Neurology Reviews

The transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education in the United States needs comprehensive reform, says a new report from the Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) of the Coalition for Physician Accountability.

The 275-page report presents preliminary findings that were released in April 2021 and a long list of stakeholder comments. According to the report, the coalition will meet soon to discuss the final recommendations and consider next steps toward implementation.

The UGRC includes representatives of national medical organizations, medical schools, and residency programs. Among the organizations that participated in the report’s creation are the American Medical Association, the National Board of Medical Examiners, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The report identifies a list of challenges that affect the transition of medical students into residency programs and beyond. They include:

• Too much focus on finding and filling residency positions instead of “assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training”
• Inattention to assuring congruence between applicant goals and program missions
• Overreliance on licensure exam scores rather than “valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities”
• Increasing financial costs to students
• Individual and systemic biases in the UME-GME transition, as well as inequities related to international medical graduates

Seeking a common framework for competence

Overall, the report calls for increased standardization of how students are evaluated in medical school and how residency programs evaluate students. Less reliance should be placed on the numerical scores of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the report says, and more attention should be paid to the direct observation of student performance in clinical situations. In addition, the various organizations involved in the UME-GME transition process are asked to work better together.

To develop better methods of evaluating medical students and residents, UME and GME educators should jointly define and implement a common framework and set of competencies to apply to learners across the UME-GME transition, the report suggests.

While emphasizing the need for a broader student assessment framework, the report says, USMLE scores should also continue to be used in judging residency applicants. “Assessment information should be shared in residency applications and a postmatch learner handover. Licensing examinations should be used for their intended purpose to ensure requisite competence.”

Among the committee’s three dozen recommendations are the following:

• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should change the GME funding structure so that the initial residency period is calculated starting with the second year of postgraduate training. This change would allow residents to reconsider their career choices. Currently, if a resident decides to switch to another program or specialty after beginning training, the hospital may not receive full GME funding, so may be less likely to approve the change.
• Residency programs should improve recruitment practices to increase specialty-specific diversity of residents. Medical educators should also receive additional training regarding antiracism, avoiding bias, and ensuring equity.
• The self-reported demographic information of applicants to residency programs should be measured and shared with stakeholders, including the programs and medical schools, to promote equity. “A residency program that finds bias in its selection process could go back in real time to find qualified applicants who may have been missed, potentially improving outcomes,” the report notes.
• An interactive database of GME program and specialty track information should be created and made available to all applicants, medical schools, and residency programs at no cost to applicants. “Applicants and their advisors should be able to sort the information according to demographic and educational features that may significantly impact the likelihood of matching at a program.”

Less than half of applicants get in-depth reviews

The 2020 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey found that only 49% of applications received in-depth review. In light of this, the report suggests that the application system be updated to use modern information technology, including discrete fields for key data to expedite application reviews.

Many applications have been discarded because of various filters used to block consideration of certain applications. The report suggests that new filters be designed to ensure that each detects meaningful differences among applicants and promotes review based on mission alignment and likelihood of success in a program. Filters should be improved to decrease the likelihood of random exclusions of qualified applicants.

Specialty-specific, just-in-time training for all incoming first-year residents is also suggested to support the transition from the role of student to a physician ready to assume increased responsibility for patient care. In addition, the report urges adequate time be allowed between medical school graduation and residency to enable new residents to relocate and find homes.

The report also calls for a standardized process in the United States for initial licensing of doctors at entrance to residency in order to streamline the process of credentialing for both residency training and continuing practice.
 

Osteopathic students’ dilemma

To promote equitable treatment of applicants regardless of licensure examination requirements, comparable exams with different scales (COMLEX-USA and USMLE) should be reported within the electronic application system in a single field, the report said.

Osteopathic students, who make up 25% of U.S. medical students, must take the COMLEX-USA exam, but residency programs may filter them out if they don’t also take the USMLE exam. Thus, many osteopathic students take both exams, incurring extra time, cost, and stress.

The UGRC recommends creating a combined field in the electronic residency application service that normalizes the scores between the two exams. Residency programs could then filter applications based only on the single normalized score.

This approach makes sense from the viewpoint that it would reduce the pressure on osteopathic students to take the USMLE, Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken critic of various current training policies, said in an interview. But it could also have serious disadvantages.

For one thing, only osteopathic students can take the COMLEX-USA exam, he noted. If they don’t like their score, they can then take the USMLE test to get a higher score – an option that allopathic students don’t have. It’s not clear that they’d be prevented from doing this under the UGRC recommendation.

Second, he said, osteopathic students, on average, don’t do as well as allopathic students on the UMSLE exam. If they only take the COMLEX-USA test, they’re competing against other students who don’t do as well on tests as allopathic students do. If their scores were normalized with those of the USMLE test takers, they’d gain an unfair advantage against students who can only take the USMLE, including international medical graduates.

Although Dr. Carmody admitted that osteopathic students face a harder challenge than allopathic students in matching to residency programs, he said that the UGRC approach to the licensing exams might actually penalize them further. As a result of the scores of the two exams being averaged, residency program directors might discount the scores of all osteopathic students.

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

The transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education in the United States needs comprehensive reform, says a new report from the Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) of the Coalition for Physician Accountability.

The 275-page report presents preliminary findings that were released in April 2021 and a long list of stakeholder comments. According to the report, the coalition will meet soon to discuss the final recommendations and consider next steps toward implementation.

The UGRC includes representatives of national medical organizations, medical schools, and residency programs. Among the organizations that participated in the report’s creation are the American Medical Association, the National Board of Medical Examiners, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The report identifies a list of challenges that affect the transition of medical students into residency programs and beyond. They include:

• Too much focus on finding and filling residency positions instead of “assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training”
• Inattention to assuring congruence between applicant goals and program missions
• Overreliance on licensure exam scores rather than “valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities”
• Increasing financial costs to students
• Individual and systemic biases in the UME-GME transition, as well as inequities related to international medical graduates

Seeking a common framework for competence

Overall, the report calls for increased standardization of how students are evaluated in medical school and how residency programs evaluate students. Less reliance should be placed on the numerical scores of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the report says, and more attention should be paid to the direct observation of student performance in clinical situations. In addition, the various organizations involved in the UME-GME transition process are asked to work better together.

To develop better methods of evaluating medical students and residents, UME and GME educators should jointly define and implement a common framework and set of competencies to apply to learners across the UME-GME transition, the report suggests.

While emphasizing the need for a broader student assessment framework, the report says, USMLE scores should also continue to be used in judging residency applicants. “Assessment information should be shared in residency applications and a postmatch learner handover. Licensing examinations should be used for their intended purpose to ensure requisite competence.”

Among the committee’s three dozen recommendations are the following:

• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should change the GME funding structure so that the initial residency period is calculated starting with the second year of postgraduate training. This change would allow residents to reconsider their career choices. Currently, if a resident decides to switch to another program or specialty after beginning training, the hospital may not receive full GME funding, so may be less likely to approve the change.
• Residency programs should improve recruitment practices to increase specialty-specific diversity of residents. Medical educators should also receive additional training regarding antiracism, avoiding bias, and ensuring equity.
• The self-reported demographic information of applicants to residency programs should be measured and shared with stakeholders, including the programs and medical schools, to promote equity. “A residency program that finds bias in its selection process could go back in real time to find qualified applicants who may have been missed, potentially improving outcomes,” the report notes.
• An interactive database of GME program and specialty track information should be created and made available to all applicants, medical schools, and residency programs at no cost to applicants. “Applicants and their advisors should be able to sort the information according to demographic and educational features that may significantly impact the likelihood of matching at a program.”

Less than half of applicants get in-depth reviews

The 2020 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey found that only 49% of applications received in-depth review. In light of this, the report suggests that the application system be updated to use modern information technology, including discrete fields for key data to expedite application reviews.

Many applications have been discarded because of various filters used to block consideration of certain applications. The report suggests that new filters be designed to ensure that each detects meaningful differences among applicants and promotes review based on mission alignment and likelihood of success in a program. Filters should be improved to decrease the likelihood of random exclusions of qualified applicants.

Specialty-specific, just-in-time training for all incoming first-year residents is also suggested to support the transition from the role of student to a physician ready to assume increased responsibility for patient care. In addition, the report urges adequate time be allowed between medical school graduation and residency to enable new residents to relocate and find homes.

The report also calls for a standardized process in the United States for initial licensing of doctors at entrance to residency in order to streamline the process of credentialing for both residency training and continuing practice.
 

Osteopathic students’ dilemma

To promote equitable treatment of applicants regardless of licensure examination requirements, comparable exams with different scales (COMLEX-USA and USMLE) should be reported within the electronic application system in a single field, the report said.

Osteopathic students, who make up 25% of U.S. medical students, must take the COMLEX-USA exam, but residency programs may filter them out if they don’t also take the USMLE exam. Thus, many osteopathic students take both exams, incurring extra time, cost, and stress.

The UGRC recommends creating a combined field in the electronic residency application service that normalizes the scores between the two exams. Residency programs could then filter applications based only on the single normalized score.

This approach makes sense from the viewpoint that it would reduce the pressure on osteopathic students to take the USMLE, Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken critic of various current training policies, said in an interview. But it could also have serious disadvantages.

For one thing, only osteopathic students can take the COMLEX-USA exam, he noted. If they don’t like their score, they can then take the USMLE test to get a higher score – an option that allopathic students don’t have. It’s not clear that they’d be prevented from doing this under the UGRC recommendation.

Second, he said, osteopathic students, on average, don’t do as well as allopathic students on the UMSLE exam. If they only take the COMLEX-USA test, they’re competing against other students who don’t do as well on tests as allopathic students do. If their scores were normalized with those of the USMLE test takers, they’d gain an unfair advantage against students who can only take the USMLE, including international medical graduates.

Although Dr. Carmody admitted that osteopathic students face a harder challenge than allopathic students in matching to residency programs, he said that the UGRC approach to the licensing exams might actually penalize them further. As a result of the scores of the two exams being averaged, residency program directors might discount the scores of all osteopathic students.

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

The transition from undergraduate medical education (UME) to graduate medical education in the United States needs comprehensive reform, says a new report from the Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) of the Coalition for Physician Accountability.

The 275-page report presents preliminary findings that were released in April 2021 and a long list of stakeholder comments. According to the report, the coalition will meet soon to discuss the final recommendations and consider next steps toward implementation.

The UGRC includes representatives of national medical organizations, medical schools, and residency programs. Among the organizations that participated in the report’s creation are the American Medical Association, the National Board of Medical Examiners, the American Osteopathic Association, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The report identifies a list of challenges that affect the transition of medical students into residency programs and beyond. They include:

• Too much focus on finding and filling residency positions instead of “assuring learner competence and readiness for residency training”
• Inattention to assuring congruence between applicant goals and program missions
• Overreliance on licensure exam scores rather than “valid, trustworthy measures of students’ competence and clinical abilities”
• Increasing financial costs to students
• Individual and systemic biases in the UME-GME transition, as well as inequities related to international medical graduates

Seeking a common framework for competence

Overall, the report calls for increased standardization of how students are evaluated in medical school and how residency programs evaluate students. Less reliance should be placed on the numerical scores of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the report says, and more attention should be paid to the direct observation of student performance in clinical situations. In addition, the various organizations involved in the UME-GME transition process are asked to work better together.

To develop better methods of evaluating medical students and residents, UME and GME educators should jointly define and implement a common framework and set of competencies to apply to learners across the UME-GME transition, the report suggests.

While emphasizing the need for a broader student assessment framework, the report says, USMLE scores should also continue to be used in judging residency applicants. “Assessment information should be shared in residency applications and a postmatch learner handover. Licensing examinations should be used for their intended purpose to ensure requisite competence.”

Among the committee’s three dozen recommendations are the following:

• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services should change the GME funding structure so that the initial residency period is calculated starting with the second year of postgraduate training. This change would allow residents to reconsider their career choices. Currently, if a resident decides to switch to another program or specialty after beginning training, the hospital may not receive full GME funding, so may be less likely to approve the change.
• Residency programs should improve recruitment practices to increase specialty-specific diversity of residents. Medical educators should also receive additional training regarding antiracism, avoiding bias, and ensuring equity.
• The self-reported demographic information of applicants to residency programs should be measured and shared with stakeholders, including the programs and medical schools, to promote equity. “A residency program that finds bias in its selection process could go back in real time to find qualified applicants who may have been missed, potentially improving outcomes,” the report notes.
• An interactive database of GME program and specialty track information should be created and made available to all applicants, medical schools, and residency programs at no cost to applicants. “Applicants and their advisors should be able to sort the information according to demographic and educational features that may significantly impact the likelihood of matching at a program.”

Less than half of applicants get in-depth reviews

The 2020 National Resident Matching Program Program Director Survey found that only 49% of applications received in-depth review. In light of this, the report suggests that the application system be updated to use modern information technology, including discrete fields for key data to expedite application reviews.

Many applications have been discarded because of various filters used to block consideration of certain applications. The report suggests that new filters be designed to ensure that each detects meaningful differences among applicants and promotes review based on mission alignment and likelihood of success in a program. Filters should be improved to decrease the likelihood of random exclusions of qualified applicants.

Specialty-specific, just-in-time training for all incoming first-year residents is also suggested to support the transition from the role of student to a physician ready to assume increased responsibility for patient care. In addition, the report urges adequate time be allowed between medical school graduation and residency to enable new residents to relocate and find homes.

The report also calls for a standardized process in the United States for initial licensing of doctors at entrance to residency in order to streamline the process of credentialing for both residency training and continuing practice.
 

Osteopathic students’ dilemma

To promote equitable treatment of applicants regardless of licensure examination requirements, comparable exams with different scales (COMLEX-USA and USMLE) should be reported within the electronic application system in a single field, the report said.

Osteopathic students, who make up 25% of U.S. medical students, must take the COMLEX-USA exam, but residency programs may filter them out if they don’t also take the USMLE exam. Thus, many osteopathic students take both exams, incurring extra time, cost, and stress.

The UGRC recommends creating a combined field in the electronic residency application service that normalizes the scores between the two exams. Residency programs could then filter applications based only on the single normalized score.

This approach makes sense from the viewpoint that it would reduce the pressure on osteopathic students to take the USMLE, Bryan Carmody, MD, an outspoken critic of various current training policies, said in an interview. But it could also have serious disadvantages.

For one thing, only osteopathic students can take the COMLEX-USA exam, he noted. If they don’t like their score, they can then take the USMLE test to get a higher score – an option that allopathic students don’t have. It’s not clear that they’d be prevented from doing this under the UGRC recommendation.

Second, he said, osteopathic students, on average, don’t do as well as allopathic students on the UMSLE exam. If they only take the COMLEX-USA test, they’re competing against other students who don’t do as well on tests as allopathic students do. If their scores were normalized with those of the USMLE test takers, they’d gain an unfair advantage against students who can only take the USMLE, including international medical graduates.

Although Dr. Carmody admitted that osteopathic students face a harder challenge than allopathic students in matching to residency programs, he said that the UGRC approach to the licensing exams might actually penalize them further. As a result of the scores of the two exams being averaged, residency program directors might discount the scores of all osteopathic students.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for brivaracetam (Briviact, UCB) as both monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in patients as young as 1 month of age.

All three brivaracetam formulations (tablets, oral solution, and IV) may now be used. The approval marks the first time that the IV formulation will be available for children, the company said in a news release.

The medication is already approved in the United States as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in adults with epilepsy.

In an open-label follow-up pediatric study, an estimated 71.4% of patients aged 1 month to 17 years with partial-onset seizures remained on brivaracetam therapy at 1 year, and 64.3% did so at 2 years, the company reported.

“We often see children with seizures hospitalized, so it’s important to have a therapy like Briviact IV that can offer rapid administration in an effective dose when needed and does not require titration,” Raman Sankar, MD, PhD, distinguished professor and chief of pediatric neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, said in the release.

“The availability of the oral dose forms also allows continuity of treatment when these young patients are transitioning from hospital to home,” he added.
 

Safety profile

Dr. Sankar noted that with approval now of both the IV and oral formulations for partial-onset seizures in such young children, “we have a new option that helps meet a critical need in pediatric epilepsy.”

The most common adverse reactions with brivaracetam include somnolence and sedation, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. In the pediatric clinical trials, the safety profile for pediatric patients was similar to adults.

In the adult trials, psychiatric adverse reactions, including nonpsychotic and psychotic symptoms, were reported in approximately 13% of adults taking at least 50 mg/day of brivaracetam compared with 8% taking placebo.

Psychiatric adverse reactions were also observed in open-label pediatric trials and were generally similar to those observed in adults.

Patients should be advised to report these symptoms immediately to a health care professional, the company noted.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for brivaracetam (Briviact, UCB) as both monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in patients as young as 1 month of age.

All three brivaracetam formulations (tablets, oral solution, and IV) may now be used. The approval marks the first time that the IV formulation will be available for children, the company said in a news release.

The medication is already approved in the United States as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in adults with epilepsy.

In an open-label follow-up pediatric study, an estimated 71.4% of patients aged 1 month to 17 years with partial-onset seizures remained on brivaracetam therapy at 1 year, and 64.3% did so at 2 years, the company reported.

“We often see children with seizures hospitalized, so it’s important to have a therapy like Briviact IV that can offer rapid administration in an effective dose when needed and does not require titration,” Raman Sankar, MD, PhD, distinguished professor and chief of pediatric neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, said in the release.

“The availability of the oral dose forms also allows continuity of treatment when these young patients are transitioning from hospital to home,” he added.
 

Safety profile

Dr. Sankar noted that with approval now of both the IV and oral formulations for partial-onset seizures in such young children, “we have a new option that helps meet a critical need in pediatric epilepsy.”

The most common adverse reactions with brivaracetam include somnolence and sedation, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. In the pediatric clinical trials, the safety profile for pediatric patients was similar to adults.

In the adult trials, psychiatric adverse reactions, including nonpsychotic and psychotic symptoms, were reported in approximately 13% of adults taking at least 50 mg/day of brivaracetam compared with 8% taking placebo.

Psychiatric adverse reactions were also observed in open-label pediatric trials and were generally similar to those observed in adults.

Patients should be advised to report these symptoms immediately to a health care professional, the company noted.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indication for brivaracetam (Briviact, UCB) as both monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in patients as young as 1 month of age.

All three brivaracetam formulations (tablets, oral solution, and IV) may now be used. The approval marks the first time that the IV formulation will be available for children, the company said in a news release.

The medication is already approved in the United States as monotherapy and adjunctive therapy in adults with epilepsy.

In an open-label follow-up pediatric study, an estimated 71.4% of patients aged 1 month to 17 years with partial-onset seizures remained on brivaracetam therapy at 1 year, and 64.3% did so at 2 years, the company reported.

“We often see children with seizures hospitalized, so it’s important to have a therapy like Briviact IV that can offer rapid administration in an effective dose when needed and does not require titration,” Raman Sankar, MD, PhD, distinguished professor and chief of pediatric neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, said in the release.

“The availability of the oral dose forms also allows continuity of treatment when these young patients are transitioning from hospital to home,” he added.
 

Safety profile

Dr. Sankar noted that with approval now of both the IV and oral formulations for partial-onset seizures in such young children, “we have a new option that helps meet a critical need in pediatric epilepsy.”

The most common adverse reactions with brivaracetam include somnolence and sedation, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. In the pediatric clinical trials, the safety profile for pediatric patients was similar to adults.

In the adult trials, psychiatric adverse reactions, including nonpsychotic and psychotic symptoms, were reported in approximately 13% of adults taking at least 50 mg/day of brivaracetam compared with 8% taking placebo.

Psychiatric adverse reactions were also observed in open-label pediatric trials and were generally similar to those observed in adults.

Patients should be advised to report these symptoms immediately to a health care professional, the company noted.

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

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) provided comparable outcomes over time in asymptomatic patients receiving good medical therapy in the largest trial to date of what to do with severe carotid artery narrowing that is yet to cause a stroke.

aaM Photography, Ltd./iStock

Among more than 3,600 patients, stenting and surgery performed by experienced physicians involved a 1.0% risk for causing disabling stroke or death within 30 days.

The annual rate of fatal or disabling strokes was about 0.5% with either procedure over an average 5 years’ follow-up – essentially halving the annual stroke risk had neither procedure been performed, according to Alison Halliday, MD, principal investigator of the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2).

The results were reported Aug. 29 in a Hot Line session at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously online in The Lancet.

Session chair Gilles Montalescot, MD, Sorbonne University, Paris, noted that ACST-2 doubled the number of randomly assigned patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis studied in previous trials, “so, a huge contribution to the evidence base in this field and apparently good news for both revascularization techniques.”
 

Thirty-day and 5-year outcomes

The trial was conducted in 33 countries between January 2008 and December 2020, enrolling 3,625 patients (70% were male; mean age, 70 years) with carotid stenosis of at least 60% on ultrasonography, in whom stenting or surgery was suitable but both the doctor and patient were “substantially uncertain” which procedure to prefer.

Among the 1,811 patients assigned to stenting, 87% underwent the procedure at a median of 14 days; 6% crossed over to surgery, typically because of a highly calcified lesion or a more tortuous carotid than anticipated; and 6% had no intervention.

Among the 1,814 patients assigned to surgery, 92% had the procedure at a median of 14 days; 3% crossed over to stenting, typically because of patient or doctor preference or reluctance to undergo general anesthesia; and 4% had no intervention.

Patients without complications who had stenting stayed on average 1 day less than did those undergoing surgery.

During an earlier press briefing, Dr. Halliday highlighted the need for procedural competency and said doctors had to submit a record of their CEA or CAS experience and, consistent with current guidelines, had to demonstrate an independently verified stroke or death rate of 6% or less for symptomatic patients and 3% or lower for asymptomatic patients.

The results showed the 30-day risk for death, myocardial infarction (MI), or any stroke was 3.9% with carotid stenting and 3.2% with surgery (P = .26).

But with stenting, there was a slightly higher risk for procedural nondisabling strokes (48 vs. 29; P = .03), including 15 strokes vs. 5 strokes, respectively, that left patients with no residual symptoms. This is “consistent with large, recent nationally representative registry data,” observed Dr. Halliday, of the University of Oxford (England).

For those undergoing surgery, cranial nerve palsies were reported in 5.4% vs. no patients undergoing stenting.

At 5 years, the nonprocedural fatal or disabling stroke rate was 2.5% in each group (rate ratio [RR], 0.98; P = .91), with any nonprocedural stroke occurring in 5.3% of patients with stenting vs. 4.5% with surgery (RR, 1.16; P = .33).

The investigators performed a meta-analysis combining the ACST-2 results with those of eight prior trials (four in asymptomatic and four in symptomatic patients) that yielded a similar nonsignificant result for any nonprocedural stroke (RR, 1.11; P = .21).

Based on the results from ACST-2 plus the major trials, stenting and surgery involve “similar risks and similar benefits,” Dr. Halliday concluded.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, University Hospital of Geneva, said, “In centers with documented expertise, carotid artery stenting should be offered as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy in patients with asymptomatic stenosis and suitable anatomy.”

While the trial provides “good news” for patients, he pointed out that a reduction in the sample size from 5,000 to 3,625 limited the statistical power and that enrollment over a long period of time may have introduced confounders, such as changes in equipment technique, and medical therapy.

Also, many centers enrolled few patients, raising the concern over low-volume centers and operators, Dr. Roffi said. “We know that 8% of the centers enrolled 39% of the patients,” and “information on the credentialing and experience of the interventionalists was limited.”

Further, a lack of systematic MI assessment may have favored the surgery group, and more recent developments in stenting with the potential of reducing periprocedural stroke were rarely used, such as proximal emboli protection in only 15% and double-layer stents in 11%.

Friedhelm Beyersdorf, MD, University Hospital of Freiburg, Germany, said that, as a vascular surgeon, he finds it understandable that there might be a higher incidence of nonfatal strokes when treating carotid stenosis with stents, given the vulnerability of these lesions.

“Nevertheless, the main conclusion from the entire study is that carotid artery treatment is extremely safe, it has to be done in order to avoid strokes, and, obviously, there seems to be an advantage for surgery in terms of nondisabling stroke,” he said.

Session chair Dr. Montalescot, however, said that what the study cannot address – and what was the subject of many online audience comments – is whether either intervention should be performed in these patients. 

Unlike earlier trials comparing interventions to medical therapy, Dr. Halliday said ACST-2 enrolled patients for whom the decision had been made that revascularization was needed. In addition, 99%-100% were receiving antithrombotic therapy at baseline, 85%-90% were receiving antihypertensives, and about 85% were taking statins.

Longer-term follow-up should provide a better picture of the nonprocedural stroke risk, with patients asked annually about exactly what medications and doses they are taking, she said.

“We will have an enormous list of exactly what’s gone on and the intensity of that therapy, which is, of course, much more intense than when we carried out our first trial. But these were people in whom a procedure was thought to be necessary,” she noted.

When asked during the press conference which procedure she would choose, Dr. Halliday, a surgeon, observed that patient preference is important but that the nature of the lesion itself often determines the optimal choice.

“If you know the competence of the people doing it is equal, then the less invasive procedure – providing it has good long-term viability, and that’s why we’re following for 10 years – is the more important,” she added.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme. Dr. Halliday reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) provided comparable outcomes over time in asymptomatic patients receiving good medical therapy in the largest trial to date of what to do with severe carotid artery narrowing that is yet to cause a stroke.

aaM Photography, Ltd./iStock

Among more than 3,600 patients, stenting and surgery performed by experienced physicians involved a 1.0% risk for causing disabling stroke or death within 30 days.

The annual rate of fatal or disabling strokes was about 0.5% with either procedure over an average 5 years’ follow-up – essentially halving the annual stroke risk had neither procedure been performed, according to Alison Halliday, MD, principal investigator of the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2).

The results were reported Aug. 29 in a Hot Line session at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously online in The Lancet.

Session chair Gilles Montalescot, MD, Sorbonne University, Paris, noted that ACST-2 doubled the number of randomly assigned patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis studied in previous trials, “so, a huge contribution to the evidence base in this field and apparently good news for both revascularization techniques.”
 

Thirty-day and 5-year outcomes

The trial was conducted in 33 countries between January 2008 and December 2020, enrolling 3,625 patients (70% were male; mean age, 70 years) with carotid stenosis of at least 60% on ultrasonography, in whom stenting or surgery was suitable but both the doctor and patient were “substantially uncertain” which procedure to prefer.

Among the 1,811 patients assigned to stenting, 87% underwent the procedure at a median of 14 days; 6% crossed over to surgery, typically because of a highly calcified lesion or a more tortuous carotid than anticipated; and 6% had no intervention.

Among the 1,814 patients assigned to surgery, 92% had the procedure at a median of 14 days; 3% crossed over to stenting, typically because of patient or doctor preference or reluctance to undergo general anesthesia; and 4% had no intervention.

Patients without complications who had stenting stayed on average 1 day less than did those undergoing surgery.

During an earlier press briefing, Dr. Halliday highlighted the need for procedural competency and said doctors had to submit a record of their CEA or CAS experience and, consistent with current guidelines, had to demonstrate an independently verified stroke or death rate of 6% or less for symptomatic patients and 3% or lower for asymptomatic patients.

The results showed the 30-day risk for death, myocardial infarction (MI), or any stroke was 3.9% with carotid stenting and 3.2% with surgery (P = .26).

But with stenting, there was a slightly higher risk for procedural nondisabling strokes (48 vs. 29; P = .03), including 15 strokes vs. 5 strokes, respectively, that left patients with no residual symptoms. This is “consistent with large, recent nationally representative registry data,” observed Dr. Halliday, of the University of Oxford (England).

For those undergoing surgery, cranial nerve palsies were reported in 5.4% vs. no patients undergoing stenting.

At 5 years, the nonprocedural fatal or disabling stroke rate was 2.5% in each group (rate ratio [RR], 0.98; P = .91), with any nonprocedural stroke occurring in 5.3% of patients with stenting vs. 4.5% with surgery (RR, 1.16; P = .33).

The investigators performed a meta-analysis combining the ACST-2 results with those of eight prior trials (four in asymptomatic and four in symptomatic patients) that yielded a similar nonsignificant result for any nonprocedural stroke (RR, 1.11; P = .21).

Based on the results from ACST-2 plus the major trials, stenting and surgery involve “similar risks and similar benefits,” Dr. Halliday concluded.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, University Hospital of Geneva, said, “In centers with documented expertise, carotid artery stenting should be offered as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy in patients with asymptomatic stenosis and suitable anatomy.”

While the trial provides “good news” for patients, he pointed out that a reduction in the sample size from 5,000 to 3,625 limited the statistical power and that enrollment over a long period of time may have introduced confounders, such as changes in equipment technique, and medical therapy.

Also, many centers enrolled few patients, raising the concern over low-volume centers and operators, Dr. Roffi said. “We know that 8% of the centers enrolled 39% of the patients,” and “information on the credentialing and experience of the interventionalists was limited.”

Further, a lack of systematic MI assessment may have favored the surgery group, and more recent developments in stenting with the potential of reducing periprocedural stroke were rarely used, such as proximal emboli protection in only 15% and double-layer stents in 11%.

Friedhelm Beyersdorf, MD, University Hospital of Freiburg, Germany, said that, as a vascular surgeon, he finds it understandable that there might be a higher incidence of nonfatal strokes when treating carotid stenosis with stents, given the vulnerability of these lesions.

“Nevertheless, the main conclusion from the entire study is that carotid artery treatment is extremely safe, it has to be done in order to avoid strokes, and, obviously, there seems to be an advantage for surgery in terms of nondisabling stroke,” he said.

Session chair Dr. Montalescot, however, said that what the study cannot address – and what was the subject of many online audience comments – is whether either intervention should be performed in these patients. 

Unlike earlier trials comparing interventions to medical therapy, Dr. Halliday said ACST-2 enrolled patients for whom the decision had been made that revascularization was needed. In addition, 99%-100% were receiving antithrombotic therapy at baseline, 85%-90% were receiving antihypertensives, and about 85% were taking statins.

Longer-term follow-up should provide a better picture of the nonprocedural stroke risk, with patients asked annually about exactly what medications and doses they are taking, she said.

“We will have an enormous list of exactly what’s gone on and the intensity of that therapy, which is, of course, much more intense than when we carried out our first trial. But these were people in whom a procedure was thought to be necessary,” she noted.

When asked during the press conference which procedure she would choose, Dr. Halliday, a surgeon, observed that patient preference is important but that the nature of the lesion itself often determines the optimal choice.

“If you know the competence of the people doing it is equal, then the less invasive procedure – providing it has good long-term viability, and that’s why we’re following for 10 years – is the more important,” she added.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme. Dr. Halliday reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) provided comparable outcomes over time in asymptomatic patients receiving good medical therapy in the largest trial to date of what to do with severe carotid artery narrowing that is yet to cause a stroke.

aaM Photography, Ltd./iStock

Among more than 3,600 patients, stenting and surgery performed by experienced physicians involved a 1.0% risk for causing disabling stroke or death within 30 days.

The annual rate of fatal or disabling strokes was about 0.5% with either procedure over an average 5 years’ follow-up – essentially halving the annual stroke risk had neither procedure been performed, according to Alison Halliday, MD, principal investigator of the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2).

The results were reported Aug. 29 in a Hot Line session at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously online in The Lancet.

Session chair Gilles Montalescot, MD, Sorbonne University, Paris, noted that ACST-2 doubled the number of randomly assigned patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis studied in previous trials, “so, a huge contribution to the evidence base in this field and apparently good news for both revascularization techniques.”
 

Thirty-day and 5-year outcomes

The trial was conducted in 33 countries between January 2008 and December 2020, enrolling 3,625 patients (70% were male; mean age, 70 years) with carotid stenosis of at least 60% on ultrasonography, in whom stenting or surgery was suitable but both the doctor and patient were “substantially uncertain” which procedure to prefer.

Among the 1,811 patients assigned to stenting, 87% underwent the procedure at a median of 14 days; 6% crossed over to surgery, typically because of a highly calcified lesion or a more tortuous carotid than anticipated; and 6% had no intervention.

Among the 1,814 patients assigned to surgery, 92% had the procedure at a median of 14 days; 3% crossed over to stenting, typically because of patient or doctor preference or reluctance to undergo general anesthesia; and 4% had no intervention.

Patients without complications who had stenting stayed on average 1 day less than did those undergoing surgery.

During an earlier press briefing, Dr. Halliday highlighted the need for procedural competency and said doctors had to submit a record of their CEA or CAS experience and, consistent with current guidelines, had to demonstrate an independently verified stroke or death rate of 6% or less for symptomatic patients and 3% or lower for asymptomatic patients.

The results showed the 30-day risk for death, myocardial infarction (MI), or any stroke was 3.9% with carotid stenting and 3.2% with surgery (P = .26).

But with stenting, there was a slightly higher risk for procedural nondisabling strokes (48 vs. 29; P = .03), including 15 strokes vs. 5 strokes, respectively, that left patients with no residual symptoms. This is “consistent with large, recent nationally representative registry data,” observed Dr. Halliday, of the University of Oxford (England).

For those undergoing surgery, cranial nerve palsies were reported in 5.4% vs. no patients undergoing stenting.

At 5 years, the nonprocedural fatal or disabling stroke rate was 2.5% in each group (rate ratio [RR], 0.98; P = .91), with any nonprocedural stroke occurring in 5.3% of patients with stenting vs. 4.5% with surgery (RR, 1.16; P = .33).

The investigators performed a meta-analysis combining the ACST-2 results with those of eight prior trials (four in asymptomatic and four in symptomatic patients) that yielded a similar nonsignificant result for any nonprocedural stroke (RR, 1.11; P = .21).

Based on the results from ACST-2 plus the major trials, stenting and surgery involve “similar risks and similar benefits,” Dr. Halliday concluded.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, University Hospital of Geneva, said, “In centers with documented expertise, carotid artery stenting should be offered as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy in patients with asymptomatic stenosis and suitable anatomy.”

While the trial provides “good news” for patients, he pointed out that a reduction in the sample size from 5,000 to 3,625 limited the statistical power and that enrollment over a long period of time may have introduced confounders, such as changes in equipment technique, and medical therapy.

Also, many centers enrolled few patients, raising the concern over low-volume centers and operators, Dr. Roffi said. “We know that 8% of the centers enrolled 39% of the patients,” and “information on the credentialing and experience of the interventionalists was limited.”

Further, a lack of systematic MI assessment may have favored the surgery group, and more recent developments in stenting with the potential of reducing periprocedural stroke were rarely used, such as proximal emboli protection in only 15% and double-layer stents in 11%.

Friedhelm Beyersdorf, MD, University Hospital of Freiburg, Germany, said that, as a vascular surgeon, he finds it understandable that there might be a higher incidence of nonfatal strokes when treating carotid stenosis with stents, given the vulnerability of these lesions.

“Nevertheless, the main conclusion from the entire study is that carotid artery treatment is extremely safe, it has to be done in order to avoid strokes, and, obviously, there seems to be an advantage for surgery in terms of nondisabling stroke,” he said.

Session chair Dr. Montalescot, however, said that what the study cannot address – and what was the subject of many online audience comments – is whether either intervention should be performed in these patients. 

Unlike earlier trials comparing interventions to medical therapy, Dr. Halliday said ACST-2 enrolled patients for whom the decision had been made that revascularization was needed. In addition, 99%-100% were receiving antithrombotic therapy at baseline, 85%-90% were receiving antihypertensives, and about 85% were taking statins.

Longer-term follow-up should provide a better picture of the nonprocedural stroke risk, with patients asked annually about exactly what medications and doses they are taking, she said.

“We will have an enormous list of exactly what’s gone on and the intensity of that therapy, which is, of course, much more intense than when we carried out our first trial. But these were people in whom a procedure was thought to be necessary,” she noted.

When asked during the press conference which procedure she would choose, Dr. Halliday, a surgeon, observed that patient preference is important but that the nature of the lesion itself often determines the optimal choice.

“If you know the competence of the people doing it is equal, then the less invasive procedure – providing it has good long-term viability, and that’s why we’re following for 10 years – is the more important,” she added.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme. Dr. Halliday reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

An independent expert panel within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has studied the potential benefits and risks of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and voted unanimously to recommend the shots for all Americans ages 16 and older.

All 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted ‘yes’ to recommend the vaccine for Americans ages 16 and up. The vaccine was fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week.

The inoculation is still available to teens ages 12 to 15 under an emergency use authorization from the FDA.

ACIP now sends its recommendation to the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, for her sign off.

After reviewing the evidence behind the vaccine, panel member Sarah Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, said she couldn’t recall another instance where panelists had so much data on which to base their recommendation.

“This vaccine is worthy of the trust of the American people,” she said.

Doctors across the country use vaccines in line with the recommendations made by the ACIP. Their approval typically means that private and government insurers will cover the cost of the shots. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the government is already picking up the tab.

Few surprises

The panel’s independent review of the vaccine’s effectiveness from nine studies held few surprises. 

They found the Pfizer vaccine prevented a COVID infection with symptoms about 90%–92% of the time, at least for the first 4 months after the second shot. Protection against hospitalization and death was even higher.

The vaccine was about 89% effective at preventing a COVID infection without symptoms, according to a pooled estimate of five studies.

The data included in the review was updated only through March 13 of this year, however, and does not reflect the impact of further waning of immunity or the impact of the Delta variant.

In making their recommendation, the panel got an update on the safety of the vaccines, which have now been used in the United States for about 9 months.

The rate of anaphylaxis has settled at around five cases for every million shots given, according to the ACIP’s review of the evidence. 

Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were more common after getting a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than would be expected to happen naturally in the general population, but the risk was still very rare, and elevated primarily for men younger than age 30. 

Out of 17 million second doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in the United States, there have been 327 confirmed cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in people who are younger than age 30. The average hospital stay for a myocarditis cases is 1 to 2 days. 

So far, no one in the United States diagnosed with myocarditis after vaccination has died.

What’s more, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination was dwarfed by the risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection. The risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection was 6 to 34 times higher than the risk after receiving an mRNA vaccine.

About 11% of people who get the vaccine experience a serious reaction to the shot, compared with about 3% in the placebo group. Serious reactions were defined as pain; swelling or redness at the injection site that interferes with activity; needing to visit the hospital or ER for pain; tissue necrosis, or having skin slough off; high fever; vomiting that requires hydration; persistent diarrhea; severe headache;  or muscle pain/severe joint pain.

“Safe and effective”

After hearing a presentation on the state of the pandemic in the US, some panel members were struck and shaken that 38% of Americans who are eligible are still not fully vaccinated.

Pablo Sanchez, MD, a pediatrician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said, “We’re doing an abysmal job vaccinating the American people. The message has to go out that the vaccines are safe and effective.”



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

An independent expert panel within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has studied the potential benefits and risks of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and voted unanimously to recommend the shots for all Americans ages 16 and older.

All 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted ‘yes’ to recommend the vaccine for Americans ages 16 and up. The vaccine was fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week.

The inoculation is still available to teens ages 12 to 15 under an emergency use authorization from the FDA.

ACIP now sends its recommendation to the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, for her sign off.

After reviewing the evidence behind the vaccine, panel member Sarah Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, said she couldn’t recall another instance where panelists had so much data on which to base their recommendation.

“This vaccine is worthy of the trust of the American people,” she said.

Doctors across the country use vaccines in line with the recommendations made by the ACIP. Their approval typically means that private and government insurers will cover the cost of the shots. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the government is already picking up the tab.

Few surprises

The panel’s independent review of the vaccine’s effectiveness from nine studies held few surprises. 

They found the Pfizer vaccine prevented a COVID infection with symptoms about 90%–92% of the time, at least for the first 4 months after the second shot. Protection against hospitalization and death was even higher.

The vaccine was about 89% effective at preventing a COVID infection without symptoms, according to a pooled estimate of five studies.

The data included in the review was updated only through March 13 of this year, however, and does not reflect the impact of further waning of immunity or the impact of the Delta variant.

In making their recommendation, the panel got an update on the safety of the vaccines, which have now been used in the United States for about 9 months.

The rate of anaphylaxis has settled at around five cases for every million shots given, according to the ACIP’s review of the evidence. 

Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were more common after getting a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than would be expected to happen naturally in the general population, but the risk was still very rare, and elevated primarily for men younger than age 30. 

Out of 17 million second doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in the United States, there have been 327 confirmed cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in people who are younger than age 30. The average hospital stay for a myocarditis cases is 1 to 2 days. 

So far, no one in the United States diagnosed with myocarditis after vaccination has died.

What’s more, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination was dwarfed by the risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection. The risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection was 6 to 34 times higher than the risk after receiving an mRNA vaccine.

About 11% of people who get the vaccine experience a serious reaction to the shot, compared with about 3% in the placebo group. Serious reactions were defined as pain; swelling or redness at the injection site that interferes with activity; needing to visit the hospital or ER for pain; tissue necrosis, or having skin slough off; high fever; vomiting that requires hydration; persistent diarrhea; severe headache;  or muscle pain/severe joint pain.

“Safe and effective”

After hearing a presentation on the state of the pandemic in the US, some panel members were struck and shaken that 38% of Americans who are eligible are still not fully vaccinated.

Pablo Sanchez, MD, a pediatrician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said, “We’re doing an abysmal job vaccinating the American people. The message has to go out that the vaccines are safe and effective.”



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

An independent expert panel within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has studied the potential benefits and risks of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and voted unanimously to recommend the shots for all Americans ages 16 and older.

All 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted ‘yes’ to recommend the vaccine for Americans ages 16 and up. The vaccine was fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week.

The inoculation is still available to teens ages 12 to 15 under an emergency use authorization from the FDA.

ACIP now sends its recommendation to the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, for her sign off.

After reviewing the evidence behind the vaccine, panel member Sarah Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, said she couldn’t recall another instance where panelists had so much data on which to base their recommendation.

“This vaccine is worthy of the trust of the American people,” she said.

Doctors across the country use vaccines in line with the recommendations made by the ACIP. Their approval typically means that private and government insurers will cover the cost of the shots. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the government is already picking up the tab.

Few surprises

The panel’s independent review of the vaccine’s effectiveness from nine studies held few surprises. 

They found the Pfizer vaccine prevented a COVID infection with symptoms about 90%–92% of the time, at least for the first 4 months after the second shot. Protection against hospitalization and death was even higher.

The vaccine was about 89% effective at preventing a COVID infection without symptoms, according to a pooled estimate of five studies.

The data included in the review was updated only through March 13 of this year, however, and does not reflect the impact of further waning of immunity or the impact of the Delta variant.

In making their recommendation, the panel got an update on the safety of the vaccines, which have now been used in the United States for about 9 months.

The rate of anaphylaxis has settled at around five cases for every million shots given, according to the ACIP’s review of the evidence. 

Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were more common after getting a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than would be expected to happen naturally in the general population, but the risk was still very rare, and elevated primarily for men younger than age 30. 

Out of 17 million second doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in the United States, there have been 327 confirmed cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in people who are younger than age 30. The average hospital stay for a myocarditis cases is 1 to 2 days. 

So far, no one in the United States diagnosed with myocarditis after vaccination has died.

What’s more, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination was dwarfed by the risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection. The risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection was 6 to 34 times higher than the risk after receiving an mRNA vaccine.

About 11% of people who get the vaccine experience a serious reaction to the shot, compared with about 3% in the placebo group. Serious reactions were defined as pain; swelling or redness at the injection site that interferes with activity; needing to visit the hospital or ER for pain; tissue necrosis, or having skin slough off; high fever; vomiting that requires hydration; persistent diarrhea; severe headache;  or muscle pain/severe joint pain.

“Safe and effective”

After hearing a presentation on the state of the pandemic in the US, some panel members were struck and shaken that 38% of Americans who are eligible are still not fully vaccinated.

Pablo Sanchez, MD, a pediatrician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said, “We’re doing an abysmal job vaccinating the American people. The message has to go out that the vaccines are safe and effective.”



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

A Maryland-based physician assistant was sentenced to 37 months in federal prison for conspiracy to distribute and dispense oxycodone, fentanyl, methadone, and alprazolam at a pain management clinic.

Niyazz/ThinkStock

A U.S. District Judge sentenced William Soyke, 68, of Hanover, Penn., for acting outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maryland. The 37-month prison term will be followed by 3 years of supervised release.

According to the plea agreement, Mr. Soyke worked as a physician assistant with Rosen-Hoffberg Rehabilitation and Pain Management from 2011 to 2018, where he treated patients during follow-up doctor appointments. As a physician assistant, Mr. Soyke had privileges to prescribe controlled substance medications, but was required to operate under a delegation agreement with the Rosen-Hoffberg owners.  

In his plea, Mr. Soyke said that he believed the owners, Norman Rosen, MD, and Howard Hoffberg, MD, prescribed excessive levels of opioids. Despite Mr. Soyke’s attempts to lower patient’s prescription doses, both doctors overruled the PA’s opinion, according to the plea agreement. Also, if another health care provider within the practice declined to treat a patient because of the patient’s aberrant behavior – such as failing a drug screening test for illicit drugs or selling their prescriptions – Dr. Rosen and Dr. Hoffberg would assume that patient’s care, the report continued.

As stated in the plea agreement, Mr. Sokye was aware that many of the patients presenting to Rosen-Hoffberg Rehabilitation and Pain Management did not have a legitimate medical need for the oxycodone, fentanyl, alprazolam, and methadone they were being prescribed. Nevertheless, Mr. Soyke issued prescriptions for these drugs to patients without a legitimate medical need and outside the bounds of acceptable medical practice, according to the release.

Mr. Soyke also admitted that in several instances he engaged in sexual, physical contact with female patients who were attempting to get prescriptions, the plea agreement stated. Specifically, Mr. Soyke asked some female customers to engage in a range of motion test, and while they were bending over, he would position himself behind them such that his genitalia would rub against the customers’ buttocks through their clothes. These patients often submitted to this sexual abuse for fear of not getting the medications to which they were addicted, according to the press release.

Although the female patients complained to Dr. Rosen and Dr. Hoffberg about Mr. Soyke’s behavior, the doctors did not fire Mr. Soyke because the PA saw the largest number of patients at the practice and generated significant revenue, according to federal officials.

Dr. Hoffberg, the associate medical director and part-owner of the practice, pleaded guilty in June to accepting kickbacks from pharmaceutical company Insys Therapeutics in exchange for prescribing an opioid drug called Subsys (a fentanyl sublingual spray) marketed by Insys for breakthrough pain in cancer patients for off-label purposes. He will be sentenced in September and faces a maximum of 5 years in federal prison.

Mr. Soyke pled guilty to a federal drug charge in July 2019. In announcing the guilty plea then, U.S. Attorney Robert Hur said, “Opioid overdoses are killing thousands of Marylanders each year, and opioid addiction is fueled by health care providers who prescribe drugs for people without a legitimate medical need. Doctors and other medical professionals who irresponsibly write opioid prescriptions are acting like street-corner drug pushers.”

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

A Maryland-based physician assistant was sentenced to 37 months in federal prison for conspiracy to distribute and dispense oxycodone, fentanyl, methadone, and alprazolam at a pain management clinic.

Niyazz/ThinkStock

A U.S. District Judge sentenced William Soyke, 68, of Hanover, Penn., for acting outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maryland. The 37-month prison term will be followed by 3 years of supervised release.

According to the plea agreement, Mr. Soyke worked as a physician assistant with Rosen-Hoffberg Rehabilitation and Pain Management from 2011 to 2018, where he treated patients during follow-up doctor appointments. As a physician assistant, Mr. Soyke had privileges to prescribe controlled substance medications, but was required to operate under a delegation agreement with the Rosen-Hoffberg owners.  

In his plea, Mr. Soyke said that he believed the owners, Norman Rosen, MD, and Howard Hoffberg, MD, prescribed excessive levels of opioids. Despite Mr. Soyke’s attempts to lower patient’s prescription doses, both doctors overruled the PA’s opinion, according to the plea agreement. Also, if another health care provider within the practice declined to treat a patient because of the patient’s aberrant behavior – such as failing a drug screening test for illicit drugs or selling their prescriptions – Dr. Rosen and Dr. Hoffberg would assume that patient’s care, the report continued.

As stated in the plea agreement, Mr. Sokye was aware that many of the patients presenting to Rosen-Hoffberg Rehabilitation and Pain Management did not have a legitimate medical need for the oxycodone, fentanyl, alprazolam, and methadone they were being prescribed. Nevertheless, Mr. Soyke issued prescriptions for these drugs to patients without a legitimate medical need and outside the bounds of acceptable medical practice, according to the release.

Mr. Soyke also admitted that in several instances he engaged in sexual, physical contact with female patients who were attempting to get prescriptions, the plea agreement stated. Specifically, Mr. Soyke asked some female customers to engage in a range of motion test, and while they were bending over, he would position himself behind them such that his genitalia would rub against the customers’ buttocks through their clothes. These patients often submitted to this sexual abuse for fear of not getting the medications to which they were addicted, according to the press release.

Although the female patients complained to Dr. Rosen and Dr. Hoffberg about Mr. Soyke’s behavior, the doctors did not fire Mr. Soyke because the PA saw the largest number of patients at the practice and generated significant revenue, according to federal officials.

Dr. Hoffberg, the associate medical director and part-owner of the practice, pleaded guilty in June to accepting kickbacks from pharmaceutical company Insys Therapeutics in exchange for prescribing an opioid drug called Subsys (a fentanyl sublingual spray) marketed by Insys for breakthrough pain in cancer patients for off-label purposes. He will be sentenced in September and faces a maximum of 5 years in federal prison.

Mr. Soyke pled guilty to a federal drug charge in July 2019. In announcing the guilty plea then, U.S. Attorney Robert Hur said, “Opioid overdoses are killing thousands of Marylanders each year, and opioid addiction is fueled by health care providers who prescribe drugs for people without a legitimate medical need. Doctors and other medical professionals who irresponsibly write opioid prescriptions are acting like street-corner drug pushers.”

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

A Maryland-based physician assistant was sentenced to 37 months in federal prison for conspiracy to distribute and dispense oxycodone, fentanyl, methadone, and alprazolam at a pain management clinic.

Niyazz/ThinkStock

A U.S. District Judge sentenced William Soyke, 68, of Hanover, Penn., for acting outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maryland. The 37-month prison term will be followed by 3 years of supervised release.

According to the plea agreement, Mr. Soyke worked as a physician assistant with Rosen-Hoffberg Rehabilitation and Pain Management from 2011 to 2018, where he treated patients during follow-up doctor appointments. As a physician assistant, Mr. Soyke had privileges to prescribe controlled substance medications, but was required to operate under a delegation agreement with the Rosen-Hoffberg owners.  

In his plea, Mr. Soyke said that he believed the owners, Norman Rosen, MD, and Howard Hoffberg, MD, prescribed excessive levels of opioids. Despite Mr. Soyke’s attempts to lower patient’s prescription doses, both doctors overruled the PA’s opinion, according to the plea agreement. Also, if another health care provider within the practice declined to treat a patient because of the patient’s aberrant behavior – such as failing a drug screening test for illicit drugs or selling their prescriptions – Dr. Rosen and Dr. Hoffberg would assume that patient’s care, the report continued.

As stated in the plea agreement, Mr. Sokye was aware that many of the patients presenting to Rosen-Hoffberg Rehabilitation and Pain Management did not have a legitimate medical need for the oxycodone, fentanyl, alprazolam, and methadone they were being prescribed. Nevertheless, Mr. Soyke issued prescriptions for these drugs to patients without a legitimate medical need and outside the bounds of acceptable medical practice, according to the release.

Mr. Soyke also admitted that in several instances he engaged in sexual, physical contact with female patients who were attempting to get prescriptions, the plea agreement stated. Specifically, Mr. Soyke asked some female customers to engage in a range of motion test, and while they were bending over, he would position himself behind them such that his genitalia would rub against the customers’ buttocks through their clothes. These patients often submitted to this sexual abuse for fear of not getting the medications to which they were addicted, according to the press release.

Although the female patients complained to Dr. Rosen and Dr. Hoffberg about Mr. Soyke’s behavior, the doctors did not fire Mr. Soyke because the PA saw the largest number of patients at the practice and generated significant revenue, according to federal officials.

Dr. Hoffberg, the associate medical director and part-owner of the practice, pleaded guilty in June to accepting kickbacks from pharmaceutical company Insys Therapeutics in exchange for prescribing an opioid drug called Subsys (a fentanyl sublingual spray) marketed by Insys for breakthrough pain in cancer patients for off-label purposes. He will be sentenced in September and faces a maximum of 5 years in federal prison.

Mr. Soyke pled guilty to a federal drug charge in July 2019. In announcing the guilty plea then, U.S. Attorney Robert Hur said, “Opioid overdoses are killing thousands of Marylanders each year, and opioid addiction is fueled by health care providers who prescribe drugs for people without a legitimate medical need. Doctors and other medical professionals who irresponsibly write opioid prescriptions are acting like street-corner drug pushers.”

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

An internist will never forget the dark secret his patient revealed during a routine visit – or the grim aftermath. 

The patient, who had a progressive, incurable neurological condition, confided that he planned to kill himself. The patient intended to conceal the true manner and make the death look natural.

“[He planned to do it] very carefully at home so no one would know,” said the internist, who remains anonymous. “[He shared] the methods he would use.”

Perhaps more shocking than the patient’s confession was the physician’s response. 

“He did not require my help to do what he planned, and I did not try to stop him,” said the internist. “I reported his death as ‘natural causes’ and never told anyone.”

The account comes from a response to Medscape’s 2020 Ethics Report in which physicians were asked about their toughest ethical dilemmas. Many physicians shared secrets and dilemmas that have haunted them for years.  An ob.gyn., for instance, wrote about struggling with whether to tell a father that his newborn baby was not his genetic child. The newborn had a blood type that made it impossible for the father to be biologically related to the infant, the anonymous doctor wrote.

“I told the wife who then informed me she had a lover,” the ob.gyn. said. “I never told the husband.”

It’s uncertain whether carrying the burden of such hidden knowledge affected the physicians involved in these cases. However, in general, secrets can weigh heavily on the minds of those who keep them and can contribute to stress, said Malia Mason, PhD, a psychologist and dean of research at Columbia Business School in New York. Holding onto secrets can cause depression and anxiety, research shows. The more often people think about the secret, the greater the impact, according to a recent study coauthored by Dr. Mason.

“Keeping a secret diminishes well-being,” Dr. Mason said. “It makes people feel socially distant. It lowers relationship satisfaction, and it leads people to feel inauthentic. The reason that secrets do this is because people think about them all the time. The more you think about it, the more you see these consequences.”

Feelings that stem from a secret depend on the content. The more immoral a secret is thought to be, the more people feel ashamed, according to a 2021 analysis of thousands of secrets, reported by Michael L. Slepian, PhD, and Alex Koch, PhD. However, secrets more related to a person’s profession are often internalized differently, the study found. The more a secret fell higher on the profession/goal-oriented dimension, the more people felt they had insight into the secret, according to the analysis. For example, having clear thinking about the secret and/or knowing how to handle it. 

“The more shame participants felt from their secret, the more they indicated the secret hurt their well-being,” Dr. Slepian and Dr. Koch wrote in the study. “The more insight participants felt they had into their secret, the less they indicated the secret hurt their well-being.”
 

Suspicious deaths exposed after investigations

The internist’s account of keeping his patient’s suicide a secret raises many questions, such as how the patient masked his manner of death. The internist did not share any more details about the incident. 

Suicides are among the most challenging manners of deaths to certify, according to James Gill, MD, a pathologist and president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. Death investigators must demonstrate intent, meaning the individuals caused the injury to intentionally harm themselves. Fewer than half of people who die by suicide leave a note, Dr. Gill said, so investigators can’t rely on the absence or the presence of a note in making their determination.

A decedent who had cancer or a severe neurological disorder presents further challenges, said Dr. Gill, who serves as chief medical examiner for the state of Connecticut.

“These [deaths] may not be unexpected and may not be reported to the medical examiner/coroner,” Dr. Gill said. “If there is no suspicion and the treating doctor is willing to sign the death certificate, the death will not come under the jurisdiction of the medical examiner.”

Dr. Gill recalled a death his colleague once investigated that appeared to be natural but emerged as something else after a deeper look. 

A woman with metastatic breast cancer was about to be discharged from a hospital into hospice the next morning. The night before, she had a “going away” party with friends who came to visit her in the hospital. Shortly after the friends left, the woman was found dead. Because of her condition, she could have died at any time, Dr. Gill said, but she also had a history of depression and hospital staff were suspicious. The death was reported to the medical examiner’s office.

Toxicology testing found markedly elevated concentrations of phenytoin and pentobarbital, neither of which were prescribed during her hospital stay. Dr. Gill said it turned out that the woman and her friends worked at a veterinarian’s office, and the medication they used to euthanize dogs was a combination of phenytoin and pentobarbital.

“The death was certified as a homicide because of the direct actions of another, but a reasonable argument could be made for suicide,” Dr. Gill said.

In a similar case reported in the journal Science & Justice, a 64-year-old cardiologist was found lifeless by his wife after he collapsed near the stairs of his home. Next to his body was a bottle of whiskey and two cups, one that appeared to be used for the alcohol and one with a yellowish liquid smelling of honey. The wife reported that her husband always drank whiskey with honey before bed. The death was initially classified as natural, but after vehement protest by the family, a forensic autopsy was performed. 

Prior to the autopsy, death investigators learned the decedent, who was a well-known and successful practitioner in his community, had Parkinson’s disease. At times, he could not sign his prescriptions because of the increasing tremor in his hands, according to the case study. Investigators learned the patient’s mother had also suffered from Parkinson’s, and that her son had witnessed her decline. 

The autopsy revealed only nonspecific lesions such as acute stasis of the viscera, moderate pulmonary and cerebral edema, and moderate generalized atheromatosis. Histological examinations did not yield any unusual findings.

An analysis of the beverage containers detected pentobarbital in the yellowish syrup residue of the second cup. Testing of the doctor’s peripheral blood revealed the presence of a metabolite of pentobarbital, ethanol, and traces of phenobarbital. In addition, a urine analysis showed the presence of venlafaxine, an antidepressant, as well as the benzophenone of lorazepam, a sedating benzodiazepine, and metoclopramide, an antiemetic.

Lead author C. Brandt-Casadevall, MD, and colleagues wrote that the levels were clearly compatible with a scenario of a pentobarbital overdose with a lethal outcome.

“... It is obvious that the victim attempted to hide his suicide from his family circle,” Dr. Brandt-Casadevall and colleagues wrote. “Thus, we obtained no evidence indicating that he might have spoken at any point of putting an end to his life. There was no written note. The victim did not wait to be alone at home. Instead, he committed his act in a routine situation: his wife was watching television late at night and he was upstairs, presumably going to sleep. Thus, he had one to two hours at his disposal, and he ingested a very fast-acting drug which would make any attempt at reanimation impossible, even after a brief period of time. This may have induced the physician in charge to believe that the cause of death was cardiac origin, a likely hypothesis given the age of the victim.”
 

What to do when a terminally ill patient talks suicide

When a terminally ill patient expresses the desire to end his or her life, it’s important to understand that desire is often a result of existential suffering, a sense of hopelessness, and lack of social support, said Lynn A. Jansen, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

“The duty of beneficence requires that physicians attempt to provide the support and care that is needed,” said Dr. Jansen. “Here, interdisciplinary teamwork is important and should be utilized. Physicians should refer patients to professionals, such as social workers, pastoral care, psychologists, etc., who are better able to address these issues.”

The rate of desire for a hastened death among terminally ill patients ranges from 17% to 45%, depending on the population studied and how the desire is evaluated, according to an analysis in the Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. In one study, 14% of about 130 palliative care patients with cancer had a strong desire to quicken the dying process.

In addition, patients with neurologic disorders have a significantly higher suicide rate than that of those without neurologic disorders, a recent JAMA study found. About 1 in 150 patients diagnosed with a neurological disorder dies by suicide, the analysis determined. 

A tricky point to remember is that a desire by a terminally ill patient to hasten his or her death by suicide should not be taken by itself to indicate depression, Dr. Jansen noted.

“In principle, such patients can make an autonomous decision to end their lives,” she said. “However, the expression of such a desire is very often associated with depression and forms of suffering that can be effectively addressed by the health care team.”

Physicians can also explore other avenues with the patient such as palliative care or making sure adequate pain relief is available, added Robert Klitzman, MD, professor of psychiatry and academic director of the master of science in bioethics program at Columbia University, New York.

“If they are saying it’s because they are distressed, ethically, a doctor can and should find ways to decrease their distress,” he said.

Of course, those who practice in the U.S. jurisdictions that have physician-assisted-dying laws have different legal and ethical elements to consider. Physicians in these areas have no ethical duty to participate in the process, Dr. Jansen said, but they have a duty to refer patients who express a desire to pursue physician aid-in-dying to another provider who can assist them.

Physician aid-in-dying laws vary somewhat so it’s important that physicians in these areas be aware of their specific statute, Dr. Klitzman said. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia have these laws.

“In these states, if a terminally ill patient says they don’t want to live anymore, a physician would first decide if this is a result of depression or if it’s a request for physician aid-in-dying,” he said. “Even then, in most cases, the patient would be evaluated by not one, but two different health professionals at two different points. We want to see if it is a consistent decision that the person has made that they want physician aid-in-dying, and not just that they’ve had a bad day or a setback in their treatment.”

In the case of the internist who told no one of his patient’s suicide plan, Dr. Klitzman said he would have dug deeper into the patient’s mindset.

“Not knowing anything about the patient or the doctor, I would have responded differently,” he said. “I think a physician should address why a patient feels that way. They may feel their pain is unbearable, and we potentially offer more pain relief. Maybe the patient shows evidence of having depression, which may be treatable [with medication]. The patient would then feel better and be able to spend quality time with family and loved ones, make sure their affairs are in order, and have a chance to say goodbye.”

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

An internist will never forget the dark secret his patient revealed during a routine visit – or the grim aftermath. 

The patient, who had a progressive, incurable neurological condition, confided that he planned to kill himself. The patient intended to conceal the true manner and make the death look natural.

“[He planned to do it] very carefully at home so no one would know,” said the internist, who remains anonymous. “[He shared] the methods he would use.”

Perhaps more shocking than the patient’s confession was the physician’s response. 

“He did not require my help to do what he planned, and I did not try to stop him,” said the internist. “I reported his death as ‘natural causes’ and never told anyone.”

The account comes from a response to Medscape’s 2020 Ethics Report in which physicians were asked about their toughest ethical dilemmas. Many physicians shared secrets and dilemmas that have haunted them for years.  An ob.gyn., for instance, wrote about struggling with whether to tell a father that his newborn baby was not his genetic child. The newborn had a blood type that made it impossible for the father to be biologically related to the infant, the anonymous doctor wrote.

“I told the wife who then informed me she had a lover,” the ob.gyn. said. “I never told the husband.”

It’s uncertain whether carrying the burden of such hidden knowledge affected the physicians involved in these cases. However, in general, secrets can weigh heavily on the minds of those who keep them and can contribute to stress, said Malia Mason, PhD, a psychologist and dean of research at Columbia Business School in New York. Holding onto secrets can cause depression and anxiety, research shows. The more often people think about the secret, the greater the impact, according to a recent study coauthored by Dr. Mason.

“Keeping a secret diminishes well-being,” Dr. Mason said. “It makes people feel socially distant. It lowers relationship satisfaction, and it leads people to feel inauthentic. The reason that secrets do this is because people think about them all the time. The more you think about it, the more you see these consequences.”

Feelings that stem from a secret depend on the content. The more immoral a secret is thought to be, the more people feel ashamed, according to a 2021 analysis of thousands of secrets, reported by Michael L. Slepian, PhD, and Alex Koch, PhD. However, secrets more related to a person’s profession are often internalized differently, the study found. The more a secret fell higher on the profession/goal-oriented dimension, the more people felt they had insight into the secret, according to the analysis. For example, having clear thinking about the secret and/or knowing how to handle it. 

“The more shame participants felt from their secret, the more they indicated the secret hurt their well-being,” Dr. Slepian and Dr. Koch wrote in the study. “The more insight participants felt they had into their secret, the less they indicated the secret hurt their well-being.”
 

Suspicious deaths exposed after investigations

The internist’s account of keeping his patient’s suicide a secret raises many questions, such as how the patient masked his manner of death. The internist did not share any more details about the incident. 

Suicides are among the most challenging manners of deaths to certify, according to James Gill, MD, a pathologist and president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. Death investigators must demonstrate intent, meaning the individuals caused the injury to intentionally harm themselves. Fewer than half of people who die by suicide leave a note, Dr. Gill said, so investigators can’t rely on the absence or the presence of a note in making their determination.

A decedent who had cancer or a severe neurological disorder presents further challenges, said Dr. Gill, who serves as chief medical examiner for the state of Connecticut.

“These [deaths] may not be unexpected and may not be reported to the medical examiner/coroner,” Dr. Gill said. “If there is no suspicion and the treating doctor is willing to sign the death certificate, the death will not come under the jurisdiction of the medical examiner.”

Dr. Gill recalled a death his colleague once investigated that appeared to be natural but emerged as something else after a deeper look. 

A woman with metastatic breast cancer was about to be discharged from a hospital into hospice the next morning. The night before, she had a “going away” party with friends who came to visit her in the hospital. Shortly after the friends left, the woman was found dead. Because of her condition, she could have died at any time, Dr. Gill said, but she also had a history of depression and hospital staff were suspicious. The death was reported to the medical examiner’s office.

Toxicology testing found markedly elevated concentrations of phenytoin and pentobarbital, neither of which were prescribed during her hospital stay. Dr. Gill said it turned out that the woman and her friends worked at a veterinarian’s office, and the medication they used to euthanize dogs was a combination of phenytoin and pentobarbital.

“The death was certified as a homicide because of the direct actions of another, but a reasonable argument could be made for suicide,” Dr. Gill said.

In a similar case reported in the journal Science & Justice, a 64-year-old cardiologist was found lifeless by his wife after he collapsed near the stairs of his home. Next to his body was a bottle of whiskey and two cups, one that appeared to be used for the alcohol and one with a yellowish liquid smelling of honey. The wife reported that her husband always drank whiskey with honey before bed. The death was initially classified as natural, but after vehement protest by the family, a forensic autopsy was performed. 

Prior to the autopsy, death investigators learned the decedent, who was a well-known and successful practitioner in his community, had Parkinson’s disease. At times, he could not sign his prescriptions because of the increasing tremor in his hands, according to the case study. Investigators learned the patient’s mother had also suffered from Parkinson’s, and that her son had witnessed her decline. 

The autopsy revealed only nonspecific lesions such as acute stasis of the viscera, moderate pulmonary and cerebral edema, and moderate generalized atheromatosis. Histological examinations did not yield any unusual findings.

An analysis of the beverage containers detected pentobarbital in the yellowish syrup residue of the second cup. Testing of the doctor’s peripheral blood revealed the presence of a metabolite of pentobarbital, ethanol, and traces of phenobarbital. In addition, a urine analysis showed the presence of venlafaxine, an antidepressant, as well as the benzophenone of lorazepam, a sedating benzodiazepine, and metoclopramide, an antiemetic.

Lead author C. Brandt-Casadevall, MD, and colleagues wrote that the levels were clearly compatible with a scenario of a pentobarbital overdose with a lethal outcome.

“... It is obvious that the victim attempted to hide his suicide from his family circle,” Dr. Brandt-Casadevall and colleagues wrote. “Thus, we obtained no evidence indicating that he might have spoken at any point of putting an end to his life. There was no written note. The victim did not wait to be alone at home. Instead, he committed his act in a routine situation: his wife was watching television late at night and he was upstairs, presumably going to sleep. Thus, he had one to two hours at his disposal, and he ingested a very fast-acting drug which would make any attempt at reanimation impossible, even after a brief period of time. This may have induced the physician in charge to believe that the cause of death was cardiac origin, a likely hypothesis given the age of the victim.”
 

What to do when a terminally ill patient talks suicide

When a terminally ill patient expresses the desire to end his or her life, it’s important to understand that desire is often a result of existential suffering, a sense of hopelessness, and lack of social support, said Lynn A. Jansen, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

“The duty of beneficence requires that physicians attempt to provide the support and care that is needed,” said Dr. Jansen. “Here, interdisciplinary teamwork is important and should be utilized. Physicians should refer patients to professionals, such as social workers, pastoral care, psychologists, etc., who are better able to address these issues.”

The rate of desire for a hastened death among terminally ill patients ranges from 17% to 45%, depending on the population studied and how the desire is evaluated, according to an analysis in the Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. In one study, 14% of about 130 palliative care patients with cancer had a strong desire to quicken the dying process.

In addition, patients with neurologic disorders have a significantly higher suicide rate than that of those without neurologic disorders, a recent JAMA study found. About 1 in 150 patients diagnosed with a neurological disorder dies by suicide, the analysis determined. 

A tricky point to remember is that a desire by a terminally ill patient to hasten his or her death by suicide should not be taken by itself to indicate depression, Dr. Jansen noted.

“In principle, such patients can make an autonomous decision to end their lives,” she said. “However, the expression of such a desire is very often associated with depression and forms of suffering that can be effectively addressed by the health care team.”

Physicians can also explore other avenues with the patient such as palliative care or making sure adequate pain relief is available, added Robert Klitzman, MD, professor of psychiatry and academic director of the master of science in bioethics program at Columbia University, New York.

“If they are saying it’s because they are distressed, ethically, a doctor can and should find ways to decrease their distress,” he said.

Of course, those who practice in the U.S. jurisdictions that have physician-assisted-dying laws have different legal and ethical elements to consider. Physicians in these areas have no ethical duty to participate in the process, Dr. Jansen said, but they have a duty to refer patients who express a desire to pursue physician aid-in-dying to another provider who can assist them.

Physician aid-in-dying laws vary somewhat so it’s important that physicians in these areas be aware of their specific statute, Dr. Klitzman said. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia have these laws.

“In these states, if a terminally ill patient says they don’t want to live anymore, a physician would first decide if this is a result of depression or if it’s a request for physician aid-in-dying,” he said. “Even then, in most cases, the patient would be evaluated by not one, but two different health professionals at two different points. We want to see if it is a consistent decision that the person has made that they want physician aid-in-dying, and not just that they’ve had a bad day or a setback in their treatment.”

In the case of the internist who told no one of his patient’s suicide plan, Dr. Klitzman said he would have dug deeper into the patient’s mindset.

“Not knowing anything about the patient or the doctor, I would have responded differently,” he said. “I think a physician should address why a patient feels that way. They may feel their pain is unbearable, and we potentially offer more pain relief. Maybe the patient shows evidence of having depression, which may be treatable [with medication]. The patient would then feel better and be able to spend quality time with family and loved ones, make sure their affairs are in order, and have a chance to say goodbye.”

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

An internist will never forget the dark secret his patient revealed during a routine visit – or the grim aftermath. 

The patient, who had a progressive, incurable neurological condition, confided that he planned to kill himself. The patient intended to conceal the true manner and make the death look natural.

“[He planned to do it] very carefully at home so no one would know,” said the internist, who remains anonymous. “[He shared] the methods he would use.”

Perhaps more shocking than the patient’s confession was the physician’s response. 

“He did not require my help to do what he planned, and I did not try to stop him,” said the internist. “I reported his death as ‘natural causes’ and never told anyone.”

The account comes from a response to Medscape’s 2020 Ethics Report in which physicians were asked about their toughest ethical dilemmas. Many physicians shared secrets and dilemmas that have haunted them for years.  An ob.gyn., for instance, wrote about struggling with whether to tell a father that his newborn baby was not his genetic child. The newborn had a blood type that made it impossible for the father to be biologically related to the infant, the anonymous doctor wrote.

“I told the wife who then informed me she had a lover,” the ob.gyn. said. “I never told the husband.”

It’s uncertain whether carrying the burden of such hidden knowledge affected the physicians involved in these cases. However, in general, secrets can weigh heavily on the minds of those who keep them and can contribute to stress, said Malia Mason, PhD, a psychologist and dean of research at Columbia Business School in New York. Holding onto secrets can cause depression and anxiety, research shows. The more often people think about the secret, the greater the impact, according to a recent study coauthored by Dr. Mason.

“Keeping a secret diminishes well-being,” Dr. Mason said. “It makes people feel socially distant. It lowers relationship satisfaction, and it leads people to feel inauthentic. The reason that secrets do this is because people think about them all the time. The more you think about it, the more you see these consequences.”

Feelings that stem from a secret depend on the content. The more immoral a secret is thought to be, the more people feel ashamed, according to a 2021 analysis of thousands of secrets, reported by Michael L. Slepian, PhD, and Alex Koch, PhD. However, secrets more related to a person’s profession are often internalized differently, the study found. The more a secret fell higher on the profession/goal-oriented dimension, the more people felt they had insight into the secret, according to the analysis. For example, having clear thinking about the secret and/or knowing how to handle it. 

“The more shame participants felt from their secret, the more they indicated the secret hurt their well-being,” Dr. Slepian and Dr. Koch wrote in the study. “The more insight participants felt they had into their secret, the less they indicated the secret hurt their well-being.”
 

Suspicious deaths exposed after investigations

The internist’s account of keeping his patient’s suicide a secret raises many questions, such as how the patient masked his manner of death. The internist did not share any more details about the incident. 

Suicides are among the most challenging manners of deaths to certify, according to James Gill, MD, a pathologist and president of the National Association of Medical Examiners. Death investigators must demonstrate intent, meaning the individuals caused the injury to intentionally harm themselves. Fewer than half of people who die by suicide leave a note, Dr. Gill said, so investigators can’t rely on the absence or the presence of a note in making their determination.

A decedent who had cancer or a severe neurological disorder presents further challenges, said Dr. Gill, who serves as chief medical examiner for the state of Connecticut.

“These [deaths] may not be unexpected and may not be reported to the medical examiner/coroner,” Dr. Gill said. “If there is no suspicion and the treating doctor is willing to sign the death certificate, the death will not come under the jurisdiction of the medical examiner.”

Dr. Gill recalled a death his colleague once investigated that appeared to be natural but emerged as something else after a deeper look. 

A woman with metastatic breast cancer was about to be discharged from a hospital into hospice the next morning. The night before, she had a “going away” party with friends who came to visit her in the hospital. Shortly after the friends left, the woman was found dead. Because of her condition, she could have died at any time, Dr. Gill said, but she also had a history of depression and hospital staff were suspicious. The death was reported to the medical examiner’s office.

Toxicology testing found markedly elevated concentrations of phenytoin and pentobarbital, neither of which were prescribed during her hospital stay. Dr. Gill said it turned out that the woman and her friends worked at a veterinarian’s office, and the medication they used to euthanize dogs was a combination of phenytoin and pentobarbital.

“The death was certified as a homicide because of the direct actions of another, but a reasonable argument could be made for suicide,” Dr. Gill said.

In a similar case reported in the journal Science & Justice, a 64-year-old cardiologist was found lifeless by his wife after he collapsed near the stairs of his home. Next to his body was a bottle of whiskey and two cups, one that appeared to be used for the alcohol and one with a yellowish liquid smelling of honey. The wife reported that her husband always drank whiskey with honey before bed. The death was initially classified as natural, but after vehement protest by the family, a forensic autopsy was performed. 

Prior to the autopsy, death investigators learned the decedent, who was a well-known and successful practitioner in his community, had Parkinson’s disease. At times, he could not sign his prescriptions because of the increasing tremor in his hands, according to the case study. Investigators learned the patient’s mother had also suffered from Parkinson’s, and that her son had witnessed her decline. 

The autopsy revealed only nonspecific lesions such as acute stasis of the viscera, moderate pulmonary and cerebral edema, and moderate generalized atheromatosis. Histological examinations did not yield any unusual findings.

An analysis of the beverage containers detected pentobarbital in the yellowish syrup residue of the second cup. Testing of the doctor’s peripheral blood revealed the presence of a metabolite of pentobarbital, ethanol, and traces of phenobarbital. In addition, a urine analysis showed the presence of venlafaxine, an antidepressant, as well as the benzophenone of lorazepam, a sedating benzodiazepine, and metoclopramide, an antiemetic.

Lead author C. Brandt-Casadevall, MD, and colleagues wrote that the levels were clearly compatible with a scenario of a pentobarbital overdose with a lethal outcome.

“... It is obvious that the victim attempted to hide his suicide from his family circle,” Dr. Brandt-Casadevall and colleagues wrote. “Thus, we obtained no evidence indicating that he might have spoken at any point of putting an end to his life. There was no written note. The victim did not wait to be alone at home. Instead, he committed his act in a routine situation: his wife was watching television late at night and he was upstairs, presumably going to sleep. Thus, he had one to two hours at his disposal, and he ingested a very fast-acting drug which would make any attempt at reanimation impossible, even after a brief period of time. This may have induced the physician in charge to believe that the cause of death was cardiac origin, a likely hypothesis given the age of the victim.”
 

What to do when a terminally ill patient talks suicide

When a terminally ill patient expresses the desire to end his or her life, it’s important to understand that desire is often a result of existential suffering, a sense of hopelessness, and lack of social support, said Lynn A. Jansen, PhD, a bioethicist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

“The duty of beneficence requires that physicians attempt to provide the support and care that is needed,” said Dr. Jansen. “Here, interdisciplinary teamwork is important and should be utilized. Physicians should refer patients to professionals, such as social workers, pastoral care, psychologists, etc., who are better able to address these issues.”

The rate of desire for a hastened death among terminally ill patients ranges from 17% to 45%, depending on the population studied and how the desire is evaluated, according to an analysis in the Primary Care Companion to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. In one study, 14% of about 130 palliative care patients with cancer had a strong desire to quicken the dying process.

In addition, patients with neurologic disorders have a significantly higher suicide rate than that of those without neurologic disorders, a recent JAMA study found. About 1 in 150 patients diagnosed with a neurological disorder dies by suicide, the analysis determined. 

A tricky point to remember is that a desire by a terminally ill patient to hasten his or her death by suicide should not be taken by itself to indicate depression, Dr. Jansen noted.

“In principle, such patients can make an autonomous decision to end their lives,” she said. “However, the expression of such a desire is very often associated with depression and forms of suffering that can be effectively addressed by the health care team.”

Physicians can also explore other avenues with the patient such as palliative care or making sure adequate pain relief is available, added Robert Klitzman, MD, professor of psychiatry and academic director of the master of science in bioethics program at Columbia University, New York.

“If they are saying it’s because they are distressed, ethically, a doctor can and should find ways to decrease their distress,” he said.

Of course, those who practice in the U.S. jurisdictions that have physician-assisted-dying laws have different legal and ethical elements to consider. Physicians in these areas have no ethical duty to participate in the process, Dr. Jansen said, but they have a duty to refer patients who express a desire to pursue physician aid-in-dying to another provider who can assist them.

Physician aid-in-dying laws vary somewhat so it’s important that physicians in these areas be aware of their specific statute, Dr. Klitzman said. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia have these laws.

“In these states, if a terminally ill patient says they don’t want to live anymore, a physician would first decide if this is a result of depression or if it’s a request for physician aid-in-dying,” he said. “Even then, in most cases, the patient would be evaluated by not one, but two different health professionals at two different points. We want to see if it is a consistent decision that the person has made that they want physician aid-in-dying, and not just that they’ve had a bad day or a setback in their treatment.”

In the case of the internist who told no one of his patient’s suicide plan, Dr. Klitzman said he would have dug deeper into the patient’s mindset.

“Not knowing anything about the patient or the doctor, I would have responded differently,” he said. “I think a physician should address why a patient feels that way. They may feel their pain is unbearable, and we potentially offer more pain relief. Maybe the patient shows evidence of having depression, which may be treatable [with medication]. The patient would then feel better and be able to spend quality time with family and loved ones, make sure their affairs are in order, and have a chance to say goodbye.”

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

MRI results may not be effective at indicating disability for patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), new research suggests. Analysis from the phase 3 ASCEND trial of nearly 900 patients showed that MRI measures were not associated with worsening of scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the most widely used physical outcome measure.

The few associations that were shown between MRI measures and clinical outcomes “were with the newer and possibly more sensitive outcomes” – the Timed 25-Foot Walk (T25FW) and Nine-Hole Peg Test (NHPT), wrote the investigators, led by Marcus W. Koch, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology in the MS program at the University of Calgary, Canada.

However, “it is unclear if these associations are clinically meaningful,” they added.

Worsening on the NHPT at 48 weeks was associated with a 0.86% loss in normalized brain volume; worsening at 96 weeks was associated with a 1.47% loss.

The findings were published online July 26 in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal.
 

ASCEND data analysis

Although brain volume loss occurs in all forms of MS, it is believed to be particularly relevant in SPMS. Clinical trials often use MRI measures of brain volume as endpoints, likely on the assumption that these measures indicate worsening disability.

However, brain volume loss proceeds slowly. Changes that occur during the typical 2-year study period may not be associated with significant physical or cognitive disability.

In the current study, investigators examined data from the ASCEND trial, which assessed the use of natalizumab for patients with SPMS, to examine these potential associations. Eligible participants in ASCEND were between ages 18 and 58 years, had had SPMS for 2 or more years, had had disability progression during the previous year, and had an EDSS score between 3.0 and 6.5 at baseline.

Participants underwent gadolinium-enhanced cranial MRI at screening and at 24, 48, 72, and 96 weeks. MRI outcomes included normalized brain volume, normalized cortical gray matter volume, and normalized whole gray matter volume. The ASCEND investigators also examined the number and volume of T2 and contrast-enhancing lesions.

The study’s clinical outcomes included scores on the EDSS, T25FW, and NHPT, which were administered at baseline and every 12 weeks thereafter. Participants also underwent the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), which is a cognitive assessment, at baseline and every 4 weeks thereafter. In addition, 3-month confirmed disability progression was measured every 12 weeks.
 

Few significant associations

The investigators’ analysis included 889 patients (61.9% women; median age, 48 years). The median EDSS score at screening was 6.

Brain volume measures decreased consistently during follow-up. Mean volume loss at 96 weeks was about 1%. In contrast, T2 lesion volume changed little during follow-up. The cumulative number of contrast-enhancing lesions and the cumulative number of new or newly enlarging T2 lesions increased steadily during follow-up.

For an increasing number of participants, scores on the EDSS, NHPT, and T25FW worsened significantly during follow-up. Performance on SDMT, however, changed little. Of all the clinical measures, the NHPT was most consistently associated with MRI measures.

Among patients whose NHPT score worsened at 48 weeks, there was greater loss of normalized brain volume (0.86%, P = .02), normalized cortical gray matter volume (1.15%, P = .03), and normalized whole gray matter volume (1.08%, P = .03) than among those whose NHPT score did not worsen.

Among patients whose NHPT score worsened at 96 weeks, there was greater normalized brain volume loss (1.47%, P = .002), greater increase in T2 lesion volume (4.68%, P = .02), and a greater number of cumulative new or newly enlarging T2 lesions (7.81, P = .03) than those whose NHPT score did not worsen.

After adjusting the data for covariables, the investigators found few significant associations between MRI measures and clinical outcomes. Worsening on the EDSS and SDMT was not associated with any MRI outcome.
 

Important disability contributors missed

The odds ratio of 3-month confirmed worsening on the T25FW at 96 weeks was 2.25 for patients with more than 10 cumulative new or newly enlarging T2 lesions (P = .03). The OR of 3-month confirmed worsening on the NHPT at 96 weeks was 3.04 for patients with more than 10 such lesions (P = .03).

Greater normalized brain volume loss at 48 weeks was associated with a greater risk for worsening disability on the NHPT at 48 and 96 weeks. For patients with a volume loss greater than 1.5%, the OR of worsening NHPT at 96 weeks was 4.69 (P = .05).

Although previous cross-sectional studies have shown correlations between brain volume and cognitive dysfunction, the current investigators found no association between change in SDMT performance and MRI measures.

From the ASCEND dataset, they found that performance on the SDMT unexpectedly improved with time, perhaps because of a practice effect.

“The SDMT may therefore not adequately reflect the steady cognitive decline that people with SPMS experience,” the investigators wrote.

The lack of association between MRI measures and clinical outcomes may indicate that traditional MRI does not measure important contributors to disability, they noted.

“Although the investigated volume measures in this study are currently the most commonly used in clinical trials, newer MRI metrics such as thalamic or corpus callosum atrophy may have a closer relation to clinical outcome,” they added.
 

‘Interesting and provocative’

Commenting on the findings, E. Ann Yeh, MD, director of the Pediatric MS and Neuroinflammatory Disorders Program at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, called the study “interesting and provocative.”

“Other studies previously have shown associations between disability and progression, but many have been cross-sectional,” said Dr. Yeh, who was not involved with the research.

The current study is longitudinal and analyzes carefully documented follow-up data from a clinical trial, she noted. However, the 2-year follow-up period was short, considering the pace at which whole brain volume change occurs, Dr. Yeh said.

Some patients with MS have greater brain volume loss than others. Because of this variability, researchers often examine a population’s average brain volume loss. “When you look at averages, it makes it more difficult to understand if the larger brain volume losses are actually associated with change,” said Dr. Yeh.

She noted that because the study population had high EDSS scores at baseline, it is not surprising that the NHPT and the T25FW were more strongly associated with change in brain volume than the EDSS was. Large changes in EDSS score probably did not occur during follow-up, she added.

“We’ll continue to use the EDSS, because it’s what we have,” said Dr. Yeh. However, newer measures, such as the NHPT and the T25FW, may provide better information, she said. Similarly, composite measures of cognition, such as the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS, may be superior to the SDMT but take longer to administer.

“We need to look more deeply at which MRI measures are the best for predicting outcome and that correlate well in a short period of time,” said Dr. Yeh.

These measures could include specific regional brain volumes “and more advanced measures that look at axonal injury or axonal loss.” Studies with longer follow-up are also necessary, she concluded.

The investigators and Dr. Yeh have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MRI results may not be effective at indicating disability for patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), new research suggests. Analysis from the phase 3 ASCEND trial of nearly 900 patients showed that MRI measures were not associated with worsening of scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the most widely used physical outcome measure.

The few associations that were shown between MRI measures and clinical outcomes “were with the newer and possibly more sensitive outcomes” – the Timed 25-Foot Walk (T25FW) and Nine-Hole Peg Test (NHPT), wrote the investigators, led by Marcus W. Koch, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology in the MS program at the University of Calgary, Canada.

However, “it is unclear if these associations are clinically meaningful,” they added.

Worsening on the NHPT at 48 weeks was associated with a 0.86% loss in normalized brain volume; worsening at 96 weeks was associated with a 1.47% loss.

The findings were published online July 26 in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal.
 

ASCEND data analysis

Although brain volume loss occurs in all forms of MS, it is believed to be particularly relevant in SPMS. Clinical trials often use MRI measures of brain volume as endpoints, likely on the assumption that these measures indicate worsening disability.

However, brain volume loss proceeds slowly. Changes that occur during the typical 2-year study period may not be associated with significant physical or cognitive disability.

In the current study, investigators examined data from the ASCEND trial, which assessed the use of natalizumab for patients with SPMS, to examine these potential associations. Eligible participants in ASCEND were between ages 18 and 58 years, had had SPMS for 2 or more years, had had disability progression during the previous year, and had an EDSS score between 3.0 and 6.5 at baseline.

Participants underwent gadolinium-enhanced cranial MRI at screening and at 24, 48, 72, and 96 weeks. MRI outcomes included normalized brain volume, normalized cortical gray matter volume, and normalized whole gray matter volume. The ASCEND investigators also examined the number and volume of T2 and contrast-enhancing lesions.

The study’s clinical outcomes included scores on the EDSS, T25FW, and NHPT, which were administered at baseline and every 12 weeks thereafter. Participants also underwent the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), which is a cognitive assessment, at baseline and every 4 weeks thereafter. In addition, 3-month confirmed disability progression was measured every 12 weeks.
 

Few significant associations

The investigators’ analysis included 889 patients (61.9% women; median age, 48 years). The median EDSS score at screening was 6.

Brain volume measures decreased consistently during follow-up. Mean volume loss at 96 weeks was about 1%. In contrast, T2 lesion volume changed little during follow-up. The cumulative number of contrast-enhancing lesions and the cumulative number of new or newly enlarging T2 lesions increased steadily during follow-up.

For an increasing number of participants, scores on the EDSS, NHPT, and T25FW worsened significantly during follow-up. Performance on SDMT, however, changed little. Of all the clinical measures, the NHPT was most consistently associated with MRI measures.

Among patients whose NHPT score worsened at 48 weeks, there was greater loss of normalized brain volume (0.86%, P = .02), normalized cortical gray matter volume (1.15%, P = .03), and normalized whole gray matter volume (1.08%, P = .03) than among those whose NHPT score did not worsen.

Among patients whose NHPT score worsened at 96 weeks, there was greater normalized brain volume loss (1.47%, P = .002), greater increase in T2 lesion volume (4.68%, P = .02), and a greater number of cumulative new or newly enlarging T2 lesions (7.81, P = .03) than those whose NHPT score did not worsen.

After adjusting the data for covariables, the investigators found few significant associations between MRI measures and clinical outcomes. Worsening on the EDSS and SDMT was not associated with any MRI outcome.
 

Important disability contributors missed

The odds ratio of 3-month confirmed worsening on the T25FW at 96 weeks was 2.25 for patients with more than 10 cumulative new or newly enlarging T2 lesions (P = .03). The OR of 3-month confirmed worsening on the NHPT at 96 weeks was 3.04 for patients with more than 10 such lesions (P = .03).

Greater normalized brain volume loss at 48 weeks was associated with a greater risk for worsening disability on the NHPT at 48 and 96 weeks. For patients with a volume loss greater than 1.5%, the OR of worsening NHPT at 96 weeks was 4.69 (P = .05).

Although previous cross-sectional studies have shown correlations between brain volume and cognitive dysfunction, the current investigators found no association between change in SDMT performance and MRI measures.

From the ASCEND dataset, they found that performance on the SDMT unexpectedly improved with time, perhaps because of a practice effect.

“The SDMT may therefore not adequately reflect the steady cognitive decline that people with SPMS experience,” the investigators wrote.

The lack of association between MRI measures and clinical outcomes may indicate that traditional MRI does not measure important contributors to disability, they noted.

“Although the investigated volume measures in this study are currently the most commonly used in clinical trials, newer MRI metrics such as thalamic or corpus callosum atrophy may have a closer relation to clinical outcome,” they added.
 

‘Interesting and provocative’

Commenting on the findings, E. Ann Yeh, MD, director of the Pediatric MS and Neuroinflammatory Disorders Program at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, called the study “interesting and provocative.”

“Other studies previously have shown associations between disability and progression, but many have been cross-sectional,” said Dr. Yeh, who was not involved with the research.

The current study is longitudinal and analyzes carefully documented follow-up data from a clinical trial, she noted. However, the 2-year follow-up period was short, considering the pace at which whole brain volume change occurs, Dr. Yeh said.

Some patients with MS have greater brain volume loss than others. Because of this variability, researchers often examine a population’s average brain volume loss. “When you look at averages, it makes it more difficult to understand if the larger brain volume losses are actually associated with change,” said Dr. Yeh.

She noted that because the study population had high EDSS scores at baseline, it is not surprising that the NHPT and the T25FW were more strongly associated with change in brain volume than the EDSS was. Large changes in EDSS score probably did not occur during follow-up, she added.

“We’ll continue to use the EDSS, because it’s what we have,” said Dr. Yeh. However, newer measures, such as the NHPT and the T25FW, may provide better information, she said. Similarly, composite measures of cognition, such as the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS, may be superior to the SDMT but take longer to administer.

“We need to look more deeply at which MRI measures are the best for predicting outcome and that correlate well in a short period of time,” said Dr. Yeh.

These measures could include specific regional brain volumes “and more advanced measures that look at axonal injury or axonal loss.” Studies with longer follow-up are also necessary, she concluded.

The investigators and Dr. Yeh have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MRI results may not be effective at indicating disability for patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), new research suggests. Analysis from the phase 3 ASCEND trial of nearly 900 patients showed that MRI measures were not associated with worsening of scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the most widely used physical outcome measure.

The few associations that were shown between MRI measures and clinical outcomes “were with the newer and possibly more sensitive outcomes” – the Timed 25-Foot Walk (T25FW) and Nine-Hole Peg Test (NHPT), wrote the investigators, led by Marcus W. Koch, MD, PhD, associate professor of neurology in the MS program at the University of Calgary, Canada.

However, “it is unclear if these associations are clinically meaningful,” they added.

Worsening on the NHPT at 48 weeks was associated with a 0.86% loss in normalized brain volume; worsening at 96 weeks was associated with a 1.47% loss.

The findings were published online July 26 in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal.
 

ASCEND data analysis

Although brain volume loss occurs in all forms of MS, it is believed to be particularly relevant in SPMS. Clinical trials often use MRI measures of brain volume as endpoints, likely on the assumption that these measures indicate worsening disability.

However, brain volume loss proceeds slowly. Changes that occur during the typical 2-year study period may not be associated with significant physical or cognitive disability.

In the current study, investigators examined data from the ASCEND trial, which assessed the use of natalizumab for patients with SPMS, to examine these potential associations. Eligible participants in ASCEND were between ages 18 and 58 years, had had SPMS for 2 or more years, had had disability progression during the previous year, and had an EDSS score between 3.0 and 6.5 at baseline.

Participants underwent gadolinium-enhanced cranial MRI at screening and at 24, 48, 72, and 96 weeks. MRI outcomes included normalized brain volume, normalized cortical gray matter volume, and normalized whole gray matter volume. The ASCEND investigators also examined the number and volume of T2 and contrast-enhancing lesions.

The study’s clinical outcomes included scores on the EDSS, T25FW, and NHPT, which were administered at baseline and every 12 weeks thereafter. Participants also underwent the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), which is a cognitive assessment, at baseline and every 4 weeks thereafter. In addition, 3-month confirmed disability progression was measured every 12 weeks.
 

Few significant associations

The investigators’ analysis included 889 patients (61.9% women; median age, 48 years). The median EDSS score at screening was 6.

Brain volume measures decreased consistently during follow-up. Mean volume loss at 96 weeks was about 1%. In contrast, T2 lesion volume changed little during follow-up. The cumulative number of contrast-enhancing lesions and the cumulative number of new or newly enlarging T2 lesions increased steadily during follow-up.

For an increasing number of participants, scores on the EDSS, NHPT, and T25FW worsened significantly during follow-up. Performance on SDMT, however, changed little. Of all the clinical measures, the NHPT was most consistently associated with MRI measures.

Among patients whose NHPT score worsened at 48 weeks, there was greater loss of normalized brain volume (0.86%, P = .02), normalized cortical gray matter volume (1.15%, P = .03), and normalized whole gray matter volume (1.08%, P = .03) than among those whose NHPT score did not worsen.

Among patients whose NHPT score worsened at 96 weeks, there was greater normalized brain volume loss (1.47%, P = .002), greater increase in T2 lesion volume (4.68%, P = .02), and a greater number of cumulative new or newly enlarging T2 lesions (7.81, P = .03) than those whose NHPT score did not worsen.

After adjusting the data for covariables, the investigators found few significant associations between MRI measures and clinical outcomes. Worsening on the EDSS and SDMT was not associated with any MRI outcome.
 

Important disability contributors missed

The odds ratio of 3-month confirmed worsening on the T25FW at 96 weeks was 2.25 for patients with more than 10 cumulative new or newly enlarging T2 lesions (P = .03). The OR of 3-month confirmed worsening on the NHPT at 96 weeks was 3.04 for patients with more than 10 such lesions (P = .03).

Greater normalized brain volume loss at 48 weeks was associated with a greater risk for worsening disability on the NHPT at 48 and 96 weeks. For patients with a volume loss greater than 1.5%, the OR of worsening NHPT at 96 weeks was 4.69 (P = .05).

Although previous cross-sectional studies have shown correlations between brain volume and cognitive dysfunction, the current investigators found no association between change in SDMT performance and MRI measures.

From the ASCEND dataset, they found that performance on the SDMT unexpectedly improved with time, perhaps because of a practice effect.

“The SDMT may therefore not adequately reflect the steady cognitive decline that people with SPMS experience,” the investigators wrote.

The lack of association between MRI measures and clinical outcomes may indicate that traditional MRI does not measure important contributors to disability, they noted.

“Although the investigated volume measures in this study are currently the most commonly used in clinical trials, newer MRI metrics such as thalamic or corpus callosum atrophy may have a closer relation to clinical outcome,” they added.
 

‘Interesting and provocative’

Commenting on the findings, E. Ann Yeh, MD, director of the Pediatric MS and Neuroinflammatory Disorders Program at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, called the study “interesting and provocative.”

“Other studies previously have shown associations between disability and progression, but many have been cross-sectional,” said Dr. Yeh, who was not involved with the research.

The current study is longitudinal and analyzes carefully documented follow-up data from a clinical trial, she noted. However, the 2-year follow-up period was short, considering the pace at which whole brain volume change occurs, Dr. Yeh said.

Some patients with MS have greater brain volume loss than others. Because of this variability, researchers often examine a population’s average brain volume loss. “When you look at averages, it makes it more difficult to understand if the larger brain volume losses are actually associated with change,” said Dr. Yeh.

She noted that because the study population had high EDSS scores at baseline, it is not surprising that the NHPT and the T25FW were more strongly associated with change in brain volume than the EDSS was. Large changes in EDSS score probably did not occur during follow-up, she added.

“We’ll continue to use the EDSS, because it’s what we have,” said Dr. Yeh. However, newer measures, such as the NHPT and the T25FW, may provide better information, she said. Similarly, composite measures of cognition, such as the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS, may be superior to the SDMT but take longer to administer.

“We need to look more deeply at which MRI measures are the best for predicting outcome and that correlate well in a short period of time,” said Dr. Yeh.

These measures could include specific regional brain volumes “and more advanced measures that look at axonal injury or axonal loss.” Studies with longer follow-up are also necessary, she concluded.

The investigators and Dr. Yeh have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among middle-aged people without heart disease, drinking up to three cups of coffee per day was linked with a lower risk for stroke or death over the next decade, along with better heart structure and function, in a large, observational study.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

Specifically, light-to-moderate coffee drinking, defined as 0.5 to 3 cups per day, was associated with a 21% lower risk for stroke, a 17% lower risk for death from cardiovascular disease (CVD), and a 12% lower risk for death from all causes, as well as more favorable cardiac MRI findings, compared with nondrinkers (< 0.5 cup per day) during a median 11-year follow-up.

Heavy coffee drinkers, defined as those consuming more than three cups per day, on the other hand, likewise had more favorable cardiac MRI findings, but with similar (not lower) rates of stroke and CVD or all-cause mortality compared with nondrinkers.

Judit Simon, MD, presented these findings, from close to 500,000 participants in the UK Biobank study, at a press conference before an e-poster session at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest study to systematically assess the cardiovascular effects of regular coffee consumption in a population without diagnosed heart disease,” Dr. Simon, a PhD student at the Heart and Vascular Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, said in an ESC press release.

The results “suggest that regular coffee consumption is safe, as even high daily intake was not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality after a follow-up of 10 to 15 years,” she said.

The imaging analysis showed that “compared with participants who did not drink coffee regularly, daily consumers had healthier sized and better functioning hearts,” Dr. Simon continued, “consistent with reversing the detrimental effects of aging on the heart.”

“The observed benefits might be partly explained by positive alterations in cardiac structure and function,” she speculated, adding that further studies are needed to explain the underlying mechanisms.

Instant coffee most popular

In this population, the coffee drinkers mostly drank instant coffee (55%), followed by filtered/ground (23%), decaffeinated (20%), or other types of coffee (2%), Dr. Simon said in an interview.

Risk for myocardial infarction (MI) or heart failure did not significantly differ for different categories of coffee intake, she added. The researchers did not study the effect of coffee consumption on atrial fibrillation (AF), she noted. 

Study limitations, Dr. Simon acknowledged, include that it was observational, so it cannot show causation, and that coffee consumption was self-reported in a questionnaire.

Invited to comment, Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, who was not involved with the research, said, “Consistent with prior data, this new study indicates there is no adverse effect of coffee consumption on cardiovascular health and there may be a benefit.”

However, “because of the nature of the data, it would not be recommended that an individual starting drinking coffee to improve cardiovascular health,” added Dr. Lichtenstein, director and senior scientist at the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University, Boston.

But if people already drink coffee, “it is fine to continue, assuming that the coffee drinks are not high in added sugar and cream,” she said in an interview.
 

Coffee intake, CVD outcomes, and heart structure

To study the relationship between coffee intake and incident MI, stroke, and death, as well as heart structure, the researchers examined data from the UK Biobank, which recruited 500,000 people aged 40-69 years in 2006-2010 from across the United Kingdom.

They identified 468,629 participants with no signs of heart disease at recruitment and an average age of 56 years, of whom 56% were women.

The participants were divided into three groups based on usual coffee intake: none (22% of participants), light-to-moderate (58%), and high (20%).

Median tea intake was three cups per day overall, four cups per day in noncoffee drinkers, three cups per day in light-to-moderate coffee drinkers, and one cup per day in high coffee drinkers.

Compared to not drinking coffee, light-to-moderate coffee consumption was associated with lower risks for all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; P < .001), CVD death (HR, 0.83; P = .006), and stroke (HR, 0.79; P = .037), over a median follow-up of 11 years, after adjustment for sex; weight; height; smoking status; physical activity; high blood pressure; diabetes; cholesterol level; socioeconomic status; and usual intake of alcohol, meat, tea, fruit, and vegetables.  

In the 30,650 participants who had cardiac MRI data, the study found that compared with not drinking coffee, both light-to-moderate and high coffee consumption were associated with significantly increased left and right ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes, and with greater left ventricular mass (all P < .001).

These differences were small but significant, Dr. Simon stressed, because this was a cohort of healthy patients who did not have CVD (heart failure, MI, stroke, AF) at baseline, although some had hypertension or diabetes.

Press conference chairperson, Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, professor and cardiologist, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, a coffee lover himself, wanted to know if an amount such as two, three, or four cups of coffee was optimal to see these heart benefits, and whether there were differences in benefits seen with drinking different types of coffee.

The analysis did not identify an optimal coffee intake, Dr. Simon said. Compared with not drinking coffee, she continued, drinking instant coffee was associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality, but not CVD mortality or stroke.

Drinking filtered coffee was associated with lower risks for all three outcomes, but there was no significant difference in risk for MI. Drinking decaffeinated coffee was associated with a lower risk for all-cause and CVD mortality.

“Decaffeinated coffee contains a small amount of caffeine,” Dr. Simon pointed out. “Something other than caffeine might have this protective impact,” she suggested.

The researchers and Dr. Lichtenstein declared having no relevant financial disclosures.  

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

Among middle-aged people without heart disease, drinking up to three cups of coffee per day was linked with a lower risk for stroke or death over the next decade, along with better heart structure and function, in a large, observational study.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

Specifically, light-to-moderate coffee drinking, defined as 0.5 to 3 cups per day, was associated with a 21% lower risk for stroke, a 17% lower risk for death from cardiovascular disease (CVD), and a 12% lower risk for death from all causes, as well as more favorable cardiac MRI findings, compared with nondrinkers (< 0.5 cup per day) during a median 11-year follow-up.

Heavy coffee drinkers, defined as those consuming more than three cups per day, on the other hand, likewise had more favorable cardiac MRI findings, but with similar (not lower) rates of stroke and CVD or all-cause mortality compared with nondrinkers.

Judit Simon, MD, presented these findings, from close to 500,000 participants in the UK Biobank study, at a press conference before an e-poster session at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest study to systematically assess the cardiovascular effects of regular coffee consumption in a population without diagnosed heart disease,” Dr. Simon, a PhD student at the Heart and Vascular Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, said in an ESC press release.

The results “suggest that regular coffee consumption is safe, as even high daily intake was not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality after a follow-up of 10 to 15 years,” she said.

The imaging analysis showed that “compared with participants who did not drink coffee regularly, daily consumers had healthier sized and better functioning hearts,” Dr. Simon continued, “consistent with reversing the detrimental effects of aging on the heart.”

“The observed benefits might be partly explained by positive alterations in cardiac structure and function,” she speculated, adding that further studies are needed to explain the underlying mechanisms.

Instant coffee most popular

In this population, the coffee drinkers mostly drank instant coffee (55%), followed by filtered/ground (23%), decaffeinated (20%), or other types of coffee (2%), Dr. Simon said in an interview.

Risk for myocardial infarction (MI) or heart failure did not significantly differ for different categories of coffee intake, she added. The researchers did not study the effect of coffee consumption on atrial fibrillation (AF), she noted. 

Study limitations, Dr. Simon acknowledged, include that it was observational, so it cannot show causation, and that coffee consumption was self-reported in a questionnaire.

Invited to comment, Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, who was not involved with the research, said, “Consistent with prior data, this new study indicates there is no adverse effect of coffee consumption on cardiovascular health and there may be a benefit.”

However, “because of the nature of the data, it would not be recommended that an individual starting drinking coffee to improve cardiovascular health,” added Dr. Lichtenstein, director and senior scientist at the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University, Boston.

But if people already drink coffee, “it is fine to continue, assuming that the coffee drinks are not high in added sugar and cream,” she said in an interview.
 

Coffee intake, CVD outcomes, and heart structure

To study the relationship between coffee intake and incident MI, stroke, and death, as well as heart structure, the researchers examined data from the UK Biobank, which recruited 500,000 people aged 40-69 years in 2006-2010 from across the United Kingdom.

They identified 468,629 participants with no signs of heart disease at recruitment and an average age of 56 years, of whom 56% were women.

The participants were divided into three groups based on usual coffee intake: none (22% of participants), light-to-moderate (58%), and high (20%).

Median tea intake was three cups per day overall, four cups per day in noncoffee drinkers, three cups per day in light-to-moderate coffee drinkers, and one cup per day in high coffee drinkers.

Compared to not drinking coffee, light-to-moderate coffee consumption was associated with lower risks for all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; P < .001), CVD death (HR, 0.83; P = .006), and stroke (HR, 0.79; P = .037), over a median follow-up of 11 years, after adjustment for sex; weight; height; smoking status; physical activity; high blood pressure; diabetes; cholesterol level; socioeconomic status; and usual intake of alcohol, meat, tea, fruit, and vegetables.  

In the 30,650 participants who had cardiac MRI data, the study found that compared with not drinking coffee, both light-to-moderate and high coffee consumption were associated with significantly increased left and right ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes, and with greater left ventricular mass (all P < .001).

These differences were small but significant, Dr. Simon stressed, because this was a cohort of healthy patients who did not have CVD (heart failure, MI, stroke, AF) at baseline, although some had hypertension or diabetes.

Press conference chairperson, Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, professor and cardiologist, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, a coffee lover himself, wanted to know if an amount such as two, three, or four cups of coffee was optimal to see these heart benefits, and whether there were differences in benefits seen with drinking different types of coffee.

The analysis did not identify an optimal coffee intake, Dr. Simon said. Compared with not drinking coffee, she continued, drinking instant coffee was associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality, but not CVD mortality or stroke.

Drinking filtered coffee was associated with lower risks for all three outcomes, but there was no significant difference in risk for MI. Drinking decaffeinated coffee was associated with a lower risk for all-cause and CVD mortality.

“Decaffeinated coffee contains a small amount of caffeine,” Dr. Simon pointed out. “Something other than caffeine might have this protective impact,” she suggested.

The researchers and Dr. Lichtenstein declared having no relevant financial disclosures.  

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

Among middle-aged people without heart disease, drinking up to three cups of coffee per day was linked with a lower risk for stroke or death over the next decade, along with better heart structure and function, in a large, observational study.

S_Bachstroem/Getty Images

Specifically, light-to-moderate coffee drinking, defined as 0.5 to 3 cups per day, was associated with a 21% lower risk for stroke, a 17% lower risk for death from cardiovascular disease (CVD), and a 12% lower risk for death from all causes, as well as more favorable cardiac MRI findings, compared with nondrinkers (< 0.5 cup per day) during a median 11-year follow-up.

Heavy coffee drinkers, defined as those consuming more than three cups per day, on the other hand, likewise had more favorable cardiac MRI findings, but with similar (not lower) rates of stroke and CVD or all-cause mortality compared with nondrinkers.

Judit Simon, MD, presented these findings, from close to 500,000 participants in the UK Biobank study, at a press conference before an e-poster session at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“To our knowledge, this is the largest study to systematically assess the cardiovascular effects of regular coffee consumption in a population without diagnosed heart disease,” Dr. Simon, a PhD student at the Heart and Vascular Centre, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary, said in an ESC press release.

The results “suggest that regular coffee consumption is safe, as even high daily intake was not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality after a follow-up of 10 to 15 years,” she said.

The imaging analysis showed that “compared with participants who did not drink coffee regularly, daily consumers had healthier sized and better functioning hearts,” Dr. Simon continued, “consistent with reversing the detrimental effects of aging on the heart.”

“The observed benefits might be partly explained by positive alterations in cardiac structure and function,” she speculated, adding that further studies are needed to explain the underlying mechanisms.

Instant coffee most popular

In this population, the coffee drinkers mostly drank instant coffee (55%), followed by filtered/ground (23%), decaffeinated (20%), or other types of coffee (2%), Dr. Simon said in an interview.

Risk for myocardial infarction (MI) or heart failure did not significantly differ for different categories of coffee intake, she added. The researchers did not study the effect of coffee consumption on atrial fibrillation (AF), she noted. 

Study limitations, Dr. Simon acknowledged, include that it was observational, so it cannot show causation, and that coffee consumption was self-reported in a questionnaire.

Invited to comment, Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, who was not involved with the research, said, “Consistent with prior data, this new study indicates there is no adverse effect of coffee consumption on cardiovascular health and there may be a benefit.”

However, “because of the nature of the data, it would not be recommended that an individual starting drinking coffee to improve cardiovascular health,” added Dr. Lichtenstein, director and senior scientist at the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University, Boston.

But if people already drink coffee, “it is fine to continue, assuming that the coffee drinks are not high in added sugar and cream,” she said in an interview.
 

Coffee intake, CVD outcomes, and heart structure

To study the relationship between coffee intake and incident MI, stroke, and death, as well as heart structure, the researchers examined data from the UK Biobank, which recruited 500,000 people aged 40-69 years in 2006-2010 from across the United Kingdom.

They identified 468,629 participants with no signs of heart disease at recruitment and an average age of 56 years, of whom 56% were women.

The participants were divided into three groups based on usual coffee intake: none (22% of participants), light-to-moderate (58%), and high (20%).

Median tea intake was three cups per day overall, four cups per day in noncoffee drinkers, three cups per day in light-to-moderate coffee drinkers, and one cup per day in high coffee drinkers.

Compared to not drinking coffee, light-to-moderate coffee consumption was associated with lower risks for all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; P < .001), CVD death (HR, 0.83; P = .006), and stroke (HR, 0.79; P = .037), over a median follow-up of 11 years, after adjustment for sex; weight; height; smoking status; physical activity; high blood pressure; diabetes; cholesterol level; socioeconomic status; and usual intake of alcohol, meat, tea, fruit, and vegetables.  

In the 30,650 participants who had cardiac MRI data, the study found that compared with not drinking coffee, both light-to-moderate and high coffee consumption were associated with significantly increased left and right ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes, and with greater left ventricular mass (all P < .001).

These differences were small but significant, Dr. Simon stressed, because this was a cohort of healthy patients who did not have CVD (heart failure, MI, stroke, AF) at baseline, although some had hypertension or diabetes.

Press conference chairperson, Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, professor and cardiologist, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, a coffee lover himself, wanted to know if an amount such as two, three, or four cups of coffee was optimal to see these heart benefits, and whether there were differences in benefits seen with drinking different types of coffee.

The analysis did not identify an optimal coffee intake, Dr. Simon said. Compared with not drinking coffee, she continued, drinking instant coffee was associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality, but not CVD mortality or stroke.

Drinking filtered coffee was associated with lower risks for all three outcomes, but there was no significant difference in risk for MI. Drinking decaffeinated coffee was associated with a lower risk for all-cause and CVD mortality.

“Decaffeinated coffee contains a small amount of caffeine,” Dr. Simon pointed out. “Something other than caffeine might have this protective impact,” she suggested.

The researchers and Dr. Lichtenstein declared having no relevant financial disclosures.  

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

Artificial intelligence (AI)–powered neural networks modeled on real human brain connectivity patterns perform cognitive tasks better than traditional AI systems, new research suggests. “This work opens new opportunities to discover how the network organization of the brain optimizes cognitive capacity,” wrote researchers from The Neuro (Montreal Neurological Institute–Hospital) and the Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute.

Courtesy Dr. Bratislav Misic

Senior investigator Bratislav Misic, PhD, said the research has potential clinical application for studying diseases of the brain, which is something his team is actively working on. “For example, using MRI techniques, we can measure different patterns of atrophy in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.

“We can use these disease patterns from real patients to artificially lesion these connectomes and to ask how a particular disease causes a particular pattern of symptoms and cognitive deficits,” he added.

The findings were published online in Nature Machine Intelligence.

Unique approach

Using brain imaging data, the investigators reconstructed a human brain connectivity pattern and applied it to an artificial neural network. After training, the artificial neural network successfully performed a working memory task more flexibly and efficiently than other “benchmark” AI systems.

The researchers noted that their approach is unique because previous work on brain connectivity, also known as connectomics, has focused on describing brain organization without regard to how it actually functions.

Traditional artificial neural network have arbitrary structures that do not reflect how real brain networks are organized. Integrating brain connectomics into the construction of artificial neural network can reveal how the wiring of the brain supports specific cognitive skills, the investigators wrote.

“Up until now, if you look at how neural networks are constructed, the architectures that are used are very ad hoc and very problem specific,” Dr. Misic said. “But the connectomics revolution that’s happened in neuroscience over the past 20 years or so has given us the ability to really measure and trace out connection patterns in a variety of organisms, including the human brain.”

He noted that the researchers took wiring patterns of the real human brain and implemented it as an artificial neural network. They then “trained that network to perform a very simple cognitive task, and when you compare it to other benchmark architectures, it actually does better.”

This shows that there is “something fundamentally different about how the human brain is wired up and that the design principles that we can see in the human brain could be used to potentially build better artificial networks,” Dr. Misic concluded.

Funding for the research was provided by the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains, Healthy Lives initiative, and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Fonds de Recherche du Quebec – Santé, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Canada Research Chairs, Fonds de Recherche du Quebec – Nature et Technologies, and the Centre UNIQUE (Union of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence). The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Artificial intelligence (AI)–powered neural networks modeled on real human brain connectivity patterns perform cognitive tasks better than traditional AI systems, new research suggests. “This work opens new opportunities to discover how the network organization of the brain optimizes cognitive capacity,” wrote researchers from The Neuro (Montreal Neurological Institute–Hospital) and the Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute.

Courtesy Dr. Bratislav Misic

Senior investigator Bratislav Misic, PhD, said the research has potential clinical application for studying diseases of the brain, which is something his team is actively working on. “For example, using MRI techniques, we can measure different patterns of atrophy in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.

“We can use these disease patterns from real patients to artificially lesion these connectomes and to ask how a particular disease causes a particular pattern of symptoms and cognitive deficits,” he added.

The findings were published online in Nature Machine Intelligence.

Unique approach

Using brain imaging data, the investigators reconstructed a human brain connectivity pattern and applied it to an artificial neural network. After training, the artificial neural network successfully performed a working memory task more flexibly and efficiently than other “benchmark” AI systems.

The researchers noted that their approach is unique because previous work on brain connectivity, also known as connectomics, has focused on describing brain organization without regard to how it actually functions.

Traditional artificial neural network have arbitrary structures that do not reflect how real brain networks are organized. Integrating brain connectomics into the construction of artificial neural network can reveal how the wiring of the brain supports specific cognitive skills, the investigators wrote.

“Up until now, if you look at how neural networks are constructed, the architectures that are used are very ad hoc and very problem specific,” Dr. Misic said. “But the connectomics revolution that’s happened in neuroscience over the past 20 years or so has given us the ability to really measure and trace out connection patterns in a variety of organisms, including the human brain.”

He noted that the researchers took wiring patterns of the real human brain and implemented it as an artificial neural network. They then “trained that network to perform a very simple cognitive task, and when you compare it to other benchmark architectures, it actually does better.”

This shows that there is “something fundamentally different about how the human brain is wired up and that the design principles that we can see in the human brain could be used to potentially build better artificial networks,” Dr. Misic concluded.

Funding for the research was provided by the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains, Healthy Lives initiative, and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Fonds de Recherche du Quebec – Santé, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Canada Research Chairs, Fonds de Recherche du Quebec – Nature et Technologies, and the Centre UNIQUE (Union of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence). The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Artificial intelligence (AI)–powered neural networks modeled on real human brain connectivity patterns perform cognitive tasks better than traditional AI systems, new research suggests. “This work opens new opportunities to discover how the network organization of the brain optimizes cognitive capacity,” wrote researchers from The Neuro (Montreal Neurological Institute–Hospital) and the Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute.

Courtesy Dr. Bratislav Misic

Senior investigator Bratislav Misic, PhD, said the research has potential clinical application for studying diseases of the brain, which is something his team is actively working on. “For example, using MRI techniques, we can measure different patterns of atrophy in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.

“We can use these disease patterns from real patients to artificially lesion these connectomes and to ask how a particular disease causes a particular pattern of symptoms and cognitive deficits,” he added.

The findings were published online in Nature Machine Intelligence.

Unique approach

Using brain imaging data, the investigators reconstructed a human brain connectivity pattern and applied it to an artificial neural network. After training, the artificial neural network successfully performed a working memory task more flexibly and efficiently than other “benchmark” AI systems.

The researchers noted that their approach is unique because previous work on brain connectivity, also known as connectomics, has focused on describing brain organization without regard to how it actually functions.

Traditional artificial neural network have arbitrary structures that do not reflect how real brain networks are organized. Integrating brain connectomics into the construction of artificial neural network can reveal how the wiring of the brain supports specific cognitive skills, the investigators wrote.

“Up until now, if you look at how neural networks are constructed, the architectures that are used are very ad hoc and very problem specific,” Dr. Misic said. “But the connectomics revolution that’s happened in neuroscience over the past 20 years or so has given us the ability to really measure and trace out connection patterns in a variety of organisms, including the human brain.”

He noted that the researchers took wiring patterns of the real human brain and implemented it as an artificial neural network. They then “trained that network to perform a very simple cognitive task, and when you compare it to other benchmark architectures, it actually does better.”

This shows that there is “something fundamentally different about how the human brain is wired up and that the design principles that we can see in the human brain could be used to potentially build better artificial networks,” Dr. Misic concluded.

Funding for the research was provided by the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains, Healthy Lives initiative, and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Fonds de Recherche du Quebec – Santé, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Canada Research Chairs, Fonds de Recherche du Quebec – Nature et Technologies, and the Centre UNIQUE (Union of Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence). The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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