Neurology Reviews

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual orexin receptor antagonist daridorexant (Quviviq) for the treatment of insomnia in adults, the drug’s manufacturer, Idorsia, has announced.

The FDA’s decision was based partly on a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate to severe insomnia who were randomly assigned to receive 25 or 50 mg of daridorexant or matching placebo. Daridorexant was associated with dose-dependent improvements in wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, and latency to persistent sleep.

Whereas the overall results are very positive, the improvements in daytime functioning are especially “exciting,” Thomas Roth, PhD, director of the Sleep Disorders and Research Center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, said in an interview.

“That’s sort of a big deal. For me, that’s the biggest deal there is,” said Dr. Roth, who was a consultant on the design of the phase 3 trial and on the interpretation of the data.

The drug will be available in doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, and the FDA has recommended that it be classified as a controlled substance. After it is scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, daridorexant is expected to be made available in May.
 

Favorable safety profile

Insomnia is a common disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep and by early-morning awakenings. Patients with insomnia often report fatigue, irritability, and difficulty with concentration. The condition can also result in significant problems with work and social activities, thus contributing to anxiety or depression.

As with other dual orexin receptor antagonists, daridorexant competitively binds with both orexin receptors in the lateral hypothalamus to block the activity of orexin in a reversible way. This approach decreases the downstream action of the wake-promoting neurotransmitters that are overactive in patients with insomnia.

The phase 3 trial measured daytime functioning using the new Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a patient-reported outcome instrument. Daridorexant was associated with significant improvements in daytime function, particularly in sleepiness and mood.

Previous trials of other dual orexin receptor antagonists did not use the IDSIQ as an outcome, so it is not possible to compare daridorexant with those drugs in this respect, Dr. Roth noted. Researchers also have not conducted head-to-head trials of the drug with other dual orexin receptor antagonists.

Daridorexant also had a favorable safety profile and was not associated with rebound insomnia or withdrawal effects. The most common adverse events were headache and somnolence or fatigue.

“They had no effect on sleep stage distribution [and] they had no significant effects on sleep and breathing in people with mild to moderate sleep apnea,” said Dr. Roth, who presented the phase 3 findings at SLEEP 2020. 

In addition to serving as a consultant for Idorsia on the trial design and interpretation of results, Dr. Roth has also served as a consultant for other companies that develop sleep agents.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual orexin receptor antagonist daridorexant (Quviviq) for the treatment of insomnia in adults, the drug’s manufacturer, Idorsia, has announced.

The FDA’s decision was based partly on a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate to severe insomnia who were randomly assigned to receive 25 or 50 mg of daridorexant or matching placebo. Daridorexant was associated with dose-dependent improvements in wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, and latency to persistent sleep.

Whereas the overall results are very positive, the improvements in daytime functioning are especially “exciting,” Thomas Roth, PhD, director of the Sleep Disorders and Research Center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, said in an interview.

“That’s sort of a big deal. For me, that’s the biggest deal there is,” said Dr. Roth, who was a consultant on the design of the phase 3 trial and on the interpretation of the data.

The drug will be available in doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, and the FDA has recommended that it be classified as a controlled substance. After it is scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, daridorexant is expected to be made available in May.
 

Favorable safety profile

Insomnia is a common disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep and by early-morning awakenings. Patients with insomnia often report fatigue, irritability, and difficulty with concentration. The condition can also result in significant problems with work and social activities, thus contributing to anxiety or depression.

As with other dual orexin receptor antagonists, daridorexant competitively binds with both orexin receptors in the lateral hypothalamus to block the activity of orexin in a reversible way. This approach decreases the downstream action of the wake-promoting neurotransmitters that are overactive in patients with insomnia.

The phase 3 trial measured daytime functioning using the new Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a patient-reported outcome instrument. Daridorexant was associated with significant improvements in daytime function, particularly in sleepiness and mood.

Previous trials of other dual orexin receptor antagonists did not use the IDSIQ as an outcome, so it is not possible to compare daridorexant with those drugs in this respect, Dr. Roth noted. Researchers also have not conducted head-to-head trials of the drug with other dual orexin receptor antagonists.

Daridorexant also had a favorable safety profile and was not associated with rebound insomnia or withdrawal effects. The most common adverse events were headache and somnolence or fatigue.

“They had no effect on sleep stage distribution [and] they had no significant effects on sleep and breathing in people with mild to moderate sleep apnea,” said Dr. Roth, who presented the phase 3 findings at SLEEP 2020. 

In addition to serving as a consultant for Idorsia on the trial design and interpretation of results, Dr. Roth has also served as a consultant for other companies that develop sleep agents.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual orexin receptor antagonist daridorexant (Quviviq) for the treatment of insomnia in adults, the drug’s manufacturer, Idorsia, has announced.

The FDA’s decision was based partly on a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate to severe insomnia who were randomly assigned to receive 25 or 50 mg of daridorexant or matching placebo. Daridorexant was associated with dose-dependent improvements in wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, and latency to persistent sleep.

Whereas the overall results are very positive, the improvements in daytime functioning are especially “exciting,” Thomas Roth, PhD, director of the Sleep Disorders and Research Center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, said in an interview.

“That’s sort of a big deal. For me, that’s the biggest deal there is,” said Dr. Roth, who was a consultant on the design of the phase 3 trial and on the interpretation of the data.

The drug will be available in doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, and the FDA has recommended that it be classified as a controlled substance. After it is scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, daridorexant is expected to be made available in May.
 

Favorable safety profile

Insomnia is a common disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep and by early-morning awakenings. Patients with insomnia often report fatigue, irritability, and difficulty with concentration. The condition can also result in significant problems with work and social activities, thus contributing to anxiety or depression.

As with other dual orexin receptor antagonists, daridorexant competitively binds with both orexin receptors in the lateral hypothalamus to block the activity of orexin in a reversible way. This approach decreases the downstream action of the wake-promoting neurotransmitters that are overactive in patients with insomnia.

The phase 3 trial measured daytime functioning using the new Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a patient-reported outcome instrument. Daridorexant was associated with significant improvements in daytime function, particularly in sleepiness and mood.

Previous trials of other dual orexin receptor antagonists did not use the IDSIQ as an outcome, so it is not possible to compare daridorexant with those drugs in this respect, Dr. Roth noted. Researchers also have not conducted head-to-head trials of the drug with other dual orexin receptor antagonists.

Daridorexant also had a favorable safety profile and was not associated with rebound insomnia or withdrawal effects. The most common adverse events were headache and somnolence or fatigue.

“They had no effect on sleep stage distribution [and] they had no significant effects on sleep and breathing in people with mild to moderate sleep apnea,” said Dr. Roth, who presented the phase 3 findings at SLEEP 2020. 

In addition to serving as a consultant for Idorsia on the trial design and interpretation of results, Dr. Roth has also served as a consultant for other companies that develop sleep agents.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

A distinct pattern of frontal-temporal atrophy discernible on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may flag chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in living patients, new research suggests.

“These new results offer some hope for clinicians who are really struggling to confidently diagnose or detect CTE during life,” said lead author Michael L. Alosco, PhD, associate professor of neurology, codirector of the Boston University Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, and investigator at the Boston University CTE Center.

The findings were published online Dec. 7, 2021, in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.
 

A new way to diagnose?

CTE is a neurodegenerative disease associated with exposure to repetitive blows to the head, such as those sustained playing contact sports. Currently, the condition can only be reliably diagnosed at autopsy using neuropathological diagnostic criteria.

There are four pathological stages of CTE, ranging from mild to severe. Each progressive stage reflects mounting accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau).

The study included 55 male brain donors with confirmed CTE, all with a history of repetitive head injury. Most (n = 52) played football, but two played ice hockey and one had military and combat exposure. The analysis also included 31 men with normal cognition (NC). Of these, some were living and some were deceased.

The study sample was restricted to participants age 60 and older and to those who had an MRI obtained through a medical record request.

Most referrals for MRI in the CTE group were related to dementia or neurodegenerative disease (65%). In the NC group, MRI indications were mostly related to cerebrovascular causes (22.6%), memory complaints (16.1%), or vertigo (9.7%).

From MRIs, neuroradiologists visually rated patterns of shrinkage in the brain, microvascular disease, and presence of cavum septum pellucidum (CSP) – a large hole in the tissue separating ventricles of the brain.
 

More atrophy

Results showed that compared with the NC group, the CTE group had significantly greater atrophy in several brain regions, including the orbital-frontal cortex, dorsolateral frontal cortex, superior frontal cortex, anterior temporal lobes, and medial temporal lobe.

The dorsolateral frontal cortex showed the largest group difference (estimated marginal mean difference, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, .42-2.19; false discovery rate-adjusted P = .01).

Previous research has shown early p-tau involvement in this area among CTE patients. Although the hippocampus is also affected in CTE, this occurs later in the disease course, the investigators noted.

The unique pattern, type, and distribution of p-tau pathology in CTE is different from Alzheimer’s disease. CTE is also distinct from Alzheimer’s disease in that there is no accumulation of beta-amyloid plaque.

The new results add to “converging evidence” for frontotemporal and medial temporal lobe atrophy in CTE “that might be able to be visualized on MRI,” the investigators noted.

Almost two-thirds of the CTE group had an additional neurodegenerative disease. Furthermore, the effect sizes remained similar in analyses that excluded CTE donors with frontotemporal lobar degeneration or Alzheimer’s disease.

“This suggests to us that these other diseases were not accounting for the atrophy,” Dr. Alosco said.

Individuals with CTE were 6.7 times more likely to have a CSP versus those with NC (odds ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.5-50.1; P = .049).

Although previous research suggested an association between CSP and repetitive concussion, CSP is also frequently found in the general adult population. However, when combined with data on frontal lobe shrinkage, it may be a supportive differential diagnostic feature for CTE, Dr. Alosco said.
 

An important first step

The investigators also examined ventricle size. The lateral ventricles in the CTE group were significantly larger (mean difference, 1.72; 95% CI, .62-2.82; P = .01), as was the third ventricle (mean difference, .80; 95% CI, .26-1.35; P = .01).

When neuropathologists rated tau severity and atrophy at autopsy, they found that more severe p-tau pathology was associated with greater atrophy among those with CTE (beta = .68; P < .01).

Dr. Alosco called the finding “exciting,” noting that it suggests “this tau is a precipitant for neurodegeneration.”

He noted that, although some researchers have used positron emission tomography (PET) tau tracers to uncover a CTE pattern, MRI is relatively inexpensive and routinely used as part of dementia assessment.

While the new study is “an important first step” in using MRI to diagnose CTE, larger sample sizes are needed, Dr. Alosco said. “We also need to look at other disease groups and really nail down the difference with CTE in terms of patterns” (vs. Alzheimer’s disease and vs. frontotemporal lobar degeneration), he added.

“Once those differences are cleared, we will be ready to be more confident when we interpret these images.”.
 

‘Not unexpected’

Commenting on the research, neurologist and concussion expert Francis X. Conidi, DO, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie, said that, although the study was “well thought out and interesting,” the results were “not completely unexpected.”

Frontal and anterior temporal lobe atrophy and prominent third ventricles are very common in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), which is “a prerequisite to develop CTE,” said Dr. Conidi, who was not involved with the research.

The current study’s findings mirror observations found in a National Football League cohort he and his colleagues are following – and in his patients with TBI in general.

Dr. Conidi noted that there is a “significant subjective component” to the study results because they relied on the opinion of neuroradiologists. He is not convinced MRI findings of frontotemporal and medial temporal lobe atrophy necessarily represent CTE and not TBI. In fact, he noted that patients with TBI have a significantly greater chance of not developing a neurodegenerative disorder.

Dr. Conidi added that he doesn’t think MRI will ever be the gold standard for diagnosing or even assessing risk of developing CTE. “That lies in tau PET imaging,” he said.
 

Overstated conclusion?

Also commenting on the research findings, Kristen Dams-O’Connor, PhD, professor, vice chair of research, and director, Brain Injury Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said the sensitivity analyses, particularly those designed to clarify contributions of Alzheimer’s disease and other neuropathological contributions to associations between p-tau and atrophy, “increase our confidence” in the findings.

“What’s exciting about this paper is that it provides very preliminary support for adding another tool to our arsenal as we try to establish a constellation of in vivo diagnostic markers that, together, will help us rule in a post-traumatic neurodegenerative process and rule out other brain diseases.”

A possible study limitation is that the MRI scans were from low-field strength magnets, although that makes the study more “ecologically valid”, said Dr. Dams-O’Connor. “Many clinical scanners are built around a 1.5T magnet, so what the researchers see in this study is what a radiologist may see in the clinic.”

The conclusion that frontal-temporal atrophy is an MRI marker of CTE is “an overstatement” as this pattern of atrophy is not specific to CTE, said Dr. Dams-O’Connor. “The association of p-tau with atrophy is unsurprising and doesn’t bring us much closer to understanding how, or whether, the patterns of p-tau accumulation observed in CTE contribute to the clinical expression of symptoms.”

Dr. Alosco and Dr. Conidi report no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original journal article. The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Aging Boston University AD Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Merit Award, the Nick and Lynn Buoniconti Foundation, and BU-CTSI.

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

A distinct pattern of frontal-temporal atrophy discernible on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may flag chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in living patients, new research suggests.

“These new results offer some hope for clinicians who are really struggling to confidently diagnose or detect CTE during life,” said lead author Michael L. Alosco, PhD, associate professor of neurology, codirector of the Boston University Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, and investigator at the Boston University CTE Center.

The findings were published online Dec. 7, 2021, in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.
 

A new way to diagnose?

CTE is a neurodegenerative disease associated with exposure to repetitive blows to the head, such as those sustained playing contact sports. Currently, the condition can only be reliably diagnosed at autopsy using neuropathological diagnostic criteria.

There are four pathological stages of CTE, ranging from mild to severe. Each progressive stage reflects mounting accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau).

The study included 55 male brain donors with confirmed CTE, all with a history of repetitive head injury. Most (n = 52) played football, but two played ice hockey and one had military and combat exposure. The analysis also included 31 men with normal cognition (NC). Of these, some were living and some were deceased.

The study sample was restricted to participants age 60 and older and to those who had an MRI obtained through a medical record request.

Most referrals for MRI in the CTE group were related to dementia or neurodegenerative disease (65%). In the NC group, MRI indications were mostly related to cerebrovascular causes (22.6%), memory complaints (16.1%), or vertigo (9.7%).

From MRIs, neuroradiologists visually rated patterns of shrinkage in the brain, microvascular disease, and presence of cavum septum pellucidum (CSP) – a large hole in the tissue separating ventricles of the brain.
 

More atrophy

Results showed that compared with the NC group, the CTE group had significantly greater atrophy in several brain regions, including the orbital-frontal cortex, dorsolateral frontal cortex, superior frontal cortex, anterior temporal lobes, and medial temporal lobe.

The dorsolateral frontal cortex showed the largest group difference (estimated marginal mean difference, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, .42-2.19; false discovery rate-adjusted P = .01).

Previous research has shown early p-tau involvement in this area among CTE patients. Although the hippocampus is also affected in CTE, this occurs later in the disease course, the investigators noted.

The unique pattern, type, and distribution of p-tau pathology in CTE is different from Alzheimer’s disease. CTE is also distinct from Alzheimer’s disease in that there is no accumulation of beta-amyloid plaque.

The new results add to “converging evidence” for frontotemporal and medial temporal lobe atrophy in CTE “that might be able to be visualized on MRI,” the investigators noted.

Almost two-thirds of the CTE group had an additional neurodegenerative disease. Furthermore, the effect sizes remained similar in analyses that excluded CTE donors with frontotemporal lobar degeneration or Alzheimer’s disease.

“This suggests to us that these other diseases were not accounting for the atrophy,” Dr. Alosco said.

Individuals with CTE were 6.7 times more likely to have a CSP versus those with NC (odds ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.5-50.1; P = .049).

Although previous research suggested an association between CSP and repetitive concussion, CSP is also frequently found in the general adult population. However, when combined with data on frontal lobe shrinkage, it may be a supportive differential diagnostic feature for CTE, Dr. Alosco said.
 

An important first step

The investigators also examined ventricle size. The lateral ventricles in the CTE group were significantly larger (mean difference, 1.72; 95% CI, .62-2.82; P = .01), as was the third ventricle (mean difference, .80; 95% CI, .26-1.35; P = .01).

When neuropathologists rated tau severity and atrophy at autopsy, they found that more severe p-tau pathology was associated with greater atrophy among those with CTE (beta = .68; P < .01).

Dr. Alosco called the finding “exciting,” noting that it suggests “this tau is a precipitant for neurodegeneration.”

He noted that, although some researchers have used positron emission tomography (PET) tau tracers to uncover a CTE pattern, MRI is relatively inexpensive and routinely used as part of dementia assessment.

While the new study is “an important first step” in using MRI to diagnose CTE, larger sample sizes are needed, Dr. Alosco said. “We also need to look at other disease groups and really nail down the difference with CTE in terms of patterns” (vs. Alzheimer’s disease and vs. frontotemporal lobar degeneration), he added.

“Once those differences are cleared, we will be ready to be more confident when we interpret these images.”.
 

‘Not unexpected’

Commenting on the research, neurologist and concussion expert Francis X. Conidi, DO, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie, said that, although the study was “well thought out and interesting,” the results were “not completely unexpected.”

Frontal and anterior temporal lobe atrophy and prominent third ventricles are very common in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), which is “a prerequisite to develop CTE,” said Dr. Conidi, who was not involved with the research.

The current study’s findings mirror observations found in a National Football League cohort he and his colleagues are following – and in his patients with TBI in general.

Dr. Conidi noted that there is a “significant subjective component” to the study results because they relied on the opinion of neuroradiologists. He is not convinced MRI findings of frontotemporal and medial temporal lobe atrophy necessarily represent CTE and not TBI. In fact, he noted that patients with TBI have a significantly greater chance of not developing a neurodegenerative disorder.

Dr. Conidi added that he doesn’t think MRI will ever be the gold standard for diagnosing or even assessing risk of developing CTE. “That lies in tau PET imaging,” he said.
 

Overstated conclusion?

Also commenting on the research findings, Kristen Dams-O’Connor, PhD, professor, vice chair of research, and director, Brain Injury Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said the sensitivity analyses, particularly those designed to clarify contributions of Alzheimer’s disease and other neuropathological contributions to associations between p-tau and atrophy, “increase our confidence” in the findings.

“What’s exciting about this paper is that it provides very preliminary support for adding another tool to our arsenal as we try to establish a constellation of in vivo diagnostic markers that, together, will help us rule in a post-traumatic neurodegenerative process and rule out other brain diseases.”

A possible study limitation is that the MRI scans were from low-field strength magnets, although that makes the study more “ecologically valid”, said Dr. Dams-O’Connor. “Many clinical scanners are built around a 1.5T magnet, so what the researchers see in this study is what a radiologist may see in the clinic.”

The conclusion that frontal-temporal atrophy is an MRI marker of CTE is “an overstatement” as this pattern of atrophy is not specific to CTE, said Dr. Dams-O’Connor. “The association of p-tau with atrophy is unsurprising and doesn’t bring us much closer to understanding how, or whether, the patterns of p-tau accumulation observed in CTE contribute to the clinical expression of symptoms.”

Dr. Alosco and Dr. Conidi report no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original journal article. The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Aging Boston University AD Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Merit Award, the Nick and Lynn Buoniconti Foundation, and BU-CTSI.

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

A distinct pattern of frontal-temporal atrophy discernible on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may flag chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in living patients, new research suggests.

“These new results offer some hope for clinicians who are really struggling to confidently diagnose or detect CTE during life,” said lead author Michael L. Alosco, PhD, associate professor of neurology, codirector of the Boston University Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, and investigator at the Boston University CTE Center.

The findings were published online Dec. 7, 2021, in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.
 

A new way to diagnose?

CTE is a neurodegenerative disease associated with exposure to repetitive blows to the head, such as those sustained playing contact sports. Currently, the condition can only be reliably diagnosed at autopsy using neuropathological diagnostic criteria.

There are four pathological stages of CTE, ranging from mild to severe. Each progressive stage reflects mounting accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau).

The study included 55 male brain donors with confirmed CTE, all with a history of repetitive head injury. Most (n = 52) played football, but two played ice hockey and one had military and combat exposure. The analysis also included 31 men with normal cognition (NC). Of these, some were living and some were deceased.

The study sample was restricted to participants age 60 and older and to those who had an MRI obtained through a medical record request.

Most referrals for MRI in the CTE group were related to dementia or neurodegenerative disease (65%). In the NC group, MRI indications were mostly related to cerebrovascular causes (22.6%), memory complaints (16.1%), or vertigo (9.7%).

From MRIs, neuroradiologists visually rated patterns of shrinkage in the brain, microvascular disease, and presence of cavum septum pellucidum (CSP) – a large hole in the tissue separating ventricles of the brain.
 

More atrophy

Results showed that compared with the NC group, the CTE group had significantly greater atrophy in several brain regions, including the orbital-frontal cortex, dorsolateral frontal cortex, superior frontal cortex, anterior temporal lobes, and medial temporal lobe.

The dorsolateral frontal cortex showed the largest group difference (estimated marginal mean difference, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, .42-2.19; false discovery rate-adjusted P = .01).

Previous research has shown early p-tau involvement in this area among CTE patients. Although the hippocampus is also affected in CTE, this occurs later in the disease course, the investigators noted.

The unique pattern, type, and distribution of p-tau pathology in CTE is different from Alzheimer’s disease. CTE is also distinct from Alzheimer’s disease in that there is no accumulation of beta-amyloid plaque.

The new results add to “converging evidence” for frontotemporal and medial temporal lobe atrophy in CTE “that might be able to be visualized on MRI,” the investigators noted.

Almost two-thirds of the CTE group had an additional neurodegenerative disease. Furthermore, the effect sizes remained similar in analyses that excluded CTE donors with frontotemporal lobar degeneration or Alzheimer’s disease.

“This suggests to us that these other diseases were not accounting for the atrophy,” Dr. Alosco said.

Individuals with CTE were 6.7 times more likely to have a CSP versus those with NC (odds ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.5-50.1; P = .049).

Although previous research suggested an association between CSP and repetitive concussion, CSP is also frequently found in the general adult population. However, when combined with data on frontal lobe shrinkage, it may be a supportive differential diagnostic feature for CTE, Dr. Alosco said.
 

An important first step

The investigators also examined ventricle size. The lateral ventricles in the CTE group were significantly larger (mean difference, 1.72; 95% CI, .62-2.82; P = .01), as was the third ventricle (mean difference, .80; 95% CI, .26-1.35; P = .01).

When neuropathologists rated tau severity and atrophy at autopsy, they found that more severe p-tau pathology was associated with greater atrophy among those with CTE (beta = .68; P < .01).

Dr. Alosco called the finding “exciting,” noting that it suggests “this tau is a precipitant for neurodegeneration.”

He noted that, although some researchers have used positron emission tomography (PET) tau tracers to uncover a CTE pattern, MRI is relatively inexpensive and routinely used as part of dementia assessment.

While the new study is “an important first step” in using MRI to diagnose CTE, larger sample sizes are needed, Dr. Alosco said. “We also need to look at other disease groups and really nail down the difference with CTE in terms of patterns” (vs. Alzheimer’s disease and vs. frontotemporal lobar degeneration), he added.

“Once those differences are cleared, we will be ready to be more confident when we interpret these images.”.
 

‘Not unexpected’

Commenting on the research, neurologist and concussion expert Francis X. Conidi, DO, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie, said that, although the study was “well thought out and interesting,” the results were “not completely unexpected.”

Frontal and anterior temporal lobe atrophy and prominent third ventricles are very common in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), which is “a prerequisite to develop CTE,” said Dr. Conidi, who was not involved with the research.

The current study’s findings mirror observations found in a National Football League cohort he and his colleagues are following – and in his patients with TBI in general.

Dr. Conidi noted that there is a “significant subjective component” to the study results because they relied on the opinion of neuroradiologists. He is not convinced MRI findings of frontotemporal and medial temporal lobe atrophy necessarily represent CTE and not TBI. In fact, he noted that patients with TBI have a significantly greater chance of not developing a neurodegenerative disorder.

Dr. Conidi added that he doesn’t think MRI will ever be the gold standard for diagnosing or even assessing risk of developing CTE. “That lies in tau PET imaging,” he said.
 

Overstated conclusion?

Also commenting on the research findings, Kristen Dams-O’Connor, PhD, professor, vice chair of research, and director, Brain Injury Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said the sensitivity analyses, particularly those designed to clarify contributions of Alzheimer’s disease and other neuropathological contributions to associations between p-tau and atrophy, “increase our confidence” in the findings.

“What’s exciting about this paper is that it provides very preliminary support for adding another tool to our arsenal as we try to establish a constellation of in vivo diagnostic markers that, together, will help us rule in a post-traumatic neurodegenerative process and rule out other brain diseases.”

A possible study limitation is that the MRI scans were from low-field strength magnets, although that makes the study more “ecologically valid”, said Dr. Dams-O’Connor. “Many clinical scanners are built around a 1.5T magnet, so what the researchers see in this study is what a radiologist may see in the clinic.”

The conclusion that frontal-temporal atrophy is an MRI marker of CTE is “an overstatement” as this pattern of atrophy is not specific to CTE, said Dr. Dams-O’Connor. “The association of p-tau with atrophy is unsurprising and doesn’t bring us much closer to understanding how, or whether, the patterns of p-tau accumulation observed in CTE contribute to the clinical expression of symptoms.”

Dr. Alosco and Dr. Conidi report no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original journal article. The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Aging Boston University AD Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Merit Award, the Nick and Lynn Buoniconti Foundation, and BU-CTSI.

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

The record-setting surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide – including more than one million new infections reported on Jan. 3 – raises questions about whether the higher Omicron variant transmissibility will accelerate a transition from pandemic to endemic disease.

Furthermore, does the steep increase in number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 mean the United States could finally be achieving a meaningful level of “herd immunity”?

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

Whether the current surge will mean the predicted switch to endemic COVID-19 will come sooner “is very hard to predict,” Michael Lin, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“It’s an open question,” he said, “if another highly transmissible variant will emerge.”

On a positive note, “at this point many more people have received their vaccinations or been infected. And over time, repeated infections have led to milder symptoms,” added Dr. Lin, hospital epidemiologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“It could end up being a seasonal variant,” he said.

COVID-19 going endemic is “a real possibility, but unfortunately ... it doesn’t seem necessarily that we’re going to have the same predictable pattern we have with the flu,” said Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, chief of infectious diseases for Lifespan and its affiliates at Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in Providence.

“We have a number of other viruses that don’t follow the same annual pattern,” he said.  

Unknowns include how long individuals’ immune responses, including T-cell defenses, will last going forward.

A transition from pandemic to endemic is “not a light switch, and there are no metrics associated with what endemic means for COVID-19,” said Syra Madad, DHSc., MSc, MCP, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston.

“Instead, we should continue to focus on decreasing transmission rates and preventing our hospitals from getting overwhelmed,” she said.
 

A hastening to herd immunity?

“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Lin said when asked if the increased transmissibility and increased cases linked to the Omicron surge could get the U.S. closer to herd immunity.

“The twist in this whole story,” he said, “is the virus mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. That is why we are seeing breakthrough infections, even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

“The concept of herd immunity with a rapidly evolving virus is very difficult” to address, he said.

One reason is the number of unknown factors, Dr. Mylonakis said. He predicted a clearer picture will emerge after the Omicrons surge subsides. Also, with so many people infected by the Omicron variant, immune protection should peak.

“People will have boosted immunity. Not everybody, unfortunately, because there are people who cannot really mount [a full immune response] because of age, because of immunosuppression, etc.,” said Dr. Mylonakis, who is also professor of infectious diseases at Brown University.

“But the majority of the population will be exposed and will mount some degree of immunity.”

Dr. Madad agreed. “The omicron variant will add much more immunity into our population by both the preferred pathway – which is through vaccination – as well as through those that are unvaccinated and get infected with omicron,” she said.

“The pathway to gain immunity from vaccination is the safest option, and already over 1 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are going into arms per day – this includes first, second, and additional doses like boosters,” added Dr. Madad, who is also senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at New York City Health and Hospitals.
 

A shorter, more intense surge?

The United Kingdom’s experience with COVID-19 has often served as a bellwether of what is likely to happen in the U.S. If that is the case with the Omicron surge, the peak should last about 4 weeks, Dr. Mylonakis said.

In other words, the accelerated spread of Omicron could mean this surge passes more quickly than Delta.

Furthermore, some evidence suggests neutralizing antibodies produced by Omicron infection remain effective against the Delta variant – thereby reducing the risk of Delta reinfections over time.

The ability to neutralize the Delta variant increased more than fourfold after a median 14 days, according to data from a preprint study posted Dec. 27 on MedRxiv.

At the same time, neutralization of the Omicron variant increased 14-fold as participants mounted an antibody response. The study was conducted in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by Omicron in South Africa shortly after symptoms started. It has yet to be peer reviewed.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, described the results as “especially good news” in a tweet.

The current surge could also mean enhanced protection in the future.

“As we look at getting to the other side of this Omicron wave, we will end up with more immunity,” Dr. Madad said. “And with more immunity means we’ll be better guarded against the next emerging variant.”

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

The record-setting surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide – including more than one million new infections reported on Jan. 3 – raises questions about whether the higher Omicron variant transmissibility will accelerate a transition from pandemic to endemic disease.

Furthermore, does the steep increase in number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 mean the United States could finally be achieving a meaningful level of “herd immunity”?

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

Whether the current surge will mean the predicted switch to endemic COVID-19 will come sooner “is very hard to predict,” Michael Lin, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“It’s an open question,” he said, “if another highly transmissible variant will emerge.”

On a positive note, “at this point many more people have received their vaccinations or been infected. And over time, repeated infections have led to milder symptoms,” added Dr. Lin, hospital epidemiologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“It could end up being a seasonal variant,” he said.

COVID-19 going endemic is “a real possibility, but unfortunately ... it doesn’t seem necessarily that we’re going to have the same predictable pattern we have with the flu,” said Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, chief of infectious diseases for Lifespan and its affiliates at Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in Providence.

“We have a number of other viruses that don’t follow the same annual pattern,” he said.  

Unknowns include how long individuals’ immune responses, including T-cell defenses, will last going forward.

A transition from pandemic to endemic is “not a light switch, and there are no metrics associated with what endemic means for COVID-19,” said Syra Madad, DHSc., MSc, MCP, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston.

“Instead, we should continue to focus on decreasing transmission rates and preventing our hospitals from getting overwhelmed,” she said.
 

A hastening to herd immunity?

“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Lin said when asked if the increased transmissibility and increased cases linked to the Omicron surge could get the U.S. closer to herd immunity.

“The twist in this whole story,” he said, “is the virus mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. That is why we are seeing breakthrough infections, even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

“The concept of herd immunity with a rapidly evolving virus is very difficult” to address, he said.

One reason is the number of unknown factors, Dr. Mylonakis said. He predicted a clearer picture will emerge after the Omicrons surge subsides. Also, with so many people infected by the Omicron variant, immune protection should peak.

“People will have boosted immunity. Not everybody, unfortunately, because there are people who cannot really mount [a full immune response] because of age, because of immunosuppression, etc.,” said Dr. Mylonakis, who is also professor of infectious diseases at Brown University.

“But the majority of the population will be exposed and will mount some degree of immunity.”

Dr. Madad agreed. “The omicron variant will add much more immunity into our population by both the preferred pathway – which is through vaccination – as well as through those that are unvaccinated and get infected with omicron,” she said.

“The pathway to gain immunity from vaccination is the safest option, and already over 1 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are going into arms per day – this includes first, second, and additional doses like boosters,” added Dr. Madad, who is also senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at New York City Health and Hospitals.
 

A shorter, more intense surge?

The United Kingdom’s experience with COVID-19 has often served as a bellwether of what is likely to happen in the U.S. If that is the case with the Omicron surge, the peak should last about 4 weeks, Dr. Mylonakis said.

In other words, the accelerated spread of Omicron could mean this surge passes more quickly than Delta.

Furthermore, some evidence suggests neutralizing antibodies produced by Omicron infection remain effective against the Delta variant – thereby reducing the risk of Delta reinfections over time.

The ability to neutralize the Delta variant increased more than fourfold after a median 14 days, according to data from a preprint study posted Dec. 27 on MedRxiv.

At the same time, neutralization of the Omicron variant increased 14-fold as participants mounted an antibody response. The study was conducted in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by Omicron in South Africa shortly after symptoms started. It has yet to be peer reviewed.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, described the results as “especially good news” in a tweet.

The current surge could also mean enhanced protection in the future.

“As we look at getting to the other side of this Omicron wave, we will end up with more immunity,” Dr. Madad said. “And with more immunity means we’ll be better guarded against the next emerging variant.”

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

The record-setting surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide – including more than one million new infections reported on Jan. 3 – raises questions about whether the higher Omicron variant transmissibility will accelerate a transition from pandemic to endemic disease.

Furthermore, does the steep increase in number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 mean the United States could finally be achieving a meaningful level of “herd immunity”?

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

Whether the current surge will mean the predicted switch to endemic COVID-19 will come sooner “is very hard to predict,” Michael Lin, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“It’s an open question,” he said, “if another highly transmissible variant will emerge.”

On a positive note, “at this point many more people have received their vaccinations or been infected. And over time, repeated infections have led to milder symptoms,” added Dr. Lin, hospital epidemiologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“It could end up being a seasonal variant,” he said.

COVID-19 going endemic is “a real possibility, but unfortunately ... it doesn’t seem necessarily that we’re going to have the same predictable pattern we have with the flu,” said Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, chief of infectious diseases for Lifespan and its affiliates at Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in Providence.

“We have a number of other viruses that don’t follow the same annual pattern,” he said.  

Unknowns include how long individuals’ immune responses, including T-cell defenses, will last going forward.

A transition from pandemic to endemic is “not a light switch, and there are no metrics associated with what endemic means for COVID-19,” said Syra Madad, DHSc., MSc, MCP, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston.

“Instead, we should continue to focus on decreasing transmission rates and preventing our hospitals from getting overwhelmed,” she said.
 

A hastening to herd immunity?

“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Lin said when asked if the increased transmissibility and increased cases linked to the Omicron surge could get the U.S. closer to herd immunity.

“The twist in this whole story,” he said, “is the virus mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. That is why we are seeing breakthrough infections, even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

“The concept of herd immunity with a rapidly evolving virus is very difficult” to address, he said.

One reason is the number of unknown factors, Dr. Mylonakis said. He predicted a clearer picture will emerge after the Omicrons surge subsides. Also, with so many people infected by the Omicron variant, immune protection should peak.

“People will have boosted immunity. Not everybody, unfortunately, because there are people who cannot really mount [a full immune response] because of age, because of immunosuppression, etc.,” said Dr. Mylonakis, who is also professor of infectious diseases at Brown University.

“But the majority of the population will be exposed and will mount some degree of immunity.”

Dr. Madad agreed. “The omicron variant will add much more immunity into our population by both the preferred pathway – which is through vaccination – as well as through those that are unvaccinated and get infected with omicron,” she said.

“The pathway to gain immunity from vaccination is the safest option, and already over 1 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are going into arms per day – this includes first, second, and additional doses like boosters,” added Dr. Madad, who is also senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at New York City Health and Hospitals.
 

A shorter, more intense surge?

The United Kingdom’s experience with COVID-19 has often served as a bellwether of what is likely to happen in the U.S. If that is the case with the Omicron surge, the peak should last about 4 weeks, Dr. Mylonakis said.

In other words, the accelerated spread of Omicron could mean this surge passes more quickly than Delta.

Furthermore, some evidence suggests neutralizing antibodies produced by Omicron infection remain effective against the Delta variant – thereby reducing the risk of Delta reinfections over time.

The ability to neutralize the Delta variant increased more than fourfold after a median 14 days, according to data from a preprint study posted Dec. 27 on MedRxiv.

At the same time, neutralization of the Omicron variant increased 14-fold as participants mounted an antibody response. The study was conducted in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by Omicron in South Africa shortly after symptoms started. It has yet to be peer reviewed.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, described the results as “especially good news” in a tweet.

The current surge could also mean enhanced protection in the future.

“As we look at getting to the other side of this Omicron wave, we will end up with more immunity,” Dr. Madad said. “And with more immunity means we’ll be better guarded against the next emerging variant.”

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

Hospitals across the United States are beginning to fill up with COVID-19 patients again, but a smaller proportion of cases are severe enough to move to intensive care or require mechanical ventilation.

So far, hospitalizations caused by the Omicron variant appear to be milder than in previous waves.

“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” Rahul Sharma, MD, emergency physician-in-chief for New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times.

“We’re not sending as many patients to the ICU, we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged,” he said.

Most Omicron patients in ICUs are unvaccinated or have severely compromised immune systems, doctors told the newspaper.

Currently, about 113,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, according to the latest data from the Department of Health & Human Services. About 76% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, with about 16% of inpatient beds in use for COVID-19.

Early data suggests that the Omicron variant may cause less severe disease. But it’s easier to catch the variant, so more people are getting the virus, including people who have some immunity through prior infection or vaccination, which is driving up hospitalization numbers.

In New York, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalizations have surpassed the peak of last winter’s surge, the newspaper reported. In addition, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on Jan. 4, noting that the state had more hospitalized COVID-19 patients than at any other time during the pandemic.

“We’re in truly crushed mode,” Gabe Kelen, MD, chair of the department of emergency medicine for the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Times.

Earlier in the pandemic, hospitals faced challenges with stockpiling ventilators and personal protective equipment, doctors told the newspaper. Now they’re dealing with limits on hospital beds and staffing as health care workers test positive. The increase in COVID-19 cases has also come along with a rise in hospitalizations for other conditions such as heart attacks and strokes.

In response, some hospitals are considering cutting elective surgeries because of staff shortages and limited bed capacity, the newspaper reported. In the meantime, hospital staff and administrators are watching case numbers to see how high hospitalizations may soar because of the Omicron variant.

“How high will it go? Can’t tell you. Don’t know,” James Musser, MD, chair of pathology and genomic medicine at Houston Methodist, told the Times. “We’re all watching it, obviously, very, very closely.”

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

Hospitals across the United States are beginning to fill up with COVID-19 patients again, but a smaller proportion of cases are severe enough to move to intensive care or require mechanical ventilation.

So far, hospitalizations caused by the Omicron variant appear to be milder than in previous waves.

“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” Rahul Sharma, MD, emergency physician-in-chief for New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times.

“We’re not sending as many patients to the ICU, we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged,” he said.

Most Omicron patients in ICUs are unvaccinated or have severely compromised immune systems, doctors told the newspaper.

Currently, about 113,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, according to the latest data from the Department of Health & Human Services. About 76% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, with about 16% of inpatient beds in use for COVID-19.

Early data suggests that the Omicron variant may cause less severe disease. But it’s easier to catch the variant, so more people are getting the virus, including people who have some immunity through prior infection or vaccination, which is driving up hospitalization numbers.

In New York, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalizations have surpassed the peak of last winter’s surge, the newspaper reported. In addition, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on Jan. 4, noting that the state had more hospitalized COVID-19 patients than at any other time during the pandemic.

“We’re in truly crushed mode,” Gabe Kelen, MD, chair of the department of emergency medicine for the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Times.

Earlier in the pandemic, hospitals faced challenges with stockpiling ventilators and personal protective equipment, doctors told the newspaper. Now they’re dealing with limits on hospital beds and staffing as health care workers test positive. The increase in COVID-19 cases has also come along with a rise in hospitalizations for other conditions such as heart attacks and strokes.

In response, some hospitals are considering cutting elective surgeries because of staff shortages and limited bed capacity, the newspaper reported. In the meantime, hospital staff and administrators are watching case numbers to see how high hospitalizations may soar because of the Omicron variant.

“How high will it go? Can’t tell you. Don’t know,” James Musser, MD, chair of pathology and genomic medicine at Houston Methodist, told the Times. “We’re all watching it, obviously, very, very closely.”

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

Hospitals across the United States are beginning to fill up with COVID-19 patients again, but a smaller proportion of cases are severe enough to move to intensive care or require mechanical ventilation.

So far, hospitalizations caused by the Omicron variant appear to be milder than in previous waves.

“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” Rahul Sharma, MD, emergency physician-in-chief for New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times.

“We’re not sending as many patients to the ICU, we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged,” he said.

Most Omicron patients in ICUs are unvaccinated or have severely compromised immune systems, doctors told the newspaper.

Currently, about 113,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, according to the latest data from the Department of Health & Human Services. About 76% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, with about 16% of inpatient beds in use for COVID-19.

Early data suggests that the Omicron variant may cause less severe disease. But it’s easier to catch the variant, so more people are getting the virus, including people who have some immunity through prior infection or vaccination, which is driving up hospitalization numbers.

In New York, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalizations have surpassed the peak of last winter’s surge, the newspaper reported. In addition, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on Jan. 4, noting that the state had more hospitalized COVID-19 patients than at any other time during the pandemic.

“We’re in truly crushed mode,” Gabe Kelen, MD, chair of the department of emergency medicine for the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Times.

Earlier in the pandemic, hospitals faced challenges with stockpiling ventilators and personal protective equipment, doctors told the newspaper. Now they’re dealing with limits on hospital beds and staffing as health care workers test positive. The increase in COVID-19 cases has also come along with a rise in hospitalizations for other conditions such as heart attacks and strokes.

In response, some hospitals are considering cutting elective surgeries because of staff shortages and limited bed capacity, the newspaper reported. In the meantime, hospital staff and administrators are watching case numbers to see how high hospitalizations may soar because of the Omicron variant.

“How high will it go? Can’t tell you. Don’t know,” James Musser, MD, chair of pathology and genomic medicine at Houston Methodist, told the Times. “We’re all watching it, obviously, very, very closely.”

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

A CDC advisory panel recommended on Jan. 5 that 12- to 17-year-olds in the U.S. should get the Pfizer COVID-19 booster shot 5 months after a primary series of vaccinations.

The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.

The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.

The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.

The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.

The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.

The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”

Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”

She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.

“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.

Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.

Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.

“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.

Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.

She noted the soaring Omicron cases.

“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.

Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.

“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.

“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”

Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.

Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”

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

A CDC advisory panel recommended on Jan. 5 that 12- to 17-year-olds in the U.S. should get the Pfizer COVID-19 booster shot 5 months after a primary series of vaccinations.

The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.

The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.

The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.

The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.

The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.

The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”

Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”

She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.

“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.

Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.

Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.

“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.

Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.

She noted the soaring Omicron cases.

“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.

Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.

“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.

“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”

Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.

Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”

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

A CDC advisory panel recommended on Jan. 5 that 12- to 17-year-olds in the U.S. should get the Pfizer COVID-19 booster shot 5 months after a primary series of vaccinations.

The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.

The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.

The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.

The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.

The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.

The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”

Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”

She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.

“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.

Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.

Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.

“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.

Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.

She noted the soaring Omicron cases.

“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.

Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.

“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.

“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”

Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.

Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”

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

If a fish can drive …

Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.

In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?

PxHere

No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.

So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”

The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.

That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
 

We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!

So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?

Tumisu/Pixabay

English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.

The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.

The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.

But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?

It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
 

For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come

The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?

ChiemSeherin/Pixabay

People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?

Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.

First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.

“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.

And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.

Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.

Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.

If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
 

To be or not to be … seen

Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.

filadendron/E+

If a fish can drive …

Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.

In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?

PxHere

No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.

So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”

The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.

That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
 

We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!

So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?

Tumisu/Pixabay

English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.

The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.

The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.

But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?

It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
 

For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come

The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?

ChiemSeherin/Pixabay

People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?

Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.

First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.

“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.

And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.

Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.

Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.

If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
 

To be or not to be … seen

Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.

filadendron/E+

If a fish can drive …

Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.

In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?

PxHere

No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.

So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”

The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.

That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
 

We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!

So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?

Tumisu/Pixabay

English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.

The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.

The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.

But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?

It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
 

For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come

The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?

ChiemSeherin/Pixabay

People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?

Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.

First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.

“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.

And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.

Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.

Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.

If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
 

To be or not to be … seen

Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.

filadendron/E+

Mutations in genes associated with cardiac and seizure disorders appear to be linked to sudden unexplained deaths in young children and may explain nearly 9% of such cases, researchers have found.

Previous studies have found de novo genetic variants – those not found in either parent but which occur for the first time in their offspring – that increase the risk of cardiac and seizure disorders, but research on sudden unexplained deaths in children (SUDC) is limited, according to Matthew Halvorsen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues. Most cases of SUDC occur in children aged 1-4 years, and a lack of standardized investigation systems likely leads to misclassification of these deaths, they said.

Compared with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), which occurs in approximately 1,400 children in the United States each year, approximately 400 children aged 1 year and older die from SUDC annually. A major obstacle to studying these cases is that so-called molecular autopsies – which incorporate genetic analysis into the postmortem examination – typically do not assess the parents’ genetic information and thus limit the ability to identify de novo mutations, they added.

In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Halvorsen’s group obtained whole exome sequence data from 124 “trios,” meaning a dead child and two living parents. They tested for excessive de novo mutations for different genes involved in conditions that included cardiac arrhythmias and epilepsy. The average age at the time of death for the children was 34.2 months; 54% were male, and 82% were White.

Children who died of SUDC were nearly 10 times as likely to have de novo mutations in genes associated with cardiac and seizure disorders as were unrelated healthy controls (odds ratio, 9.76). Most pathogenic variants were de novo, which highlights the importance of trio studies, the researchers noted.

The researchers identified 11 variants associated with increased risk of SUDC, 7 of which were de novo. Three of the 124 cases carried mutations (two for RYR2 and 1 for TNNI3) affecting genes in the CardiacEpilepsy dataset proposed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, strengthening the connection to seizure disorders.

Another notable finding was the identification of six de novo mutations involved in altering calcium-related regulation, which suggests a cardiac susceptibility to sudden death.

The data support “novel genetic causes of pediatric sudden deaths that could be discovered with larger cohorts,” the researchers noted. Taken together, they say, the gene mutations could play a role in approximately 9% of SUDC cases.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including lack of population-based case ascertainment, exclusive focus on unexplained deaths, potentially missed mutations, and use of DNA from blood as opposed to organs, the researchers noted.

However, they concluded, “the data indicate that deleterious de novo mutations are significant genetic risk factors for childhood sudden unexplained death, and that their identification may lead to medical intervention that ultimately saves lives.”

Findings highlight impact of SUDC

“This study is important because SUDC is a much more pressing medical need than most people realize,” said Richard Tsien, PhD, of New York University Langone Medical Center, and the corresponding author of the study.

Although SUDC is less common than SIDS, SUDC has essentially no targeted research funding, Dr. Tsien said. Study coauthor Laura Gould, MA, a researcher and mother who lost a young child to SUDC, worked with Orrin Devinsky, MD, to create a registry for families with cases of SUDC. This registry was instrumental in allowing the researchers to “do the molecular detective work we need to do” to see whether a genetic basis exists for SUDC, Dr. Tsien said.

“The detective work comes up with a consistent story,” he said. “More than half of the genes that we found are involved in the normal function of the heart and brain,” performing such functions as delivering calcium ions to the inside of the heart cells and nerve cells.

The study “is the first of its kind,” given the difficulty of acquiring DNA from the child and two parents in SUDC cases, Dr. Tsien said.

Overall, approximately 10% of the cases have a compelling explanation based on the coding of DNA, Dr. Tsien said. From a clinical standpoint, that information might affect what a clinician says to a parent.

A key takeaway is that most of the genetic mutations are spontaneous and are not inherited from the parents, Dr. Tsien said. The study findings indicate that parents who suffer an SUDC loss need not be discouraged from having children, he added.

For the long term, “the more we understand about these disorders, the more information we can offer to families,” he said. Eventually, clinicians might be able to use genetics to identify signs of when SUDC might be more likely. “For example, if a child shows a very mild seizure, this would alert them that there might be potential for a more drastic outcome.”

Meanwhile, families with SUDC cases may find support and benefit in signing up for the registry and knowing that other families have been through a similar experience, Dr. Tsien said.

Genetic studies create opportunities

A significant portion of pediatric mortality remains unexplained, according to Richard D. Goldstein, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital. One reason is the lack of a formal diagnostic code to identify these deaths.

Research to date has suggested links between SUDC and a family history of febrile seizures, as well as differences in brain structure associated with epilepsy, Dr. Goldstein said.

“An important hypothesis is that these deaths are part of a continuum that also includes stillbirths, SIDS, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy [SUDEP],” Dr. Goldstein said. “By mandate, investigations of these deaths occur under the jurisdiction of medical examiners and coroners and have, for the most part, been insulated from developments in modern medicine like genomics and proteomics, elements of what are referred to as the molecular autopsy, and studies such as the current study bring attention to what is being missed.”

Dr. Goldstein said the new study buttresses the “conventional clinical suspicion” about the likely causes of SUDC, “but also strengthens the association between sudden unexpected death in pediatrics (SUDP) and SUDEP that we and others have been positing. I think the researchers very nicely make the point that epilepsy and cardiac arrhythmia genes are not as separated in their effects as many would believe.”

As for the clinical applicability of the findings, Dr. Goldstein said medicine needs to offer parents more: “Pediatric deaths without explanation deserve more than a forensic investigation that concerns itself mostly with whether there has been foul play,” he said. “We need to figure out how to engage families, at an incredibly vulnerable time, in helping find the cause of the child’s death and also contributing to needed research. Most of the reported variants were de novo, which means that parent participation is needed to figure out these genetic factors but also that we can offer reassurance to families that other children are not at risk.”

The study was supported by the SUDC Foundation and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (New York University). Dr. Tsien disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from FACES. Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mutations in genes associated with cardiac and seizure disorders appear to be linked to sudden unexplained deaths in young children and may explain nearly 9% of such cases, researchers have found.

Previous studies have found de novo genetic variants – those not found in either parent but which occur for the first time in their offspring – that increase the risk of cardiac and seizure disorders, but research on sudden unexplained deaths in children (SUDC) is limited, according to Matthew Halvorsen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues. Most cases of SUDC occur in children aged 1-4 years, and a lack of standardized investigation systems likely leads to misclassification of these deaths, they said.

Compared with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), which occurs in approximately 1,400 children in the United States each year, approximately 400 children aged 1 year and older die from SUDC annually. A major obstacle to studying these cases is that so-called molecular autopsies – which incorporate genetic analysis into the postmortem examination – typically do not assess the parents’ genetic information and thus limit the ability to identify de novo mutations, they added.

In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Halvorsen’s group obtained whole exome sequence data from 124 “trios,” meaning a dead child and two living parents. They tested for excessive de novo mutations for different genes involved in conditions that included cardiac arrhythmias and epilepsy. The average age at the time of death for the children was 34.2 months; 54% were male, and 82% were White.

Children who died of SUDC were nearly 10 times as likely to have de novo mutations in genes associated with cardiac and seizure disorders as were unrelated healthy controls (odds ratio, 9.76). Most pathogenic variants were de novo, which highlights the importance of trio studies, the researchers noted.

The researchers identified 11 variants associated with increased risk of SUDC, 7 of which were de novo. Three of the 124 cases carried mutations (two for RYR2 and 1 for TNNI3) affecting genes in the CardiacEpilepsy dataset proposed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, strengthening the connection to seizure disorders.

Another notable finding was the identification of six de novo mutations involved in altering calcium-related regulation, which suggests a cardiac susceptibility to sudden death.

The data support “novel genetic causes of pediatric sudden deaths that could be discovered with larger cohorts,” the researchers noted. Taken together, they say, the gene mutations could play a role in approximately 9% of SUDC cases.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including lack of population-based case ascertainment, exclusive focus on unexplained deaths, potentially missed mutations, and use of DNA from blood as opposed to organs, the researchers noted.

However, they concluded, “the data indicate that deleterious de novo mutations are significant genetic risk factors for childhood sudden unexplained death, and that their identification may lead to medical intervention that ultimately saves lives.”

Findings highlight impact of SUDC

“This study is important because SUDC is a much more pressing medical need than most people realize,” said Richard Tsien, PhD, of New York University Langone Medical Center, and the corresponding author of the study.

Although SUDC is less common than SIDS, SUDC has essentially no targeted research funding, Dr. Tsien said. Study coauthor Laura Gould, MA, a researcher and mother who lost a young child to SUDC, worked with Orrin Devinsky, MD, to create a registry for families with cases of SUDC. This registry was instrumental in allowing the researchers to “do the molecular detective work we need to do” to see whether a genetic basis exists for SUDC, Dr. Tsien said.

“The detective work comes up with a consistent story,” he said. “More than half of the genes that we found are involved in the normal function of the heart and brain,” performing such functions as delivering calcium ions to the inside of the heart cells and nerve cells.

The study “is the first of its kind,” given the difficulty of acquiring DNA from the child and two parents in SUDC cases, Dr. Tsien said.

Overall, approximately 10% of the cases have a compelling explanation based on the coding of DNA, Dr. Tsien said. From a clinical standpoint, that information might affect what a clinician says to a parent.

A key takeaway is that most of the genetic mutations are spontaneous and are not inherited from the parents, Dr. Tsien said. The study findings indicate that parents who suffer an SUDC loss need not be discouraged from having children, he added.

For the long term, “the more we understand about these disorders, the more information we can offer to families,” he said. Eventually, clinicians might be able to use genetics to identify signs of when SUDC might be more likely. “For example, if a child shows a very mild seizure, this would alert them that there might be potential for a more drastic outcome.”

Meanwhile, families with SUDC cases may find support and benefit in signing up for the registry and knowing that other families have been through a similar experience, Dr. Tsien said.

Genetic studies create opportunities

A significant portion of pediatric mortality remains unexplained, according to Richard D. Goldstein, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital. One reason is the lack of a formal diagnostic code to identify these deaths.

Research to date has suggested links between SUDC and a family history of febrile seizures, as well as differences in brain structure associated with epilepsy, Dr. Goldstein said.

“An important hypothesis is that these deaths are part of a continuum that also includes stillbirths, SIDS, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy [SUDEP],” Dr. Goldstein said. “By mandate, investigations of these deaths occur under the jurisdiction of medical examiners and coroners and have, for the most part, been insulated from developments in modern medicine like genomics and proteomics, elements of what are referred to as the molecular autopsy, and studies such as the current study bring attention to what is being missed.”

Dr. Goldstein said the new study buttresses the “conventional clinical suspicion” about the likely causes of SUDC, “but also strengthens the association between sudden unexpected death in pediatrics (SUDP) and SUDEP that we and others have been positing. I think the researchers very nicely make the point that epilepsy and cardiac arrhythmia genes are not as separated in their effects as many would believe.”

As for the clinical applicability of the findings, Dr. Goldstein said medicine needs to offer parents more: “Pediatric deaths without explanation deserve more than a forensic investigation that concerns itself mostly with whether there has been foul play,” he said. “We need to figure out how to engage families, at an incredibly vulnerable time, in helping find the cause of the child’s death and also contributing to needed research. Most of the reported variants were de novo, which means that parent participation is needed to figure out these genetic factors but also that we can offer reassurance to families that other children are not at risk.”

The study was supported by the SUDC Foundation and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (New York University). Dr. Tsien disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from FACES. Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mutations in genes associated with cardiac and seizure disorders appear to be linked to sudden unexplained deaths in young children and may explain nearly 9% of such cases, researchers have found.

Previous studies have found de novo genetic variants – those not found in either parent but which occur for the first time in their offspring – that increase the risk of cardiac and seizure disorders, but research on sudden unexplained deaths in children (SUDC) is limited, according to Matthew Halvorsen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues. Most cases of SUDC occur in children aged 1-4 years, and a lack of standardized investigation systems likely leads to misclassification of these deaths, they said.

Compared with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), which occurs in approximately 1,400 children in the United States each year, approximately 400 children aged 1 year and older die from SUDC annually. A major obstacle to studying these cases is that so-called molecular autopsies – which incorporate genetic analysis into the postmortem examination – typically do not assess the parents’ genetic information and thus limit the ability to identify de novo mutations, they added.

In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Halvorsen’s group obtained whole exome sequence data from 124 “trios,” meaning a dead child and two living parents. They tested for excessive de novo mutations for different genes involved in conditions that included cardiac arrhythmias and epilepsy. The average age at the time of death for the children was 34.2 months; 54% were male, and 82% were White.

Children who died of SUDC were nearly 10 times as likely to have de novo mutations in genes associated with cardiac and seizure disorders as were unrelated healthy controls (odds ratio, 9.76). Most pathogenic variants were de novo, which highlights the importance of trio studies, the researchers noted.

The researchers identified 11 variants associated with increased risk of SUDC, 7 of which were de novo. Three of the 124 cases carried mutations (two for RYR2 and 1 for TNNI3) affecting genes in the CardiacEpilepsy dataset proposed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, strengthening the connection to seizure disorders.

Another notable finding was the identification of six de novo mutations involved in altering calcium-related regulation, which suggests a cardiac susceptibility to sudden death.

The data support “novel genetic causes of pediatric sudden deaths that could be discovered with larger cohorts,” the researchers noted. Taken together, they say, the gene mutations could play a role in approximately 9% of SUDC cases.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including lack of population-based case ascertainment, exclusive focus on unexplained deaths, potentially missed mutations, and use of DNA from blood as opposed to organs, the researchers noted.

However, they concluded, “the data indicate that deleterious de novo mutations are significant genetic risk factors for childhood sudden unexplained death, and that their identification may lead to medical intervention that ultimately saves lives.”

Findings highlight impact of SUDC

“This study is important because SUDC is a much more pressing medical need than most people realize,” said Richard Tsien, PhD, of New York University Langone Medical Center, and the corresponding author of the study.

Although SUDC is less common than SIDS, SUDC has essentially no targeted research funding, Dr. Tsien said. Study coauthor Laura Gould, MA, a researcher and mother who lost a young child to SUDC, worked with Orrin Devinsky, MD, to create a registry for families with cases of SUDC. This registry was instrumental in allowing the researchers to “do the molecular detective work we need to do” to see whether a genetic basis exists for SUDC, Dr. Tsien said.

“The detective work comes up with a consistent story,” he said. “More than half of the genes that we found are involved in the normal function of the heart and brain,” performing such functions as delivering calcium ions to the inside of the heart cells and nerve cells.

The study “is the first of its kind,” given the difficulty of acquiring DNA from the child and two parents in SUDC cases, Dr. Tsien said.

Overall, approximately 10% of the cases have a compelling explanation based on the coding of DNA, Dr. Tsien said. From a clinical standpoint, that information might affect what a clinician says to a parent.

A key takeaway is that most of the genetic mutations are spontaneous and are not inherited from the parents, Dr. Tsien said. The study findings indicate that parents who suffer an SUDC loss need not be discouraged from having children, he added.

For the long term, “the more we understand about these disorders, the more information we can offer to families,” he said. Eventually, clinicians might be able to use genetics to identify signs of when SUDC might be more likely. “For example, if a child shows a very mild seizure, this would alert them that there might be potential for a more drastic outcome.”

Meanwhile, families with SUDC cases may find support and benefit in signing up for the registry and knowing that other families have been through a similar experience, Dr. Tsien said.

Genetic studies create opportunities

A significant portion of pediatric mortality remains unexplained, according to Richard D. Goldstein, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital. One reason is the lack of a formal diagnostic code to identify these deaths.

Research to date has suggested links between SUDC and a family history of febrile seizures, as well as differences in brain structure associated with epilepsy, Dr. Goldstein said.

“An important hypothesis is that these deaths are part of a continuum that also includes stillbirths, SIDS, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy [SUDEP],” Dr. Goldstein said. “By mandate, investigations of these deaths occur under the jurisdiction of medical examiners and coroners and have, for the most part, been insulated from developments in modern medicine like genomics and proteomics, elements of what are referred to as the molecular autopsy, and studies such as the current study bring attention to what is being missed.”

Dr. Goldstein said the new study buttresses the “conventional clinical suspicion” about the likely causes of SUDC, “but also strengthens the association between sudden unexpected death in pediatrics (SUDP) and SUDEP that we and others have been positing. I think the researchers very nicely make the point that epilepsy and cardiac arrhythmia genes are not as separated in their effects as many would believe.”

As for the clinical applicability of the findings, Dr. Goldstein said medicine needs to offer parents more: “Pediatric deaths without explanation deserve more than a forensic investigation that concerns itself mostly with whether there has been foul play,” he said. “We need to figure out how to engage families, at an incredibly vulnerable time, in helping find the cause of the child’s death and also contributing to needed research. Most of the reported variants were de novo, which means that parent participation is needed to figure out these genetic factors but also that we can offer reassurance to families that other children are not at risk.”

The study was supported by the SUDC Foundation and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (New York University). Dr. Tsien disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from FACES. Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial relationships.

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