Neurology Reviews

The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.

In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.

The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.

For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.

(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)

The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.

‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’

The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.

Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.

In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.

“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.

Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).

Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.

Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.

Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.

However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.

Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.

Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.

“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.

What’s missing

Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids

“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”

CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.

An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.

Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.

SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.

At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.

“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”

But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.

“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.

In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.

The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.

For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.

(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)

The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.

‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’

The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.

Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.

In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.

“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.

Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).

Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.

Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.

Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.

However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.

Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.

Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.

“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.

What’s missing

Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids

“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”

CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.

An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.

Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.

SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.

At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.

“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”

But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.

“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.

In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.

The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.

For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.

(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)

The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.

‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’

The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.

Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.

In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.

“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.

Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).

Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.

Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.

Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.

However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.

Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.

Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.

“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.

What’s missing

Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids

“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”

CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.

An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.

Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.

SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.

At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.

“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”

But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.

“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recently updated guidance on isolating and testing were tied to the public’s increased interest in testing, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.

Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.

Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.

“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”

“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.

But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.

“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”

About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.

“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”

Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.

“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.

Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.

“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.

He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”

Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.

Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.

“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recently updated guidance on isolating and testing were tied to the public’s increased interest in testing, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.

Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.

Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.

“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”

“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.

But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.

“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”

About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.

“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”

Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.

“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.

Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.

“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.

He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”

Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.

Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.

“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recently updated guidance on isolating and testing were tied to the public’s increased interest in testing, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.

Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.

Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.

“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”

“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.

But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.

“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”

About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.

“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”

Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.

“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.

Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.

“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.

He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”

Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.

Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.

“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”

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

Updated guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology advise against prescribing opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy – but note that several other oral and topical therapies may help ease pain.

Painful diabetic neuropathy is very common and can greatly affect an individual’s quality of life, guideline author Brian Callaghan, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted in a news release.

“This guideline aims to help neurologists and other doctors provide the highest quality patient care based on the latest evidence,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The recommendations update the 2011 AAN guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The new guidance was published online Dec. 27, 2021, in Neurology and has been endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
 

Multiple options

To update the guideline, an expert panel reviewed data from more than 100 randomized controlled trials published from January 2008 to April 2020.

The panel noted that more than 16% of individuals with diabetes experience painful diabetic neuropathy, but it often goes unrecognized and untreated. The guideline recommends clinicians assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain and its effect on their function and quality of life.

Before prescribing treatment, health providers should determine if the patient also has mood or sleep problems as both can influence pain perception.

The guideline recommends offering one of four classes of oral medications found to be effective for neuropathic pain: tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or imipramine; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine; gabapentinoids such as gabapentin or pregabalin; and/or sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or lacosamide.

All four classes of medications have “comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size” (standardized median difference, 0.5), the panel noted.

In addition, “new studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline,” said Dr. Callaghan.

When an initial medication fails to provide meaningful improvement in pain, or produces significant side effects, a trial of another medication from a different class is recommended.
 

Pain reduction, not elimination

Opioids are not recommended for painful diabetic neuropathy. Not only do they come with risks, there is also no strong evidence they are effective for painful diabetic neuropathy in the long term, the panel wrote. Tramadol and tapentadol are also not recommended for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.

“Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed,” Dr. Callaghan said.

For patients interested in trying topical, nontraditional, or nondrug interventions to reduce pain, the guideline recommends a number of options including capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, and Citrullus colocynthis. Ginkgo biloba, exercise, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and tai chi are also suggested.

“It is important to note that the recommended drugs and topical treatments in this guideline may not eliminate pain, but they have been shown to reduce pain,” Dr. Callaghan said. “The good news is there are many treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy, so a treatment plan can be tailored specifically to each person living with this condition.”

Along with the updated guideline, the AAN has also published a new Polyneuropathy Quality Measurement Set to assist neurologists and other health care providers in treating patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

The updated guideline was developed with financial support from the AAN.

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

Updated guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology advise against prescribing opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy – but note that several other oral and topical therapies may help ease pain.

Painful diabetic neuropathy is very common and can greatly affect an individual’s quality of life, guideline author Brian Callaghan, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted in a news release.

“This guideline aims to help neurologists and other doctors provide the highest quality patient care based on the latest evidence,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The recommendations update the 2011 AAN guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The new guidance was published online Dec. 27, 2021, in Neurology and has been endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
 

Multiple options

To update the guideline, an expert panel reviewed data from more than 100 randomized controlled trials published from January 2008 to April 2020.

The panel noted that more than 16% of individuals with diabetes experience painful diabetic neuropathy, but it often goes unrecognized and untreated. The guideline recommends clinicians assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain and its effect on their function and quality of life.

Before prescribing treatment, health providers should determine if the patient also has mood or sleep problems as both can influence pain perception.

The guideline recommends offering one of four classes of oral medications found to be effective for neuropathic pain: tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or imipramine; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine; gabapentinoids such as gabapentin or pregabalin; and/or sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or lacosamide.

All four classes of medications have “comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size” (standardized median difference, 0.5), the panel noted.

In addition, “new studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline,” said Dr. Callaghan.

When an initial medication fails to provide meaningful improvement in pain, or produces significant side effects, a trial of another medication from a different class is recommended.
 

Pain reduction, not elimination

Opioids are not recommended for painful diabetic neuropathy. Not only do they come with risks, there is also no strong evidence they are effective for painful diabetic neuropathy in the long term, the panel wrote. Tramadol and tapentadol are also not recommended for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.

“Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed,” Dr. Callaghan said.

For patients interested in trying topical, nontraditional, or nondrug interventions to reduce pain, the guideline recommends a number of options including capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, and Citrullus colocynthis. Ginkgo biloba, exercise, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and tai chi are also suggested.

“It is important to note that the recommended drugs and topical treatments in this guideline may not eliminate pain, but they have been shown to reduce pain,” Dr. Callaghan said. “The good news is there are many treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy, so a treatment plan can be tailored specifically to each person living with this condition.”

Along with the updated guideline, the AAN has also published a new Polyneuropathy Quality Measurement Set to assist neurologists and other health care providers in treating patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

The updated guideline was developed with financial support from the AAN.

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

Updated guidelines from the American Academy of Neurology advise against prescribing opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy – but note that several other oral and topical therapies may help ease pain.

Painful diabetic neuropathy is very common and can greatly affect an individual’s quality of life, guideline author Brian Callaghan, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted in a news release.

“This guideline aims to help neurologists and other doctors provide the highest quality patient care based on the latest evidence,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The recommendations update the 2011 AAN guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The new guidance was published online Dec. 27, 2021, in Neurology and has been endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
 

Multiple options

To update the guideline, an expert panel reviewed data from more than 100 randomized controlled trials published from January 2008 to April 2020.

The panel noted that more than 16% of individuals with diabetes experience painful diabetic neuropathy, but it often goes unrecognized and untreated. The guideline recommends clinicians assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain and its effect on their function and quality of life.

Before prescribing treatment, health providers should determine if the patient also has mood or sleep problems as both can influence pain perception.

The guideline recommends offering one of four classes of oral medications found to be effective for neuropathic pain: tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or imipramine; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine; gabapentinoids such as gabapentin or pregabalin; and/or sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or lacosamide.

All four classes of medications have “comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size” (standardized median difference, 0.5), the panel noted.

In addition, “new studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline,” said Dr. Callaghan.

When an initial medication fails to provide meaningful improvement in pain, or produces significant side effects, a trial of another medication from a different class is recommended.
 

Pain reduction, not elimination

Opioids are not recommended for painful diabetic neuropathy. Not only do they come with risks, there is also no strong evidence they are effective for painful diabetic neuropathy in the long term, the panel wrote. Tramadol and tapentadol are also not recommended for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.

“Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed,” Dr. Callaghan said.

For patients interested in trying topical, nontraditional, or nondrug interventions to reduce pain, the guideline recommends a number of options including capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, and Citrullus colocynthis. Ginkgo biloba, exercise, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and tai chi are also suggested.

“It is important to note that the recommended drugs and topical treatments in this guideline may not eliminate pain, but they have been shown to reduce pain,” Dr. Callaghan said. “The good news is there are many treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy, so a treatment plan can be tailored specifically to each person living with this condition.”

Along with the updated guideline, the AAN has also published a new Polyneuropathy Quality Measurement Set to assist neurologists and other health care providers in treating patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.

The updated guideline was developed with financial support from the AAN.

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

A traumatic brain injury (TBI), even a mild type, can lead to posttraumatic epilepsy up to 1 year after the head injury occurs, new research suggests.

Results from a multicenter, prospective cohort study showed 2.7% of nearly 1,500 participants with TBI reported also having posttraumatic epilepsy, and these patients had significantly worse outcomes than those without posttraumatic epilepsy.

“Posttraumatic epilepsy is common even in so-called mild TBI, and we should be on the lookout for patients reporting these kinds of spells,” said coinvestigator Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the TBI Clinical Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said he dislikes the term “mild TBI” because many of these injuries have “pretty substantial consequences.”

The findings were published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Novel study

Seizures can occur after TBI, most commonly after a severe brain injury, such as those leading to coma or bleeding in the brain or requiring surgical intervention. However, there have been “hints” that some patients with milder brain injuries are also at increased risk for epilepsy, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.

To investigate, the researchers assessed data from the large, multicenter Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) database. Participants with TBI, defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-15, had presented to a level I trauma center within 24 hours of a head trauma needing evaluation with a CT scan.

The study included patients with relatively mild TBI (GCS score, 13-15), which is a “novel feature” of the study, the authors noted. Most prior studies of posttraumatic epilepsy focused on moderate to severe TBI.

The researchers included two sex- and age-matched control groups. The orthopedic trauma control (OTC) group consisted of patients with isolated trauma to the limbs, pelvis, and/or ribs. The “friend” or peer control group had backgrounds and lifestyles similar to those with TBI but had no history of TBI, concussion, or traumatic injury in the previous year.

The analysis included 1,885 participants (mean age, 41.3 years; 65.8% men). Of these, 1,493 had TBI, 182 were in the OTC group, and 210 were in the friends group. At 6- and 12-month follow-ups, investigators administered the Epilepsy Screening Questionnaire (ESQ), developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).
 

Confirmatory data

Participants were asked about experiencing uncontrolled movements, unexplained changes in mental state, and repeated unusual attacks or convulsions, and whether they had been told they had epilepsy or seizures. If they answered yes to any of these questions, they received second-level screening, which asked about seizures.

Patients were deemed to have posttraumatic epilepsy if they answered affirmatively to any first-level screening item, experienced seizures 7 days after injury, and were diagnosed with epilepsy.

The primary outcome was rate of positive posttraumatic epilepsy diagnoses. At 12 months, 2.7% of those with TBI reported a posttraumatic epilepsy diagnosis compared with none of either of the control groups (P < .001).

This rate is consistent with prior literature and is “pretty close to what we expected,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.

Among those with TBI and posttraumatic epilepsy, 12.2% had GCS scores of 3-8 (severe), 5.3% had scores of 9-12 (moderate), and 0.9% had scores of 13-15 (mild). That figure for mild TBI is not insignificant, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.

“Probably 90% of all those coming to the emergency room with a brain injury are diagnosed with mild TBI not requiring admission,” he noted.

The risk for posttraumatic epilepsy was higher the more severe the head injury, and among those with hemorrhage on head CT imaging. In patients with mild TBI, hemorrhage was associated with a two- to threefold risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy.

“This prospective observational study confirms the epidemiologic data that even after mild brain injury, there is an increased risk for epilepsy,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
 

Universal screening?

The researchers also looked at whether seizures worsen other outcomes. Compared with those who had TBI but not posttraumatic epilepsy, those with posttraumatic epilepsy had significantly lower Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) scores (mean, 4.7 vs. 6.1; P < .001), higher Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) scores (58.6 vs. 50.2; P = .02), and higher Rivermead Cognitive Metric (RCM) scores (5.3 vs. 3.1; P = .002) at 12 months after adjustment for age, initial GCS score, and imaging findings.

Higher GOSE and RCM scores reflect better outcomes, but a higher score on the BSI, which assesses overall mood, reflects a worse outcome, the investigators noted.

Previous evidence suggests prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs in patients with TBI does not reduce risks. These drugs “are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia. Some studies showed that certain agents actually worsen outcomes, he added.

What the field needs instead are antiepileptogenic drugs – those that interfere with the maladaptive synaptic plasticity that ends up in an epileptic circuit, he noted.

The new results suggest screening for posttraumatic epilepsy using the NINDS-ESQ “should be done pretty much routinely as a follow-up for all brain injuries,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.

The investigators plan to have study participants assessed by an epileptologist later. A significant number of people with TBI, he noted, won’t develop posttraumatic epilepsy until 1-5 years after their injury – and even later in some cases.

A limitation of the study was that some patients reporting posttraumatic epilepsy may have had psychogenic nonepileptiform seizures, which are common in TBI patients, the investigators noted.

The study was supported by grants from One Mind, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS, and Department of Defence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia reported receiving grants from the NIH, NINDS, and DOD during the conduct of the study.

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

A traumatic brain injury (TBI), even a mild type, can lead to posttraumatic epilepsy up to 1 year after the head injury occurs, new research suggests.

Results from a multicenter, prospective cohort study showed 2.7% of nearly 1,500 participants with TBI reported also having posttraumatic epilepsy, and these patients had significantly worse outcomes than those without posttraumatic epilepsy.

“Posttraumatic epilepsy is common even in so-called mild TBI, and we should be on the lookout for patients reporting these kinds of spells,” said coinvestigator Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the TBI Clinical Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said he dislikes the term “mild TBI” because many of these injuries have “pretty substantial consequences.”

The findings were published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Novel study

Seizures can occur after TBI, most commonly after a severe brain injury, such as those leading to coma or bleeding in the brain or requiring surgical intervention. However, there have been “hints” that some patients with milder brain injuries are also at increased risk for epilepsy, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.

To investigate, the researchers assessed data from the large, multicenter Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) database. Participants with TBI, defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-15, had presented to a level I trauma center within 24 hours of a head trauma needing evaluation with a CT scan.

The study included patients with relatively mild TBI (GCS score, 13-15), which is a “novel feature” of the study, the authors noted. Most prior studies of posttraumatic epilepsy focused on moderate to severe TBI.

The researchers included two sex- and age-matched control groups. The orthopedic trauma control (OTC) group consisted of patients with isolated trauma to the limbs, pelvis, and/or ribs. The “friend” or peer control group had backgrounds and lifestyles similar to those with TBI but had no history of TBI, concussion, or traumatic injury in the previous year.

The analysis included 1,885 participants (mean age, 41.3 years; 65.8% men). Of these, 1,493 had TBI, 182 were in the OTC group, and 210 were in the friends group. At 6- and 12-month follow-ups, investigators administered the Epilepsy Screening Questionnaire (ESQ), developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).
 

Confirmatory data

Participants were asked about experiencing uncontrolled movements, unexplained changes in mental state, and repeated unusual attacks or convulsions, and whether they had been told they had epilepsy or seizures. If they answered yes to any of these questions, they received second-level screening, which asked about seizures.

Patients were deemed to have posttraumatic epilepsy if they answered affirmatively to any first-level screening item, experienced seizures 7 days after injury, and were diagnosed with epilepsy.

The primary outcome was rate of positive posttraumatic epilepsy diagnoses. At 12 months, 2.7% of those with TBI reported a posttraumatic epilepsy diagnosis compared with none of either of the control groups (P < .001).

This rate is consistent with prior literature and is “pretty close to what we expected,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.

Among those with TBI and posttraumatic epilepsy, 12.2% had GCS scores of 3-8 (severe), 5.3% had scores of 9-12 (moderate), and 0.9% had scores of 13-15 (mild). That figure for mild TBI is not insignificant, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.

“Probably 90% of all those coming to the emergency room with a brain injury are diagnosed with mild TBI not requiring admission,” he noted.

The risk for posttraumatic epilepsy was higher the more severe the head injury, and among those with hemorrhage on head CT imaging. In patients with mild TBI, hemorrhage was associated with a two- to threefold risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy.

“This prospective observational study confirms the epidemiologic data that even after mild brain injury, there is an increased risk for epilepsy,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
 

Universal screening?

The researchers also looked at whether seizures worsen other outcomes. Compared with those who had TBI but not posttraumatic epilepsy, those with posttraumatic epilepsy had significantly lower Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) scores (mean, 4.7 vs. 6.1; P < .001), higher Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) scores (58.6 vs. 50.2; P = .02), and higher Rivermead Cognitive Metric (RCM) scores (5.3 vs. 3.1; P = .002) at 12 months after adjustment for age, initial GCS score, and imaging findings.

Higher GOSE and RCM scores reflect better outcomes, but a higher score on the BSI, which assesses overall mood, reflects a worse outcome, the investigators noted.

Previous evidence suggests prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs in patients with TBI does not reduce risks. These drugs “are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia. Some studies showed that certain agents actually worsen outcomes, he added.

What the field needs instead are antiepileptogenic drugs – those that interfere with the maladaptive synaptic plasticity that ends up in an epileptic circuit, he noted.

The new results suggest screening for posttraumatic epilepsy using the NINDS-ESQ “should be done pretty much routinely as a follow-up for all brain injuries,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.

The investigators plan to have study participants assessed by an epileptologist later. A significant number of people with TBI, he noted, won’t develop posttraumatic epilepsy until 1-5 years after their injury – and even later in some cases.

A limitation of the study was that some patients reporting posttraumatic epilepsy may have had psychogenic nonepileptiform seizures, which are common in TBI patients, the investigators noted.

The study was supported by grants from One Mind, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS, and Department of Defence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia reported receiving grants from the NIH, NINDS, and DOD during the conduct of the study.

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

A traumatic brain injury (TBI), even a mild type, can lead to posttraumatic epilepsy up to 1 year after the head injury occurs, new research suggests.

Results from a multicenter, prospective cohort study showed 2.7% of nearly 1,500 participants with TBI reported also having posttraumatic epilepsy, and these patients had significantly worse outcomes than those without posttraumatic epilepsy.

“Posttraumatic epilepsy is common even in so-called mild TBI, and we should be on the lookout for patients reporting these kinds of spells,” said coinvestigator Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the TBI Clinical Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said he dislikes the term “mild TBI” because many of these injuries have “pretty substantial consequences.”

The findings were published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Novel study

Seizures can occur after TBI, most commonly after a severe brain injury, such as those leading to coma or bleeding in the brain or requiring surgical intervention. However, there have been “hints” that some patients with milder brain injuries are also at increased risk for epilepsy, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.

To investigate, the researchers assessed data from the large, multicenter Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) database. Participants with TBI, defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-15, had presented to a level I trauma center within 24 hours of a head trauma needing evaluation with a CT scan.

The study included patients with relatively mild TBI (GCS score, 13-15), which is a “novel feature” of the study, the authors noted. Most prior studies of posttraumatic epilepsy focused on moderate to severe TBI.

The researchers included two sex- and age-matched control groups. The orthopedic trauma control (OTC) group consisted of patients with isolated trauma to the limbs, pelvis, and/or ribs. The “friend” or peer control group had backgrounds and lifestyles similar to those with TBI but had no history of TBI, concussion, or traumatic injury in the previous year.

The analysis included 1,885 participants (mean age, 41.3 years; 65.8% men). Of these, 1,493 had TBI, 182 were in the OTC group, and 210 were in the friends group. At 6- and 12-month follow-ups, investigators administered the Epilepsy Screening Questionnaire (ESQ), developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).
 

Confirmatory data

Participants were asked about experiencing uncontrolled movements, unexplained changes in mental state, and repeated unusual attacks or convulsions, and whether they had been told they had epilepsy or seizures. If they answered yes to any of these questions, they received second-level screening, which asked about seizures.

Patients were deemed to have posttraumatic epilepsy if they answered affirmatively to any first-level screening item, experienced seizures 7 days after injury, and were diagnosed with epilepsy.

The primary outcome was rate of positive posttraumatic epilepsy diagnoses. At 12 months, 2.7% of those with TBI reported a posttraumatic epilepsy diagnosis compared with none of either of the control groups (P < .001).

This rate is consistent with prior literature and is “pretty close to what we expected,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.

Among those with TBI and posttraumatic epilepsy, 12.2% had GCS scores of 3-8 (severe), 5.3% had scores of 9-12 (moderate), and 0.9% had scores of 13-15 (mild). That figure for mild TBI is not insignificant, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.

“Probably 90% of all those coming to the emergency room with a brain injury are diagnosed with mild TBI not requiring admission,” he noted.

The risk for posttraumatic epilepsy was higher the more severe the head injury, and among those with hemorrhage on head CT imaging. In patients with mild TBI, hemorrhage was associated with a two- to threefold risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy.

“This prospective observational study confirms the epidemiologic data that even after mild brain injury, there is an increased risk for epilepsy,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
 

Universal screening?

The researchers also looked at whether seizures worsen other outcomes. Compared with those who had TBI but not posttraumatic epilepsy, those with posttraumatic epilepsy had significantly lower Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) scores (mean, 4.7 vs. 6.1; P < .001), higher Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) scores (58.6 vs. 50.2; P = .02), and higher Rivermead Cognitive Metric (RCM) scores (5.3 vs. 3.1; P = .002) at 12 months after adjustment for age, initial GCS score, and imaging findings.

Higher GOSE and RCM scores reflect better outcomes, but a higher score on the BSI, which assesses overall mood, reflects a worse outcome, the investigators noted.

Previous evidence suggests prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs in patients with TBI does not reduce risks. These drugs “are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia. Some studies showed that certain agents actually worsen outcomes, he added.

What the field needs instead are antiepileptogenic drugs – those that interfere with the maladaptive synaptic plasticity that ends up in an epileptic circuit, he noted.

The new results suggest screening for posttraumatic epilepsy using the NINDS-ESQ “should be done pretty much routinely as a follow-up for all brain injuries,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.

The investigators plan to have study participants assessed by an epileptologist later. A significant number of people with TBI, he noted, won’t develop posttraumatic epilepsy until 1-5 years after their injury – and even later in some cases.

A limitation of the study was that some patients reporting posttraumatic epilepsy may have had psychogenic nonepileptiform seizures, which are common in TBI patients, the investigators noted.

The study was supported by grants from One Mind, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS, and Department of Defence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia reported receiving grants from the NIH, NINDS, and DOD during the conduct of the study.

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

People who have had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection report significantly more symptoms of cognitive dysfunction and specifically executive dysfunction than people in the general population with no such infection, according to new data published on the preprint server medRxiv.

Researchers, led by Peter A. Hall, PhD, with the University of Waterloo (Ont.), found that COVID infection is associated with executive dysfunction among young and middle-aged adults, including for those not exposed to intubation or hospitalization.

The findings have not been peer reviewed.

The study included a representative cohort of 1,958 community-dwelling young and middle-aged adults. It used a balanced proportion of infected and uninfected people to estimate the link between SARS-CoV-2 infection and cognitive/executive dysfunction.

The authors noted that the survey was conducted from Sept. 28 to Oct. 21, 2021, when the primary variant in Canada was Delta.

The research was a cross-sectional observational study with data from the ongoing Canadian COVID-19 Experiences Survey. It included equal representation of vaccinated and vaccine-hesitant adults aged 18-54 years. COVID-19 symptoms ranged from negligible to life-threatening cases requiring hospitalization.

Half in the cohort (50.2%) received two vaccine shots; 43.3% had received no shots; and 5.5% received one shot, but were not intending to receive a second shot.
 

Dose-response relationship

According to the paper, those with prior COVID-19 infection, regardless of symptom severity, reported a significantly higher number of symptoms of executive dysfunction than their noninfected counterparts (mechanical adjustment, 1.63, standard error, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.80; P = .001).

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship between COVID-19 symptom severity and cognitive dysfunction. Those with moderate and very/extremely severe COVID-19 symptoms were linked with significantly greater dysfunction.

“This reinforces what we’re hearing about – that COVID is not ‘one and done.’ It can have lasting and quite subtle and damaging effects on the human body,” William Schaffner, MD, infectious disease specialist with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

Measuring executive functioning – including the ability to make sound decisions – is something other studies haven’t typically addressed, he said.

Men were likely to report more cognitive dysfunction symptoms than women (beta, 0.15; P < .001). Younger adults (25-39 years) were more likely to experience cognitive dysfunction than those age 40-54 (beta, 0.30; P < .001).

Dr. Schaffner said it was troubling that young people are more likely to experience the dysfunction.

“When we think of ‘brain fog’ we think of older persons who are already predisposed to have more memory lapses as they get older,” he said.

The link between cognitive dysfunction and COVID-19 infection has been shown in other studies, but many have not used representative samples and have not compared results with noninfected controls in the general population, the authors wrote.

Executive dysfunction was measured using four questions from the Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale. Respondents were asked how often they have experienced these scenarios in the past 6 months:
 

• “I am unable to inhibit my reactions or responses to events or to other people.”
• “I make impulsive comments to others.”
• “I am likely to do things without considering the consequences for doing them.”
• “I act without thinking.”

“This makes it even more important that we talk about vaccination,” Dr. Schaffner said, “because clearly the more seriously ill you are, the more likely this sort of thing is likely to happen and vaccines have been shown time and again to avert hospitalizations and more serious illness. It also makes more important the monoclonal antibody treatments we have and the antivirals, which will prevent the evolution of mild disease into something more serious.”

This research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Institute for Population and Public Health. The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who have had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection report significantly more symptoms of cognitive dysfunction and specifically executive dysfunction than people in the general population with no such infection, according to new data published on the preprint server medRxiv.

Researchers, led by Peter A. Hall, PhD, with the University of Waterloo (Ont.), found that COVID infection is associated with executive dysfunction among young and middle-aged adults, including for those not exposed to intubation or hospitalization.

The findings have not been peer reviewed.

The study included a representative cohort of 1,958 community-dwelling young and middle-aged adults. It used a balanced proportion of infected and uninfected people to estimate the link between SARS-CoV-2 infection and cognitive/executive dysfunction.

The authors noted that the survey was conducted from Sept. 28 to Oct. 21, 2021, when the primary variant in Canada was Delta.

The research was a cross-sectional observational study with data from the ongoing Canadian COVID-19 Experiences Survey. It included equal representation of vaccinated and vaccine-hesitant adults aged 18-54 years. COVID-19 symptoms ranged from negligible to life-threatening cases requiring hospitalization.

Half in the cohort (50.2%) received two vaccine shots; 43.3% had received no shots; and 5.5% received one shot, but were not intending to receive a second shot.
 

Dose-response relationship

According to the paper, those with prior COVID-19 infection, regardless of symptom severity, reported a significantly higher number of symptoms of executive dysfunction than their noninfected counterparts (mechanical adjustment, 1.63, standard error, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.80; P = .001).

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship between COVID-19 symptom severity and cognitive dysfunction. Those with moderate and very/extremely severe COVID-19 symptoms were linked with significantly greater dysfunction.

“This reinforces what we’re hearing about – that COVID is not ‘one and done.’ It can have lasting and quite subtle and damaging effects on the human body,” William Schaffner, MD, infectious disease specialist with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

Measuring executive functioning – including the ability to make sound decisions – is something other studies haven’t typically addressed, he said.

Men were likely to report more cognitive dysfunction symptoms than women (beta, 0.15; P < .001). Younger adults (25-39 years) were more likely to experience cognitive dysfunction than those age 40-54 (beta, 0.30; P < .001).

Dr. Schaffner said it was troubling that young people are more likely to experience the dysfunction.

“When we think of ‘brain fog’ we think of older persons who are already predisposed to have more memory lapses as they get older,” he said.

The link between cognitive dysfunction and COVID-19 infection has been shown in other studies, but many have not used representative samples and have not compared results with noninfected controls in the general population, the authors wrote.

Executive dysfunction was measured using four questions from the Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale. Respondents were asked how often they have experienced these scenarios in the past 6 months:
 

• “I am unable to inhibit my reactions or responses to events or to other people.”
• “I make impulsive comments to others.”
• “I am likely to do things without considering the consequences for doing them.”
• “I act without thinking.”

“This makes it even more important that we talk about vaccination,” Dr. Schaffner said, “because clearly the more seriously ill you are, the more likely this sort of thing is likely to happen and vaccines have been shown time and again to avert hospitalizations and more serious illness. It also makes more important the monoclonal antibody treatments we have and the antivirals, which will prevent the evolution of mild disease into something more serious.”

This research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Institute for Population and Public Health. The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who have had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection report significantly more symptoms of cognitive dysfunction and specifically executive dysfunction than people in the general population with no such infection, according to new data published on the preprint server medRxiv.

Researchers, led by Peter A. Hall, PhD, with the University of Waterloo (Ont.), found that COVID infection is associated with executive dysfunction among young and middle-aged adults, including for those not exposed to intubation or hospitalization.

The findings have not been peer reviewed.

The study included a representative cohort of 1,958 community-dwelling young and middle-aged adults. It used a balanced proportion of infected and uninfected people to estimate the link between SARS-CoV-2 infection and cognitive/executive dysfunction.

The authors noted that the survey was conducted from Sept. 28 to Oct. 21, 2021, when the primary variant in Canada was Delta.

The research was a cross-sectional observational study with data from the ongoing Canadian COVID-19 Experiences Survey. It included equal representation of vaccinated and vaccine-hesitant adults aged 18-54 years. COVID-19 symptoms ranged from negligible to life-threatening cases requiring hospitalization.

Half in the cohort (50.2%) received two vaccine shots; 43.3% had received no shots; and 5.5% received one shot, but were not intending to receive a second shot.
 

Dose-response relationship

According to the paper, those with prior COVID-19 infection, regardless of symptom severity, reported a significantly higher number of symptoms of executive dysfunction than their noninfected counterparts (mechanical adjustment, 1.63, standard error, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.80; P = .001).

The researchers also found a dose-response relationship between COVID-19 symptom severity and cognitive dysfunction. Those with moderate and very/extremely severe COVID-19 symptoms were linked with significantly greater dysfunction.

“This reinforces what we’re hearing about – that COVID is not ‘one and done.’ It can have lasting and quite subtle and damaging effects on the human body,” William Schaffner, MD, infectious disease specialist with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

Measuring executive functioning – including the ability to make sound decisions – is something other studies haven’t typically addressed, he said.

Men were likely to report more cognitive dysfunction symptoms than women (beta, 0.15; P < .001). Younger adults (25-39 years) were more likely to experience cognitive dysfunction than those age 40-54 (beta, 0.30; P < .001).

Dr. Schaffner said it was troubling that young people are more likely to experience the dysfunction.

“When we think of ‘brain fog’ we think of older persons who are already predisposed to have more memory lapses as they get older,” he said.

The link between cognitive dysfunction and COVID-19 infection has been shown in other studies, but many have not used representative samples and have not compared results with noninfected controls in the general population, the authors wrote.

Executive dysfunction was measured using four questions from the Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale. Respondents were asked how often they have experienced these scenarios in the past 6 months:
 

• “I am unable to inhibit my reactions or responses to events or to other people.”
• “I make impulsive comments to others.”
• “I am likely to do things without considering the consequences for doing them.”
• “I act without thinking.”

“This makes it even more important that we talk about vaccination,” Dr. Schaffner said, “because clearly the more seriously ill you are, the more likely this sort of thing is likely to happen and vaccines have been shown time and again to avert hospitalizations and more serious illness. It also makes more important the monoclonal antibody treatments we have and the antivirals, which will prevent the evolution of mild disease into something more serious.”

This research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Institute for Population and Public Health. The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) for asthma management did not increase the risk of neuropsychiatric disease, based on data from more than 60,000 asthma patients.

Although LTRAs are established as an effective drug for asthma, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warnings of the risk for neuropsychiatric (NP) drug reactions – including a boxed warning for montelukast (Singulair) – has raised concerns, writes Ji-Su Shim, MD, of Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues.

However, evidence for such an association is limited, and previous studies have focused only on children and adolescents, and on a single LTRA (montelukast), the researchers say.

In a study published Dec. 1 in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, the researchers used a Korean national health insurance database to identify 61,571 adult patients with asthma aged 40 years and older between Jan. 2002 and Dec. 2015 with no history of LTRA use.

The patients underwent screening examinations between Jan. 2009 and Dec. 2010, which marked the start of a follow-up period ending on Dec. 31, 2015. The median age of the study population was 61 years, and the mean follow-up period for NPs or other outcomes was approximately 47.6 months for LTRA users and 46.5 months for nonusers. Overall, 11.1% of the study population used pranlukast (Onon), 11% used montelukast, and 0.24% used zafirlukast (Accolate).

A total of 12,168 patients took an LTRA during the follow-up period. The hazard ratio for newly diagnosed neuropsychiatric diseases was not significantly different between LTRA users and nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.01; P = .952) in an adjusted model that included age, sex, pack-years of smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, body mass index, comorbid conditions, other respiratory diseases, and use of other asthma medications.

The most common NPs were dementia, mood disorders, and panic disorders, and the prevalence of each was not significantly different between LTRA users and nonusers (75.4% vs. 76.1% for dementia, 12.7% vs. 12.8% for mood disorders, and 5.6% vs. 3.5% for panic disorders).

A subgroup analysis for associations between the duration of LTRA use and NP disease risk also showed no significant difference between LTRA users and nonusers.

“The mechanism of the development of NP symptoms by LTRAs has not been identified,” the researchers write in their discussion of the study findings. “Because most of NP side effects due to montelukast occur in few patients within 2 weeks of drug administration, it also may have relation with the presence of some genetic polymorphisms involving modification of the normal action or metabolism of LTRAs,” they explained.

The FDA’s boxed warning for montelukast noting the risk of serious mental health side effects has renewed interest in the relationship between NPs and LTRAs, the researchers noted. However, the current study findings support previous randomized controlled trials and larger studies, and the current warnings are based mainly on pharmacovigilance studies, case series, and case reports, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design, the potential for misclassification of asthma diagnosis, the exclusion of temporary NP symptoms that might prompt LTRA discontinuation, and the inability to detect possible differences in ethnicities other than Korean, the researchers note.

However, the results suggest that adverse NP symptoms should not prevent physicians from prescribing LTRAs to selected patients with asthma. Instead, the physician should accompany the prescription with “a word of caution in case any mood changes might occur,” the investigators wrote.

“Further studies, such as randomized controlled trials, are needed to reveal the association between the use of LTRAs and the risk of NP events and/or diseases,” they concluded.

Potential genetic predisposition may drive cases

The relatively rare occurrence of NP symptoms in asthma patients using LTRAs has prompted questions from the medical community on whether the relationship really exists, writes Désirée Larenas-Linnemann, MD, of Médica Sur Clinical Foundation and Hospital, Mexico City, in an accompanying editorial ).

The current study provides information about medications and possible adverse drug reactions, but “great care should be taken in the interpretation of the results from such a study,” she notes. Limitations include not only the possible misclassification of asthma and the homogeneous study population, but also the fact that some NPs, such as dementia, are already common in older adults..

Dr. Larenas-Linnemann shared a story of one of her patients, a 2½-year-old boy who began exhibiting hyperactivity and other strange behaviors while on an LRTA. The toddler’s father had previously reported “horrible nightmares, strange thoughts, and to feel upset, unsecure until he suspended the medication.” Cases such as this support a potential genetic predisposition, with drug metabolism playing a role, and clinicians should take genetic backgrounds into account, she said.

“Even though the current study did not show an association between LTRA use or duration of exposure and the occurrence of NP diseases in Korean adults with asthma, this does not imply such a relationship might be present in other age groups (children-adolescents-adults up to 50 years) or in patients with a different genetic background,” she emphasized.

However, “In the meantime, although LTRA should continue to be prescribed if indicated, an index of suspicion for possible NP effects should be maintained,” Dr. Larenas-Linnemann concluded.

“This study is timely, since the boxed warning for montelukast was issued approximately 1 year ago by the FDA,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview.

Dr. Casale said he was not surprised by the findings, “since most of the data implicating a potential link between the use of montelukast and neuropsychiatric disorders have not been particularly compelling,” and much of the current information comes from case reports and retrospective studies.

“Furthermore, the data appeared to be somewhat stronger in the pediatric population,” Dr. Casale noted. “This study focused on elderly patients (mean age 61) and included two other leukotriene modifiers. The number of patients receiving montelukast was small (56), which may have also confounded the results,” he noted.

As for clinical implications, “I don’t think this study will change practice,” Dr. Casale said. “As indicated, it is in an elderly population, included only a limited number of patients receiving montelukast, and was in a Korean cohort. All of these factors could have influenced the results,” and the data may not be generalizable to patients elsewhere, including the United States, he said. “Also, the study only included patients with asthma and in the United States; the approval for rhinitis is another important indication to study,” he noted.

Additional research is needed in the form of better prospective studies examining the potential link between montelukast and neuropsychiatric disorders in both the pediatric and adult populations having either asthma or rhinitis, Dr. Casale concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Casale have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Larenas-Linnemann disclosed personal fees from Allakos, Armstrong, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, DBV Technologies, Grünenthal, GSK, Mylan/Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Alakos, Gossamer, and Carnot, and grants from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, GSK, and the Purina Institute.

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

Use of a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) for asthma management did not increase the risk of neuropsychiatric disease, based on data from more than 60,000 asthma patients.

Although LTRAs are established as an effective drug for asthma, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warnings of the risk for neuropsychiatric (NP) drug reactions – including a boxed warning for montelukast (Singulair) – has raised concerns, writes Ji-Su Shim, MD, of Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues.

However, evidence for such an association is limited, and previous studies have focused only on children and adolescents, and on a single LTRA (montelukast), the researchers say.

In a study published Dec. 1 in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, the researchers used a Korean national health insurance database to identify 61,571 adult patients with asthma aged 40 years and older between Jan. 2002 and Dec. 2015 with no history of LTRA use.

The patients underwent screening examinations between Jan. 2009 and Dec. 2010, which marked the start of a follow-up period ending on Dec. 31, 2015. The median age of the study population was 61 years, and the mean follow-up period for NPs or other outcomes was approximately 47.6 months for LTRA users and 46.5 months for nonusers. Overall, 11.1% of the study population used pranlukast (Onon), 11% used montelukast, and 0.24% used zafirlukast (Accolate).

A total of 12,168 patients took an LTRA during the follow-up period. The hazard ratio for newly diagnosed neuropsychiatric diseases was not significantly different between LTRA users and nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.01; P = .952) in an adjusted model that included age, sex, pack-years of smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, body mass index, comorbid conditions, other respiratory diseases, and use of other asthma medications.

The most common NPs were dementia, mood disorders, and panic disorders, and the prevalence of each was not significantly different between LTRA users and nonusers (75.4% vs. 76.1% for dementia, 12.7% vs. 12.8% for mood disorders, and 5.6% vs. 3.5% for panic disorders).

A subgroup analysis for associations between the duration of LTRA use and NP disease risk also showed no significant difference between LTRA users and nonusers.

“The mechanism of the development of NP symptoms by LTRAs has not been identified,” the researchers write in their discussion of the study findings. “Because most of NP side effects due to montelukast occur in few patients within 2 weeks of drug administration, it also may have relation with the presence of some genetic polymorphisms involving modification of the normal action or metabolism of LTRAs,” they explained.

The FDA’s boxed warning for montelukast noting the risk of serious mental health side effects has renewed interest in the relationship between NPs and LTRAs, the researchers noted. However, the current study findings support previous randomized controlled trials and larger studies, and the current warnings are based mainly on pharmacovigilance studies, case series, and case reports, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design, the potential for misclassification of asthma diagnosis, the exclusion of temporary NP symptoms that might prompt LTRA discontinuation, and the inability to detect possible differences in ethnicities other than Korean, the researchers note.

However, the results suggest that adverse NP symptoms should not prevent physicians from prescribing LTRAs to selected patients with asthma. Instead, the physician should accompany the prescription with “a word of caution in case any mood changes might occur,” the investigators wrote.

“Further studies, such as randomized controlled trials, are needed to reveal the association between the use of LTRAs and the risk of NP events and/or diseases,” they concluded.

Potential genetic predisposition may drive cases

The relatively rare occurrence of NP symptoms in asthma patients using LTRAs has prompted questions from the medical community on whether the relationship really exists, writes Désirée Larenas-Linnemann, MD, of Médica Sur Clinical Foundation and Hospital, Mexico City, in an accompanying editorial ).

The current study provides information about medications and possible adverse drug reactions, but “great care should be taken in the interpretation of the results from such a study,” she notes. Limitations include not only the possible misclassification of asthma and the homogeneous study population, but also the fact that some NPs, such as dementia, are already common in older adults..

Dr. Larenas-Linnemann shared a story of one of her patients, a 2½-year-old boy who began exhibiting hyperactivity and other strange behaviors while on an LRTA. The toddler’s father had previously reported “horrible nightmares, strange thoughts, and to feel upset, unsecure until he suspended the medication.” Cases such as this support a potential genetic predisposition, with drug metabolism playing a role, and clinicians should take genetic backgrounds into account, she said.

“Even though the current study did not show an association between LTRA use or duration of exposure and the occurrence of NP diseases in Korean adults with asthma, this does not imply such a relationship might be present in other age groups (children-adolescents-adults up to 50 years) or in patients with a different genetic background,” she emphasized.

However, “In the meantime, although LTRA should continue to be prescribed if indicated, an index of suspicion for possible NP effects should be maintained,” Dr. Larenas-Linnemann concluded.

“This study is timely, since the boxed warning for montelukast was issued approximately 1 year ago by the FDA,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview.

Dr. Casale said he was not surprised by the findings, “since most of the data implicating a potential link between the use of montelukast and neuropsychiatric disorders have not been particularly compelling,” and much of the current information comes from case reports and retrospective studies.

“Furthermore, the data appeared to be somewhat stronger in the pediatric population,” Dr. Casale noted. “This study focused on elderly patients (mean age 61) and included two other leukotriene modifiers. The number of patients receiving montelukast was small (56), which may have also confounded the results,” he noted.

As for clinical implications, “I don’t think this study will change practice,” Dr. Casale said. “As indicated, it is in an elderly population, included only a limited number of patients receiving montelukast, and was in a Korean cohort. All of these factors could have influenced the results,” and the data may not be generalizable to patients elsewhere, including the United States, he said. “Also, the study only included patients with asthma and in the United States; the approval for rhinitis is another important indication to study,” he noted.

Additional research is needed in the form of better prospective studies examining the potential link between montelukast and neuropsychiatric disorders in both the pediatric and adult populations having either asthma or rhinitis, Dr. Casale concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Casale have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Larenas-Linnemann disclosed personal fees from Allakos, Armstrong, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, DBV Technologies, Grünenthal, GSK, Mylan/Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Alakos, Gossamer, and Carnot, and grants from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, GSK, and the Purina Institute.

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

Use of a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) for asthma management did not increase the risk of neuropsychiatric disease, based on data from more than 60,000 asthma patients.

Although LTRAs are established as an effective drug for asthma, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warnings of the risk for neuropsychiatric (NP) drug reactions – including a boxed warning for montelukast (Singulair) – has raised concerns, writes Ji-Su Shim, MD, of Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues.

However, evidence for such an association is limited, and previous studies have focused only on children and adolescents, and on a single LTRA (montelukast), the researchers say.

In a study published Dec. 1 in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, the researchers used a Korean national health insurance database to identify 61,571 adult patients with asthma aged 40 years and older between Jan. 2002 and Dec. 2015 with no history of LTRA use.

The patients underwent screening examinations between Jan. 2009 and Dec. 2010, which marked the start of a follow-up period ending on Dec. 31, 2015. The median age of the study population was 61 years, and the mean follow-up period for NPs or other outcomes was approximately 47.6 months for LTRA users and 46.5 months for nonusers. Overall, 11.1% of the study population used pranlukast (Onon), 11% used montelukast, and 0.24% used zafirlukast (Accolate).

A total of 12,168 patients took an LTRA during the follow-up period. The hazard ratio for newly diagnosed neuropsychiatric diseases was not significantly different between LTRA users and nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.01; P = .952) in an adjusted model that included age, sex, pack-years of smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, body mass index, comorbid conditions, other respiratory diseases, and use of other asthma medications.

The most common NPs were dementia, mood disorders, and panic disorders, and the prevalence of each was not significantly different between LTRA users and nonusers (75.4% vs. 76.1% for dementia, 12.7% vs. 12.8% for mood disorders, and 5.6% vs. 3.5% for panic disorders).

A subgroup analysis for associations between the duration of LTRA use and NP disease risk also showed no significant difference between LTRA users and nonusers.

“The mechanism of the development of NP symptoms by LTRAs has not been identified,” the researchers write in their discussion of the study findings. “Because most of NP side effects due to montelukast occur in few patients within 2 weeks of drug administration, it also may have relation with the presence of some genetic polymorphisms involving modification of the normal action or metabolism of LTRAs,” they explained.

The FDA’s boxed warning for montelukast noting the risk of serious mental health side effects has renewed interest in the relationship between NPs and LTRAs, the researchers noted. However, the current study findings support previous randomized controlled trials and larger studies, and the current warnings are based mainly on pharmacovigilance studies, case series, and case reports, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design, the potential for misclassification of asthma diagnosis, the exclusion of temporary NP symptoms that might prompt LTRA discontinuation, and the inability to detect possible differences in ethnicities other than Korean, the researchers note.

However, the results suggest that adverse NP symptoms should not prevent physicians from prescribing LTRAs to selected patients with asthma. Instead, the physician should accompany the prescription with “a word of caution in case any mood changes might occur,” the investigators wrote.

“Further studies, such as randomized controlled trials, are needed to reveal the association between the use of LTRAs and the risk of NP events and/or diseases,” they concluded.

Potential genetic predisposition may drive cases

The relatively rare occurrence of NP symptoms in asthma patients using LTRAs has prompted questions from the medical community on whether the relationship really exists, writes Désirée Larenas-Linnemann, MD, of Médica Sur Clinical Foundation and Hospital, Mexico City, in an accompanying editorial ).

The current study provides information about medications and possible adverse drug reactions, but “great care should be taken in the interpretation of the results from such a study,” she notes. Limitations include not only the possible misclassification of asthma and the homogeneous study population, but also the fact that some NPs, such as dementia, are already common in older adults..

Dr. Larenas-Linnemann shared a story of one of her patients, a 2½-year-old boy who began exhibiting hyperactivity and other strange behaviors while on an LRTA. The toddler’s father had previously reported “horrible nightmares, strange thoughts, and to feel upset, unsecure until he suspended the medication.” Cases such as this support a potential genetic predisposition, with drug metabolism playing a role, and clinicians should take genetic backgrounds into account, she said.

“Even though the current study did not show an association between LTRA use or duration of exposure and the occurrence of NP diseases in Korean adults with asthma, this does not imply such a relationship might be present in other age groups (children-adolescents-adults up to 50 years) or in patients with a different genetic background,” she emphasized.

However, “In the meantime, although LTRA should continue to be prescribed if indicated, an index of suspicion for possible NP effects should be maintained,” Dr. Larenas-Linnemann concluded.

“This study is timely, since the boxed warning for montelukast was issued approximately 1 year ago by the FDA,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview.

Dr. Casale said he was not surprised by the findings, “since most of the data implicating a potential link between the use of montelukast and neuropsychiatric disorders have not been particularly compelling,” and much of the current information comes from case reports and retrospective studies.

“Furthermore, the data appeared to be somewhat stronger in the pediatric population,” Dr. Casale noted. “This study focused on elderly patients (mean age 61) and included two other leukotriene modifiers. The number of patients receiving montelukast was small (56), which may have also confounded the results,” he noted.

As for clinical implications, “I don’t think this study will change practice,” Dr. Casale said. “As indicated, it is in an elderly population, included only a limited number of patients receiving montelukast, and was in a Korean cohort. All of these factors could have influenced the results,” and the data may not be generalizable to patients elsewhere, including the United States, he said. “Also, the study only included patients with asthma and in the United States; the approval for rhinitis is another important indication to study,” he noted.

Additional research is needed in the form of better prospective studies examining the potential link between montelukast and neuropsychiatric disorders in both the pediatric and adult populations having either asthma or rhinitis, Dr. Casale concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Casale have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Larenas-Linnemann disclosed personal fees from Allakos, Armstrong, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, DBV Technologies, Grünenthal, GSK, Mylan/Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Alakos, Gossamer, and Carnot, and grants from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, GSK, and the Purina Institute.

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

It’s a true Goldilocks debate: A week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidelines – lowering isolation time – health care experts continued to debate the changes, with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”

The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.

Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.

As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:

• Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.

On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.

A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”

In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days. 

“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
 

Under debate

Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.

Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.

And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.

However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.

Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”

Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.

Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.

Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
 

Tough decisions

The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.

The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.

Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”

Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.

That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.

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

It’s a true Goldilocks debate: A week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidelines – lowering isolation time – health care experts continued to debate the changes, with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”

The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.

Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.

As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:

• Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.

On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.

A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”

In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days. 

“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
 

Under debate

Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.

Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.

And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.

However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.

Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”

Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.

Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.

Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
 

Tough decisions

The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.

The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.

Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”

Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.

That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.

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

It’s a true Goldilocks debate: A week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidelines – lowering isolation time – health care experts continued to debate the changes, with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”

The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.

Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.

As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:

• Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.

On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.

A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”

In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days. 

“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
 

Under debate

Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.

Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.

And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.

However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.

Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”

Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.

Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.

Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
 

Tough decisions

The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.

The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.

Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”

Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.

That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.

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

A COVID-19 outbreak has occurred at one of the most remote places on earth – the Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica.

Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.

So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.

The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.

Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.

New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.

“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”

The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.

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

A COVID-19 outbreak has occurred at one of the most remote places on earth – the Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica.

Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.

So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.

The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.

Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.

New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.

“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”

The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.

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

A COVID-19 outbreak has occurred at one of the most remote places on earth – the Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica.

Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.

So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.

The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.

Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.

New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.

“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”

The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.

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

Researchers have known for some time that depression is associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but a causal link has been elusive. Now, using newly available data, they have uncovered genetic evidence of a causal role for depression in AD.

As depression typically affects those in early or midlife and dementia often occurs in later life, “it’s fascinating to see a connection between the two brain illnesses that manifest in different time windows,” coinvestigator Aliza P. Wingo, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral science, Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“If we can treat the depression early on, we may help reduce risk for dementia for our patients later in life,” Dr. Wingo said.

The findings were published online Dec. 16, 2021, in Biological Psychiatry.

Postmortem data

The investigators, who are all from the Emory University Center for Neurodegenerative Disease, wanted to clarify the genetic basis underlying the association between the established link between depression and dementia risk.

They used data from the largest and most recent genomewide association studies (GWAS). These included a 2019 analysis of depression among 807,553 individuals and a 2019 study of AD among 455,258 individuals, all of European ancestry. For sensitivity analyses, they used results from two additional AD GWAS.

The researchers also accessed postmortem brain samples from participants in the Religious Orders Study (ROS) and the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP). These participants were cognitively normal at enrollment, underwent annual clinical evaluations, and agreed to donate their brains.

They also assessed brain samples donated by participants in the Banner Sun Health Research Institute longitudinal study of healthy aging, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease.

The brain samples allowed researchers to use deep brain proteomic data to help determine molecular links between depression and AD.

After quality control, the analysis included 8,356 proteins in 391 ROS/MAP participants and 7,854 proteins in 196 Banner participants.

Results showed a small but significant positive genetic correlation between depression and AD, suggesting the two conditions have a shared genetic basis.

The investigators also applied a framework called “Mendelian randomization” to determine causality between depression and AD.

After assessing the effect of 115 independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the GWAS of depression, they uncovered significant evidence “that the SNPs cause depression, which in turn cause AD,” said Dr. Wingo.
 

One-way relationship

The researchers conducted the same analysis on 61 significant SNPs from the GWAS of AD but did not find evidence to conclude AD causes depression.

“We found genetic evidence supporting a causal role of depression in AD but not vice versa,” Dr. Wingo said.

In addition, the investigators identified 75 brain transcripts (messenger RNA) and 28 brain proteins regulated by the depression-predisposing genetic variants. Of these, 46 brain transcripts and seven proteins were significantly associated with at least one AD feature – for example, beta-amyloid, tau tangles, and cognitive trajectory.

“These findings support the notion that the depression risk variants contribute to AD via regulating expression of their corresponding transcripts in the brain,” the investigators wrote.

It is only recently that large enough studies have allowed researchers sufficient power to reach these conclusions, coinvestigator Thomas Wingo, MD, said in an interview.

These additional “insights” into the relationship between depression and AD might “motivate” clinicians more to screen for and treat depressive symptoms, Dr. Aliza Wingo noted.

The new results also have implications for developing therapeutics to treat depression, she said. “If we target the genes, the brain proteins, that are shared risk between depression and AD, the medications that target that gene might mitigate risk for AD later on.”

However, the investigators advised caution. “A lot of this is still unknown,” said Dr. Thomas Wingo.

For example, it is not clear whether successfully treating depression mitigates the eventual risk of dementia, which is “a very important topic of inquiry and one we continue to work on,” he said, adding that a significant number of patients do not respond well to existing antidepressants such as SSRIs.
 

Need for further research

Commenting on the findings, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach, Alzheimer’s Association, said the study contributes to the debate about whether depression increases risk for AD, whether AD increases risk for depression, or both.

“These newly published findings strengthen our understanding of the role of depression as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s dementia,” said Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the research.

While experts do not yet fully understand the impact of treating depression on dementia risk, “the findings emphasize the importance of assessing mental health status, particularly depression, and getting it properly diagnosed and treated in a timely manner,” she said.

However, she agreed more research in this area is needed. “Importantly, these findings need replication in broader, more diverse study populations,” Dr. Sexton said.

A study funded by the Alzheimer’s Association may provide more information on the link between depression and AD. It will investigate whether machine learning, an advanced computer science technique, can better predict cognitive decline, compared with traditional methods.

Over a period of 6 months, researchers will collect smartphone conversations from 225 older adults with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or no cognitive impairment. They will also have data from cognitive tests, brain scans, and biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid samples to study brain changes associated with AD.

The novel method of analysis should be able to identify subtle differences in speech quality to indicate which depressive symptoms an individual might be experiencing.

“The study could help us further understand the potential impact of depression in the risk of developing dementia,” said Dr. Sexton.

Dr. Aliza Wingo and Dr. Thomas Wingo reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have known for some time that depression is associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but a causal link has been elusive. Now, using newly available data, they have uncovered genetic evidence of a causal role for depression in AD.

As depression typically affects those in early or midlife and dementia often occurs in later life, “it’s fascinating to see a connection between the two brain illnesses that manifest in different time windows,” coinvestigator Aliza P. Wingo, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral science, Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“If we can treat the depression early on, we may help reduce risk for dementia for our patients later in life,” Dr. Wingo said.

The findings were published online Dec. 16, 2021, in Biological Psychiatry.

Postmortem data

The investigators, who are all from the Emory University Center for Neurodegenerative Disease, wanted to clarify the genetic basis underlying the association between the established link between depression and dementia risk.

They used data from the largest and most recent genomewide association studies (GWAS). These included a 2019 analysis of depression among 807,553 individuals and a 2019 study of AD among 455,258 individuals, all of European ancestry. For sensitivity analyses, they used results from two additional AD GWAS.

The researchers also accessed postmortem brain samples from participants in the Religious Orders Study (ROS) and the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP). These participants were cognitively normal at enrollment, underwent annual clinical evaluations, and agreed to donate their brains.

They also assessed brain samples donated by participants in the Banner Sun Health Research Institute longitudinal study of healthy aging, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease.

The brain samples allowed researchers to use deep brain proteomic data to help determine molecular links between depression and AD.

After quality control, the analysis included 8,356 proteins in 391 ROS/MAP participants and 7,854 proteins in 196 Banner participants.

Results showed a small but significant positive genetic correlation between depression and AD, suggesting the two conditions have a shared genetic basis.

The investigators also applied a framework called “Mendelian randomization” to determine causality between depression and AD.

After assessing the effect of 115 independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the GWAS of depression, they uncovered significant evidence “that the SNPs cause depression, which in turn cause AD,” said Dr. Wingo.
 

One-way relationship

The researchers conducted the same analysis on 61 significant SNPs from the GWAS of AD but did not find evidence to conclude AD causes depression.

“We found genetic evidence supporting a causal role of depression in AD but not vice versa,” Dr. Wingo said.

In addition, the investigators identified 75 brain transcripts (messenger RNA) and 28 brain proteins regulated by the depression-predisposing genetic variants. Of these, 46 brain transcripts and seven proteins were significantly associated with at least one AD feature – for example, beta-amyloid, tau tangles, and cognitive trajectory.

“These findings support the notion that the depression risk variants contribute to AD via regulating expression of their corresponding transcripts in the brain,” the investigators wrote.

It is only recently that large enough studies have allowed researchers sufficient power to reach these conclusions, coinvestigator Thomas Wingo, MD, said in an interview.

These additional “insights” into the relationship between depression and AD might “motivate” clinicians more to screen for and treat depressive symptoms, Dr. Aliza Wingo noted.

The new results also have implications for developing therapeutics to treat depression, she said. “If we target the genes, the brain proteins, that are shared risk between depression and AD, the medications that target that gene might mitigate risk for AD later on.”

However, the investigators advised caution. “A lot of this is still unknown,” said Dr. Thomas Wingo.

For example, it is not clear whether successfully treating depression mitigates the eventual risk of dementia, which is “a very important topic of inquiry and one we continue to work on,” he said, adding that a significant number of patients do not respond well to existing antidepressants such as SSRIs.
 

Need for further research

Commenting on the findings, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach, Alzheimer’s Association, said the study contributes to the debate about whether depression increases risk for AD, whether AD increases risk for depression, or both.

“These newly published findings strengthen our understanding of the role of depression as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s dementia,” said Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the research.

While experts do not yet fully understand the impact of treating depression on dementia risk, “the findings emphasize the importance of assessing mental health status, particularly depression, and getting it properly diagnosed and treated in a timely manner,” she said.

However, she agreed more research in this area is needed. “Importantly, these findings need replication in broader, more diverse study populations,” Dr. Sexton said.

A study funded by the Alzheimer’s Association may provide more information on the link between depression and AD. It will investigate whether machine learning, an advanced computer science technique, can better predict cognitive decline, compared with traditional methods.

Over a period of 6 months, researchers will collect smartphone conversations from 225 older adults with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or no cognitive impairment. They will also have data from cognitive tests, brain scans, and biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid samples to study brain changes associated with AD.

The novel method of analysis should be able to identify subtle differences in speech quality to indicate which depressive symptoms an individual might be experiencing.

“The study could help us further understand the potential impact of depression in the risk of developing dementia,” said Dr. Sexton.

Dr. Aliza Wingo and Dr. Thomas Wingo reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have known for some time that depression is associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but a causal link has been elusive. Now, using newly available data, they have uncovered genetic evidence of a causal role for depression in AD.

As depression typically affects those in early or midlife and dementia often occurs in later life, “it’s fascinating to see a connection between the two brain illnesses that manifest in different time windows,” coinvestigator Aliza P. Wingo, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral science, Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“If we can treat the depression early on, we may help reduce risk for dementia for our patients later in life,” Dr. Wingo said.

The findings were published online Dec. 16, 2021, in Biological Psychiatry.

Postmortem data

The investigators, who are all from the Emory University Center for Neurodegenerative Disease, wanted to clarify the genetic basis underlying the association between the established link between depression and dementia risk.

They used data from the largest and most recent genomewide association studies (GWAS). These included a 2019 analysis of depression among 807,553 individuals and a 2019 study of AD among 455,258 individuals, all of European ancestry. For sensitivity analyses, they used results from two additional AD GWAS.

The researchers also accessed postmortem brain samples from participants in the Religious Orders Study (ROS) and the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP). These participants were cognitively normal at enrollment, underwent annual clinical evaluations, and agreed to donate their brains.

They also assessed brain samples donated by participants in the Banner Sun Health Research Institute longitudinal study of healthy aging, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease.

The brain samples allowed researchers to use deep brain proteomic data to help determine molecular links between depression and AD.

After quality control, the analysis included 8,356 proteins in 391 ROS/MAP participants and 7,854 proteins in 196 Banner participants.

Results showed a small but significant positive genetic correlation between depression and AD, suggesting the two conditions have a shared genetic basis.

The investigators also applied a framework called “Mendelian randomization” to determine causality between depression and AD.

After assessing the effect of 115 independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the GWAS of depression, they uncovered significant evidence “that the SNPs cause depression, which in turn cause AD,” said Dr. Wingo.
 

One-way relationship

The researchers conducted the same analysis on 61 significant SNPs from the GWAS of AD but did not find evidence to conclude AD causes depression.

“We found genetic evidence supporting a causal role of depression in AD but not vice versa,” Dr. Wingo said.

In addition, the investigators identified 75 brain transcripts (messenger RNA) and 28 brain proteins regulated by the depression-predisposing genetic variants. Of these, 46 brain transcripts and seven proteins were significantly associated with at least one AD feature – for example, beta-amyloid, tau tangles, and cognitive trajectory.

“These findings support the notion that the depression risk variants contribute to AD via regulating expression of their corresponding transcripts in the brain,” the investigators wrote.

It is only recently that large enough studies have allowed researchers sufficient power to reach these conclusions, coinvestigator Thomas Wingo, MD, said in an interview.

These additional “insights” into the relationship between depression and AD might “motivate” clinicians more to screen for and treat depressive symptoms, Dr. Aliza Wingo noted.

The new results also have implications for developing therapeutics to treat depression, she said. “If we target the genes, the brain proteins, that are shared risk between depression and AD, the medications that target that gene might mitigate risk for AD later on.”

However, the investigators advised caution. “A lot of this is still unknown,” said Dr. Thomas Wingo.

For example, it is not clear whether successfully treating depression mitigates the eventual risk of dementia, which is “a very important topic of inquiry and one we continue to work on,” he said, adding that a significant number of patients do not respond well to existing antidepressants such as SSRIs.
 

Need for further research

Commenting on the findings, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach, Alzheimer’s Association, said the study contributes to the debate about whether depression increases risk for AD, whether AD increases risk for depression, or both.

“These newly published findings strengthen our understanding of the role of depression as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s dementia,” said Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the research.

While experts do not yet fully understand the impact of treating depression on dementia risk, “the findings emphasize the importance of assessing mental health status, particularly depression, and getting it properly diagnosed and treated in a timely manner,” she said.

However, she agreed more research in this area is needed. “Importantly, these findings need replication in broader, more diverse study populations,” Dr. Sexton said.

A study funded by the Alzheimer’s Association may provide more information on the link between depression and AD. It will investigate whether machine learning, an advanced computer science technique, can better predict cognitive decline, compared with traditional methods.

Over a period of 6 months, researchers will collect smartphone conversations from 225 older adults with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or no cognitive impairment. They will also have data from cognitive tests, brain scans, and biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid samples to study brain changes associated with AD.

The novel method of analysis should be able to identify subtle differences in speech quality to indicate which depressive symptoms an individual might be experiencing.

“The study could help us further understand the potential impact of depression in the risk of developing dementia,” said Dr. Sexton.

Dr. Aliza Wingo and Dr. Thomas Wingo reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“I am capable and ready to begin.”

Sounds trite, doesn’t it? What slush pile did that come from?

Actually, it was the closing sentence of the 1988 “personal statement” I wrote for my medical school applications. (I applied to something like 25 schools, maybe more.) Come to think of it, I suspect my father came up with that line.

Have you read your personal statement since you became an attending? It’s like a letter from an alternate universe, where you weren’t a doctor, weren’t sure you’d ever be one, and were trying very hard to sound confident in the face of an uncertain future.

Mine began in a melodramatic way, emphasizing what I’d seen as an emergency department volunteer. When I wrote it I thought I’d be an ED doc, and never imagined that years later I’d be doing something entirely different – and loving it.

Having the opportunity to go back and talk to our younger selves is a common trope in movies, but in real life reading something like this is as close as it gets. But it’s still neat. It brings back not who you are, but who you were. Reminds you why you wanted to be a doctor, when you were younger, probably more naive, and felt medicine was a calling, not a job.

Do you still feel that way, after years of paperwork, insurance games, a mortgage, a family, defensive medicine, your own health changes, and all the other things life and the often-jaded medical field bring?

I hope the answer is still yes.

On my first day at Creighton Medical School, our dean – the late William L. Pancoe, PhD – gave us a “go get ‘em!” speech. His main theme was that we should “wear sneakers and hit the ground running” on day 1, because otherwise we’d never catch up. But he also told us to remember and hold on to the feeling we had when we got our first medical school acceptance letter. That feeling of relief, joy, the realization that we’d been given a chance to make our dream come true. He told us that feeling might be all that would get us through the long nights of studying, the occasional failures, the self-doubts, and all the other things in the 4 years to come.

Dean Pancoe, you were absolutely right. Today I’m older than you were when you gave us that speech. My only additions would be:

1. Don’t just hold onto that feeling for medical school, but for life.

2. Always keep one copy of your personal statement (even if in your picture you were wearing hideous 1980s-style glasses, like mine). Keep it in your work desk, not in the bottom of a filing cabinet or scrapbook. Read it at least once a year. It’ll take maybe 2 minutes. You have that much time to spare.

Because it’s not just the young who can learn from the wisdom of the old. The older can learn, and be reminded of, many good things from the young. Even if that younger person is you.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“I am capable and ready to begin.”

Sounds trite, doesn’t it? What slush pile did that come from?

Actually, it was the closing sentence of the 1988 “personal statement” I wrote for my medical school applications. (I applied to something like 25 schools, maybe more.) Come to think of it, I suspect my father came up with that line.

Have you read your personal statement since you became an attending? It’s like a letter from an alternate universe, where you weren’t a doctor, weren’t sure you’d ever be one, and were trying very hard to sound confident in the face of an uncertain future.

Mine began in a melodramatic way, emphasizing what I’d seen as an emergency department volunteer. When I wrote it I thought I’d be an ED doc, and never imagined that years later I’d be doing something entirely different – and loving it.

Having the opportunity to go back and talk to our younger selves is a common trope in movies, but in real life reading something like this is as close as it gets. But it’s still neat. It brings back not who you are, but who you were. Reminds you why you wanted to be a doctor, when you were younger, probably more naive, and felt medicine was a calling, not a job.

Do you still feel that way, after years of paperwork, insurance games, a mortgage, a family, defensive medicine, your own health changes, and all the other things life and the often-jaded medical field bring?

I hope the answer is still yes.

On my first day at Creighton Medical School, our dean – the late William L. Pancoe, PhD – gave us a “go get ‘em!” speech. His main theme was that we should “wear sneakers and hit the ground running” on day 1, because otherwise we’d never catch up. But he also told us to remember and hold on to the feeling we had when we got our first medical school acceptance letter. That feeling of relief, joy, the realization that we’d been given a chance to make our dream come true. He told us that feeling might be all that would get us through the long nights of studying, the occasional failures, the self-doubts, and all the other things in the 4 years to come.

Dean Pancoe, you were absolutely right. Today I’m older than you were when you gave us that speech. My only additions would be:

1. Don’t just hold onto that feeling for medical school, but for life.

2. Always keep one copy of your personal statement (even if in your picture you were wearing hideous 1980s-style glasses, like mine). Keep it in your work desk, not in the bottom of a filing cabinet or scrapbook. Read it at least once a year. It’ll take maybe 2 minutes. You have that much time to spare.

Because it’s not just the young who can learn from the wisdom of the old. The older can learn, and be reminded of, many good things from the young. Even if that younger person is you.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“I am capable and ready to begin.”

Sounds trite, doesn’t it? What slush pile did that come from?

Actually, it was the closing sentence of the 1988 “personal statement” I wrote for my medical school applications. (I applied to something like 25 schools, maybe more.) Come to think of it, I suspect my father came up with that line.

Have you read your personal statement since you became an attending? It’s like a letter from an alternate universe, where you weren’t a doctor, weren’t sure you’d ever be one, and were trying very hard to sound confident in the face of an uncertain future.

Mine began in a melodramatic way, emphasizing what I’d seen as an emergency department volunteer. When I wrote it I thought I’d be an ED doc, and never imagined that years later I’d be doing something entirely different – and loving it.

Having the opportunity to go back and talk to our younger selves is a common trope in movies, but in real life reading something like this is as close as it gets. But it’s still neat. It brings back not who you are, but who you were. Reminds you why you wanted to be a doctor, when you were younger, probably more naive, and felt medicine was a calling, not a job.

Do you still feel that way, after years of paperwork, insurance games, a mortgage, a family, defensive medicine, your own health changes, and all the other things life and the often-jaded medical field bring?

I hope the answer is still yes.

On my first day at Creighton Medical School, our dean – the late William L. Pancoe, PhD – gave us a “go get ‘em!” speech. His main theme was that we should “wear sneakers and hit the ground running” on day 1, because otherwise we’d never catch up. But he also told us to remember and hold on to the feeling we had when we got our first medical school acceptance letter. That feeling of relief, joy, the realization that we’d been given a chance to make our dream come true. He told us that feeling might be all that would get us through the long nights of studying, the occasional failures, the self-doubts, and all the other things in the 4 years to come.

Dean Pancoe, you were absolutely right. Today I’m older than you were when you gave us that speech. My only additions would be:

1. Don’t just hold onto that feeling for medical school, but for life.

2. Always keep one copy of your personal statement (even if in your picture you were wearing hideous 1980s-style glasses, like mine). Keep it in your work desk, not in the bottom of a filing cabinet or scrapbook. Read it at least once a year. It’ll take maybe 2 minutes. You have that much time to spare.

Because it’s not just the young who can learn from the wisdom of the old. The older can learn, and be reminded of, many good things from the young. Even if that younger person is you.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.