Neurology Reviews

Proposed clinical criteria for a memory loss disorder that is often misdiagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have been published.

The new criteria for limbic-predominant amnestic neurodegenerative syndrome (LANS) provide a framework for neurologists and other experts to classify the condition and offer a more precise diagnosis and potential treatments.

“In our clinical work, we see patients whose memory symptoms appear to mimic Alzheimer’s disease, but when you look at their brain imaging or biomarkers, it’s clear they don’t have Alzheimer’s. Until now, there has not been a specific medical diagnosis to point to, but now we can offer them some answers,” senior investigator David T. Jones, MD, said in a release.

The proposed criteria and the research behind it were published online in Brain Communications and will be presented at the Alzheimer›s Association International Conference in Philadelphia.
 

Already in Use

Predominant limbic degeneration has been linked to various underlying etiologies, older age, predominant impairment of episodic memory, and slow clinical progression, the investigators noted. However, they added, the neurologic syndrome associated with predominant limbic degeneration is undefined.

Developing clinical criteria and validating them “is critical to distinguish such a syndrome from those originating from neocortical degeneration, which may differ in underlying etiology, disease course, and therapeutic needs,” the investigators wrote.

The newly proposed clinical criteria apply to LANS, which is “highly associated with limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy but also other pathologic entities.”

The criteria incorporate core, standard, and advanced features including older age at evaluation, mild clinical syndrome, disproportionate hippocampal atrophy, impaired semantic memory, limbic hypometabolism, absence of endocortical degeneration, and low likelihood of neocortical tau with highest, high, moderate, and low degrees of certainty.

“A detailed history of the clinical symptoms, which may be supported by neuropsychological testing, with the observation of disproportionate hippocampal atrophy and limbic degeneration on MRI/FDG yields a high confidence in a diagnosis of LANS, where the most likely symptom-driving proteinopathy is TDP-43 and not Alzheimer’s associated proteins,” the first author, Nick Corriveau-Lecavalier, PhD, assistant professor of neurology and psychology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told this news organization.

To validate the criteria, the investigators screened autopsied patients from Mayo Clinic and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohorts and applied the criteria to those with a predominant amnestic syndrome and those who had AD neuropathologic change, limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy, or both pathologies at autopsy.

“The criteria effectively categorized these cases, with Alzheimer’s disease having the lowest likelihoods, limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy patients having the highest likelihoods, and patients with both pathologies having intermediate likelihoods,” the investigators reported.

“Patients with high likelihoods had a milder and slower clinical course and more severe temporo-limbic degeneration compared to those with low likelihoods,” they added.

Dr. Corriveau-Lecavalier said the team is currently analyzing longitudinal cognitive and imaging trajectories in LANS over several years. “This will help us better understand how LANS and Alzheimer’s differ in their sequence of symptoms over time.”

It is important to understand that memory symptoms in old age are not “unequivocally” driven by Alzheimer’s and that LANS progresses more slowly and has a better prognosis than AD, he noted.

In addition, in vivo markers of TDP-43 are “on the horizon and can hopefully make their way to human research settings soon. This will help better understand the underlying molecular etiologies causing LANS and associated symptoms,” he said.

Dr. Corriveau-Lecavalier said the LANS criteria are ready for clinical use by experts in neurologic care. These criteria can be used to inform not only diagnosis but also prognosis, where this syndrome is associated with slow and mild progression and a memory-dominant profile.

He added that “the new criteria are also routinely used in our practice to make decisions about anti-amyloid treatment eligibility.”

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, said the research “exemplifies the great need to develop objective criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s and all other types of dementia and to create an integrated biological and clinical staging scheme that can be used effectively by physicians.”

“Advances in biomarkers will help to differentiate all types of dementia when incorporated into the diagnostic workup, but until those tools are available, a more succinct clinical criteria for diagnosis can be used to support a more personalized medicine approach to treatment, care, and enrollment into clinical studies,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who wasn’t involved in the research.

The research was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health and by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Elsie & Marvin Dekelboum Family Foundation, the Liston Family Foundation, the Edson Family, the Gerald A. and Henrietta Rauenhorst Foundation, and the Foundation Dr Corinne Schuler. Dr. Corriveau-Lecavalier and Dr. Edelmayer had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Proposed clinical criteria for a memory loss disorder that is often misdiagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have been published.

The new criteria for limbic-predominant amnestic neurodegenerative syndrome (LANS) provide a framework for neurologists and other experts to classify the condition and offer a more precise diagnosis and potential treatments.

“In our clinical work, we see patients whose memory symptoms appear to mimic Alzheimer’s disease, but when you look at their brain imaging or biomarkers, it’s clear they don’t have Alzheimer’s. Until now, there has not been a specific medical diagnosis to point to, but now we can offer them some answers,” senior investigator David T. Jones, MD, said in a release.

The proposed criteria and the research behind it were published online in Brain Communications and will be presented at the Alzheimer›s Association International Conference in Philadelphia.
 

Already in Use

Predominant limbic degeneration has been linked to various underlying etiologies, older age, predominant impairment of episodic memory, and slow clinical progression, the investigators noted. However, they added, the neurologic syndrome associated with predominant limbic degeneration is undefined.

Developing clinical criteria and validating them “is critical to distinguish such a syndrome from those originating from neocortical degeneration, which may differ in underlying etiology, disease course, and therapeutic needs,” the investigators wrote.

The newly proposed clinical criteria apply to LANS, which is “highly associated with limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy but also other pathologic entities.”

The criteria incorporate core, standard, and advanced features including older age at evaluation, mild clinical syndrome, disproportionate hippocampal atrophy, impaired semantic memory, limbic hypometabolism, absence of endocortical degeneration, and low likelihood of neocortical tau with highest, high, moderate, and low degrees of certainty.

“A detailed history of the clinical symptoms, which may be supported by neuropsychological testing, with the observation of disproportionate hippocampal atrophy and limbic degeneration on MRI/FDG yields a high confidence in a diagnosis of LANS, where the most likely symptom-driving proteinopathy is TDP-43 and not Alzheimer’s associated proteins,” the first author, Nick Corriveau-Lecavalier, PhD, assistant professor of neurology and psychology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told this news organization.

To validate the criteria, the investigators screened autopsied patients from Mayo Clinic and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohorts and applied the criteria to those with a predominant amnestic syndrome and those who had AD neuropathologic change, limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy, or both pathologies at autopsy.

“The criteria effectively categorized these cases, with Alzheimer’s disease having the lowest likelihoods, limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy patients having the highest likelihoods, and patients with both pathologies having intermediate likelihoods,” the investigators reported.

“Patients with high likelihoods had a milder and slower clinical course and more severe temporo-limbic degeneration compared to those with low likelihoods,” they added.

Dr. Corriveau-Lecavalier said the team is currently analyzing longitudinal cognitive and imaging trajectories in LANS over several years. “This will help us better understand how LANS and Alzheimer’s differ in their sequence of symptoms over time.”

It is important to understand that memory symptoms in old age are not “unequivocally” driven by Alzheimer’s and that LANS progresses more slowly and has a better prognosis than AD, he noted.

In addition, in vivo markers of TDP-43 are “on the horizon and can hopefully make their way to human research settings soon. This will help better understand the underlying molecular etiologies causing LANS and associated symptoms,” he said.

Dr. Corriveau-Lecavalier said the LANS criteria are ready for clinical use by experts in neurologic care. These criteria can be used to inform not only diagnosis but also prognosis, where this syndrome is associated with slow and mild progression and a memory-dominant profile.

He added that “the new criteria are also routinely used in our practice to make decisions about anti-amyloid treatment eligibility.”

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, said the research “exemplifies the great need to develop objective criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s and all other types of dementia and to create an integrated biological and clinical staging scheme that can be used effectively by physicians.”

“Advances in biomarkers will help to differentiate all types of dementia when incorporated into the diagnostic workup, but until those tools are available, a more succinct clinical criteria for diagnosis can be used to support a more personalized medicine approach to treatment, care, and enrollment into clinical studies,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who wasn’t involved in the research.

The research was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health and by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Elsie & Marvin Dekelboum Family Foundation, the Liston Family Foundation, the Edson Family, the Gerald A. and Henrietta Rauenhorst Foundation, and the Foundation Dr Corinne Schuler. Dr. Corriveau-Lecavalier and Dr. Edelmayer had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Proposed clinical criteria for a memory loss disorder that is often misdiagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have been published.

The new criteria for limbic-predominant amnestic neurodegenerative syndrome (LANS) provide a framework for neurologists and other experts to classify the condition and offer a more precise diagnosis and potential treatments.

“In our clinical work, we see patients whose memory symptoms appear to mimic Alzheimer’s disease, but when you look at their brain imaging or biomarkers, it’s clear they don’t have Alzheimer’s. Until now, there has not been a specific medical diagnosis to point to, but now we can offer them some answers,” senior investigator David T. Jones, MD, said in a release.

The proposed criteria and the research behind it were published online in Brain Communications and will be presented at the Alzheimer›s Association International Conference in Philadelphia.
 

Already in Use

Predominant limbic degeneration has been linked to various underlying etiologies, older age, predominant impairment of episodic memory, and slow clinical progression, the investigators noted. However, they added, the neurologic syndrome associated with predominant limbic degeneration is undefined.

Developing clinical criteria and validating them “is critical to distinguish such a syndrome from those originating from neocortical degeneration, which may differ in underlying etiology, disease course, and therapeutic needs,” the investigators wrote.

The newly proposed clinical criteria apply to LANS, which is “highly associated with limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy but also other pathologic entities.”

The criteria incorporate core, standard, and advanced features including older age at evaluation, mild clinical syndrome, disproportionate hippocampal atrophy, impaired semantic memory, limbic hypometabolism, absence of endocortical degeneration, and low likelihood of neocortical tau with highest, high, moderate, and low degrees of certainty.

“A detailed history of the clinical symptoms, which may be supported by neuropsychological testing, with the observation of disproportionate hippocampal atrophy and limbic degeneration on MRI/FDG yields a high confidence in a diagnosis of LANS, where the most likely symptom-driving proteinopathy is TDP-43 and not Alzheimer’s associated proteins,” the first author, Nick Corriveau-Lecavalier, PhD, assistant professor of neurology and psychology at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told this news organization.

To validate the criteria, the investigators screened autopsied patients from Mayo Clinic and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohorts and applied the criteria to those with a predominant amnestic syndrome and those who had AD neuropathologic change, limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy, or both pathologies at autopsy.

“The criteria effectively categorized these cases, with Alzheimer’s disease having the lowest likelihoods, limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy patients having the highest likelihoods, and patients with both pathologies having intermediate likelihoods,” the investigators reported.

“Patients with high likelihoods had a milder and slower clinical course and more severe temporo-limbic degeneration compared to those with low likelihoods,” they added.

Dr. Corriveau-Lecavalier said the team is currently analyzing longitudinal cognitive and imaging trajectories in LANS over several years. “This will help us better understand how LANS and Alzheimer’s differ in their sequence of symptoms over time.”

It is important to understand that memory symptoms in old age are not “unequivocally” driven by Alzheimer’s and that LANS progresses more slowly and has a better prognosis than AD, he noted.

In addition, in vivo markers of TDP-43 are “on the horizon and can hopefully make their way to human research settings soon. This will help better understand the underlying molecular etiologies causing LANS and associated symptoms,” he said.

Dr. Corriveau-Lecavalier said the LANS criteria are ready for clinical use by experts in neurologic care. These criteria can be used to inform not only diagnosis but also prognosis, where this syndrome is associated with slow and mild progression and a memory-dominant profile.

He added that “the new criteria are also routinely used in our practice to make decisions about anti-amyloid treatment eligibility.”

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, said the research “exemplifies the great need to develop objective criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s and all other types of dementia and to create an integrated biological and clinical staging scheme that can be used effectively by physicians.”

“Advances in biomarkers will help to differentiate all types of dementia when incorporated into the diagnostic workup, but until those tools are available, a more succinct clinical criteria for diagnosis can be used to support a more personalized medicine approach to treatment, care, and enrollment into clinical studies,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who wasn’t involved in the research.

The research was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health and by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Elsie & Marvin Dekelboum Family Foundation, the Liston Family Foundation, the Edson Family, the Gerald A. and Henrietta Rauenhorst Foundation, and the Foundation Dr Corinne Schuler. Dr. Corriveau-Lecavalier and Dr. Edelmayer had no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

High blood pressure is an established risk factor for neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Long-standing evidence shows that treating hypertension can reduce its vascular consequences, but whether that is true for neurodegeneration is less clear.

Valentin Fuster, MD, president of Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City, told this news organization. “There is no question in the literature that untreated high blood pressure may lead to dementia,” he said. “The open question is whether treating blood pressure is sufficient to decrease or stop the progress of dementia.”

Studies are mixed, but recent research suggests that addressing hypertension does affect the risk for dementia. A secondary analysis of the China Rural Hypertension Control Project reported at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions in 2023 but not yet published showed that the 4-year blood pressure–lowering program in adults aged 40 or older significantly reduced the risk for all-cause dementia and cognitive impairment.

Similarly, a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial found that participants aged 50 or older who underwent intensive (< 120 mm Hg) vs standard (< 140 mm Hg) blood pressure lowering had a lower rate of probable dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

Other studies pointing to a benefit included a pooled individual participant analysis of five randomized controlled trials, which found class I evidence to support antihypertensive treatment to reduce the risk for incident dementia, and an earlier systematic review and meta-analysis of the association of blood pressure lowering with newly diagnosed dementia or cognitive impairment.
 

How It Might Work

Some possible mechanisms underlying the connection have emerged.

“Vascular disease caused by hypertension is clearly implicated in one form of dementia, called vascular cognitive impairment and dementia,” Andrew Moran, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, told this news organization. “This category includes dementia following a stroke caused by uncontrolled hypertension.” 

“At the same time, we now know that hypertension and other vascular risk factors can also contribute, along with other factors, to developing Alzheimer dementia,” he said. “Even without causing clinically evident stroke, vascular disease from hypertension can lead to subtle damage to the brain via ischemia, microhemorrhage, and atrophy.”

“It is well known that hypertension affects the vasculature, and the vasculature of the brain is not spared,” agreed Eileen Handberg, PhD, ARNP, a member of the Hypertension Workgroup at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and a professor of medicine and director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Trials Program in the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. “Combine this with other mechanisms like inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, and add amyloid accumulation, and there is a deterioration in vascular beds leading to decreased cerebral blood flow,” she said.

Treating hypertension likely helps lower dementia risk through “a combination of reduced risk of stroke and also benefits on blood flow, blood vessel health, and reduction in neurodegeneration,” suggested Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, chief clinical science officer and past president of the AHA and a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. “Midlife blood pressure elevations are associated with deposition of amyloid in the brain, so controlling blood pressure may reduce amyloid deposits and neurodegeneration.”
 

Time in Range or Treat to Target?

With respect to dementia risk, does treating hypertension to a specific target make a difference, or is it the time spent in a healthy blood pressure range? 

“Observational studies and a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial suggest that more time spent in a healthy blood pressure range or more stable blood pressure are associated with lower dementia risk,” Dr. Moran said. Citing results of the CHRC program and SPRINT MIND trial, he suggested that while a dose-response effect (the lower the blood pressure, the lower the dementia risk) hasn’t been definitively demonstrated, it is likely the case.

In his practice, Dr. Moran follows ACC/AHA guidelines and prescribes antihypertensives to get blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in individuals with hypertension who have other high-risk factors (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or high risk for these conditions). “The treatment rule for people with hypertension without these other risk factors is less clear — lowering blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg is a must; I will discuss with patients whether to go lower than that.”

“The relative contributions of time in range versus treating to a target for blood pressure require further study,” said Dr. Elkind. “It is likely that the cumulative effect of blood pressure over time has a big role to play — and it does seem clear that midlife blood pressure is even more important than blood pressure late in life.”

That said, he added, “In general and all things being equal, I would treat to a blood pressure of < 120/80 mmHg,” given the SPRINT trial findings of greater benefits when treating to this systolic blood pressure goal. “Of course, if patients have side effects such as lightheadedness or dizziness or other medical conditions that require a higher target, then one would need to adjust the treatment targets.”

According to Dr. Fuster, targets should not be the focus because they vary. For example, the ACC/AHA guidelines use < 130/80 mm Hg, whereas the European Society of Hypertension guidelines and those of the American Academy of Family Physicians specify < 140/90 mm Hg and include age-based criteria. Because there are no studies comparing the outcomes of one set of guidelines vs another, Dr. Fuster thinks the focus should be on starting treatment as early as possible to prevent hypertension leading to dementia.

He pointed to the ongoing PESA trial, which uses brain MRI and other tests to characterize longitudinal associations among cerebral glucose metabolism, subclinical atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular risk factors in asymptomatic individuals aged 40-54. Most did not have hypertension at baseline.

A recently published analysis of a subcohort of 370 PESA participants found that those with persistent high cardiovascular risk and subclinical carotid atherosclerosis already had signs of brain metabolic decline, “suggesting that maintenance of cardiovascular health during midlife could contribute to reductions in neurodegenerative disease burden later in life,” wrote the investigators.
 

Is It Ever Too Late?

If starting hypertension treatment in midlife can help reduce the risk for cognitive impairment later, can treating later in life also help? “It’s theoretically possible, but it has to be proven,” Dr. Fuster said. “There are no data on whether there’s less chance to prevent the development of dementia if you start treating hypertension at age 70, for example. And we have no idea whether hypertension treatment will prevent progression in those who already have dementia.”

“Treating high blood pressure in older adults could affect the course of further progressive cognitive decline by improving vascular health and preventing strokes, which likely exacerbate nonvascular dementia,” Dr. Elkind suggested. “Most people with dementia have a combination of vascular and nonvascular dementia, so treating reversible causes wherever possible makes a difference.”

Dr. Elkind treats older patients with this in mind, he said, “even though most of the evidence points to the fact that it is blood pressure in middle age, not older age, that seems to have the biggest impact on later-life cognitive decline and dementia.” Like Dr. Fuster, he said, “the best strategy is to identify and treat blood pressure in midlife, before damage to the brain has advanced.”

Dr. Moran noted, “The latest science on dementia causes suggests it is difficult to draw a border between vascular and nonvascular dementia. So, as a practical matter, healthcare providers should consider that hypertension treatment is one of the best ways to prevent any category of dementia. This dementia prevention is added to the well-known benefits of hypertension treatment to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and kidney disease: ‘Healthy heart, healthy brain.’ ”

“Our BP [blood pressure] control rates overall are still abysmal,” Dr. Handberg added. Currently around one in four US adults with hypertension have it under control. Studies have shown that blood pressure control rates of 70%-80% are achievable, she said. “We can’t let patient or provider inertia continue.”

Dr. Handberg, Dr. Elkind, Dr. Moran, and Dr. Fuster declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

High blood pressure is an established risk factor for neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Long-standing evidence shows that treating hypertension can reduce its vascular consequences, but whether that is true for neurodegeneration is less clear.

Valentin Fuster, MD, president of Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City, told this news organization. “There is no question in the literature that untreated high blood pressure may lead to dementia,” he said. “The open question is whether treating blood pressure is sufficient to decrease or stop the progress of dementia.”

Studies are mixed, but recent research suggests that addressing hypertension does affect the risk for dementia. A secondary analysis of the China Rural Hypertension Control Project reported at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions in 2023 but not yet published showed that the 4-year blood pressure–lowering program in adults aged 40 or older significantly reduced the risk for all-cause dementia and cognitive impairment.

Similarly, a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial found that participants aged 50 or older who underwent intensive (< 120 mm Hg) vs standard (< 140 mm Hg) blood pressure lowering had a lower rate of probable dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

Other studies pointing to a benefit included a pooled individual participant analysis of five randomized controlled trials, which found class I evidence to support antihypertensive treatment to reduce the risk for incident dementia, and an earlier systematic review and meta-analysis of the association of blood pressure lowering with newly diagnosed dementia or cognitive impairment.
 

How It Might Work

Some possible mechanisms underlying the connection have emerged.

“Vascular disease caused by hypertension is clearly implicated in one form of dementia, called vascular cognitive impairment and dementia,” Andrew Moran, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, told this news organization. “This category includes dementia following a stroke caused by uncontrolled hypertension.” 

“At the same time, we now know that hypertension and other vascular risk factors can also contribute, along with other factors, to developing Alzheimer dementia,” he said. “Even without causing clinically evident stroke, vascular disease from hypertension can lead to subtle damage to the brain via ischemia, microhemorrhage, and atrophy.”

“It is well known that hypertension affects the vasculature, and the vasculature of the brain is not spared,” agreed Eileen Handberg, PhD, ARNP, a member of the Hypertension Workgroup at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and a professor of medicine and director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Trials Program in the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. “Combine this with other mechanisms like inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, and add amyloid accumulation, and there is a deterioration in vascular beds leading to decreased cerebral blood flow,” she said.

Treating hypertension likely helps lower dementia risk through “a combination of reduced risk of stroke and also benefits on blood flow, blood vessel health, and reduction in neurodegeneration,” suggested Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, chief clinical science officer and past president of the AHA and a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. “Midlife blood pressure elevations are associated with deposition of amyloid in the brain, so controlling blood pressure may reduce amyloid deposits and neurodegeneration.”
 

Time in Range or Treat to Target?

With respect to dementia risk, does treating hypertension to a specific target make a difference, or is it the time spent in a healthy blood pressure range? 

“Observational studies and a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial suggest that more time spent in a healthy blood pressure range or more stable blood pressure are associated with lower dementia risk,” Dr. Moran said. Citing results of the CHRC program and SPRINT MIND trial, he suggested that while a dose-response effect (the lower the blood pressure, the lower the dementia risk) hasn’t been definitively demonstrated, it is likely the case.

In his practice, Dr. Moran follows ACC/AHA guidelines and prescribes antihypertensives to get blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in individuals with hypertension who have other high-risk factors (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or high risk for these conditions). “The treatment rule for people with hypertension without these other risk factors is less clear — lowering blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg is a must; I will discuss with patients whether to go lower than that.”

“The relative contributions of time in range versus treating to a target for blood pressure require further study,” said Dr. Elkind. “It is likely that the cumulative effect of blood pressure over time has a big role to play — and it does seem clear that midlife blood pressure is even more important than blood pressure late in life.”

That said, he added, “In general and all things being equal, I would treat to a blood pressure of < 120/80 mmHg,” given the SPRINT trial findings of greater benefits when treating to this systolic blood pressure goal. “Of course, if patients have side effects such as lightheadedness or dizziness or other medical conditions that require a higher target, then one would need to adjust the treatment targets.”

According to Dr. Fuster, targets should not be the focus because they vary. For example, the ACC/AHA guidelines use < 130/80 mm Hg, whereas the European Society of Hypertension guidelines and those of the American Academy of Family Physicians specify < 140/90 mm Hg and include age-based criteria. Because there are no studies comparing the outcomes of one set of guidelines vs another, Dr. Fuster thinks the focus should be on starting treatment as early as possible to prevent hypertension leading to dementia.

He pointed to the ongoing PESA trial, which uses brain MRI and other tests to characterize longitudinal associations among cerebral glucose metabolism, subclinical atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular risk factors in asymptomatic individuals aged 40-54. Most did not have hypertension at baseline.

A recently published analysis of a subcohort of 370 PESA participants found that those with persistent high cardiovascular risk and subclinical carotid atherosclerosis already had signs of brain metabolic decline, “suggesting that maintenance of cardiovascular health during midlife could contribute to reductions in neurodegenerative disease burden later in life,” wrote the investigators.
 

Is It Ever Too Late?

If starting hypertension treatment in midlife can help reduce the risk for cognitive impairment later, can treating later in life also help? “It’s theoretically possible, but it has to be proven,” Dr. Fuster said. “There are no data on whether there’s less chance to prevent the development of dementia if you start treating hypertension at age 70, for example. And we have no idea whether hypertension treatment will prevent progression in those who already have dementia.”

“Treating high blood pressure in older adults could affect the course of further progressive cognitive decline by improving vascular health and preventing strokes, which likely exacerbate nonvascular dementia,” Dr. Elkind suggested. “Most people with dementia have a combination of vascular and nonvascular dementia, so treating reversible causes wherever possible makes a difference.”

Dr. Elkind treats older patients with this in mind, he said, “even though most of the evidence points to the fact that it is blood pressure in middle age, not older age, that seems to have the biggest impact on later-life cognitive decline and dementia.” Like Dr. Fuster, he said, “the best strategy is to identify and treat blood pressure in midlife, before damage to the brain has advanced.”

Dr. Moran noted, “The latest science on dementia causes suggests it is difficult to draw a border between vascular and nonvascular dementia. So, as a practical matter, healthcare providers should consider that hypertension treatment is one of the best ways to prevent any category of dementia. This dementia prevention is added to the well-known benefits of hypertension treatment to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and kidney disease: ‘Healthy heart, healthy brain.’ ”

“Our BP [blood pressure] control rates overall are still abysmal,” Dr. Handberg added. Currently around one in four US adults with hypertension have it under control. Studies have shown that blood pressure control rates of 70%-80% are achievable, she said. “We can’t let patient or provider inertia continue.”

Dr. Handberg, Dr. Elkind, Dr. Moran, and Dr. Fuster declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

High blood pressure is an established risk factor for neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Long-standing evidence shows that treating hypertension can reduce its vascular consequences, but whether that is true for neurodegeneration is less clear.

Valentin Fuster, MD, president of Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City, told this news organization. “There is no question in the literature that untreated high blood pressure may lead to dementia,” he said. “The open question is whether treating blood pressure is sufficient to decrease or stop the progress of dementia.”

Studies are mixed, but recent research suggests that addressing hypertension does affect the risk for dementia. A secondary analysis of the China Rural Hypertension Control Project reported at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions in 2023 but not yet published showed that the 4-year blood pressure–lowering program in adults aged 40 or older significantly reduced the risk for all-cause dementia and cognitive impairment.

Similarly, a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial found that participants aged 50 or older who underwent intensive (< 120 mm Hg) vs standard (< 140 mm Hg) blood pressure lowering had a lower rate of probable dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

Other studies pointing to a benefit included a pooled individual participant analysis of five randomized controlled trials, which found class I evidence to support antihypertensive treatment to reduce the risk for incident dementia, and an earlier systematic review and meta-analysis of the association of blood pressure lowering with newly diagnosed dementia or cognitive impairment.
 

How It Might Work

Some possible mechanisms underlying the connection have emerged.

“Vascular disease caused by hypertension is clearly implicated in one form of dementia, called vascular cognitive impairment and dementia,” Andrew Moran, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, told this news organization. “This category includes dementia following a stroke caused by uncontrolled hypertension.” 

“At the same time, we now know that hypertension and other vascular risk factors can also contribute, along with other factors, to developing Alzheimer dementia,” he said. “Even without causing clinically evident stroke, vascular disease from hypertension can lead to subtle damage to the brain via ischemia, microhemorrhage, and atrophy.”

“It is well known that hypertension affects the vasculature, and the vasculature of the brain is not spared,” agreed Eileen Handberg, PhD, ARNP, a member of the Hypertension Workgroup at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and a professor of medicine and director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Trials Program in the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. “Combine this with other mechanisms like inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, and add amyloid accumulation, and there is a deterioration in vascular beds leading to decreased cerebral blood flow,” she said.

Treating hypertension likely helps lower dementia risk through “a combination of reduced risk of stroke and also benefits on blood flow, blood vessel health, and reduction in neurodegeneration,” suggested Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, chief clinical science officer and past president of the AHA and a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. “Midlife blood pressure elevations are associated with deposition of amyloid in the brain, so controlling blood pressure may reduce amyloid deposits and neurodegeneration.”
 

Time in Range or Treat to Target?

With respect to dementia risk, does treating hypertension to a specific target make a difference, or is it the time spent in a healthy blood pressure range? 

“Observational studies and a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial suggest that more time spent in a healthy blood pressure range or more stable blood pressure are associated with lower dementia risk,” Dr. Moran said. Citing results of the CHRC program and SPRINT MIND trial, he suggested that while a dose-response effect (the lower the blood pressure, the lower the dementia risk) hasn’t been definitively demonstrated, it is likely the case.

In his practice, Dr. Moran follows ACC/AHA guidelines and prescribes antihypertensives to get blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in individuals with hypertension who have other high-risk factors (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or high risk for these conditions). “The treatment rule for people with hypertension without these other risk factors is less clear — lowering blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg is a must; I will discuss with patients whether to go lower than that.”

“The relative contributions of time in range versus treating to a target for blood pressure require further study,” said Dr. Elkind. “It is likely that the cumulative effect of blood pressure over time has a big role to play — and it does seem clear that midlife blood pressure is even more important than blood pressure late in life.”

That said, he added, “In general and all things being equal, I would treat to a blood pressure of < 120/80 mmHg,” given the SPRINT trial findings of greater benefits when treating to this systolic blood pressure goal. “Of course, if patients have side effects such as lightheadedness or dizziness or other medical conditions that require a higher target, then one would need to adjust the treatment targets.”

According to Dr. Fuster, targets should not be the focus because they vary. For example, the ACC/AHA guidelines use < 130/80 mm Hg, whereas the European Society of Hypertension guidelines and those of the American Academy of Family Physicians specify < 140/90 mm Hg and include age-based criteria. Because there are no studies comparing the outcomes of one set of guidelines vs another, Dr. Fuster thinks the focus should be on starting treatment as early as possible to prevent hypertension leading to dementia.

He pointed to the ongoing PESA trial, which uses brain MRI and other tests to characterize longitudinal associations among cerebral glucose metabolism, subclinical atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular risk factors in asymptomatic individuals aged 40-54. Most did not have hypertension at baseline.

A recently published analysis of a subcohort of 370 PESA participants found that those with persistent high cardiovascular risk and subclinical carotid atherosclerosis already had signs of brain metabolic decline, “suggesting that maintenance of cardiovascular health during midlife could contribute to reductions in neurodegenerative disease burden later in life,” wrote the investigators.
 

Is It Ever Too Late?

If starting hypertension treatment in midlife can help reduce the risk for cognitive impairment later, can treating later in life also help? “It’s theoretically possible, but it has to be proven,” Dr. Fuster said. “There are no data on whether there’s less chance to prevent the development of dementia if you start treating hypertension at age 70, for example. And we have no idea whether hypertension treatment will prevent progression in those who already have dementia.”

“Treating high blood pressure in older adults could affect the course of further progressive cognitive decline by improving vascular health and preventing strokes, which likely exacerbate nonvascular dementia,” Dr. Elkind suggested. “Most people with dementia have a combination of vascular and nonvascular dementia, so treating reversible causes wherever possible makes a difference.”

Dr. Elkind treats older patients with this in mind, he said, “even though most of the evidence points to the fact that it is blood pressure in middle age, not older age, that seems to have the biggest impact on later-life cognitive decline and dementia.” Like Dr. Fuster, he said, “the best strategy is to identify and treat blood pressure in midlife, before damage to the brain has advanced.”

Dr. Moran noted, “The latest science on dementia causes suggests it is difficult to draw a border between vascular and nonvascular dementia. So, as a practical matter, healthcare providers should consider that hypertension treatment is one of the best ways to prevent any category of dementia. This dementia prevention is added to the well-known benefits of hypertension treatment to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and kidney disease: ‘Healthy heart, healthy brain.’ ”

“Our BP [blood pressure] control rates overall are still abysmal,” Dr. Handberg added. Currently around one in four US adults with hypertension have it under control. Studies have shown that blood pressure control rates of 70%-80% are achievable, she said. “We can’t let patient or provider inertia continue.”

Dr. Handberg, Dr. Elkind, Dr. Moran, and Dr. Fuster declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I have an interesting topic for you — kind of shocking, actually. Some of you may have read a story earlier this year in The New York Times about the alarming rise among young people of choking or strangulation during sex. I spoke recently with Dr. Debby Herbenick about this concerning and violent trend. Dr. Herbenick is a well-known sexuality researcher and professor at the Indiana University School of Public Health. Welcome, Dr. Herbenick. Can you tell us about your research into this new trend?

Debby Herbenick, PhD: This is some of the most important research that I’ve done. I’ve been studying sexual behaviors and trends for about 14 years in terms of nationally representative studies that we do. Over time, we noticed a trend of increasing prevalence of rough sex practices. 

Now, there’s always been a lot of sexual diversity in the world throughout history. But the main trend that we have focused on in recent years that is important for everyone in medicine to know about is this rapid increase — actually, a really big increase — in what people call “sexual choking,” even though it’s a form of strangulation. The increase is mostly seen in teenagers and young adults. 

We’ve done US nationally representative surveys as well as college campus representative surveys. We find that consistently across four campus representative surveys that 64% of women report having ever been choked during sex, and around 1 in 3 women (aged 18-24 years) throughout the whole country report having been choked during their most recent sexual activity with another person. They call it choking, but because it involves usually one hand — sometimes two hands or a forearm or an object, like a belt or a cord to tie around the neck — it is technically strangulation, because it’s external pressure to the neck to reduce or stop airflow or blood flow. 

Dr. Rubin: These numbers are staggering, right? Everyone listening now is taking care of someone who has been strangled as a form of sexual pleasure. What does this mean from a safety perspective? And as doctors who are working these patients up for migraines and other health problems, what is the research showing? 

Dr. Herbenick: We certainly are seeing people report recurrent headaches and ringing in the ears. There are things we’ve just barely scratched the surface on. Those of us working in this space believe that for anybody coming in for an unexplained stroke (for example, under age 50), you might consider some imaging to see if they have a dissection. We are hearing about people who, when you really probe to find out whether they’ve had pressure on the neck, they report that indeed that they have. So, we have to be thinking about neurologic symptoms. We know that they’re experiencing these at a pretty high rate. 

For people who are engaging in these practices, they should know about the health risks, but we find that most don’t. They may have heard that if it’s really intense high pressure, that in rare cases people can die, but most have never heard of anything in between. So, they’re not necessarily connecting their voice hoarseness, or the recurrent headaches or the sensitivity to light they are having, to an experience of being choked. We need to be paying attention to neurologic symptoms. 

Most physicians I speak with at conferences say that where they feel like they can step into this conversation is through anticipatory guidance and letting their patients know that they may have heard about this trend, and a lot of people are talking about the health consequences, and I want to share some information with you — not coming at it from a place of shame or judgment, but providing some information so that [patients] actually get some medical facts about this that could be lifesaving. 

Dr. Rubin: I see such a big gap in my medical training. I was taught to say, “Hey, do you smoke, do you drink, do you do drugs? Do you have sex? Men, women, or both?”And that’s it. And then maybe use birth control, and don’t get an STD, thinking about herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia. We weren’t really trained to talk to patients about what kind of sex they are having, or how to talk to patients in a way that is open-minded but also safety-conscious and how the concept of safe sex is more than wear a condom and use birth control.

This idea of rough sex practices and how to talk to teenagers — maybe our pediatricians should be talking about this. Where do we start in terms of how to bring up these conversations and with what level of detail? 

Dr. Herbenick: We find that some young people are already being asked about some of the effects that might be showing on their bodies. It might be that their provider notices some bruising, or marks on their bodies from other types of rough sex practices like hitting and spanking. So that could be an entry point there. Choking is far more prevalent than slapping, so if you’re seeing some marks on the body, then it’s also a good time to ask about other practices they might be engaging in, especially higher risk ones like choking or strangulation. It’s offering some information and even saying, “Look, I’m not here to shame or judge you. I just want you to have some information about this” and giving them an opportunity to ask questions, too. 

We have found that almost nobody talks with their nurse or doctor, even if they have symptoms after being choked or strangled during sex. Just 1% of women with choking-related symptoms, 7% of men, and far fewer trans and nonbinary young people report talking with a nurse or doctor, mostly because they say it doesn’t seem like a big deal. The symptoms got better quickly. Sometimes they’re afraid of being shamed for their sexual behavior, and that’s why they say they don’t talk with somebody. 

They need some type of open-door anticipatory guidance as a way forward. Not everyone is comfortable directly asking whether a patient is engaging in this, but at least letting people know that you’ve heard of this behavior and providing some medical facts can give us a step forward with creating these conversations. 

Dr. Rubin: Can you tell us where is this research going in terms of next steps? Other things that you’re looking at? And what are you excited about? 

Dr. Herbenick: I’m excited about some work I did with a collaborator and colleague of mine, Dr. Keisuke Kawata, that he led a couple of years ago. He’s a neuroscientist. We were looking at potential cumulative effects on the brain. Now we’re taking some of that research into its next steps. We’re also doing more focused studies on other health consequences and hopefully finding out how we can test different educational messages and get people to learn more fact-based information about this, and then see if that is effective in prevention. 

Dr. Rubin: It sounds like a public health campaign is really needed about how to get the word out there about the health consequences of these activities. We’re asking people often enough. In my clinic, I try to keep it open-ended — tell me what sex looks like. What does it look like, and what do you want it to look like? Because I see a lot of people with problems, but if they don’t bring it to me, I don’t necessarily bring it up to them. Until I heard your lecture, and I thought, oh my gosh, I’m not even asking the right questions. Are you hopeful that there will be more public health messaging out there? 

Dr. Herbenick: I am. Years ago, when the child and adolescent choking game became a thing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued reports about it and warnings to parents. And this is a far, far higher prevalence than that ever was. So, I would love to see organizations like the CDC and medical groups getting involved and educating their members and making statements. This is really impacting a huge generation of girls and women, because when it happens during sex between women and men, the choking is mostly happening to the girls and women. It’s also prevalent among sexual minority individuals. But we are talking about this whole generation of young women and what’s happening to their bodies and their brain health. We really need to step into this conversation. 

Dr. Rubin: Very few of us are sexual medicine–trained physicians, and very few of us feel confident and comfortable talking about sexual health issues. But people are getting hurt. People are having real consequences of these behaviors because of our lack of education, knowledge, and even discussion around it. So thank you for doing this research, because had you not done this research, we wouldn’t have found out that 64% of people are engaging in these types of activities. That is not rare.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, Department of Urology, at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I have an interesting topic for you — kind of shocking, actually. Some of you may have read a story earlier this year in The New York Times about the alarming rise among young people of choking or strangulation during sex. I spoke recently with Dr. Debby Herbenick about this concerning and violent trend. Dr. Herbenick is a well-known sexuality researcher and professor at the Indiana University School of Public Health. Welcome, Dr. Herbenick. Can you tell us about your research into this new trend?

Debby Herbenick, PhD: This is some of the most important research that I’ve done. I’ve been studying sexual behaviors and trends for about 14 years in terms of nationally representative studies that we do. Over time, we noticed a trend of increasing prevalence of rough sex practices. 

Now, there’s always been a lot of sexual diversity in the world throughout history. But the main trend that we have focused on in recent years that is important for everyone in medicine to know about is this rapid increase — actually, a really big increase — in what people call “sexual choking,” even though it’s a form of strangulation. The increase is mostly seen in teenagers and young adults. 

We’ve done US nationally representative surveys as well as college campus representative surveys. We find that consistently across four campus representative surveys that 64% of women report having ever been choked during sex, and around 1 in 3 women (aged 18-24 years) throughout the whole country report having been choked during their most recent sexual activity with another person. They call it choking, but because it involves usually one hand — sometimes two hands or a forearm or an object, like a belt or a cord to tie around the neck — it is technically strangulation, because it’s external pressure to the neck to reduce or stop airflow or blood flow. 

Dr. Rubin: These numbers are staggering, right? Everyone listening now is taking care of someone who has been strangled as a form of sexual pleasure. What does this mean from a safety perspective? And as doctors who are working these patients up for migraines and other health problems, what is the research showing? 

Dr. Herbenick: We certainly are seeing people report recurrent headaches and ringing in the ears. There are things we’ve just barely scratched the surface on. Those of us working in this space believe that for anybody coming in for an unexplained stroke (for example, under age 50), you might consider some imaging to see if they have a dissection. We are hearing about people who, when you really probe to find out whether they’ve had pressure on the neck, they report that indeed that they have. So, we have to be thinking about neurologic symptoms. We know that they’re experiencing these at a pretty high rate. 

For people who are engaging in these practices, they should know about the health risks, but we find that most don’t. They may have heard that if it’s really intense high pressure, that in rare cases people can die, but most have never heard of anything in between. So, they’re not necessarily connecting their voice hoarseness, or the recurrent headaches or the sensitivity to light they are having, to an experience of being choked. We need to be paying attention to neurologic symptoms. 

Most physicians I speak with at conferences say that where they feel like they can step into this conversation is through anticipatory guidance and letting their patients know that they may have heard about this trend, and a lot of people are talking about the health consequences, and I want to share some information with you — not coming at it from a place of shame or judgment, but providing some information so that [patients] actually get some medical facts about this that could be lifesaving. 

Dr. Rubin: I see such a big gap in my medical training. I was taught to say, “Hey, do you smoke, do you drink, do you do drugs? Do you have sex? Men, women, or both?”And that’s it. And then maybe use birth control, and don’t get an STD, thinking about herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia. We weren’t really trained to talk to patients about what kind of sex they are having, or how to talk to patients in a way that is open-minded but also safety-conscious and how the concept of safe sex is more than wear a condom and use birth control.

This idea of rough sex practices and how to talk to teenagers — maybe our pediatricians should be talking about this. Where do we start in terms of how to bring up these conversations and with what level of detail? 

Dr. Herbenick: We find that some young people are already being asked about some of the effects that might be showing on their bodies. It might be that their provider notices some bruising, or marks on their bodies from other types of rough sex practices like hitting and spanking. So that could be an entry point there. Choking is far more prevalent than slapping, so if you’re seeing some marks on the body, then it’s also a good time to ask about other practices they might be engaging in, especially higher risk ones like choking or strangulation. It’s offering some information and even saying, “Look, I’m not here to shame or judge you. I just want you to have some information about this” and giving them an opportunity to ask questions, too. 

We have found that almost nobody talks with their nurse or doctor, even if they have symptoms after being choked or strangled during sex. Just 1% of women with choking-related symptoms, 7% of men, and far fewer trans and nonbinary young people report talking with a nurse or doctor, mostly because they say it doesn’t seem like a big deal. The symptoms got better quickly. Sometimes they’re afraid of being shamed for their sexual behavior, and that’s why they say they don’t talk with somebody. 

They need some type of open-door anticipatory guidance as a way forward. Not everyone is comfortable directly asking whether a patient is engaging in this, but at least letting people know that you’ve heard of this behavior and providing some medical facts can give us a step forward with creating these conversations. 

Dr. Rubin: Can you tell us where is this research going in terms of next steps? Other things that you’re looking at? And what are you excited about? 

Dr. Herbenick: I’m excited about some work I did with a collaborator and colleague of mine, Dr. Keisuke Kawata, that he led a couple of years ago. He’s a neuroscientist. We were looking at potential cumulative effects on the brain. Now we’re taking some of that research into its next steps. We’re also doing more focused studies on other health consequences and hopefully finding out how we can test different educational messages and get people to learn more fact-based information about this, and then see if that is effective in prevention. 

Dr. Rubin: It sounds like a public health campaign is really needed about how to get the word out there about the health consequences of these activities. We’re asking people often enough. In my clinic, I try to keep it open-ended — tell me what sex looks like. What does it look like, and what do you want it to look like? Because I see a lot of people with problems, but if they don’t bring it to me, I don’t necessarily bring it up to them. Until I heard your lecture, and I thought, oh my gosh, I’m not even asking the right questions. Are you hopeful that there will be more public health messaging out there? 

Dr. Herbenick: I am. Years ago, when the child and adolescent choking game became a thing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued reports about it and warnings to parents. And this is a far, far higher prevalence than that ever was. So, I would love to see organizations like the CDC and medical groups getting involved and educating their members and making statements. This is really impacting a huge generation of girls and women, because when it happens during sex between women and men, the choking is mostly happening to the girls and women. It’s also prevalent among sexual minority individuals. But we are talking about this whole generation of young women and what’s happening to their bodies and their brain health. We really need to step into this conversation. 

Dr. Rubin: Very few of us are sexual medicine–trained physicians, and very few of us feel confident and comfortable talking about sexual health issues. But people are getting hurt. People are having real consequences of these behaviors because of our lack of education, knowledge, and even discussion around it. So thank you for doing this research, because had you not done this research, we wouldn’t have found out that 64% of people are engaging in these types of activities. That is not rare.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, Department of Urology, at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I have an interesting topic for you — kind of shocking, actually. Some of you may have read a story earlier this year in The New York Times about the alarming rise among young people of choking or strangulation during sex. I spoke recently with Dr. Debby Herbenick about this concerning and violent trend. Dr. Herbenick is a well-known sexuality researcher and professor at the Indiana University School of Public Health. Welcome, Dr. Herbenick. Can you tell us about your research into this new trend?

Debby Herbenick, PhD: This is some of the most important research that I’ve done. I’ve been studying sexual behaviors and trends for about 14 years in terms of nationally representative studies that we do. Over time, we noticed a trend of increasing prevalence of rough sex practices. 

Now, there’s always been a lot of sexual diversity in the world throughout history. But the main trend that we have focused on in recent years that is important for everyone in medicine to know about is this rapid increase — actually, a really big increase — in what people call “sexual choking,” even though it’s a form of strangulation. The increase is mostly seen in teenagers and young adults. 

We’ve done US nationally representative surveys as well as college campus representative surveys. We find that consistently across four campus representative surveys that 64% of women report having ever been choked during sex, and around 1 in 3 women (aged 18-24 years) throughout the whole country report having been choked during their most recent sexual activity with another person. They call it choking, but because it involves usually one hand — sometimes two hands or a forearm or an object, like a belt or a cord to tie around the neck — it is technically strangulation, because it’s external pressure to the neck to reduce or stop airflow or blood flow. 

Dr. Rubin: These numbers are staggering, right? Everyone listening now is taking care of someone who has been strangled as a form of sexual pleasure. What does this mean from a safety perspective? And as doctors who are working these patients up for migraines and other health problems, what is the research showing? 

Dr. Herbenick: We certainly are seeing people report recurrent headaches and ringing in the ears. There are things we’ve just barely scratched the surface on. Those of us working in this space believe that for anybody coming in for an unexplained stroke (for example, under age 50), you might consider some imaging to see if they have a dissection. We are hearing about people who, when you really probe to find out whether they’ve had pressure on the neck, they report that indeed that they have. So, we have to be thinking about neurologic symptoms. We know that they’re experiencing these at a pretty high rate. 

For people who are engaging in these practices, they should know about the health risks, but we find that most don’t. They may have heard that if it’s really intense high pressure, that in rare cases people can die, but most have never heard of anything in between. So, they’re not necessarily connecting their voice hoarseness, or the recurrent headaches or the sensitivity to light they are having, to an experience of being choked. We need to be paying attention to neurologic symptoms. 

Most physicians I speak with at conferences say that where they feel like they can step into this conversation is through anticipatory guidance and letting their patients know that they may have heard about this trend, and a lot of people are talking about the health consequences, and I want to share some information with you — not coming at it from a place of shame or judgment, but providing some information so that [patients] actually get some medical facts about this that could be lifesaving. 

Dr. Rubin: I see such a big gap in my medical training. I was taught to say, “Hey, do you smoke, do you drink, do you do drugs? Do you have sex? Men, women, or both?”And that’s it. And then maybe use birth control, and don’t get an STD, thinking about herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia. We weren’t really trained to talk to patients about what kind of sex they are having, or how to talk to patients in a way that is open-minded but also safety-conscious and how the concept of safe sex is more than wear a condom and use birth control.

This idea of rough sex practices and how to talk to teenagers — maybe our pediatricians should be talking about this. Where do we start in terms of how to bring up these conversations and with what level of detail? 

Dr. Herbenick: We find that some young people are already being asked about some of the effects that might be showing on their bodies. It might be that their provider notices some bruising, or marks on their bodies from other types of rough sex practices like hitting and spanking. So that could be an entry point there. Choking is far more prevalent than slapping, so if you’re seeing some marks on the body, then it’s also a good time to ask about other practices they might be engaging in, especially higher risk ones like choking or strangulation. It’s offering some information and even saying, “Look, I’m not here to shame or judge you. I just want you to have some information about this” and giving them an opportunity to ask questions, too. 

We have found that almost nobody talks with their nurse or doctor, even if they have symptoms after being choked or strangled during sex. Just 1% of women with choking-related symptoms, 7% of men, and far fewer trans and nonbinary young people report talking with a nurse or doctor, mostly because they say it doesn’t seem like a big deal. The symptoms got better quickly. Sometimes they’re afraid of being shamed for their sexual behavior, and that’s why they say they don’t talk with somebody. 

They need some type of open-door anticipatory guidance as a way forward. Not everyone is comfortable directly asking whether a patient is engaging in this, but at least letting people know that you’ve heard of this behavior and providing some medical facts can give us a step forward with creating these conversations. 

Dr. Rubin: Can you tell us where is this research going in terms of next steps? Other things that you’re looking at? And what are you excited about? 

Dr. Herbenick: I’m excited about some work I did with a collaborator and colleague of mine, Dr. Keisuke Kawata, that he led a couple of years ago. He’s a neuroscientist. We were looking at potential cumulative effects on the brain. Now we’re taking some of that research into its next steps. We’re also doing more focused studies on other health consequences and hopefully finding out how we can test different educational messages and get people to learn more fact-based information about this, and then see if that is effective in prevention. 

Dr. Rubin: It sounds like a public health campaign is really needed about how to get the word out there about the health consequences of these activities. We’re asking people often enough. In my clinic, I try to keep it open-ended — tell me what sex looks like. What does it look like, and what do you want it to look like? Because I see a lot of people with problems, but if they don’t bring it to me, I don’t necessarily bring it up to them. Until I heard your lecture, and I thought, oh my gosh, I’m not even asking the right questions. Are you hopeful that there will be more public health messaging out there? 

Dr. Herbenick: I am. Years ago, when the child and adolescent choking game became a thing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued reports about it and warnings to parents. And this is a far, far higher prevalence than that ever was. So, I would love to see organizations like the CDC and medical groups getting involved and educating their members and making statements. This is really impacting a huge generation of girls and women, because when it happens during sex between women and men, the choking is mostly happening to the girls and women. It’s also prevalent among sexual minority individuals. But we are talking about this whole generation of young women and what’s happening to their bodies and their brain health. We really need to step into this conversation. 

Dr. Rubin: Very few of us are sexual medicine–trained physicians, and very few of us feel confident and comfortable talking about sexual health issues. But people are getting hurt. People are having real consequences of these behaviors because of our lack of education, knowledge, and even discussion around it. So thank you for doing this research, because had you not done this research, we wouldn’t have found out that 64% of people are engaging in these types of activities. That is not rare.

Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor, Department of Urology, at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

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

The oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist atogepant is effective in preventing rebound headache related to medication overuse in patients with chronic migraine (CM), new research suggested.

Results of a subgroup analysis of a phase 3, 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showed up to a 62% reduction in the proportion of atogepant-treated participants who met acute medication overuse criteria.

“Based on our findings, treatment with atogepant may potentially decrease the risk of developing rebound headache by reducing the use of pain medications,” principal investigator Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD, of King’s College London, London, England, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Effective Prevention Needed

Acute treatments for migraine can mitigate symptoms and reduce disability but can also be ineffective and even result in increased dosing and overuse of these medications, the investigators noted.

Acute medication overuse is defined as “taking simple analgesics for ≥ 15 days per month or taking triptans, ergots, opioids, or combinations of medications for ≥ 10 days per month.”

“There is a high prevalence of pain medication overuse among people with migraine as they try to manage what are often debilitating symptoms,” Dr. Goadsby said. “However, medication overuse can lead to more headaches, called rebound headaches, so more effective preventive treatments are needed.”

Atogepant was developed for migraine prevention in adults. It had been studied in the phase 3 PROGRESS trial, which showed it significantly reduced monthly migraine days (MMDs) compared with placebo during the 12-week trial.

The new subgroup analysis of the study focused specifically on the efficacy and safety of atogepant vs placebo in participants with CM with, and without, medication overuse.

Participants (mean age, 42.1 years; 87.6% women) were randomized to receive either atogepant 30 mg twice daily (n = 253), atogepant 60 mg once daily (n = 256), or placebo (n = 240), with baseline demographics and clinical characteristics similar across all treatment arms. A total of 66.2% met baseline acute medication overuse criteria.

Participants were asked to record migraine and headache experiences in an electronic diary.
 

‘Effective and Safe’

Participants in both atogepant groups experienced fewer monthly headache days (MHDs) than those in the placebo group, with a least squares mean difference (LSMD) of −2.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], −4.0 to −1.4) in the atogepant 30 mg twice daily group and −1.9 (95% CI, −3.2 to −0.6) in the atogepant 60 mg once daily group.

MHDs were also reduced in both treatment groups, with LSMDs of −2.8 (95% CI, −4.0 to −1.5) and −2.1 (95% CI, −3.3 to −0.8), respectively. Mean acute medication use days were lower in both the treatment groups, with LSMDs of −2.8 (95% CI, −4.1 to −1.6) and −2.6 (95% CI, −3.9 to −1.3), respectively.

A higher proportion of participants achieved a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs with atogepant 30 mg twice daily (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0) and atogepant 60 mg once daily (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7).

Notably, the researchers found a 52.1%-61.9% reduction in the proportion of atogepant-treated participants meeting acute medication overuse criteria during the study period vs 38.3% in the placebo group.

Similar results were observed in the subgroup without acute medication overuse.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 55.8% of participants treated with atogepant 30 mg twice daily, 66.1% with atogepant 60 mg once daily, and 48.5% with placebo in the acute medication overuse subgroup, with similar reports in the non-overuse subgroup.

A limitation cited by the authors was that participants’ self-report of migraines and headaches via electronic diaries might have been inaccurate.

Nevertheless, they concluded that the results showed atogepant to be an “effective and safe” preventive treatment for patients with CM with, and without, acute medication overuse.

AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Dr. Goadsby received personal fees from AbbVie during the conduct of the study, and over the last 36 months, he received a research grant from Celgene; personal fees from Aeon Biopharma, Amgen, CoolTechLLC, Dr. Reddy’s, Eli Lilly and Company, Epalex, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Praxis, Sanofi, Satsuma, ShiraTronics, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Tremeau; personal fees for advice through Gerson Lehrman Group, Guidepoint, SAI Med Partners, and Vector Metric; fees for educational materials from CME Outfitters; and publishing royalties or fees from Massachusetts Medical Society, Oxford University Press, UpToDate, and Wolters Kluwer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.

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

The oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist atogepant is effective in preventing rebound headache related to medication overuse in patients with chronic migraine (CM), new research suggested.

Results of a subgroup analysis of a phase 3, 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showed up to a 62% reduction in the proportion of atogepant-treated participants who met acute medication overuse criteria.

“Based on our findings, treatment with atogepant may potentially decrease the risk of developing rebound headache by reducing the use of pain medications,” principal investigator Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD, of King’s College London, London, England, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Effective Prevention Needed

Acute treatments for migraine can mitigate symptoms and reduce disability but can also be ineffective and even result in increased dosing and overuse of these medications, the investigators noted.

Acute medication overuse is defined as “taking simple analgesics for ≥ 15 days per month or taking triptans, ergots, opioids, or combinations of medications for ≥ 10 days per month.”

“There is a high prevalence of pain medication overuse among people with migraine as they try to manage what are often debilitating symptoms,” Dr. Goadsby said. “However, medication overuse can lead to more headaches, called rebound headaches, so more effective preventive treatments are needed.”

Atogepant was developed for migraine prevention in adults. It had been studied in the phase 3 PROGRESS trial, which showed it significantly reduced monthly migraine days (MMDs) compared with placebo during the 12-week trial.

The new subgroup analysis of the study focused specifically on the efficacy and safety of atogepant vs placebo in participants with CM with, and without, medication overuse.

Participants (mean age, 42.1 years; 87.6% women) were randomized to receive either atogepant 30 mg twice daily (n = 253), atogepant 60 mg once daily (n = 256), or placebo (n = 240), with baseline demographics and clinical characteristics similar across all treatment arms. A total of 66.2% met baseline acute medication overuse criteria.

Participants were asked to record migraine and headache experiences in an electronic diary.
 

‘Effective and Safe’

Participants in both atogepant groups experienced fewer monthly headache days (MHDs) than those in the placebo group, with a least squares mean difference (LSMD) of −2.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], −4.0 to −1.4) in the atogepant 30 mg twice daily group and −1.9 (95% CI, −3.2 to −0.6) in the atogepant 60 mg once daily group.

MHDs were also reduced in both treatment groups, with LSMDs of −2.8 (95% CI, −4.0 to −1.5) and −2.1 (95% CI, −3.3 to −0.8), respectively. Mean acute medication use days were lower in both the treatment groups, with LSMDs of −2.8 (95% CI, −4.1 to −1.6) and −2.6 (95% CI, −3.9 to −1.3), respectively.

A higher proportion of participants achieved a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs with atogepant 30 mg twice daily (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0) and atogepant 60 mg once daily (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7).

Notably, the researchers found a 52.1%-61.9% reduction in the proportion of atogepant-treated participants meeting acute medication overuse criteria during the study period vs 38.3% in the placebo group.

Similar results were observed in the subgroup without acute medication overuse.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 55.8% of participants treated with atogepant 30 mg twice daily, 66.1% with atogepant 60 mg once daily, and 48.5% with placebo in the acute medication overuse subgroup, with similar reports in the non-overuse subgroup.

A limitation cited by the authors was that participants’ self-report of migraines and headaches via electronic diaries might have been inaccurate.

Nevertheless, they concluded that the results showed atogepant to be an “effective and safe” preventive treatment for patients with CM with, and without, acute medication overuse.

AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Dr. Goadsby received personal fees from AbbVie during the conduct of the study, and over the last 36 months, he received a research grant from Celgene; personal fees from Aeon Biopharma, Amgen, CoolTechLLC, Dr. Reddy’s, Eli Lilly and Company, Epalex, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Praxis, Sanofi, Satsuma, ShiraTronics, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Tremeau; personal fees for advice through Gerson Lehrman Group, Guidepoint, SAI Med Partners, and Vector Metric; fees for educational materials from CME Outfitters; and publishing royalties or fees from Massachusetts Medical Society, Oxford University Press, UpToDate, and Wolters Kluwer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.

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

The oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist atogepant is effective in preventing rebound headache related to medication overuse in patients with chronic migraine (CM), new research suggested.

Results of a subgroup analysis of a phase 3, 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showed up to a 62% reduction in the proportion of atogepant-treated participants who met acute medication overuse criteria.

“Based on our findings, treatment with atogepant may potentially decrease the risk of developing rebound headache by reducing the use of pain medications,” principal investigator Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD, of King’s College London, London, England, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Effective Prevention Needed

Acute treatments for migraine can mitigate symptoms and reduce disability but can also be ineffective and even result in increased dosing and overuse of these medications, the investigators noted.

Acute medication overuse is defined as “taking simple analgesics for ≥ 15 days per month or taking triptans, ergots, opioids, or combinations of medications for ≥ 10 days per month.”

“There is a high prevalence of pain medication overuse among people with migraine as they try to manage what are often debilitating symptoms,” Dr. Goadsby said. “However, medication overuse can lead to more headaches, called rebound headaches, so more effective preventive treatments are needed.”

Atogepant was developed for migraine prevention in adults. It had been studied in the phase 3 PROGRESS trial, which showed it significantly reduced monthly migraine days (MMDs) compared with placebo during the 12-week trial.

The new subgroup analysis of the study focused specifically on the efficacy and safety of atogepant vs placebo in participants with CM with, and without, medication overuse.

Participants (mean age, 42.1 years; 87.6% women) were randomized to receive either atogepant 30 mg twice daily (n = 253), atogepant 60 mg once daily (n = 256), or placebo (n = 240), with baseline demographics and clinical characteristics similar across all treatment arms. A total of 66.2% met baseline acute medication overuse criteria.

Participants were asked to record migraine and headache experiences in an electronic diary.
 

‘Effective and Safe’

Participants in both atogepant groups experienced fewer monthly headache days (MHDs) than those in the placebo group, with a least squares mean difference (LSMD) of −2.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], −4.0 to −1.4) in the atogepant 30 mg twice daily group and −1.9 (95% CI, −3.2 to −0.6) in the atogepant 60 mg once daily group.

MHDs were also reduced in both treatment groups, with LSMDs of −2.8 (95% CI, −4.0 to −1.5) and −2.1 (95% CI, −3.3 to −0.8), respectively. Mean acute medication use days were lower in both the treatment groups, with LSMDs of −2.8 (95% CI, −4.1 to −1.6) and −2.6 (95% CI, −3.9 to −1.3), respectively.

A higher proportion of participants achieved a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs with atogepant 30 mg twice daily (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0) and atogepant 60 mg once daily (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7).

Notably, the researchers found a 52.1%-61.9% reduction in the proportion of atogepant-treated participants meeting acute medication overuse criteria during the study period vs 38.3% in the placebo group.

Similar results were observed in the subgroup without acute medication overuse.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 55.8% of participants treated with atogepant 30 mg twice daily, 66.1% with atogepant 60 mg once daily, and 48.5% with placebo in the acute medication overuse subgroup, with similar reports in the non-overuse subgroup.

A limitation cited by the authors was that participants’ self-report of migraines and headaches via electronic diaries might have been inaccurate.

Nevertheless, they concluded that the results showed atogepant to be an “effective and safe” preventive treatment for patients with CM with, and without, acute medication overuse.

AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Dr. Goadsby received personal fees from AbbVie during the conduct of the study, and over the last 36 months, he received a research grant from Celgene; personal fees from Aeon Biopharma, Amgen, CoolTechLLC, Dr. Reddy’s, Eli Lilly and Company, Epalex, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, Praxis, Sanofi, Satsuma, ShiraTronics, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Tremeau; personal fees for advice through Gerson Lehrman Group, Guidepoint, SAI Med Partners, and Vector Metric; fees for educational materials from CME Outfitters; and publishing royalties or fees from Massachusetts Medical Society, Oxford University Press, UpToDate, and Wolters Kluwer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.

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

Patients with dementia may instead have hepatic encephalopathy and should be screened with the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index for cirrhosis, one of the main causes of the condition, new research suggests.

The study of more than 68,000 individuals in the general population diagnosed with dementia between 2009 and 2019 found that almost 13% had FIB-4 scores indicative of cirrhosis and potential hepatic encephalopathy.

The findings, recently published online in The American Journal of Medicine, corroborate and extend the researchers’ previous work, which showed that about 10% of US veterans with a dementia diagnosis may in fact have hepatic encephalopathy.

“We need to increase awareness that cirrhosis and related brain complications are common, silent, but treatable when found,” said corresponding author Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University and Richmond VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia. “Moreover, these are being increasingly diagnosed in older individuals.”

“Cirrhosis can also predispose patients to liver cancer and other complications, so diagnosing it in all patients is important, regardless of the hepatic encephalopathy-dementia connection,” he said.
 

FIB-4 Is Key

Dr. Bajaj and colleagues analyzed data from 72 healthcare centers on 68,807 nonveteran patients diagnosed with dementia at two or more physician visits between 2009 and 2019. Patients had no prior cirrhosis diagnosis, the mean age was 73 years, 44.7% were men, and 78% were White.

The team measured the prevalence of two high FIB-4 scores (> 2.67 and > 3.25), selected for their strong predictive value for advanced cirrhosis. Researchers also examined associations between high scores and multiple comorbidities and demographic factors.

Alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and platelet labs were collected up to 2 years after the index dementia diagnosis because they are used to calculate FIB-4.

The mean FIB-4 score was 1.78, mean ALT was 23.72 U/L, mean AST was 27.42 U/L, and mean platelets were 243.51 × 109/µL.

A total of 8683 participants (12.8%) had a FIB-4 score greater than 2.67 and 5185 (7.6%) had a score greater than 3.25.

In multivariable logistic regression models, FIB-4 greater than 3.25 was associated with viral hepatitis (odds ratio [OR], 2.23), congestive heart failure (OR,1.73), HIV (OR, 1.72), male gender (OR, 1.42), alcohol use disorder (OR, 1.39), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.38).

FIB-4 greater than 3.25 was inversely associated with White race (OR, 0.76) and diabetes (OR, 0.82).

The associations were similar when using a threshold score of greater than 2.67.

“With the aging population, including those with cirrhosis, the potential for overlap between hepatic encephalopathy and dementia has risen and should be considered in the differential diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Undiagnosed cirrhosis and potential hepatic encephalopathy can be a treatable cause of or contributor towards cognitive impairment in patients diagnosed with dementia.”

Providers should use the FIB-4 index as a screening tool to detect cirrhosis in patients with dementia, they concluded.

The team’s next steps will include investigating barriers to the use of FIB-4 among practitioners, Dr. Bajaj said.

Incorporating use of the FIB-4 index into screening guidelines “with input from all stakeholders, including geriatricians, primary care providers, and neurologists … would greatly expand the diagnosis of cirrhosis and potentially hepatic encephalopathy in dementia patients,” Dr. Bajaj said.

The study had a few limitations, including the selected centers in the cohort database, lack of chart review to confirm diagnoses in individual cases, and the use of a modified FIB-4, with age capped at 65 years.
 

‘Easy to Miss’

Commenting on the research, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said that it is easy for physicians to miss asymptomatic liver disease that could progress and lead to cognitive decline.

“Most of my patients are already labeled with liver disease; however, it is not uncommon to receive a patient from another specialist who felt their presentation was more consistent with liver disease than the issue they were referred for,” she said.

Still, even in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, which affects nearly one third of the population, the condition isn’t advanced enough in most patients to cause symptoms similar to those of dementia, said Dr. Reau, who was not associated with the study.

“It is more important for specialists in neurology to exclude liver disease and for hepatologists or gastroenterologists to be equipped with tools to exclude alternative explanations for neurocognitive presentations,” she said. “It is important to not label a patient as having HE and then miss alternative explanations.”

“Every presentation has a differential diagnosis. Using easy tools like FIB-4 can make sure you don’t miss liver disease as a contributing factor in a patient that presents with neurocognitive symptoms,” Dr. Reau said.

This work was partly supported by grants from Department of Veterans Affairs merit review program and the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Science. Dr. Bajaj and Dr. Reau reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with dementia may instead have hepatic encephalopathy and should be screened with the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index for cirrhosis, one of the main causes of the condition, new research suggests.

The study of more than 68,000 individuals in the general population diagnosed with dementia between 2009 and 2019 found that almost 13% had FIB-4 scores indicative of cirrhosis and potential hepatic encephalopathy.

The findings, recently published online in The American Journal of Medicine, corroborate and extend the researchers’ previous work, which showed that about 10% of US veterans with a dementia diagnosis may in fact have hepatic encephalopathy.

“We need to increase awareness that cirrhosis and related brain complications are common, silent, but treatable when found,” said corresponding author Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University and Richmond VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia. “Moreover, these are being increasingly diagnosed in older individuals.”

“Cirrhosis can also predispose patients to liver cancer and other complications, so diagnosing it in all patients is important, regardless of the hepatic encephalopathy-dementia connection,” he said.
 

FIB-4 Is Key

Dr. Bajaj and colleagues analyzed data from 72 healthcare centers on 68,807 nonveteran patients diagnosed with dementia at two or more physician visits between 2009 and 2019. Patients had no prior cirrhosis diagnosis, the mean age was 73 years, 44.7% were men, and 78% were White.

The team measured the prevalence of two high FIB-4 scores (> 2.67 and > 3.25), selected for their strong predictive value for advanced cirrhosis. Researchers also examined associations between high scores and multiple comorbidities and demographic factors.

Alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and platelet labs were collected up to 2 years after the index dementia diagnosis because they are used to calculate FIB-4.

The mean FIB-4 score was 1.78, mean ALT was 23.72 U/L, mean AST was 27.42 U/L, and mean platelets were 243.51 × 109/µL.

A total of 8683 participants (12.8%) had a FIB-4 score greater than 2.67 and 5185 (7.6%) had a score greater than 3.25.

In multivariable logistic regression models, FIB-4 greater than 3.25 was associated with viral hepatitis (odds ratio [OR], 2.23), congestive heart failure (OR,1.73), HIV (OR, 1.72), male gender (OR, 1.42), alcohol use disorder (OR, 1.39), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.38).

FIB-4 greater than 3.25 was inversely associated with White race (OR, 0.76) and diabetes (OR, 0.82).

The associations were similar when using a threshold score of greater than 2.67.

“With the aging population, including those with cirrhosis, the potential for overlap between hepatic encephalopathy and dementia has risen and should be considered in the differential diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Undiagnosed cirrhosis and potential hepatic encephalopathy can be a treatable cause of or contributor towards cognitive impairment in patients diagnosed with dementia.”

Providers should use the FIB-4 index as a screening tool to detect cirrhosis in patients with dementia, they concluded.

The team’s next steps will include investigating barriers to the use of FIB-4 among practitioners, Dr. Bajaj said.

Incorporating use of the FIB-4 index into screening guidelines “with input from all stakeholders, including geriatricians, primary care providers, and neurologists … would greatly expand the diagnosis of cirrhosis and potentially hepatic encephalopathy in dementia patients,” Dr. Bajaj said.

The study had a few limitations, including the selected centers in the cohort database, lack of chart review to confirm diagnoses in individual cases, and the use of a modified FIB-4, with age capped at 65 years.
 

‘Easy to Miss’

Commenting on the research, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said that it is easy for physicians to miss asymptomatic liver disease that could progress and lead to cognitive decline.

“Most of my patients are already labeled with liver disease; however, it is not uncommon to receive a patient from another specialist who felt their presentation was more consistent with liver disease than the issue they were referred for,” she said.

Still, even in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, which affects nearly one third of the population, the condition isn’t advanced enough in most patients to cause symptoms similar to those of dementia, said Dr. Reau, who was not associated with the study.

“It is more important for specialists in neurology to exclude liver disease and for hepatologists or gastroenterologists to be equipped with tools to exclude alternative explanations for neurocognitive presentations,” she said. “It is important to not label a patient as having HE and then miss alternative explanations.”

“Every presentation has a differential diagnosis. Using easy tools like FIB-4 can make sure you don’t miss liver disease as a contributing factor in a patient that presents with neurocognitive symptoms,” Dr. Reau said.

This work was partly supported by grants from Department of Veterans Affairs merit review program and the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Science. Dr. Bajaj and Dr. Reau reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with dementia may instead have hepatic encephalopathy and should be screened with the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index for cirrhosis, one of the main causes of the condition, new research suggests.

The study of more than 68,000 individuals in the general population diagnosed with dementia between 2009 and 2019 found that almost 13% had FIB-4 scores indicative of cirrhosis and potential hepatic encephalopathy.

The findings, recently published online in The American Journal of Medicine, corroborate and extend the researchers’ previous work, which showed that about 10% of US veterans with a dementia diagnosis may in fact have hepatic encephalopathy.

“We need to increase awareness that cirrhosis and related brain complications are common, silent, but treatable when found,” said corresponding author Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University and Richmond VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia. “Moreover, these are being increasingly diagnosed in older individuals.”

“Cirrhosis can also predispose patients to liver cancer and other complications, so diagnosing it in all patients is important, regardless of the hepatic encephalopathy-dementia connection,” he said.
 

FIB-4 Is Key

Dr. Bajaj and colleagues analyzed data from 72 healthcare centers on 68,807 nonveteran patients diagnosed with dementia at two or more physician visits between 2009 and 2019. Patients had no prior cirrhosis diagnosis, the mean age was 73 years, 44.7% were men, and 78% were White.

The team measured the prevalence of two high FIB-4 scores (> 2.67 and > 3.25), selected for their strong predictive value for advanced cirrhosis. Researchers also examined associations between high scores and multiple comorbidities and demographic factors.

Alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and platelet labs were collected up to 2 years after the index dementia diagnosis because they are used to calculate FIB-4.

The mean FIB-4 score was 1.78, mean ALT was 23.72 U/L, mean AST was 27.42 U/L, and mean platelets were 243.51 × 109/µL.

A total of 8683 participants (12.8%) had a FIB-4 score greater than 2.67 and 5185 (7.6%) had a score greater than 3.25.

In multivariable logistic regression models, FIB-4 greater than 3.25 was associated with viral hepatitis (odds ratio [OR], 2.23), congestive heart failure (OR,1.73), HIV (OR, 1.72), male gender (OR, 1.42), alcohol use disorder (OR, 1.39), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.38).

FIB-4 greater than 3.25 was inversely associated with White race (OR, 0.76) and diabetes (OR, 0.82).

The associations were similar when using a threshold score of greater than 2.67.

“With the aging population, including those with cirrhosis, the potential for overlap between hepatic encephalopathy and dementia has risen and should be considered in the differential diagnosis,” the authors wrote. “Undiagnosed cirrhosis and potential hepatic encephalopathy can be a treatable cause of or contributor towards cognitive impairment in patients diagnosed with dementia.”

Providers should use the FIB-4 index as a screening tool to detect cirrhosis in patients with dementia, they concluded.

The team’s next steps will include investigating barriers to the use of FIB-4 among practitioners, Dr. Bajaj said.

Incorporating use of the FIB-4 index into screening guidelines “with input from all stakeholders, including geriatricians, primary care providers, and neurologists … would greatly expand the diagnosis of cirrhosis and potentially hepatic encephalopathy in dementia patients,” Dr. Bajaj said.

The study had a few limitations, including the selected centers in the cohort database, lack of chart review to confirm diagnoses in individual cases, and the use of a modified FIB-4, with age capped at 65 years.
 

‘Easy to Miss’

Commenting on the research, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said that it is easy for physicians to miss asymptomatic liver disease that could progress and lead to cognitive decline.

“Most of my patients are already labeled with liver disease; however, it is not uncommon to receive a patient from another specialist who felt their presentation was more consistent with liver disease than the issue they were referred for,” she said.

Still, even in metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, which affects nearly one third of the population, the condition isn’t advanced enough in most patients to cause symptoms similar to those of dementia, said Dr. Reau, who was not associated with the study.

“It is more important for specialists in neurology to exclude liver disease and for hepatologists or gastroenterologists to be equipped with tools to exclude alternative explanations for neurocognitive presentations,” she said. “It is important to not label a patient as having HE and then miss alternative explanations.”

“Every presentation has a differential diagnosis. Using easy tools like FIB-4 can make sure you don’t miss liver disease as a contributing factor in a patient that presents with neurocognitive symptoms,” Dr. Reau said.

This work was partly supported by grants from Department of Veterans Affairs merit review program and the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Science. Dr. Bajaj and Dr. Reau reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Three-quarters of oncologists participating in a recent global survey failed to identify one or more situations representing a conflict of interest, according to a new study.

The findings reflect limited awareness in low-income countries about what scenarios constitute a conflict of interest, first author, Khalid El Bairi, MD, said during an interview. “There is a lack of training in ethics and integrity in medical schools [in countries in Africa], so people are not informed about conflicts of interest,” continued Dr. El Bairi, who presented the new research at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “There is also a lack of policies in universities and hospitals to guide clinicians about conflict of interest reporting.”

Overall, 58.5% of survey participants categorized honoraria as a conflict of interest that required disclosure, while 50% said the same of gifts from pharmaceutical representatives, and 44.5% identified travel grants for attending conferences as conflicts of interests. The report was published in JCO Global Oncology. Less often considered conflicts of interest were personal and institutional research funding, trips to conferences, consulting or advisory roles, food and beverages, expert testimony, and sample drugs provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Just 24% of participants indicated that all of the listed items were deemed conflicts of interest. The survey — called Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking, or ONCOTRUST-1 — considered the perceptions of 200 oncologists, about 70% of whom practice in low- and middle-income countries.

What’s more, 37.5% of respondents identified fear of losing financial support as a reason not to report a conflict of interest. Still, 75% indicated that industry-sponsored speaking does not affect treatment decisions, and 60% said conflicts of interest do not impair objective appraisal of clinical trials.

Dr. El Bairi, a research associate in the department of medical oncology at Mohammed VI University Hospital, Oujda, Morocco, and his colleagues undertook the study in part because of an editorial published in The Lancet Oncology last year. First author Fidel Rubagumya, MD, a consultant oncologist and director of research at Rwanda Military Hospital, Kigali, and colleagues called for more research on the ties between oncologists and industry in Africa. The ONCOTRUST-1 findings set the stage for a planned follow-up study, which aims to compare views surrounding conflicts of interests between oncologists in different economic settings.
 

Open Payments Houses US Physicians’ Conflicts of Interest

To be sure, many authors of research published in major US journals are based outside of the United States. According to JAMA Network Open, 69% of submissions to the journal are from international authors. However, Dr. El Bairi also raised other potential signs of industry influence that he said need global discussion, such as the role of pharmaceutical companies in presentations of clinical trial findings at large cancer societies’ conferences, a shift toward progression-free survival as the endpoint in clinical cancer trials, and the rise of third-party writing assistance.

“There are two sides of the story,” Dr. El Bairi said. “The good side is that unfortunately, sometimes [industry money is] the only way for African oncologists to go abroad for training, to conferences for their continuous medical education. The bad is now we may harm patients, we might harm science by having conflicts of interest not reported.”

Unlike other countries, the United States has plentiful data on the scale of physicians’ financial conflicts of interest in the form of the Open Payments platform. Championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the federal repository of payments to doctors and teaching hospitals by drug and medical device companies was established as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The health care reform law, which passed in 2010, requires pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers to report this information.

From 2013 to 2021, the pharmaceutical and medical device industry paid physicians $12.1 billion, according to a research letter published in JAMA in March of 2024 that reviewed Open Payments data.

Ranked by specialty, hematologists and oncologists received the fourth-largest amount of money in aggregate, the study shows. Their total of $825.8 million trailed only physicians in orthopedics ($1.36 billion), neurology and psychiatry ($1.32 billion) and cardiology ($1.29 billion). What’s more, this specialty had the biggest share of physicians taking industry money, with 74.2% of hematologists and oncologists receiving payments.

The payments from industry include fees for consulting services and speaking, as well as food and beverages, travel and lodging, education, gifts, grants, and honoraria.

Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, one of the JAMA study’s coauthors, said in an interview that the continued prevalence of such funding runs counter to the expectation behind the measure, which was that transparency would lead to physicians’ becoming less likely to accept a payment.

“We as a profession need to take a cold hard look in the mirror,” he said, referring to physicians in general.

Dr. Ross, professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, said he hopes that the profession will self-police, and that patients will make a bigger deal of the issue. Still, he acknowledged that “the vast majority” of patient advocacy groups, too, are funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
 

Exposing Industry Payments May Have Perverse Effect

A growing body of research explores the effect that physicians’ financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies can have on their prescribing practices. Indeed, oncologists taking industry payments seem to be more likely to prescribe nonrecommended and low-value drugs in some clinical settings, according to a study published in The BMJ last year.

That study’s first author, Aaron P. Mitchell, MD, a medical oncologist and assistant attending physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, suggested in an interview that exposing industry payments to the sunlight may have had a perverse effect on physicians.

“There’s this idea of having license to do something,” Dr. Mitchell said, speaking broadly about human psychology rather than drawing on empirical data. “You might feel a little less bad about then prescribing more of that company’s drug, because the disclosure has already been done.”

The influence of pharmaceutical industry money on oncologists goes beyond what’s prescribed to which treatments get studied, approved, and recommended by guidelines, Dr. Mitchell said. He was also first author of a 2016 paper published in JAMA Oncology that found 86% of authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines had at least one conflict of interest reported on Open Systems in 2014.

Meanwhile, the fact that physicians’ payments from industry are a matter of public record on Open Systems has not guaranteed that doctors will disclose their conflicts of interest in other forums. A study published in JAMA earlier this year, for which Dr. Mitchell served as first author, found that almost one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X failed to disclose that the manufacturer paid them.

The lack of disclosure seems to extend beyond social media. A 2018 study published in JAMA Oncology found that 32% of oncologist authors of clinical drug trials for drugs approved over a 20-month period from 2016 to 2017 did not fully disclose payments from the trial sponsor when checked against the Open Payments database.

A lion’s share of industry payments within oncology appears to be going to a small group of high-profile physicians, suggested a 2022 study published in JCO Oncology Practice. It found that just 1% of all US oncologists accounted for 37% of industry payments, with each receiving more than $100,000 a year.
 

Experts: Professional Societies Should Further Limit Industry Payments

While partnerships between drug companies and physicians are necessary and have often been positive, more than disclosure is needed to minimize the risk of patient harm, according to an editorial published in March in JCO Oncology Practice. In it, Nina Niu Sanford, MD, a radiation oncologist UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, argue that following a specific blueprint could help mitigate financial conflicts of interest.

For starters, Dr. Sanford and Dr. Gyawali contend in the editorial that the maximum general payment NCCN members are allowed to receive from industry should be $0, compared with a current bar of $20,000 from a single entity or $50,000 from all external entities combined. They also urge professional societies to follow the current policy of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and ban members serving in their leadership from receiving any general payments from the industry.

The authors further suggest that investigators of clinical trials should be barred from holding stock for the drug or product while it is under study and that editorialists should not have conflicts of interest with the company whose drug or product they are discussing.

Pharmaceutical money can harm patients in ways that are not always obvious, Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

“It can dominate the conversation by removing critical viewpoints from these top people about certain drugs,” he said. “It’s not always about saying good things about the drug.”

For instance, he suggested, a doctor receiving payments from Pfizer might openly criticize perceived flaws in drugs from other companies but refrain from weighing in negatively on a Pfizer drug.

From 2016 to 2018, industry made general payments to more than 52,000 physicians for 137 unique cancer drugs, according to a separate 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Policy, for which Dr. Gyawali served as one of the coauthors.

The results suggest that pharmaceutical money affects the entire cancer system, not relatively few oncology leaders. The amounts and dollar values grew each year covered by the study, to nearly 466,000 payments totaling $98.5 million in 2018.

Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and director of PharmedOut, a Georgetown-based project that advances evidence-based prescribing and educates healthcare professionals about pharmaceutical marketing practices, has called for a ban on industry gifts to physicians.

When a publication asks physicians to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, physicians may choose not to disclose, because they don’t feel that their conflicts are relevant, Dr. Fugh-Berman said. Drug and device makers have also grown sophisticated about how they work with physicians, she suggested. “It’s illegal to market a drug before it comes on the market, but it’s not illegal to market the disease,” said Dr. Fugh-Berman, noting that drugmakers often work on long timelines.

“The doctor is going around saying we don’t have good therapies. They’re not pushing a drug. And so they feel totally fine about it.”

Anecdotally, Dr. Fugh-Berman noted that, if anything, speaking fees and similar payments only improve doctors’ reputations. She said that’s especially true if the physicians are paid by multiple companies, on the supposed theory that their conflicts of interest cancel each other out.

“I’m not defending this,” added Dr. Fugh-Berman, observing that, at the end of the day, such conflicts may go against the interests of patients.

“Sometimes the best drugs are older, generic, cheap drugs, and if oncologists or other specialists are only choosing among the most promoted drugs, they’re not necessarily choosing the best drugs.”

Beyond any prestige, doctors have other possible nonfinancial incentives for receiving industry payments. “It’s the relationships,” Dr. Fugh-Berman said. “Companies are very good at offering friendship.”

Dr. El Bairi reported NCODA leadership and honoraria along with expert testimony through techspert.io. Dr. Ross reported that he is a deputy editor of JAMA but was not involved in decisions regarding acceptance of or the review of the manuscript he authored and discussed in this article. Dr. Ross also reported receiving grants from the Food and Drug Administration, Johnson & Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in 2022. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gyawali reported a consulting or advisory role with Vivio Health. Dr. Fugh-Berman reported being an expert witness for plaintiffs in complaints about drug and device marketing practices.

Moderate exercise in midlife is associated with a reduced risk for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) later in life, but this benefit appears to be limited to men, findings from a large prospective study showed.

Men who reported moderate levels of physical activity had a 29% lower risk for ALS, whereas those with high levels of physical activity had a 41% lower risk for the disease.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting Findings

Several famous athletes have died of ALS, including the baseball player Lou Gehrig (for whom the disease is named), football players Dwight Clark, Steve Gleason, and Kevin Turner, and the boxer Ezzard Charles. This has led some scientists to speculate that intense physical activity may play a role in the development of the disease.

Anders M. Vaage, MD, noted there have been conflicting findings in previous studies on the topic, with results showing both increased and reduced ALS risks with increasing levels of physical activity.

In one study, researchers followed more than 212,000 Swedish cross-country skiers and more than 500,000 Swedish individuals in the general population for 20 years and found that strenuous cross-country skiing was associated with a higher risk for ALS but only among the best skiers; recreational skiers appeared to have a reduced risk.

“Our study does not necessarily contradict previous studies with findings of an increased ALS risk with extreme or intense levels of physical activity in athletes, as this study reflects more moderate levels of physical activity and fitness in the total population,” said Dr. Vaage.

To further explore the association, the researchers followed 373,700 individuals who participated in a cardiovascular health survey for an average of 27 years. When the survey began, most participants were 40-42 years old.

Participants were followed until the date of ALS diagnosis, ALS death, death from other causes, emigration, or the end of study in August 2021.

Participants answered questions about physical activity levels, smoking status, and other issues relating to cardiovascular health, and participants’ resting heart rate was measured and divided into quartiles of 31-65 beats per minute (BPM), 66-74 BPM, 75-81 BPM, or 82-100 BPM.

Participants self-reported their physical activity over the past year, classifying it into one of four categories: Sedentary, at least 4 hours per week of walking or cycling, at least 4 hours per week of recreational sports or heavy gardening, or regular participation in intense training or sports competitions several times per week.

Only a few participants reported the highest level of physical activity, so researchers combined the third and fourth categories into a single high-activity group.

Of the total study cohort, 504 participants developed ALS. Of those who developed the disease, 59% were men.

Researchers found that of the 41,898 male participants with the highest level of physical activity, 63 developed ALS. In comparison, of the 76,769 male participants who reported an intermediate level of physical activity, 131 developed ALS. Among the 29,468 male participants who reported the lowest level of physical activity, 68 developed ALS.
 

No Link in Women?

After adjusting for smoking, body mass index, and other risk factors, investigators found that men with moderate physical activity levels had a 29% lower risk for ALS compared with those with low physical activity levels, whereas those with the highest activity levels had a 41% lower risk.

In addition, men in the lowest of the four categories of resting heart rate had a 32% reduced risk for ALS compared with men with a higher resting heart rate.

Investigators are unclear why there was a lack of association between physical activity and resting heart rate and ALS risk in women.

“There are known sex differences in ALS, which includes a sex ratio with male preponderance, and there are also sex differences in response to physical exercise. Perhaps underlying mechanisms herein can explain the difference observed between males and females in the study,” Dr. Vaage said. He noted that future research should explore this difference.

Study limitations included the absence of data on physical trauma and head trauma, which have been linked with increased ALS risk. In addition, there were no data on genotype.

In an accompanying editorial, Pamela Shaw, MD, and Johnathan Cooper-Knock, BMBCh, PhD, of the University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, described the research as a “valuable contribution to the field and potentially provides some reassurance that mild/moderate levels of physical activity in middle age do not increase the risk for ALS but may instead have a beneficial protective effect.” 

Future research on exercise in ALS, they add, should consider sex differences, capture the most extreme physical activity levels, and identify any genetic factors that may mediate the association between intense exercise and ALS.

No targeted funding was reported. Dr. Vaage reported receiving funding from ALS Laboratory Group Norway.

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

Moderate exercise in midlife is associated with a reduced risk for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) later in life, but this benefit appears to be limited to men, findings from a large prospective study showed.

Men who reported moderate levels of physical activity had a 29% lower risk for ALS, whereas those with high levels of physical activity had a 41% lower risk for the disease.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting Findings

Several famous athletes have died of ALS, including the baseball player Lou Gehrig (for whom the disease is named), football players Dwight Clark, Steve Gleason, and Kevin Turner, and the boxer Ezzard Charles. This has led some scientists to speculate that intense physical activity may play a role in the development of the disease.

Anders M. Vaage, MD, noted there have been conflicting findings in previous studies on the topic, with results showing both increased and reduced ALS risks with increasing levels of physical activity.

In one study, researchers followed more than 212,000 Swedish cross-country skiers and more than 500,000 Swedish individuals in the general population for 20 years and found that strenuous cross-country skiing was associated with a higher risk for ALS but only among the best skiers; recreational skiers appeared to have a reduced risk.

“Our study does not necessarily contradict previous studies with findings of an increased ALS risk with extreme or intense levels of physical activity in athletes, as this study reflects more moderate levels of physical activity and fitness in the total population,” said Dr. Vaage.

To further explore the association, the researchers followed 373,700 individuals who participated in a cardiovascular health survey for an average of 27 years. When the survey began, most participants were 40-42 years old.

Participants were followed until the date of ALS diagnosis, ALS death, death from other causes, emigration, or the end of study in August 2021.

Participants answered questions about physical activity levels, smoking status, and other issues relating to cardiovascular health, and participants’ resting heart rate was measured and divided into quartiles of 31-65 beats per minute (BPM), 66-74 BPM, 75-81 BPM, or 82-100 BPM.

Participants self-reported their physical activity over the past year, classifying it into one of four categories: Sedentary, at least 4 hours per week of walking or cycling, at least 4 hours per week of recreational sports or heavy gardening, or regular participation in intense training or sports competitions several times per week.

Only a few participants reported the highest level of physical activity, so researchers combined the third and fourth categories into a single high-activity group.

Of the total study cohort, 504 participants developed ALS. Of those who developed the disease, 59% were men.

Researchers found that of the 41,898 male participants with the highest level of physical activity, 63 developed ALS. In comparison, of the 76,769 male participants who reported an intermediate level of physical activity, 131 developed ALS. Among the 29,468 male participants who reported the lowest level of physical activity, 68 developed ALS.
 

No Link in Women?

After adjusting for smoking, body mass index, and other risk factors, investigators found that men with moderate physical activity levels had a 29% lower risk for ALS compared with those with low physical activity levels, whereas those with the highest activity levels had a 41% lower risk.

In addition, men in the lowest of the four categories of resting heart rate had a 32% reduced risk for ALS compared with men with a higher resting heart rate.

Investigators are unclear why there was a lack of association between physical activity and resting heart rate and ALS risk in women.

“There are known sex differences in ALS, which includes a sex ratio with male preponderance, and there are also sex differences in response to physical exercise. Perhaps underlying mechanisms herein can explain the difference observed between males and females in the study,” Dr. Vaage said. He noted that future research should explore this difference.

Study limitations included the absence of data on physical trauma and head trauma, which have been linked with increased ALS risk. In addition, there were no data on genotype.

In an accompanying editorial, Pamela Shaw, MD, and Johnathan Cooper-Knock, BMBCh, PhD, of the University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, described the research as a “valuable contribution to the field and potentially provides some reassurance that mild/moderate levels of physical activity in middle age do not increase the risk for ALS but may instead have a beneficial protective effect.” 

Future research on exercise in ALS, they add, should consider sex differences, capture the most extreme physical activity levels, and identify any genetic factors that may mediate the association between intense exercise and ALS.

No targeted funding was reported. Dr. Vaage reported receiving funding from ALS Laboratory Group Norway.

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

Moderate exercise in midlife is associated with a reduced risk for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) later in life, but this benefit appears to be limited to men, findings from a large prospective study showed.

Men who reported moderate levels of physical activity had a 29% lower risk for ALS, whereas those with high levels of physical activity had a 41% lower risk for the disease.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting Findings

Several famous athletes have died of ALS, including the baseball player Lou Gehrig (for whom the disease is named), football players Dwight Clark, Steve Gleason, and Kevin Turner, and the boxer Ezzard Charles. This has led some scientists to speculate that intense physical activity may play a role in the development of the disease.

Anders M. Vaage, MD, noted there have been conflicting findings in previous studies on the topic, with results showing both increased and reduced ALS risks with increasing levels of physical activity.

In one study, researchers followed more than 212,000 Swedish cross-country skiers and more than 500,000 Swedish individuals in the general population for 20 years and found that strenuous cross-country skiing was associated with a higher risk for ALS but only among the best skiers; recreational skiers appeared to have a reduced risk.

“Our study does not necessarily contradict previous studies with findings of an increased ALS risk with extreme or intense levels of physical activity in athletes, as this study reflects more moderate levels of physical activity and fitness in the total population,” said Dr. Vaage.

To further explore the association, the researchers followed 373,700 individuals who participated in a cardiovascular health survey for an average of 27 years. When the survey began, most participants were 40-42 years old.

Participants were followed until the date of ALS diagnosis, ALS death, death from other causes, emigration, or the end of study in August 2021.

Participants answered questions about physical activity levels, smoking status, and other issues relating to cardiovascular health, and participants’ resting heart rate was measured and divided into quartiles of 31-65 beats per minute (BPM), 66-74 BPM, 75-81 BPM, or 82-100 BPM.

Participants self-reported their physical activity over the past year, classifying it into one of four categories: Sedentary, at least 4 hours per week of walking or cycling, at least 4 hours per week of recreational sports or heavy gardening, or regular participation in intense training or sports competitions several times per week.

Only a few participants reported the highest level of physical activity, so researchers combined the third and fourth categories into a single high-activity group.

Of the total study cohort, 504 participants developed ALS. Of those who developed the disease, 59% were men.

Researchers found that of the 41,898 male participants with the highest level of physical activity, 63 developed ALS. In comparison, of the 76,769 male participants who reported an intermediate level of physical activity, 131 developed ALS. Among the 29,468 male participants who reported the lowest level of physical activity, 68 developed ALS.
 

No Link in Women?

After adjusting for smoking, body mass index, and other risk factors, investigators found that men with moderate physical activity levels had a 29% lower risk for ALS compared with those with low physical activity levels, whereas those with the highest activity levels had a 41% lower risk.

In addition, men in the lowest of the four categories of resting heart rate had a 32% reduced risk for ALS compared with men with a higher resting heart rate.

Investigators are unclear why there was a lack of association between physical activity and resting heart rate and ALS risk in women.

“There are known sex differences in ALS, which includes a sex ratio with male preponderance, and there are also sex differences in response to physical exercise. Perhaps underlying mechanisms herein can explain the difference observed between males and females in the study,” Dr. Vaage said. He noted that future research should explore this difference.

Study limitations included the absence of data on physical trauma and head trauma, which have been linked with increased ALS risk. In addition, there were no data on genotype.

In an accompanying editorial, Pamela Shaw, MD, and Johnathan Cooper-Knock, BMBCh, PhD, of the University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, described the research as a “valuable contribution to the field and potentially provides some reassurance that mild/moderate levels of physical activity in middle age do not increase the risk for ALS but may instead have a beneficial protective effect.” 

Future research on exercise in ALS, they add, should consider sex differences, capture the most extreme physical activity levels, and identify any genetic factors that may mediate the association between intense exercise and ALS.

No targeted funding was reported. Dr. Vaage reported receiving funding from ALS Laboratory Group Norway.

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

In March 2024, four women in Tennessee and three in New York City fell ill after receiving botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injections in nonmedical settings, and four of the women required hospitalization — two in the intensive care unit. None of the cases required intubation, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports in by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The report, published online in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, notes that the four patients in Tennessee received counterfeit BoNT, while product information was not available for the three cases in New York City. “However, one person reported paying less than US wholesale acquisition cost for the administered product, and another reported that the product had been purchased overseas,” the authors of the report wrote. The development underscores that BoNT injections “should be administered only by licensed and trained providers using recommended doses of FDA [Food and Drug Admininstration]-approved products.”

This report follows a CDC advisory published in April 2024 of at least 22 people from 11 states who reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in nonhealthcare settings, such as homes and spas.

The median age of the women in the July report was 48 years, and signs and symptoms included ptosis, dry mouth, dysphagia, shortness of breath, and weakness. Onset occurred between February 23 and March 7, 2024.

“This investigation did not determine why these illnesses occurred after cosmetic BoNT injections; potential reasons might include use of counterfeit BoNT, which might be more potent or contain harmful additional ingredients or higher susceptibility to BoNT effects among some persons,” the investigators wrote. They recommended further studies to describe the clinical spectrum of cosmetic BoNT injection effects such as severity of signs and symptoms.

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

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

In March 2024, four women in Tennessee and three in New York City fell ill after receiving botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injections in nonmedical settings, and four of the women required hospitalization — two in the intensive care unit. None of the cases required intubation, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports in by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The report, published online in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, notes that the four patients in Tennessee received counterfeit BoNT, while product information was not available for the three cases in New York City. “However, one person reported paying less than US wholesale acquisition cost for the administered product, and another reported that the product had been purchased overseas,” the authors of the report wrote. The development underscores that BoNT injections “should be administered only by licensed and trained providers using recommended doses of FDA [Food and Drug Admininstration]-approved products.”

This report follows a CDC advisory published in April 2024 of at least 22 people from 11 states who reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in nonhealthcare settings, such as homes and spas.

The median age of the women in the July report was 48 years, and signs and symptoms included ptosis, dry mouth, dysphagia, shortness of breath, and weakness. Onset occurred between February 23 and March 7, 2024.

“This investigation did not determine why these illnesses occurred after cosmetic BoNT injections; potential reasons might include use of counterfeit BoNT, which might be more potent or contain harmful additional ingredients or higher susceptibility to BoNT effects among some persons,” the investigators wrote. They recommended further studies to describe the clinical spectrum of cosmetic BoNT injection effects such as severity of signs and symptoms.

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

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

In March 2024, four women in Tennessee and three in New York City fell ill after receiving botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injections in nonmedical settings, and four of the women required hospitalization — two in the intensive care unit. None of the cases required intubation, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports in by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The report, published online in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, notes that the four patients in Tennessee received counterfeit BoNT, while product information was not available for the three cases in New York City. “However, one person reported paying less than US wholesale acquisition cost for the administered product, and another reported that the product had been purchased overseas,” the authors of the report wrote. The development underscores that BoNT injections “should be administered only by licensed and trained providers using recommended doses of FDA [Food and Drug Admininstration]-approved products.”

This report follows a CDC advisory published in April 2024 of at least 22 people from 11 states who reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in nonhealthcare settings, such as homes and spas.

The median age of the women in the July report was 48 years, and signs and symptoms included ptosis, dry mouth, dysphagia, shortness of breath, and weakness. Onset occurred between February 23 and March 7, 2024.

“This investigation did not determine why these illnesses occurred after cosmetic BoNT injections; potential reasons might include use of counterfeit BoNT, which might be more potent or contain harmful additional ingredients or higher susceptibility to BoNT effects among some persons,” the investigators wrote. They recommended further studies to describe the clinical spectrum of cosmetic BoNT injection effects such as severity of signs and symptoms.

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

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

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Dr. Glasser’s bimonthly column in The Jolt, a nonprofit online news organization based in Olympia, Washington. She was inspired to write her story after meeting Christine Laine, MD, one of three female physician presenters at the Sommer Lectures in Portland, Oregon, in May 2024. The article has been edited lightly from the original. 

Primary care internal medicine — the medical field I chose, loved, and practiced for four decades — is dead. 

The grief and shock I feel about this is personal and transpersonal. The loss of internists (internal medicine physicians) practicing primary care is a major loss to us all. 

From the 1970s to roughly 2020, there were three groups of primary care physicians: family practice, pediatricians, and internists. In their 3-year residencies (after 4 years of medical school), pediatricians trained to care for children and adolescents; internists for adults; and FPs for children, adults, and women and pregnancy. Family practitioners are the most general of the generalists, whereas the others’ training involves comprehensive care of complex patients in their age groups.

How and when the field of primary care internal medicine flourished is my story. 

I was one of those kids who was hyperfocused on science, math, and the human body. By the end of high school, I was considering medicine for my career. 

To learn more, I volunteered at the local hospital. In my typical style, I requested not to be one of those candy stripers serving drinks on the wards. Instead, they put me in the emergency department, where I would transport patients and clean the stretchers. There I was free to watch whatever was going on if I did not interfere with the staff. On my first shift, a 20-year-old drowning victim arrived by ambulance. I watched the entire unsuccessful resuscitation and as shocked and saddened as I was, I knew (in the way only a headstrong 18-year-old can) that medicine was for me. 

It was a fortuitous time to graduate as a female pre-med student. 

In 1975, our country was in the midst of the women’s movement and a national effort to train primary care physicians. I was accepted to my state medical school. The University of Massachusetts Medical School had been established a few years earlier, with its main purpose to train primary care physicians and spread them around the state (especially out of the Boston metropolitan area). The curriculum was designed to expose students to primary care from year one. I was assigned to shadow a general practice physician in inner-city Springfield who saw over 50 patients a day! The patients knew they could see and afford him, so they crammed into his waiting room until their name was called in order of their arrival. No appointments necessary. His chart notes were a few scribbled sentences. I didn’t see myself in that practice exactly, but his work ethic and dedication inspired me. 

Over half of our graduating class chose to train in primary care specialties, and most stayed in-state. It turned out to be a good bet on the part of the government of Massachusetts. 

When I applied for residency in 1980, several internal medicine programs had a focus on primary care, which was my goal. I matched at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Oregon, and moved across the country to the Pacific Northwest, never to look back. There, my attendings were doctors like I wanted to be: primary care internists in the community, not in academia. It was the perfect choice and an excellent training program. 

In 1984, I hung out my private practice internal medicine shingle in Hillsboro, Oregon, across the street from the community hospital. My primary care internal medicine colleagues and I shared weekend calls and admitted and cared for our patients in the hospital, and when they were discharged. That is now called “continuity of care.” It was a time when we ate in the doctors’ lounge together, met in hallways, and informally consulted each other about our patients. These were called “curbside consults.” They were invaluable to our ability to provide comprehensive care to our patients in primary care, led to fewer specialty referrals, and were free. That would now be called interprofessional communication and collegiality. 

“Burnout” was not a word you heard. We were busy and happy doing what we had spent 12 years of our precious youth to prepare for. 

What did internists offer to primary care? That also is part of my story. 

When I moved to Olympia, I took a position in the women’s health clinic at the American Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center. 

We were a small group: two family practice doctors, three nurse practitioners, and me, the only internist. Many of our patients were sick and complex. Two of the nurse practitioners (NPs) asked me to take their most complicated patients. Being comfortable with complexity as an internist, I said yes. 

One of the NPs was inappropriately hired, as she had experience in women’s health. She came to me freaked out: “Oh my God, I have no idea how to manage COPD!” The other wanted simpler patients. I don’t blame them for the patient transfers. NPs typically have 3 years of training before they practice, in contrast to primary care physicians’ 8. 

Guess who made friends with the custodian, staying until 8 p.m. most evenings, and who left by 5:30 p.m. 

What was I doing in those extra hours? I was trudging through clerical, yet important, tasks my medical assistant and transcriptionist used to do in private practice. In the 30 minutes allotted for the patient, I needed to focus entirely on them and their multiple complex medical problems. 

What is lost with the death of primary care internal medicine? 

At the recent Sommer Memorial Lectures in Portland, Steven D. Freer, MD, the current director of the residency program where I trained, has not had a single of his eight annual internal medicine graduates choose primary care in several years. Half (two of four) of those in my year did: One went to Tillamook, an underserved area on the Oregon coast, and I to Hillsboro. 

What are internal medicine training graduates doing now? They are becoming hospitalists or, more often, specialists in cardiology, pulmonology, nephrology, oncology, and other more lucrative fields of medicine. 

Why are they not choosing primary care? As when the University of Massachusetts Medical School was established, a shortage of primary care physicians persists and probably is more severe than it was in the 1970s. Massachusetts was proactive. We are already years behind catching up. The shortage is no longer in rural areas alone. 

Christine Laine, MD, who is editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine and spoke at the Sommer Memorial Lectures, lives in Philadelphia. Even there, she has lost her own primary care internal medicine physician and cannot find another primary care physician (much less an internist) for herself. 

Washington State, where I live, scores a D grade for our primary care staffing statewide. 

Is there hope for the future of primary care in general? Or for the restoration of primary care internal medicine? 

Maybe. I was relieved to hear from Dr. Freer and Dr. Laine that efforts are beginning to revive the field. 

Just like internists’ patients, the potential restoration of the field will be complex and multilayered. It will require new laws, policies, residency programs, and incentives for students, including debt reduction. Administrative burdens will need to be reduced; de-corporatization and restoring healthcare leadership to those with in-depth medical training will need to be a part of the solution as well. 

Let’s all hope the new resuscitation efforts will be successful for the field of primary care in general and primary care internal medicine specifically. It will be good for healthcare and for your patients! 

Many work for large systems in which they feel powerless to effect change.

Dr. Glasser is a retired internal medicine physician in Olympia, Washington. She can be reached at drdebra@theJOLTnews.com.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Dr. Glasser’s bimonthly column in The Jolt, a nonprofit online news organization based in Olympia, Washington. She was inspired to write her story after meeting Christine Laine, MD, one of three female physician presenters at the Sommer Lectures in Portland, Oregon, in May 2024. The article has been edited lightly from the original. 

Primary care internal medicine — the medical field I chose, loved, and practiced for four decades — is dead. 

The grief and shock I feel about this is personal and transpersonal. The loss of internists (internal medicine physicians) practicing primary care is a major loss to us all. 

From the 1970s to roughly 2020, there were three groups of primary care physicians: family practice, pediatricians, and internists. In their 3-year residencies (after 4 years of medical school), pediatricians trained to care for children and adolescents; internists for adults; and FPs for children, adults, and women and pregnancy. Family practitioners are the most general of the generalists, whereas the others’ training involves comprehensive care of complex patients in their age groups.

How and when the field of primary care internal medicine flourished is my story. 

I was one of those kids who was hyperfocused on science, math, and the human body. By the end of high school, I was considering medicine for my career. 

To learn more, I volunteered at the local hospital. In my typical style, I requested not to be one of those candy stripers serving drinks on the wards. Instead, they put me in the emergency department, where I would transport patients and clean the stretchers. There I was free to watch whatever was going on if I did not interfere with the staff. On my first shift, a 20-year-old drowning victim arrived by ambulance. I watched the entire unsuccessful resuscitation and as shocked and saddened as I was, I knew (in the way only a headstrong 18-year-old can) that medicine was for me. 

It was a fortuitous time to graduate as a female pre-med student. 

In 1975, our country was in the midst of the women’s movement and a national effort to train primary care physicians. I was accepted to my state medical school. The University of Massachusetts Medical School had been established a few years earlier, with its main purpose to train primary care physicians and spread them around the state (especially out of the Boston metropolitan area). The curriculum was designed to expose students to primary care from year one. I was assigned to shadow a general practice physician in inner-city Springfield who saw over 50 patients a day! The patients knew they could see and afford him, so they crammed into his waiting room until their name was called in order of their arrival. No appointments necessary. His chart notes were a few scribbled sentences. I didn’t see myself in that practice exactly, but his work ethic and dedication inspired me. 

Over half of our graduating class chose to train in primary care specialties, and most stayed in-state. It turned out to be a good bet on the part of the government of Massachusetts. 

When I applied for residency in 1980, several internal medicine programs had a focus on primary care, which was my goal. I matched at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Oregon, and moved across the country to the Pacific Northwest, never to look back. There, my attendings were doctors like I wanted to be: primary care internists in the community, not in academia. It was the perfect choice and an excellent training program. 

In 1984, I hung out my private practice internal medicine shingle in Hillsboro, Oregon, across the street from the community hospital. My primary care internal medicine colleagues and I shared weekend calls and admitted and cared for our patients in the hospital, and when they were discharged. That is now called “continuity of care.” It was a time when we ate in the doctors’ lounge together, met in hallways, and informally consulted each other about our patients. These were called “curbside consults.” They were invaluable to our ability to provide comprehensive care to our patients in primary care, led to fewer specialty referrals, and were free. That would now be called interprofessional communication and collegiality. 

“Burnout” was not a word you heard. We were busy and happy doing what we had spent 12 years of our precious youth to prepare for. 

What did internists offer to primary care? That also is part of my story. 

When I moved to Olympia, I took a position in the women’s health clinic at the American Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center. 

We were a small group: two family practice doctors, three nurse practitioners, and me, the only internist. Many of our patients were sick and complex. Two of the nurse practitioners (NPs) asked me to take their most complicated patients. Being comfortable with complexity as an internist, I said yes. 

One of the NPs was inappropriately hired, as she had experience in women’s health. She came to me freaked out: “Oh my God, I have no idea how to manage COPD!” The other wanted simpler patients. I don’t blame them for the patient transfers. NPs typically have 3 years of training before they practice, in contrast to primary care physicians’ 8. 

Guess who made friends with the custodian, staying until 8 p.m. most evenings, and who left by 5:30 p.m. 

What was I doing in those extra hours? I was trudging through clerical, yet important, tasks my medical assistant and transcriptionist used to do in private practice. In the 30 minutes allotted for the patient, I needed to focus entirely on them and their multiple complex medical problems. 

What is lost with the death of primary care internal medicine? 

At the recent Sommer Memorial Lectures in Portland, Steven D. Freer, MD, the current director of the residency program where I trained, has not had a single of his eight annual internal medicine graduates choose primary care in several years. Half (two of four) of those in my year did: One went to Tillamook, an underserved area on the Oregon coast, and I to Hillsboro. 

What are internal medicine training graduates doing now? They are becoming hospitalists or, more often, specialists in cardiology, pulmonology, nephrology, oncology, and other more lucrative fields of medicine. 

Why are they not choosing primary care? As when the University of Massachusetts Medical School was established, a shortage of primary care physicians persists and probably is more severe than it was in the 1970s. Massachusetts was proactive. We are already years behind catching up. The shortage is no longer in rural areas alone. 

Christine Laine, MD, who is editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine and spoke at the Sommer Memorial Lectures, lives in Philadelphia. Even there, she has lost her own primary care internal medicine physician and cannot find another primary care physician (much less an internist) for herself. 

Washington State, where I live, scores a D grade for our primary care staffing statewide. 

Is there hope for the future of primary care in general? Or for the restoration of primary care internal medicine? 

Maybe. I was relieved to hear from Dr. Freer and Dr. Laine that efforts are beginning to revive the field. 

Just like internists’ patients, the potential restoration of the field will be complex and multilayered. It will require new laws, policies, residency programs, and incentives for students, including debt reduction. Administrative burdens will need to be reduced; de-corporatization and restoring healthcare leadership to those with in-depth medical training will need to be a part of the solution as well. 

Let’s all hope the new resuscitation efforts will be successful for the field of primary care in general and primary care internal medicine specifically. It will be good for healthcare and for your patients! 

Many work for large systems in which they feel powerless to effect change.

Dr. Glasser is a retired internal medicine physician in Olympia, Washington. She can be reached at drdebra@theJOLTnews.com.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Dr. Glasser’s bimonthly column in The Jolt, a nonprofit online news organization based in Olympia, Washington. She was inspired to write her story after meeting Christine Laine, MD, one of three female physician presenters at the Sommer Lectures in Portland, Oregon, in May 2024. The article has been edited lightly from the original. 

Primary care internal medicine — the medical field I chose, loved, and practiced for four decades — is dead. 

The grief and shock I feel about this is personal and transpersonal. The loss of internists (internal medicine physicians) practicing primary care is a major loss to us all. 

From the 1970s to roughly 2020, there were three groups of primary care physicians: family practice, pediatricians, and internists. In their 3-year residencies (after 4 years of medical school), pediatricians trained to care for children and adolescents; internists for adults; and FPs for children, adults, and women and pregnancy. Family practitioners are the most general of the generalists, whereas the others’ training involves comprehensive care of complex patients in their age groups.

How and when the field of primary care internal medicine flourished is my story. 

I was one of those kids who was hyperfocused on science, math, and the human body. By the end of high school, I was considering medicine for my career. 

To learn more, I volunteered at the local hospital. In my typical style, I requested not to be one of those candy stripers serving drinks on the wards. Instead, they put me in the emergency department, where I would transport patients and clean the stretchers. There I was free to watch whatever was going on if I did not interfere with the staff. On my first shift, a 20-year-old drowning victim arrived by ambulance. I watched the entire unsuccessful resuscitation and as shocked and saddened as I was, I knew (in the way only a headstrong 18-year-old can) that medicine was for me. 

It was a fortuitous time to graduate as a female pre-med student. 

In 1975, our country was in the midst of the women’s movement and a national effort to train primary care physicians. I was accepted to my state medical school. The University of Massachusetts Medical School had been established a few years earlier, with its main purpose to train primary care physicians and spread them around the state (especially out of the Boston metropolitan area). The curriculum was designed to expose students to primary care from year one. I was assigned to shadow a general practice physician in inner-city Springfield who saw over 50 patients a day! The patients knew they could see and afford him, so they crammed into his waiting room until their name was called in order of their arrival. No appointments necessary. His chart notes were a few scribbled sentences. I didn’t see myself in that practice exactly, but his work ethic and dedication inspired me. 

Over half of our graduating class chose to train in primary care specialties, and most stayed in-state. It turned out to be a good bet on the part of the government of Massachusetts. 

When I applied for residency in 1980, several internal medicine programs had a focus on primary care, which was my goal. I matched at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Oregon, and moved across the country to the Pacific Northwest, never to look back. There, my attendings were doctors like I wanted to be: primary care internists in the community, not in academia. It was the perfect choice and an excellent training program. 

In 1984, I hung out my private practice internal medicine shingle in Hillsboro, Oregon, across the street from the community hospital. My primary care internal medicine colleagues and I shared weekend calls and admitted and cared for our patients in the hospital, and when they were discharged. That is now called “continuity of care.” It was a time when we ate in the doctors’ lounge together, met in hallways, and informally consulted each other about our patients. These were called “curbside consults.” They were invaluable to our ability to provide comprehensive care to our patients in primary care, led to fewer specialty referrals, and were free. That would now be called interprofessional communication and collegiality. 

“Burnout” was not a word you heard. We were busy and happy doing what we had spent 12 years of our precious youth to prepare for. 

What did internists offer to primary care? That also is part of my story. 

When I moved to Olympia, I took a position in the women’s health clinic at the American Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center. 

We were a small group: two family practice doctors, three nurse practitioners, and me, the only internist. Many of our patients were sick and complex. Two of the nurse practitioners (NPs) asked me to take their most complicated patients. Being comfortable with complexity as an internist, I said yes. 

One of the NPs was inappropriately hired, as she had experience in women’s health. She came to me freaked out: “Oh my God, I have no idea how to manage COPD!” The other wanted simpler patients. I don’t blame them for the patient transfers. NPs typically have 3 years of training before they practice, in contrast to primary care physicians’ 8. 

Guess who made friends with the custodian, staying until 8 p.m. most evenings, and who left by 5:30 p.m. 

What was I doing in those extra hours? I was trudging through clerical, yet important, tasks my medical assistant and transcriptionist used to do in private practice. In the 30 minutes allotted for the patient, I needed to focus entirely on them and their multiple complex medical problems. 

What is lost with the death of primary care internal medicine? 

At the recent Sommer Memorial Lectures in Portland, Steven D. Freer, MD, the current director of the residency program where I trained, has not had a single of his eight annual internal medicine graduates choose primary care in several years. Half (two of four) of those in my year did: One went to Tillamook, an underserved area on the Oregon coast, and I to Hillsboro. 

What are internal medicine training graduates doing now? They are becoming hospitalists or, more often, specialists in cardiology, pulmonology, nephrology, oncology, and other more lucrative fields of medicine. 

Why are they not choosing primary care? As when the University of Massachusetts Medical School was established, a shortage of primary care physicians persists and probably is more severe than it was in the 1970s. Massachusetts was proactive. We are already years behind catching up. The shortage is no longer in rural areas alone. 

Christine Laine, MD, who is editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine and spoke at the Sommer Memorial Lectures, lives in Philadelphia. Even there, she has lost her own primary care internal medicine physician and cannot find another primary care physician (much less an internist) for herself. 

Washington State, where I live, scores a D grade for our primary care staffing statewide. 

Is there hope for the future of primary care in general? Or for the restoration of primary care internal medicine? 

Maybe. I was relieved to hear from Dr. Freer and Dr. Laine that efforts are beginning to revive the field. 

Just like internists’ patients, the potential restoration of the field will be complex and multilayered. It will require new laws, policies, residency programs, and incentives for students, including debt reduction. Administrative burdens will need to be reduced; de-corporatization and restoring healthcare leadership to those with in-depth medical training will need to be a part of the solution as well. 

Let’s all hope the new resuscitation efforts will be successful for the field of primary care in general and primary care internal medicine specifically. It will be good for healthcare and for your patients! 

Many work for large systems in which they feel powerless to effect change.

Dr. Glasser is a retired internal medicine physician in Olympia, Washington. She can be reached at drdebra@theJOLTnews.com.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Avoiding severe skin reactions to antiseizure medications (ASMs) requires assessing patient risk factors and prescribing lower-risk drugs wherever possible, according to authors of a recent review. And if putting higher-risk patients on drugs most associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–related reaction risk before test results are available, authors advised starting at low doses and titrating slowly.

“When someone is having a seizure drug prescribed,” said senior author Ram Mani, MD, MSCE, chief of epilepsy at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, “it’s often a tense clinical situation because the patient has either had the first few seizures of their life, or they’ve had a worsening in their seizures.”

courtesy Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

To help physicians optimize choices, Dr. Mani and colleagues reviewed literature regarding 31 ASMs. Their study was published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology.

Overall, said Dr. Mani, incidence of benign skin reactions such as morbilliform exanthematous eruptions, which account for 95% of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), ranges from a few percent up to 15%. “It’s a somewhat common occurrence. Fortunately, the reactions that can lead to morbidity and mortality are fairly rare.”
 

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions

Among the five ASMs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2018, cenobamate has sparked the greatest concern. In early clinical development for epilepsy, a fast titration schedule (starting at 50 mg/day and increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks to at least 200 mg/day) resulted in three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS, also called drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction/DIHS), including one fatal case. Based on a phase 3 trial, the drug’s manufacturer now recommends starting at 12.5 mg and titrating more slowly.

DRESS/DIHS appears within 2-6 weeks of drug exposure. Along with malaise, fever, and conjunctivitis, symptoms can include skin eruptions ranging from morbilliform to hemorrhagic and bullous. “Facial edema and early facial rash are classic findings,” the authors added. DRESS also can involve painful lymphadenopathy and potentially life-threatening damage to the liver, heart, and other organs.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is characterized by detached skin measuring less than 10% of the entire body surface area, typically happens within the first month of drug exposure. Flu-like symptoms can appear 1-3 days before erythematous to dusky macules, commonly on the chest, as well as cutaneous and mucosal erosions. Along with the skin and conjunctiva, SJS can affect the eyes, lungs, liver, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract.

When patients present with possible DRESS or SJS, the authors recommended inpatient multidisciplinary care. Having ready access to blood tests can help assess severity and prognosis, Dr. Mani explained. Inpatient evaluation and treatment also may allow faster access to other specialists as needed, and monitoring of potential seizure exacerbation in patients with uncontrolled seizures for whom the drug provided benefit but required abrupt discontinuation.

Often, he added, all hope is not lost for future use of the medication after a minor skin reaction. A case series and literature review of mild lamotrigine-associated CADRs showed that most patients could reintroduce and titrate lamotrigine by waiting at least 4 weeks, beginning at 5 mg/day, and gradually increasing to 25 mg/day.
 

Identifying Those at Risk

With millions of patients being newly prescribed ASMs annually, accurately screening out all people at risk of severe cutaneous adverse reactions based on available genetic information is impossible. The complexity of evolving recommendations for HLA testing makes them hard to remember, Dr. Mani said. “Development and better use of clinical decision support systems can help.”

Accordingly, he starts with a thorough history and physical examination, inquiring about prior skin reactions or hypersensitivity, which are risk factors for future reactions to drugs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and zonisamide. “Most of the medicines that the HLA tests are being done for are not the initial medicines I typically prescribe for a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy,” said Dr. Mani. For ASM-naive patients with moderate or high risk of skin hypersensitivity reactions, he usually starts with lacosamide, levetiracetam, or brivaracetam. Additional low-risk drugs he considers in more complex cases include valproate, topiramate, and clobazam.

Only if a patient’s initial ASM causes problems will Dr. Mani consider higher-risk options and order HLA tests for patients belonging to indicated groups — such as testing for HLA-B*15:02 in Asian patients being considered for carbamazepine. About once weekly, he must put a patient on a potentially higher-risk drug before test results are available. If after a thorough risk-benefit discussion, he and the patient agree that the higher-risk drug is warranted, Dr. Mani starts at a lower-than-labeled dose, with a slower titration schedule that typically extends the ramp-up period by 1 week.

Fortunately, Dr. Mani said that, in 20 years of practice, he has seen more misdiagnoses — involving rashes from poison ivy, viral infections, or allergies — than actual ASM-induced reactions. “That’s why the patient, family, and practitioner need to be open-minded about what could be causing the rash.”

Dr. Mani reported no relevant conflicts. The study authors reported no funding sources.

Avoiding severe skin reactions to antiseizure medications (ASMs) requires assessing patient risk factors and prescribing lower-risk drugs wherever possible, according to authors of a recent review. And if putting higher-risk patients on drugs most associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–related reaction risk before test results are available, authors advised starting at low doses and titrating slowly.

“When someone is having a seizure drug prescribed,” said senior author Ram Mani, MD, MSCE, chief of epilepsy at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, “it’s often a tense clinical situation because the patient has either had the first few seizures of their life, or they’ve had a worsening in their seizures.”

courtesy Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

To help physicians optimize choices, Dr. Mani and colleagues reviewed literature regarding 31 ASMs. Their study was published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology.

Overall, said Dr. Mani, incidence of benign skin reactions such as morbilliform exanthematous eruptions, which account for 95% of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), ranges from a few percent up to 15%. “It’s a somewhat common occurrence. Fortunately, the reactions that can lead to morbidity and mortality are fairly rare.”
 

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions

Among the five ASMs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2018, cenobamate has sparked the greatest concern. In early clinical development for epilepsy, a fast titration schedule (starting at 50 mg/day and increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks to at least 200 mg/day) resulted in three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS, also called drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction/DIHS), including one fatal case. Based on a phase 3 trial, the drug’s manufacturer now recommends starting at 12.5 mg and titrating more slowly.

DRESS/DIHS appears within 2-6 weeks of drug exposure. Along with malaise, fever, and conjunctivitis, symptoms can include skin eruptions ranging from morbilliform to hemorrhagic and bullous. “Facial edema and early facial rash are classic findings,” the authors added. DRESS also can involve painful lymphadenopathy and potentially life-threatening damage to the liver, heart, and other organs.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is characterized by detached skin measuring less than 10% of the entire body surface area, typically happens within the first month of drug exposure. Flu-like symptoms can appear 1-3 days before erythematous to dusky macules, commonly on the chest, as well as cutaneous and mucosal erosions. Along with the skin and conjunctiva, SJS can affect the eyes, lungs, liver, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract.

When patients present with possible DRESS or SJS, the authors recommended inpatient multidisciplinary care. Having ready access to blood tests can help assess severity and prognosis, Dr. Mani explained. Inpatient evaluation and treatment also may allow faster access to other specialists as needed, and monitoring of potential seizure exacerbation in patients with uncontrolled seizures for whom the drug provided benefit but required abrupt discontinuation.

Often, he added, all hope is not lost for future use of the medication after a minor skin reaction. A case series and literature review of mild lamotrigine-associated CADRs showed that most patients could reintroduce and titrate lamotrigine by waiting at least 4 weeks, beginning at 5 mg/day, and gradually increasing to 25 mg/day.
 

Identifying Those at Risk

With millions of patients being newly prescribed ASMs annually, accurately screening out all people at risk of severe cutaneous adverse reactions based on available genetic information is impossible. The complexity of evolving recommendations for HLA testing makes them hard to remember, Dr. Mani said. “Development and better use of clinical decision support systems can help.”

Accordingly, he starts with a thorough history and physical examination, inquiring about prior skin reactions or hypersensitivity, which are risk factors for future reactions to drugs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and zonisamide. “Most of the medicines that the HLA tests are being done for are not the initial medicines I typically prescribe for a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy,” said Dr. Mani. For ASM-naive patients with moderate or high risk of skin hypersensitivity reactions, he usually starts with lacosamide, levetiracetam, or brivaracetam. Additional low-risk drugs he considers in more complex cases include valproate, topiramate, and clobazam.

Only if a patient’s initial ASM causes problems will Dr. Mani consider higher-risk options and order HLA tests for patients belonging to indicated groups — such as testing for HLA-B*15:02 in Asian patients being considered for carbamazepine. About once weekly, he must put a patient on a potentially higher-risk drug before test results are available. If after a thorough risk-benefit discussion, he and the patient agree that the higher-risk drug is warranted, Dr. Mani starts at a lower-than-labeled dose, with a slower titration schedule that typically extends the ramp-up period by 1 week.

Fortunately, Dr. Mani said that, in 20 years of practice, he has seen more misdiagnoses — involving rashes from poison ivy, viral infections, or allergies — than actual ASM-induced reactions. “That’s why the patient, family, and practitioner need to be open-minded about what could be causing the rash.”

Dr. Mani reported no relevant conflicts. The study authors reported no funding sources.

Avoiding severe skin reactions to antiseizure medications (ASMs) requires assessing patient risk factors and prescribing lower-risk drugs wherever possible, according to authors of a recent review. And if putting higher-risk patients on drugs most associated with human leukocyte antigen (HLA)–related reaction risk before test results are available, authors advised starting at low doses and titrating slowly.

“When someone is having a seizure drug prescribed,” said senior author Ram Mani, MD, MSCE, chief of epilepsy at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, “it’s often a tense clinical situation because the patient has either had the first few seizures of their life, or they’ve had a worsening in their seizures.”

courtesy Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

To help physicians optimize choices, Dr. Mani and colleagues reviewed literature regarding 31 ASMs. Their study was published in Current Treatment Options in Neurology.

Overall, said Dr. Mani, incidence of benign skin reactions such as morbilliform exanthematous eruptions, which account for 95% of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs), ranges from a few percent up to 15%. “It’s a somewhat common occurrence. Fortunately, the reactions that can lead to morbidity and mortality are fairly rare.”
 

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions

Among the five ASMs approved by the Food and Drug Administration since 2018, cenobamate has sparked the greatest concern. In early clinical development for epilepsy, a fast titration schedule (starting at 50 mg/day and increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks to at least 200 mg/day) resulted in three cases of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS, also called drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction/DIHS), including one fatal case. Based on a phase 3 trial, the drug’s manufacturer now recommends starting at 12.5 mg and titrating more slowly.

DRESS/DIHS appears within 2-6 weeks of drug exposure. Along with malaise, fever, and conjunctivitis, symptoms can include skin eruptions ranging from morbilliform to hemorrhagic and bullous. “Facial edema and early facial rash are classic findings,” the authors added. DRESS also can involve painful lymphadenopathy and potentially life-threatening damage to the liver, heart, and other organs.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), which is characterized by detached skin measuring less than 10% of the entire body surface area, typically happens within the first month of drug exposure. Flu-like symptoms can appear 1-3 days before erythematous to dusky macules, commonly on the chest, as well as cutaneous and mucosal erosions. Along with the skin and conjunctiva, SJS can affect the eyes, lungs, liver, bone marrow, and gastrointestinal tract.

When patients present with possible DRESS or SJS, the authors recommended inpatient multidisciplinary care. Having ready access to blood tests can help assess severity and prognosis, Dr. Mani explained. Inpatient evaluation and treatment also may allow faster access to other specialists as needed, and monitoring of potential seizure exacerbation in patients with uncontrolled seizures for whom the drug provided benefit but required abrupt discontinuation.

Often, he added, all hope is not lost for future use of the medication after a minor skin reaction. A case series and literature review of mild lamotrigine-associated CADRs showed that most patients could reintroduce and titrate lamotrigine by waiting at least 4 weeks, beginning at 5 mg/day, and gradually increasing to 25 mg/day.
 

Identifying Those at Risk

With millions of patients being newly prescribed ASMs annually, accurately screening out all people at risk of severe cutaneous adverse reactions based on available genetic information is impossible. The complexity of evolving recommendations for HLA testing makes them hard to remember, Dr. Mani said. “Development and better use of clinical decision support systems can help.”

Accordingly, he starts with a thorough history and physical examination, inquiring about prior skin reactions or hypersensitivity, which are risk factors for future reactions to drugs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, rufinamide, and zonisamide. “Most of the medicines that the HLA tests are being done for are not the initial medicines I typically prescribe for a patient with newly diagnosed epilepsy,” said Dr. Mani. For ASM-naive patients with moderate or high risk of skin hypersensitivity reactions, he usually starts with lacosamide, levetiracetam, or brivaracetam. Additional low-risk drugs he considers in more complex cases include valproate, topiramate, and clobazam.

Only if a patient’s initial ASM causes problems will Dr. Mani consider higher-risk options and order HLA tests for patients belonging to indicated groups — such as testing for HLA-B*15:02 in Asian patients being considered for carbamazepine. About once weekly, he must put a patient on a potentially higher-risk drug before test results are available. If after a thorough risk-benefit discussion, he and the patient agree that the higher-risk drug is warranted, Dr. Mani starts at a lower-than-labeled dose, with a slower titration schedule that typically extends the ramp-up period by 1 week.

Fortunately, Dr. Mani said that, in 20 years of practice, he has seen more misdiagnoses — involving rashes from poison ivy, viral infections, or allergies — than actual ASM-induced reactions. “That’s why the patient, family, and practitioner need to be open-minded about what could be causing the rash.”

Dr. Mani reported no relevant conflicts. The study authors reported no funding sources.