred outside the risk window is in the control period,” explained Dr. Yang.

He added that the control period provides a baseline. “Without COVID-19, this is what I would expect” in terms of the number of strokes.

To estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR), investigators compared the incidence of acute ischemic stroke in the various risk periods with control periods.

The IRR was 10.97 (95% confidence interval, 10.30-11.68) at 0-3 days. The risk then quickly declined but stayed higher than the control period. The IRRs were: 1.59 (95% CI, 1.35-1.87) at 4-7 days; 1.23 (95% CI, 1.07-1.41) at 8-14 days; and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.18) at 15-28 days.

The temporary increase in stroke risk early after an infection isn’t novel; the pattern has been observed with influenza, respiratory infections, and shingles, said Dr. Yang. “But COVID-19 appears to be particularly risky.”

Although the mechanism driving the early increased stroke risk isn’t fully understood, it’s likely tied to an “exaggerated inflammatory response,” said Dr. Yang. This can trigger the cascade of events setting the stage for a stroke – a hypercoagulation state leading to the formation of blood clots that then block arteries to the brain, he said.

It’s also possible the infection directly affects endothelial cells, leading to rupture of plaque, again blocking arteries and raising stroke risks, added Dr. Yang.

The association was stronger among younger beneficiaries, aged 65 to 74 years, compared with those 85 years and older, a finding Dr. Yang said was somewhat surprising. But he noted other studies have found stroke patients with COVID are younger than stroke patients without COVID – by some 5 to 6 years.

“If COVID-19 disproportionately affects younger patients, that may explain the stronger association,” said Dr. Yang. “Stroke risk increases tremendously with age, so if you’re a younger age, your baseline stroke risk is lower.”

The association was also stronger among beneficiaries without a history of stroke. Again, this could be related to the stronger association among younger patients who are less likely to have suffered a stroke. The association was largely consistent across sex and race/ethnicities. 

Dr. Yang stressed that the findings need to be confirmed with further studies.

The study was carried out before widespread use of vaccinations in the U.S. Once those data are available, Dr. Yang and his colleagues plan to determine if vaccinations modify the association between COVID-19 and stroke risk.

The new results contribute to the mounting evidence that a COVID-19 infection “can actually affect multiple human organs structurally or functionally in addition to the impact on [the] respiratory system,” said Dr. Yang.

Some dates of COVID-19 diagnoses may be incorrect due to limited test availability, particularly early in the pandemic. Another limitation of the study was possible misclassification from the use of Medicare real-time preliminary claims.

In a provided statement, Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD, chair of the ISC 2022 and professor and chair of neurology, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, noted that the study focused on older adults because it was examining Medicare beneficiaries.

“But everyone is likely at risk for stroke after COVID,” she said. “Any infection is linked to stroke risk, probably because any infection will cause inflammation, and inflammation can cause clots or thrombus, which is the cause of stroke.”

There was no outside funding for the study. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

Tennessee’s Board of Medical Examiners unanimously adopted in September 2021 a statement that said doctors spreading COVID misinformation – such as suggesting that vaccines contain microchips – could jeopardize their license to practice.

“I’m very glad that we’re taking this step,” Dr. Stephen Loyd, MD, the panel’s vice president, said at the time. “If you’re spreading this willful misinformation, for me it’s going to be really hard to do anything other than put you on probation or take your license for a year. There has to be a message sent for this. It’s not okay.”

The board’s statement was posted on a government website.

But before any physicians could be reprimanded for spreading falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines or treatments, Republican lawmakers threatened to disband the medical board.

The growing tension in Tennessee between conservative lawmakers and the state’s medical board may be the most prominent example in the country. But the Federation of State Medical Boards, which created the language adopted by at least 15 state boards, is tracking legislation introduced by Republicans in at least 14 states that would restrict a medical board’s authority to discipline doctors for their advice on COVID.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, the federation’s CEO, called it “an unwelcome trend.” The nonprofit association, based in Euless, Tex., said the statement is merely a COVID-specific restatement of an existing rule: that doctors who engage in behavior that puts patients at risk could face disciplinary action.

Although doctors have leeway to decide which treatments to provide, the medical boards that oversee them have broad authority over licensing. Often, doctors are investigated for violating guidelines on prescribing high-powered drugs. But physicians are sometimes punished for other “unprofessional conduct.” In 2013, Tennessee’s board fined U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais for separately having sexual relations with two female patients more than a decade earlier.

Still, stopping doctors from sharing unsound medical advice has proved challenging. Even defining misinformation has been difficult. And during the pandemic, resistance from some state legislatures is complicating the effort.

A relatively small group of physicians peddle COVID misinformation, but many of them associate with America’s Frontline Doctors. Its founder, Simone Gold, MD, has claimed patients are dying from COVID treatments, not the virus itself. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, said in a legislative hearing in Ohio that the COVID vaccine could magnetize patients. Stella Immanuel, MD, has pushed hydroxychloroquine as a COVID cure in Texas, although clinical trials showed that it had no benefit. None of them agreed to requests for comment.

The Texas Medical Board fined Dr. Immanuel $500 for not informing a patient of the risks associated with using hydroxychloroquine as an off-label COVID treatment.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Nashville Public Radio, NPR, and KHN.

Tennessee’s Board of Medical Examiners unanimously adopted in September 2021 a statement that said doctors spreading COVID misinformation – such as suggesting that vaccines contain microchips – could jeopardize their license to practice.

“I’m very glad that we’re taking this step,” Dr. Stephen Loyd, MD, the panel’s vice president, said at the time. “If you’re spreading this willful misinformation, for me it’s going to be really hard to do anything other than put you on probation or take your license for a year. There has to be a message sent for this. It’s not okay.”

The board’s statement was posted on a government website.

But before any physicians could be reprimanded for spreading falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines or treatments, Republican lawmakers threatened to disband the medical board.

The growing tension in Tennessee between conservative lawmakers and the state’s medical board may be the most prominent example in the country. But the Federation of State Medical Boards, which created the language adopted by at least 15 state boards, is tracking legislation introduced by Republicans in at least 14 states that would restrict a medical board’s authority to discipline doctors for their advice on COVID.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, the federation’s CEO, called it “an unwelcome trend.” The nonprofit association, based in Euless, Tex., said the statement is merely a COVID-specific restatement of an existing rule: that doctors who engage in behavior that puts patients at risk could face disciplinary action.

Although doctors have leeway to decide which treatments to provide, the medical boards that oversee them have broad authority over licensing. Often, doctors are investigated for violating guidelines on prescribing high-powered drugs. But physicians are sometimes punished for other “unprofessional conduct.” In 2013, Tennessee’s board fined U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais for separately having sexual relations with two female patients more than a decade earlier.

Still, stopping doctors from sharing unsound medical advice has proved challenging. Even defining misinformation has been difficult. And during the pandemic, resistance from some state legislatures is complicating the effort.

A relatively small group of physicians peddle COVID misinformation, but many of them associate with America’s Frontline Doctors. Its founder, Simone Gold, MD, has claimed patients are dying from COVID treatments, not the virus itself. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, said in a legislative hearing in Ohio that the COVID vaccine could magnetize patients. Stella Immanuel, MD, has pushed hydroxychloroquine as a COVID cure in Texas, although clinical trials showed that it had no benefit. None of them agreed to requests for comment.

The Texas Medical Board fined Dr. Immanuel $500 for not informing a patient of the risks associated with using hydroxychloroquine as an off-label COVID treatment.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Nashville Public Radio, NPR, and KHN.

Tennessee’s Board of Medical Examiners unanimously adopted in September 2021 a statement that said doctors spreading COVID misinformation – such as suggesting that vaccines contain microchips – could jeopardize their license to practice.

“I’m very glad that we’re taking this step,” Dr. Stephen Loyd, MD, the panel’s vice president, said at the time. “If you’re spreading this willful misinformation, for me it’s going to be really hard to do anything other than put you on probation or take your license for a year. There has to be a message sent for this. It’s not okay.”

The board’s statement was posted on a government website.

But before any physicians could be reprimanded for spreading falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines or treatments, Republican lawmakers threatened to disband the medical board.

The growing tension in Tennessee between conservative lawmakers and the state’s medical board may be the most prominent example in the country. But the Federation of State Medical Boards, which created the language adopted by at least 15 state boards, is tracking legislation introduced by Republicans in at least 14 states that would restrict a medical board’s authority to discipline doctors for their advice on COVID.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, the federation’s CEO, called it “an unwelcome trend.” The nonprofit association, based in Euless, Tex., said the statement is merely a COVID-specific restatement of an existing rule: that doctors who engage in behavior that puts patients at risk could face disciplinary action.

Although doctors have leeway to decide which treatments to provide, the medical boards that oversee them have broad authority over licensing. Often, doctors are investigated for violating guidelines on prescribing high-powered drugs. But physicians are sometimes punished for other “unprofessional conduct.” In 2013, Tennessee’s board fined U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais for separately having sexual relations with two female patients more than a decade earlier.

Still, stopping doctors from sharing unsound medical advice has proved challenging. Even defining misinformation has been difficult. And during the pandemic, resistance from some state legislatures is complicating the effort.

A relatively small group of physicians peddle COVID misinformation, but many of them associate with America’s Frontline Doctors. Its founder, Simone Gold, MD, has claimed patients are dying from COVID treatments, not the virus itself. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, said in a legislative hearing in Ohio that the COVID vaccine could magnetize patients. Stella Immanuel, MD, has pushed hydroxychloroquine as a COVID cure in Texas, although clinical trials showed that it had no benefit. None of them agreed to requests for comment.

The Texas Medical Board fined Dr. Immanuel $500 for not informing a patient of the risks associated with using hydroxychloroquine as an off-label COVID treatment.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Nashville Public Radio, NPR, and KHN.

Medicinal and recreational marijuana use has become common across the country, warranting greater awareness among clinicians about any potential adverse effects of marijuana on brain health, a new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes.

The existing evidence base of preclinical and clinical research suggests that marijuana use may have a harmful effect on the brain, although the specific adverse effects have not been well defined, the statement authors said.

Smithore

Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and rehabilitation at the University of Illinois at Chicago, led the writing panel for the statement, published online Feb. 10, 2022, in Stroke.

Numerous research studies challenge the idea that marijuana use is harmless, and instead demonstrate that cannabis, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has adverse effects on brain health, Dr. Testai and colleagues noted.

“Social media tends to overemphasize the beneficial effects of marijuana. However, its ultimate effect on brain health is still to be established. Physicians should provide periodic and unbiased education to their patients about the known and unknown ramifications of consuming cannabinoids,” Dr. Testai said.

Findings collected from animal studies demonstrate that THC interferes with normal development of signaling pathways and hinders synaptic plasticity. The authors also pointed out that these studies show connections between neurons are affected in the short term, whereas in the long haul, this contributes to changes in how neuronal networks work.

“Personally, the most striking point is the epidemiological data that indicate that the use of marijuana is widespread in the general population, and this starts early in life, particularly during adolescence,” Dr. Testai told this news organization.

Dr. Testai also noted that pregnant women are using cannabis for nausea and vomiting. Other data on prenatal exposure to cannabis show that THC hinders the signaling mechanism of the endocannabinoid system during development and ontogenesis, which ultimately leads to abnormal neurotransmission.

“Prenatal THC affects neuroanatomic areas associated with cognition and emotional regulation, including the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and ventral tegmentum of the midbrain,” the researchers added.

The writing panel also found that marijuana use had effects on human cognition:
 

• Acute marijuana use affects impulsivity, memory, and behavioral disinhibition, they noted, that “can affect performance in real-world activities,” such as driving. The long-term effects of cannabis on cognition are “less well established.”
• Neuroimaging research has highlighted structural changes in the brain, but these data are inconsistent.
• Functional MRI studies show cannabis users may experience functional changes in regions of the brain that play a role in cognition, particularly with prolonged use.

The statement also addresses studies assessing the effects of marijuana use on cerebrovascular risk and disease, which show:

• A relation between cannabis use and increased risk for stroke.
• Frequency and other trends of cannabis use may raise stroke risk.
• Cannabis users often smoke cigarettes, which is an important factor in the association between cannabis use and stroke risk.

Looking ahead, public health initiatives are needed to increase awareness among the public about the negative effects of marijuana use. Other efforts may include setting standards regarding the concentrations of biologically active ingredients and warning notices on available formulations, the group concluded.

The document was prepared on behalf of the AHA Stroke Brain Health Science Subcommittee of the Stroke Council; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The American Academy of Neurology “affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists,” the document notes.

Dr. Testai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medicinal and recreational marijuana use has become common across the country, warranting greater awareness among clinicians about any potential adverse effects of marijuana on brain health, a new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes.

The existing evidence base of preclinical and clinical research suggests that marijuana use may have a harmful effect on the brain, although the specific adverse effects have not been well defined, the statement authors said.

Smithore

Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and rehabilitation at the University of Illinois at Chicago, led the writing panel for the statement, published online Feb. 10, 2022, in Stroke.

Numerous research studies challenge the idea that marijuana use is harmless, and instead demonstrate that cannabis, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has adverse effects on brain health, Dr. Testai and colleagues noted.

“Social media tends to overemphasize the beneficial effects of marijuana. However, its ultimate effect on brain health is still to be established. Physicians should provide periodic and unbiased education to their patients about the known and unknown ramifications of consuming cannabinoids,” Dr. Testai said.

Findings collected from animal studies demonstrate that THC interferes with normal development of signaling pathways and hinders synaptic plasticity. The authors also pointed out that these studies show connections between neurons are affected in the short term, whereas in the long haul, this contributes to changes in how neuronal networks work.

“Personally, the most striking point is the epidemiological data that indicate that the use of marijuana is widespread in the general population, and this starts early in life, particularly during adolescence,” Dr. Testai told this news organization.

Dr. Testai also noted that pregnant women are using cannabis for nausea and vomiting. Other data on prenatal exposure to cannabis show that THC hinders the signaling mechanism of the endocannabinoid system during development and ontogenesis, which ultimately leads to abnormal neurotransmission.

“Prenatal THC affects neuroanatomic areas associated with cognition and emotional regulation, including the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and ventral tegmentum of the midbrain,” the researchers added.

The writing panel also found that marijuana use had effects on human cognition:
 

• Acute marijuana use affects impulsivity, memory, and behavioral disinhibition, they noted, that “can affect performance in real-world activities,” such as driving. The long-term effects of cannabis on cognition are “less well established.”
• Neuroimaging research has highlighted structural changes in the brain, but these data are inconsistent.
• Functional MRI studies show cannabis users may experience functional changes in regions of the brain that play a role in cognition, particularly with prolonged use.

The statement also addresses studies assessing the effects of marijuana use on cerebrovascular risk and disease, which show:

• A relation between cannabis use and increased risk for stroke.
• Frequency and other trends of cannabis use may raise stroke risk.
• Cannabis users often smoke cigarettes, which is an important factor in the association between cannabis use and stroke risk.

Looking ahead, public health initiatives are needed to increase awareness among the public about the negative effects of marijuana use. Other efforts may include setting standards regarding the concentrations of biologically active ingredients and warning notices on available formulations, the group concluded.

The document was prepared on behalf of the AHA Stroke Brain Health Science Subcommittee of the Stroke Council; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The American Academy of Neurology “affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists,” the document notes.

Dr. Testai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medicinal and recreational marijuana use has become common across the country, warranting greater awareness among clinicians about any potential adverse effects of marijuana on brain health, a new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes.

The existing evidence base of preclinical and clinical research suggests that marijuana use may have a harmful effect on the brain, although the specific adverse effects have not been well defined, the statement authors said.

Smithore

Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and rehabilitation at the University of Illinois at Chicago, led the writing panel for the statement, published online Feb. 10, 2022, in Stroke.

Numerous research studies challenge the idea that marijuana use is harmless, and instead demonstrate that cannabis, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), has adverse effects on brain health, Dr. Testai and colleagues noted.

“Social media tends to overemphasize the beneficial effects of marijuana. However, its ultimate effect on brain health is still to be established. Physicians should provide periodic and unbiased education to their patients about the known and unknown ramifications of consuming cannabinoids,” Dr. Testai said.

Findings collected from animal studies demonstrate that THC interferes with normal development of signaling pathways and hinders synaptic plasticity. The authors also pointed out that these studies show connections between neurons are affected in the short term, whereas in the long haul, this contributes to changes in how neuronal networks work.

“Personally, the most striking point is the epidemiological data that indicate that the use of marijuana is widespread in the general population, and this starts early in life, particularly during adolescence,” Dr. Testai told this news organization.

Dr. Testai also noted that pregnant women are using cannabis for nausea and vomiting. Other data on prenatal exposure to cannabis show that THC hinders the signaling mechanism of the endocannabinoid system during development and ontogenesis, which ultimately leads to abnormal neurotransmission.

“Prenatal THC affects neuroanatomic areas associated with cognition and emotional regulation, including the prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and ventral tegmentum of the midbrain,” the researchers added.

The writing panel also found that marijuana use had effects on human cognition:
 

• Acute marijuana use affects impulsivity, memory, and behavioral disinhibition, they noted, that “can affect performance in real-world activities,” such as driving. The long-term effects of cannabis on cognition are “less well established.”
• Neuroimaging research has highlighted structural changes in the brain, but these data are inconsistent.
• Functional MRI studies show cannabis users may experience functional changes in regions of the brain that play a role in cognition, particularly with prolonged use.

The statement also addresses studies assessing the effects of marijuana use on cerebrovascular risk and disease, which show:

• A relation between cannabis use and increased risk for stroke.
• Frequency and other trends of cannabis use may raise stroke risk.
• Cannabis users often smoke cigarettes, which is an important factor in the association between cannabis use and stroke risk.

Looking ahead, public health initiatives are needed to increase awareness among the public about the negative effects of marijuana use. Other efforts may include setting standards regarding the concentrations of biologically active ingredients and warning notices on available formulations, the group concluded.

The document was prepared on behalf of the AHA Stroke Brain Health Science Subcommittee of the Stroke Council; Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The American Academy of Neurology “affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists,” the document notes.

Dr. Testai reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recent columns on closing, selling, or merging a practice have sparked numerous questions about proper practice valuation.

Too often, physicians are not receiving a fair return on the equity they have worked so hard to build over several decades, either because they have waited too long and must accept what is offered, or because they simply take the buyer’s word for their practice’s value. Don’t put yourself in either of those positions, and don’t entertain any offers until you obtain an objective appraisal from a neutral party.

Of course, a medical practice is trickier to value than an ordinary business, and usually requires the services of an experienced professional appraiser. Entire books have been written about the process, so I can’t hope to cover it completely in 750 words; but three basic yardsticks are essential for determining the equity, or book value, of a practice:

• Tangible assets. Equipment, cash, accounts receivable, and other property owned by the practice.
• Liabilities. Accounts payable, outstanding loans, and anything else owed to others.
• Intangible assets. Sometimes called “good will” – the reputation of the physicians, the location and name recognition of the practice, the loyalty and volume of patients, and other, well, intangibles.

Valuing tangible assets is comparatively straightforward, but there are several ways to do it, and when reviewing a practice appraisal you should ask which of them was used. Depreciated value is the book value of equipment and supplies as determined by their purchase price, less the amount their value has decreased since purchase. Remaining useful life value estimates how long the equipment can be expected to last. Market (or replacement) value is the amount it would cost on the open market to replace all equipment and supplies.

Intangible assets are more difficult to value. Many components are analyzed, including location, interior and exterior decor, accessibility to patients, age and functional status of equipment, systems in place to promote efficiency, reasons why patients come back (if in fact they do), and the overall reputation of the practice in the community. Other important factors include the “payer mix” (what percentage pays cash, how many third-party contracts are in place and how well they pay, etcetera), the extent and strength of the referral base, and the presence of supplemental income streams, such as clinical research.

It is also important to determine to what extent intangible assets are transferable. For example, unique skills with a laser, neurotoxins, or filler substances, or extraordinary personal charisma, may increase your practice’s value to you, but they are worthless to the next owner, and he or she will be unwilling to pay for them unless your services become part of the deal.

Once again there are many ways to estimate intangible asset value, and once again you should ask which were used. Cash flow analysis works on the assumption that cash flow is a measure of intangible value. Capitalization of earnings puts a value, or capitalization, on the practice’s income streams using a variety of assumptions. Guideline comparison uses various databases to compare your practice with other, similar ones that have changed hands in the past.

Two newer techniques that some consider a better estimate of intangible assets are the replacement method, which estimates the costs of starting the practice over again in the current market; and the excess earnings method, which measures how far above average your practice’s earnings (and thus its overall value) are.

Asset-based valuation is the most popular, but by no means the only method available. Income-based valuation looks at the source and strength of a practice’s income stream as a creator of value, as well as whether or not its income stream under a different owner would mirror its present one. This in turn becomes the basis for an understanding of the fair market value of both tangible and intangible assets. Market valuation combines the asset-based and income-based approaches, along with an analysis of sales and mergers of comparable practices in the community, to determine the value of a practice in its local market.

Whatever methods are used, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and independent financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation is supplied to support the conclusions reached. This is especially important if the appraisal will be relied upon in the sale or merger of the practice.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Recent columns on closing, selling, or merging a practice have sparked numerous questions about proper practice valuation.

Too often, physicians are not receiving a fair return on the equity they have worked so hard to build over several decades, either because they have waited too long and must accept what is offered, or because they simply take the buyer’s word for their practice’s value. Don’t put yourself in either of those positions, and don’t entertain any offers until you obtain an objective appraisal from a neutral party.

Of course, a medical practice is trickier to value than an ordinary business, and usually requires the services of an experienced professional appraiser. Entire books have been written about the process, so I can’t hope to cover it completely in 750 words; but three basic yardsticks are essential for determining the equity, or book value, of a practice:

• Tangible assets. Equipment, cash, accounts receivable, and other property owned by the practice.
• Liabilities. Accounts payable, outstanding loans, and anything else owed to others.
• Intangible assets. Sometimes called “good will” – the reputation of the physicians, the location and name recognition of the practice, the loyalty and volume of patients, and other, well, intangibles.

Valuing tangible assets is comparatively straightforward, but there are several ways to do it, and when reviewing a practice appraisal you should ask which of them was used. Depreciated value is the book value of equipment and supplies as determined by their purchase price, less the amount their value has decreased since purchase. Remaining useful life value estimates how long the equipment can be expected to last. Market (or replacement) value is the amount it would cost on the open market to replace all equipment and supplies.

Intangible assets are more difficult to value. Many components are analyzed, including location, interior and exterior decor, accessibility to patients, age and functional status of equipment, systems in place to promote efficiency, reasons why patients come back (if in fact they do), and the overall reputation of the practice in the community. Other important factors include the “payer mix” (what percentage pays cash, how many third-party contracts are in place and how well they pay, etcetera), the extent and strength of the referral base, and the presence of supplemental income streams, such as clinical research.

It is also important to determine to what extent intangible assets are transferable. For example, unique skills with a laser, neurotoxins, or filler substances, or extraordinary personal charisma, may increase your practice’s value to you, but they are worthless to the next owner, and he or she will be unwilling to pay for them unless your services become part of the deal.

Once again there are many ways to estimate intangible asset value, and once again you should ask which were used. Cash flow analysis works on the assumption that cash flow is a measure of intangible value. Capitalization of earnings puts a value, or capitalization, on the practice’s income streams using a variety of assumptions. Guideline comparison uses various databases to compare your practice with other, similar ones that have changed hands in the past.

Two newer techniques that some consider a better estimate of intangible assets are the replacement method, which estimates the costs of starting the practice over again in the current market; and the excess earnings method, which measures how far above average your practice’s earnings (and thus its overall value) are.

Asset-based valuation is the most popular, but by no means the only method available. Income-based valuation looks at the source and strength of a practice’s income stream as a creator of value, as well as whether or not its income stream under a different owner would mirror its present one. This in turn becomes the basis for an understanding of the fair market value of both tangible and intangible assets. Market valuation combines the asset-based and income-based approaches, along with an analysis of sales and mergers of comparable practices in the community, to determine the value of a practice in its local market.

Whatever methods are used, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and independent financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation is supplied to support the conclusions reached. This is especially important if the appraisal will be relied upon in the sale or merger of the practice.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Recent columns on closing, selling, or merging a practice have sparked numerous questions about proper practice valuation.

Too often, physicians are not receiving a fair return on the equity they have worked so hard to build over several decades, either because they have waited too long and must accept what is offered, or because they simply take the buyer’s word for their practice’s value. Don’t put yourself in either of those positions, and don’t entertain any offers until you obtain an objective appraisal from a neutral party.

Of course, a medical practice is trickier to value than an ordinary business, and usually requires the services of an experienced professional appraiser. Entire books have been written about the process, so I can’t hope to cover it completely in 750 words; but three basic yardsticks are essential for determining the equity, or book value, of a practice:

• Tangible assets. Equipment, cash, accounts receivable, and other property owned by the practice.
• Liabilities. Accounts payable, outstanding loans, and anything else owed to others.
• Intangible assets. Sometimes called “good will” – the reputation of the physicians, the location and name recognition of the practice, the loyalty and volume of patients, and other, well, intangibles.

Valuing tangible assets is comparatively straightforward, but there are several ways to do it, and when reviewing a practice appraisal you should ask which of them was used. Depreciated value is the book value of equipment and supplies as determined by their purchase price, less the amount their value has decreased since purchase. Remaining useful life value estimates how long the equipment can be expected to last. Market (or replacement) value is the amount it would cost on the open market to replace all equipment and supplies.

Intangible assets are more difficult to value. Many components are analyzed, including location, interior and exterior decor, accessibility to patients, age and functional status of equipment, systems in place to promote efficiency, reasons why patients come back (if in fact they do), and the overall reputation of the practice in the community. Other important factors include the “payer mix” (what percentage pays cash, how many third-party contracts are in place and how well they pay, etcetera), the extent and strength of the referral base, and the presence of supplemental income streams, such as clinical research.

It is also important to determine to what extent intangible assets are transferable. For example, unique skills with a laser, neurotoxins, or filler substances, or extraordinary personal charisma, may increase your practice’s value to you, but they are worthless to the next owner, and he or she will be unwilling to pay for them unless your services become part of the deal.

Once again there are many ways to estimate intangible asset value, and once again you should ask which were used. Cash flow analysis works on the assumption that cash flow is a measure of intangible value. Capitalization of earnings puts a value, or capitalization, on the practice’s income streams using a variety of assumptions. Guideline comparison uses various databases to compare your practice with other, similar ones that have changed hands in the past.

Two newer techniques that some consider a better estimate of intangible assets are the replacement method, which estimates the costs of starting the practice over again in the current market; and the excess earnings method, which measures how far above average your practice’s earnings (and thus its overall value) are.

Asset-based valuation is the most popular, but by no means the only method available. Income-based valuation looks at the source and strength of a practice’s income stream as a creator of value, as well as whether or not its income stream under a different owner would mirror its present one. This in turn becomes the basis for an understanding of the fair market value of both tangible and intangible assets. Market valuation combines the asset-based and income-based approaches, along with an analysis of sales and mergers of comparable practices in the community, to determine the value of a practice in its local market.

Whatever methods are used, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and independent financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation is supplied to support the conclusions reached. This is especially important if the appraisal will be relied upon in the sale or merger of the practice.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

It’s a matter of quality, not quantity. That’s the gist of a new Israeli study that shows that unvaccinated people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection create antibodies that are more effective in the long run compared with others who were vaccinated but never infected.

“While the quantity of antibodies decreases with time in both COVID-19 recovered patients and vaccinated individuals, the quality of antibody performance increases following infection but not after vaccination,” lead author Carmit Cohen, PhD, said in an interview.

This difference could explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated, according to a news release attached to the research.

One key caveat: This research does not include people from the later part of the pandemic.

This means there is a catch in terms of timing, William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study: “The study involved only the early COVID strains – it has no information on either the Delta or Omicron variants. Thus, the results primarily are of scientific or historical interest but are not immediately relevant to the current situation.”

The findings come from an early release of a study to be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in April.

An unexpected finding of the study showed that obese people had better protection – a higher and more sustained immune response – compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

A focus on earlier strains

Dr. Cohen – a senior research assistant in infectious disease prevention at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel – and her colleagues recruited participants between March 25, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 and completed analysis in April 2021. This means they assessed people with a history of infection from the original, the Alpha, and some Beta strains of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Cohen indicated that the next phase of their research will examine innate and acquired immune responses to the more recent Delta and Omicron variants.

The investigators analyzed the antibody-induced immune response up to 1 year in 130 COVID-19 recovered but unvaccinated individuals versus up to 8 months among 402 others matched by age and body mass index (BMI) and without previous infection who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The numbers of antibodies a month after vaccination were higher than those in the COVID-19 recovered patients. However, these numbers also declined more steeply in the vaccinated group, they note.

To assess the antibody performance, the investigators used the avidity index. This assay measures antibody function based on the strength of the interactions between the antibody and the viral antigen.

They found that the avidity index was higher in vaccinated individuals than in recovered patients initially but changes over time. At up to 6 months, the index did not significantly change in vaccinated individuals, whereas it gradually increased in recovered patients. This increase would potentially protect them from reinfection, the authors note.

These findings stand in stark contrast to an Oct. 29, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found that COVID-19 vaccines provided five times the protection of natural immunity.

Those results, published in the organization’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, suggest that vaccination helps people mount a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least 6 months.
 

Protection linked to obesity

Another finding that ran against the scientific grain was the data about obesity.

There was a higher and more persistent antibody performance among people with a BMI of 30 kg/m².

This could relate to greater disease severity and/or a more pronounced initial response to infection among the obese group.

“Our hypothesis is that patients with obesity begin with a more pronounced response – reflected also by the disease manifestation – and the trend of decline is similar, therefore the kinetics of immune response remain higher throughout the study,” Dr. Cohen said.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” said Dr. Schaffner, who is also the current medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

Before the boosters

Along with using participants from only the earlier part of the pandemic, another limitation of the study was that the vaccinated group had only two doses of vaccine; boosters were not given during the time of the study, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Again, not the current situation.”

“That said, the strength and duration of natural immunity provided by the early variants was solid for up to a year, confirming previous reports,” he said.

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

It’s a matter of quality, not quantity. That’s the gist of a new Israeli study that shows that unvaccinated people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection create antibodies that are more effective in the long run compared with others who were vaccinated but never infected.

“While the quantity of antibodies decreases with time in both COVID-19 recovered patients and vaccinated individuals, the quality of antibody performance increases following infection but not after vaccination,” lead author Carmit Cohen, PhD, said in an interview.

This difference could explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated, according to a news release attached to the research.

One key caveat: This research does not include people from the later part of the pandemic.

This means there is a catch in terms of timing, William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study: “The study involved only the early COVID strains – it has no information on either the Delta or Omicron variants. Thus, the results primarily are of scientific or historical interest but are not immediately relevant to the current situation.”

The findings come from an early release of a study to be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in April.

An unexpected finding of the study showed that obese people had better protection – a higher and more sustained immune response – compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

A focus on earlier strains

Dr. Cohen – a senior research assistant in infectious disease prevention at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel – and her colleagues recruited participants between March 25, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 and completed analysis in April 2021. This means they assessed people with a history of infection from the original, the Alpha, and some Beta strains of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Cohen indicated that the next phase of their research will examine innate and acquired immune responses to the more recent Delta and Omicron variants.

The investigators analyzed the antibody-induced immune response up to 1 year in 130 COVID-19 recovered but unvaccinated individuals versus up to 8 months among 402 others matched by age and body mass index (BMI) and without previous infection who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The numbers of antibodies a month after vaccination were higher than those in the COVID-19 recovered patients. However, these numbers also declined more steeply in the vaccinated group, they note.

To assess the antibody performance, the investigators used the avidity index. This assay measures antibody function based on the strength of the interactions between the antibody and the viral antigen.

They found that the avidity index was higher in vaccinated individuals than in recovered patients initially but changes over time. At up to 6 months, the index did not significantly change in vaccinated individuals, whereas it gradually increased in recovered patients. This increase would potentially protect them from reinfection, the authors note.

These findings stand in stark contrast to an Oct. 29, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found that COVID-19 vaccines provided five times the protection of natural immunity.

Those results, published in the organization’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, suggest that vaccination helps people mount a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least 6 months.
 

Protection linked to obesity

Another finding that ran against the scientific grain was the data about obesity.

There was a higher and more persistent antibody performance among people with a BMI of 30 kg/m².

This could relate to greater disease severity and/or a more pronounced initial response to infection among the obese group.

“Our hypothesis is that patients with obesity begin with a more pronounced response – reflected also by the disease manifestation – and the trend of decline is similar, therefore the kinetics of immune response remain higher throughout the study,” Dr. Cohen said.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” said Dr. Schaffner, who is also the current medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

Before the boosters

Along with using participants from only the earlier part of the pandemic, another limitation of the study was that the vaccinated group had only two doses of vaccine; boosters were not given during the time of the study, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Again, not the current situation.”

“That said, the strength and duration of natural immunity provided by the early variants was solid for up to a year, confirming previous reports,” he said.

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

It’s a matter of quality, not quantity. That’s the gist of a new Israeli study that shows that unvaccinated people with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection create antibodies that are more effective in the long run compared with others who were vaccinated but never infected.

“While the quantity of antibodies decreases with time in both COVID-19 recovered patients and vaccinated individuals, the quality of antibody performance increases following infection but not after vaccination,” lead author Carmit Cohen, PhD, said in an interview.

This difference could explain why previously infected patients appear to be better protected against a new infection than those who have only been vaccinated, according to a news release attached to the research.

One key caveat: This research does not include people from the later part of the pandemic.

This means there is a catch in terms of timing, William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said when asked to comment on the study: “The study involved only the early COVID strains – it has no information on either the Delta or Omicron variants. Thus, the results primarily are of scientific or historical interest but are not immediately relevant to the current situation.”

The findings come from an early release of a study to be presented at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases in April.

An unexpected finding of the study showed that obese people had better protection – a higher and more sustained immune response – compared with overweight and normal-weight individuals.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

A focus on earlier strains

Dr. Cohen – a senior research assistant in infectious disease prevention at the Sheba Medical Center in Ramat Gan, Israel – and her colleagues recruited participants between March 25, 2020 and Nov. 25, 2020 and completed analysis in April 2021. This means they assessed people with a history of infection from the original, the Alpha, and some Beta strains of SARS-CoV-2.

Dr. Cohen indicated that the next phase of their research will examine innate and acquired immune responses to the more recent Delta and Omicron variants.

The investigators analyzed the antibody-induced immune response up to 1 year in 130 COVID-19 recovered but unvaccinated individuals versus up to 8 months among 402 others matched by age and body mass index (BMI) and without previous infection who received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

The numbers of antibodies a month after vaccination were higher than those in the COVID-19 recovered patients. However, these numbers also declined more steeply in the vaccinated group, they note.

To assess the antibody performance, the investigators used the avidity index. This assay measures antibody function based on the strength of the interactions between the antibody and the viral antigen.

They found that the avidity index was higher in vaccinated individuals than in recovered patients initially but changes over time. At up to 6 months, the index did not significantly change in vaccinated individuals, whereas it gradually increased in recovered patients. This increase would potentially protect them from reinfection, the authors note.

These findings stand in stark contrast to an Oct. 29, 2021, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found that COVID-19 vaccines provided five times the protection of natural immunity.

Those results, published in the organization’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, suggest that vaccination helps people mount a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least 6 months.
 

Protection linked to obesity

Another finding that ran against the scientific grain was the data about obesity.

There was a higher and more persistent antibody performance among people with a BMI of 30 kg/m².

This could relate to greater disease severity and/or a more pronounced initial response to infection among the obese group.

“Our hypothesis is that patients with obesity begin with a more pronounced response – reflected also by the disease manifestation – and the trend of decline is similar, therefore the kinetics of immune response remain higher throughout the study,” Dr. Cohen said.

“The results in the obese group were indeed unexpected and need further research to confirm or dispute,” said Dr. Schaffner, who is also the current medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “Obesity does predispose to more severe disease.”
 

Before the boosters

Along with using participants from only the earlier part of the pandemic, another limitation of the study was that the vaccinated group had only two doses of vaccine; boosters were not given during the time of the study, Dr. Schaffner said.

“Again, not the current situation.”

“That said, the strength and duration of natural immunity provided by the early variants was solid for up to a year, confirming previous reports,” he said.

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