Neurology Reviews

A dyadic telehealth intervention to help people with dementia and their caregivers can achieve outcomes similar to those of traditional, in-person approaches. The program combines information, education, and skills training to help participants overcome specific challenges.

“It focuses on individualized problem solving and is tailored to the needs of the person. The focus is not just on educating caregivers, but working on strategies to maintain independence in the person with dementia and support them to remain active and engaged,” said Kate Laver, PhD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference. Dr. Laver is an associate professor in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia.

The program is called Care of Persons with Dementia in Their Environments (COPE), and has previously been demonstrated to improve outcomes when conducted through in-person home visits. Over a maximum of ten sessions in 4 months, COPE employs occupational therapists and individuals with nursing skills to identify environmental stressors that can be modified to reduce sensory, physical, and cognitive demands. It also looks for comorbidities in the person with dementia that could be contributing to poor functioning. The goal of COPE is to encourage the person with dementia to reengage in daily activities, and to reduce caregiver burden as a result.

In a 2020 study, Dr. Laver and colleagues showed that COPE is noninferior when delivered by telehealth compared with in-person delivery. They randomized 63 caregiver-patient dyads to telehealth or home visit delivery of the COPE program. Sixty percent of the persons with dementia were male, and the mean caregiver time was 32 months.

Similar improvements in outcomes were seen in both groups, with no statistically significant differences for the primary outcome of change in Caregiver Mastery Index score at 4 months (mean difference, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, –1.26 to 1.45). Similar changes were also seen in the Perceived Change Scale, which is a 13-item caregiver questionnaire that covers day-to-day care challenges, including feeling overwhelmed or upset, sleeping patterns, and availability of personal time.

Not surprisingly, telehealth implementation led to reduced mean travel time (77.2 minutes vs. 255.9 minutes; P < .0001). The face-to-face time was shorter in the telehealth group (308 vs. 337 minutes), though the difference was not statistically significant. Dr. Laver noted that the consent rate was high at 75%, but there were some missed sessions.
 

Lessons learned

During the presentation, Dr. Laver emphasized some lessons learned from conversion to a telehealth model. These included providing a tablet and stand on loan, a user guide with pictures, and an initial on-site training session. The first two sessions were conducted on site to do an in-person demonstration and to assess the participants and the home environment.

She noted that it was important to have an IT support person on call to help participants use the provided tablet if needed, though this was rarely used.

“Although few people (at the time) had their own devices, they were able to quickly master videoconferencing. We felt that it was important to ensure that the first couple of consultations were in person – this enabled the therapist to develop rapport, practice use of videoconferencing, and get a good idea of the person’s environment and relationship with the person with dementia,” said Dr. Laver.

She noted that telehealth can be more efficient, and even preferred, during times like the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as in rural settings. But home visits will always be needed. “They are important for developing rapport and enabling a comprehensive assessment of the person with dementia, relationships, and environment. They are also preferred by some caregivers,” said Dr. Laver.

The demonstration of equivalence to in-person delivery was welcome, said Ingo Kilimann, MD, who comoderated the session where Dr. Laver presented. “We have to bring help to the families where they are, and not just tell them where they can get the help, because some people are just not able to actually come to some specialists’ centers. So it’s very important information that it does work,” said Dr. Kilimann, who is a dementia neurologist and head of the memory clinic at the The German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases in Bonn.

He added that mixing of on-site and remote sessions is a good model. “I think that is the way to be most effective – to have someone in person at the person with dementia’s house, and then have online support for the rest of the time, and then it can be as successful as a total in-person intervention,” said Dr. Kilimann.

Dr. Laver had no relevant financial disclosures.

A dyadic telehealth intervention to help people with dementia and their caregivers can achieve outcomes similar to those of traditional, in-person approaches. The program combines information, education, and skills training to help participants overcome specific challenges.

“It focuses on individualized problem solving and is tailored to the needs of the person. The focus is not just on educating caregivers, but working on strategies to maintain independence in the person with dementia and support them to remain active and engaged,” said Kate Laver, PhD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference. Dr. Laver is an associate professor in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia.

The program is called Care of Persons with Dementia in Their Environments (COPE), and has previously been demonstrated to improve outcomes when conducted through in-person home visits. Over a maximum of ten sessions in 4 months, COPE employs occupational therapists and individuals with nursing skills to identify environmental stressors that can be modified to reduce sensory, physical, and cognitive demands. It also looks for comorbidities in the person with dementia that could be contributing to poor functioning. The goal of COPE is to encourage the person with dementia to reengage in daily activities, and to reduce caregiver burden as a result.

In a 2020 study, Dr. Laver and colleagues showed that COPE is noninferior when delivered by telehealth compared with in-person delivery. They randomized 63 caregiver-patient dyads to telehealth or home visit delivery of the COPE program. Sixty percent of the persons with dementia were male, and the mean caregiver time was 32 months.

Similar improvements in outcomes were seen in both groups, with no statistically significant differences for the primary outcome of change in Caregiver Mastery Index score at 4 months (mean difference, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, –1.26 to 1.45). Similar changes were also seen in the Perceived Change Scale, which is a 13-item caregiver questionnaire that covers day-to-day care challenges, including feeling overwhelmed or upset, sleeping patterns, and availability of personal time.

Not surprisingly, telehealth implementation led to reduced mean travel time (77.2 minutes vs. 255.9 minutes; P < .0001). The face-to-face time was shorter in the telehealth group (308 vs. 337 minutes), though the difference was not statistically significant. Dr. Laver noted that the consent rate was high at 75%, but there were some missed sessions.
 

Lessons learned

During the presentation, Dr. Laver emphasized some lessons learned from conversion to a telehealth model. These included providing a tablet and stand on loan, a user guide with pictures, and an initial on-site training session. The first two sessions were conducted on site to do an in-person demonstration and to assess the participants and the home environment.

She noted that it was important to have an IT support person on call to help participants use the provided tablet if needed, though this was rarely used.

“Although few people (at the time) had their own devices, they were able to quickly master videoconferencing. We felt that it was important to ensure that the first couple of consultations were in person – this enabled the therapist to develop rapport, practice use of videoconferencing, and get a good idea of the person’s environment and relationship with the person with dementia,” said Dr. Laver.

She noted that telehealth can be more efficient, and even preferred, during times like the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as in rural settings. But home visits will always be needed. “They are important for developing rapport and enabling a comprehensive assessment of the person with dementia, relationships, and environment. They are also preferred by some caregivers,” said Dr. Laver.

The demonstration of equivalence to in-person delivery was welcome, said Ingo Kilimann, MD, who comoderated the session where Dr. Laver presented. “We have to bring help to the families where they are, and not just tell them where they can get the help, because some people are just not able to actually come to some specialists’ centers. So it’s very important information that it does work,” said Dr. Kilimann, who is a dementia neurologist and head of the memory clinic at the The German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases in Bonn.

He added that mixing of on-site and remote sessions is a good model. “I think that is the way to be most effective – to have someone in person at the person with dementia’s house, and then have online support for the rest of the time, and then it can be as successful as a total in-person intervention,” said Dr. Kilimann.

Dr. Laver had no relevant financial disclosures.

A dyadic telehealth intervention to help people with dementia and their caregivers can achieve outcomes similar to those of traditional, in-person approaches. The program combines information, education, and skills training to help participants overcome specific challenges.

“It focuses on individualized problem solving and is tailored to the needs of the person. The focus is not just on educating caregivers, but working on strategies to maintain independence in the person with dementia and support them to remain active and engaged,” said Kate Laver, PhD, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference. Dr. Laver is an associate professor in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia.

The program is called Care of Persons with Dementia in Their Environments (COPE), and has previously been demonstrated to improve outcomes when conducted through in-person home visits. Over a maximum of ten sessions in 4 months, COPE employs occupational therapists and individuals with nursing skills to identify environmental stressors that can be modified to reduce sensory, physical, and cognitive demands. It also looks for comorbidities in the person with dementia that could be contributing to poor functioning. The goal of COPE is to encourage the person with dementia to reengage in daily activities, and to reduce caregiver burden as a result.

In a 2020 study, Dr. Laver and colleagues showed that COPE is noninferior when delivered by telehealth compared with in-person delivery. They randomized 63 caregiver-patient dyads to telehealth or home visit delivery of the COPE program. Sixty percent of the persons with dementia were male, and the mean caregiver time was 32 months.

Similar improvements in outcomes were seen in both groups, with no statistically significant differences for the primary outcome of change in Caregiver Mastery Index score at 4 months (mean difference, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, –1.26 to 1.45). Similar changes were also seen in the Perceived Change Scale, which is a 13-item caregiver questionnaire that covers day-to-day care challenges, including feeling overwhelmed or upset, sleeping patterns, and availability of personal time.

Not surprisingly, telehealth implementation led to reduced mean travel time (77.2 minutes vs. 255.9 minutes; P < .0001). The face-to-face time was shorter in the telehealth group (308 vs. 337 minutes), though the difference was not statistically significant. Dr. Laver noted that the consent rate was high at 75%, but there were some missed sessions.
 

Lessons learned

During the presentation, Dr. Laver emphasized some lessons learned from conversion to a telehealth model. These included providing a tablet and stand on loan, a user guide with pictures, and an initial on-site training session. The first two sessions were conducted on site to do an in-person demonstration and to assess the participants and the home environment.

She noted that it was important to have an IT support person on call to help participants use the provided tablet if needed, though this was rarely used.

“Although few people (at the time) had their own devices, they were able to quickly master videoconferencing. We felt that it was important to ensure that the first couple of consultations were in person – this enabled the therapist to develop rapport, practice use of videoconferencing, and get a good idea of the person’s environment and relationship with the person with dementia,” said Dr. Laver.

She noted that telehealth can be more efficient, and even preferred, during times like the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as in rural settings. But home visits will always be needed. “They are important for developing rapport and enabling a comprehensive assessment of the person with dementia, relationships, and environment. They are also preferred by some caregivers,” said Dr. Laver.

The demonstration of equivalence to in-person delivery was welcome, said Ingo Kilimann, MD, who comoderated the session where Dr. Laver presented. “We have to bring help to the families where they are, and not just tell them where they can get the help, because some people are just not able to actually come to some specialists’ centers. So it’s very important information that it does work,” said Dr. Kilimann, who is a dementia neurologist and head of the memory clinic at the The German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases in Bonn.

He added that mixing of on-site and remote sessions is a good model. “I think that is the way to be most effective – to have someone in person at the person with dementia’s house, and then have online support for the rest of the time, and then it can be as successful as a total in-person intervention,” said Dr. Kilimann.

Dr. Laver had no relevant financial disclosures.

When a child presents with café au lait macules, when is genetic testing for neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) advised?

According to Peter Kannu, MB, ChB, DCH, PhD, a definitive diagnosis of NF1 can be made in most children using National Institutes of Health criteria published in 1988, which include the presence of two of the following:

• Six or more café au lait macules over 5 mm in diameter in prepubertal individuals and over 15 mm in greatest diameter in postpubertal individuals
• Two or more neurofibromas of any type or one plexiform neurofibroma
• Freckling in the axillary or inguinal regions
• Two or more Lisch nodules
• Optic glioma
• A distinctive osseous lesion such as sphenoid dysplasia or thinning of long bone cortex, with or without pseudarthrosis
• Having a first-degree relative with NF1

For example, in the case of an 8-year-old child who presents with multiple café au lait macules, axillary and inguinal freckling, Lisch nodules, and an optic glioma, “the diagnosis is secure and genetic testing is not going to change clinical management or surveillance,” Dr. Kannu, a clinical geneticist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “The only reason for genetic testing in this situation is so that we know the mutation in order to inform reproductive risk counseling in the future.”

However, while a diagnosis of NF1 may be suspected in a 6- to 12-month-old presenting with only café au lait macules, “the diagnosis is not secure because the clinical criteria cannot be met. In this situation, a genetic test can speed up the diagnosis,” he added. “Or, if the test is negative, it can decrease your suspicion for NF1 and you wouldn’t refer the child on to an NF1 screening clinic for intensive surveillance.”

Dr. Kannu based his remarks largely on his 5 years working at the multidisciplinary Genodermatoses Clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. Founded in 2015, the clinic is a “one-stop shop” designed to reduce the wait time for diagnosis and management and the number of hospital visits. The team – composed of a dermatologist, medical geneticist, genetic counselor, residents, and fellows – meets to review the charts of each patient before the appointment, and decides on a preliminary management plan. All children are then seen by one of the trainees in the clinic who devises a differential diagnosis that is presented to staff physicians, at which point genetic testing is decided on. A genetics counselor handles follow-up for those who do have genetic testing.

In 2018, Dr. Kannu and colleagues conducted an informal review of 300 patients who had been seen in the clinic. The mean age at referral was about 6 years, 51% were female, and the top three referral sources were pediatricians (51%), dermatologists (18%), and family physicians (18%). Of the 300 children, 84 (28%) were confirmed to have a diagnosis of NF1. Two patients were diagnosed with NF2 and 5% of the total cohort was diagnosed with mosaic NF1 (MNF1), “which is higher than what you would expect based on the incidence of MNF1 in the literature,” he said.

He separates genetic tests for NF1 into one of two categories: Conventional testing, which is offered by most labs in North America; and comprehensive testing, which is offered by the medical genomics lab at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Conventional testing focuses on the exons, “the protein coding regions of the gene where most of the mutations lie,” he said. “The test also sequences about 20 base pairs or so of the intron exon boundary and may pick up some intronic mutations. But this test will not detect anything that’s hidden deep in the intronic region.”

Comprehensive testing, meanwhile, checks for mutations in both introns and exons.

Dr. Kannu and colleagues published a case of a paraspinal ganglioneuroma in the proband of a large family with mild cutaneous manifestations of NF1, carrying a deep NF1 intronic mutation. “The clinicians were suspicious that this was NF1, rightly so. The diagnosis was only confirmed after we sent samples to the University of Alabama lab where the deep intronic mutation was found,” he said.

The other situation where conventional genetic testing may be negative is in the case of MNF1, where there “are mutations in some cells but not all cells,” Dr. Kannu explained. “It may only be present in the melanocytes of the skin but not present in the lymphocytes in the blood. Mosaicism is characterized by the regional distribution of pigmentary or other NF1 associated findings. Mosaicism may be detected in the blood if it’s more than 20%. Anything less than that is not detected with conventional genetic testing using DNA from blood and requires extracting DNA from a punch biopsy sample of a café au lait macule.”

The differential diagnosis of café au lait macules includes several conditions associated mutations in the RAS pathway. “Neurofibromin is a key signal of molecules which regulates the activation of RAS,” Dr. Kannu said. “A close binding partner of NF1 is SPRED 1. We know that mutations in this gene cause Legius syndrome, a condition which presents with multiple café au lait macules.”

Two key receptors in the RAS pathway include EGFR and KITL, he continued. Mutations in the EGFR receptor cause a rare condition known as neonatal skin and bowel disease, while mutations in the KITL receptor cause familial progressive hyperpigmentation with or without hypopigmentation. “Looking into the pathway and focusing downstream of RAS, we have genes such as RAF and CBL, which are mutated in Noonan syndrome,” he said. “Further along in the pathway you have mutations in PTEN, which cause Cowden syndrome, and mutations in TSC1 and TSC2, which cause tuberous sclerosis. Mutations in any of these genes can also present with café au lait macules.”

During a question-and-answer session Dr. Kannu was asked to comment about revised diagnostic criteria for NF1 based on an international consensus recommendation, such as changes in the eye that require a formal opthalmologic examination, which were recently published.

“We are understanding more about the phenotype,” he said. “If you fulfill diagnostic criteria for NF1, the main reasons for doing genetic testing are, one, if the family wants to know that information, and two, it informs our reproductive risk counseling. Genotype-phenotype correlations do exist in NF1 but they’re not very robust, so that information is not clinically useful.”

Dr. Kannu disclosed that he has been an advisory board member for Ipsen, Novartis, and Alexion. He has also been a primary investigator for QED and Clementia.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

When a child presents with café au lait macules, when is genetic testing for neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) advised?

According to Peter Kannu, MB, ChB, DCH, PhD, a definitive diagnosis of NF1 can be made in most children using National Institutes of Health criteria published in 1988, which include the presence of two of the following:

• Six or more café au lait macules over 5 mm in diameter in prepubertal individuals and over 15 mm in greatest diameter in postpubertal individuals
• Two or more neurofibromas of any type or one plexiform neurofibroma
• Freckling in the axillary or inguinal regions
• Two or more Lisch nodules
• Optic glioma
• A distinctive osseous lesion such as sphenoid dysplasia or thinning of long bone cortex, with or without pseudarthrosis
• Having a first-degree relative with NF1

For example, in the case of an 8-year-old child who presents with multiple café au lait macules, axillary and inguinal freckling, Lisch nodules, and an optic glioma, “the diagnosis is secure and genetic testing is not going to change clinical management or surveillance,” Dr. Kannu, a clinical geneticist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “The only reason for genetic testing in this situation is so that we know the mutation in order to inform reproductive risk counseling in the future.”

However, while a diagnosis of NF1 may be suspected in a 6- to 12-month-old presenting with only café au lait macules, “the diagnosis is not secure because the clinical criteria cannot be met. In this situation, a genetic test can speed up the diagnosis,” he added. “Or, if the test is negative, it can decrease your suspicion for NF1 and you wouldn’t refer the child on to an NF1 screening clinic for intensive surveillance.”

Dr. Kannu based his remarks largely on his 5 years working at the multidisciplinary Genodermatoses Clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. Founded in 2015, the clinic is a “one-stop shop” designed to reduce the wait time for diagnosis and management and the number of hospital visits. The team – composed of a dermatologist, medical geneticist, genetic counselor, residents, and fellows – meets to review the charts of each patient before the appointment, and decides on a preliminary management plan. All children are then seen by one of the trainees in the clinic who devises a differential diagnosis that is presented to staff physicians, at which point genetic testing is decided on. A genetics counselor handles follow-up for those who do have genetic testing.

In 2018, Dr. Kannu and colleagues conducted an informal review of 300 patients who had been seen in the clinic. The mean age at referral was about 6 years, 51% were female, and the top three referral sources were pediatricians (51%), dermatologists (18%), and family physicians (18%). Of the 300 children, 84 (28%) were confirmed to have a diagnosis of NF1. Two patients were diagnosed with NF2 and 5% of the total cohort was diagnosed with mosaic NF1 (MNF1), “which is higher than what you would expect based on the incidence of MNF1 in the literature,” he said.

He separates genetic tests for NF1 into one of two categories: Conventional testing, which is offered by most labs in North America; and comprehensive testing, which is offered by the medical genomics lab at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Conventional testing focuses on the exons, “the protein coding regions of the gene where most of the mutations lie,” he said. “The test also sequences about 20 base pairs or so of the intron exon boundary and may pick up some intronic mutations. But this test will not detect anything that’s hidden deep in the intronic region.”

Comprehensive testing, meanwhile, checks for mutations in both introns and exons.

Dr. Kannu and colleagues published a case of a paraspinal ganglioneuroma in the proband of a large family with mild cutaneous manifestations of NF1, carrying a deep NF1 intronic mutation. “The clinicians were suspicious that this was NF1, rightly so. The diagnosis was only confirmed after we sent samples to the University of Alabama lab where the deep intronic mutation was found,” he said.

The other situation where conventional genetic testing may be negative is in the case of MNF1, where there “are mutations in some cells but not all cells,” Dr. Kannu explained. “It may only be present in the melanocytes of the skin but not present in the lymphocytes in the blood. Mosaicism is characterized by the regional distribution of pigmentary or other NF1 associated findings. Mosaicism may be detected in the blood if it’s more than 20%. Anything less than that is not detected with conventional genetic testing using DNA from blood and requires extracting DNA from a punch biopsy sample of a café au lait macule.”

The differential diagnosis of café au lait macules includes several conditions associated mutations in the RAS pathway. “Neurofibromin is a key signal of molecules which regulates the activation of RAS,” Dr. Kannu said. “A close binding partner of NF1 is SPRED 1. We know that mutations in this gene cause Legius syndrome, a condition which presents with multiple café au lait macules.”

Two key receptors in the RAS pathway include EGFR and KITL, he continued. Mutations in the EGFR receptor cause a rare condition known as neonatal skin and bowel disease, while mutations in the KITL receptor cause familial progressive hyperpigmentation with or without hypopigmentation. “Looking into the pathway and focusing downstream of RAS, we have genes such as RAF and CBL, which are mutated in Noonan syndrome,” he said. “Further along in the pathway you have mutations in PTEN, which cause Cowden syndrome, and mutations in TSC1 and TSC2, which cause tuberous sclerosis. Mutations in any of these genes can also present with café au lait macules.”

During a question-and-answer session Dr. Kannu was asked to comment about revised diagnostic criteria for NF1 based on an international consensus recommendation, such as changes in the eye that require a formal opthalmologic examination, which were recently published.

“We are understanding more about the phenotype,” he said. “If you fulfill diagnostic criteria for NF1, the main reasons for doing genetic testing are, one, if the family wants to know that information, and two, it informs our reproductive risk counseling. Genotype-phenotype correlations do exist in NF1 but they’re not very robust, so that information is not clinically useful.”

Dr. Kannu disclosed that he has been an advisory board member for Ipsen, Novartis, and Alexion. He has also been a primary investigator for QED and Clementia.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

When a child presents with café au lait macules, when is genetic testing for neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) advised?

According to Peter Kannu, MB, ChB, DCH, PhD, a definitive diagnosis of NF1 can be made in most children using National Institutes of Health criteria published in 1988, which include the presence of two of the following:

• Six or more café au lait macules over 5 mm in diameter in prepubertal individuals and over 15 mm in greatest diameter in postpubertal individuals
• Two or more neurofibromas of any type or one plexiform neurofibroma
• Freckling in the axillary or inguinal regions
• Two or more Lisch nodules
• Optic glioma
• A distinctive osseous lesion such as sphenoid dysplasia or thinning of long bone cortex, with or without pseudarthrosis
• Having a first-degree relative with NF1

For example, in the case of an 8-year-old child who presents with multiple café au lait macules, axillary and inguinal freckling, Lisch nodules, and an optic glioma, “the diagnosis is secure and genetic testing is not going to change clinical management or surveillance,” Dr. Kannu, a clinical geneticist at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “The only reason for genetic testing in this situation is so that we know the mutation in order to inform reproductive risk counseling in the future.”

However, while a diagnosis of NF1 may be suspected in a 6- to 12-month-old presenting with only café au lait macules, “the diagnosis is not secure because the clinical criteria cannot be met. In this situation, a genetic test can speed up the diagnosis,” he added. “Or, if the test is negative, it can decrease your suspicion for NF1 and you wouldn’t refer the child on to an NF1 screening clinic for intensive surveillance.”

Dr. Kannu based his remarks largely on his 5 years working at the multidisciplinary Genodermatoses Clinic at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. Founded in 2015, the clinic is a “one-stop shop” designed to reduce the wait time for diagnosis and management and the number of hospital visits. The team – composed of a dermatologist, medical geneticist, genetic counselor, residents, and fellows – meets to review the charts of each patient before the appointment, and decides on a preliminary management plan. All children are then seen by one of the trainees in the clinic who devises a differential diagnosis that is presented to staff physicians, at which point genetic testing is decided on. A genetics counselor handles follow-up for those who do have genetic testing.

In 2018, Dr. Kannu and colleagues conducted an informal review of 300 patients who had been seen in the clinic. The mean age at referral was about 6 years, 51% were female, and the top three referral sources were pediatricians (51%), dermatologists (18%), and family physicians (18%). Of the 300 children, 84 (28%) were confirmed to have a diagnosis of NF1. Two patients were diagnosed with NF2 and 5% of the total cohort was diagnosed with mosaic NF1 (MNF1), “which is higher than what you would expect based on the incidence of MNF1 in the literature,” he said.

He separates genetic tests for NF1 into one of two categories: Conventional testing, which is offered by most labs in North America; and comprehensive testing, which is offered by the medical genomics lab at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Conventional testing focuses on the exons, “the protein coding regions of the gene where most of the mutations lie,” he said. “The test also sequences about 20 base pairs or so of the intron exon boundary and may pick up some intronic mutations. But this test will not detect anything that’s hidden deep in the intronic region.”

Comprehensive testing, meanwhile, checks for mutations in both introns and exons.

Dr. Kannu and colleagues published a case of a paraspinal ganglioneuroma in the proband of a large family with mild cutaneous manifestations of NF1, carrying a deep NF1 intronic mutation. “The clinicians were suspicious that this was NF1, rightly so. The diagnosis was only confirmed after we sent samples to the University of Alabama lab where the deep intronic mutation was found,” he said.

The other situation where conventional genetic testing may be negative is in the case of MNF1, where there “are mutations in some cells but not all cells,” Dr. Kannu explained. “It may only be present in the melanocytes of the skin but not present in the lymphocytes in the blood. Mosaicism is characterized by the regional distribution of pigmentary or other NF1 associated findings. Mosaicism may be detected in the blood if it’s more than 20%. Anything less than that is not detected with conventional genetic testing using DNA from blood and requires extracting DNA from a punch biopsy sample of a café au lait macule.”

The differential diagnosis of café au lait macules includes several conditions associated mutations in the RAS pathway. “Neurofibromin is a key signal of molecules which regulates the activation of RAS,” Dr. Kannu said. “A close binding partner of NF1 is SPRED 1. We know that mutations in this gene cause Legius syndrome, a condition which presents with multiple café au lait macules.”

Two key receptors in the RAS pathway include EGFR and KITL, he continued. Mutations in the EGFR receptor cause a rare condition known as neonatal skin and bowel disease, while mutations in the KITL receptor cause familial progressive hyperpigmentation with or without hypopigmentation. “Looking into the pathway and focusing downstream of RAS, we have genes such as RAF and CBL, which are mutated in Noonan syndrome,” he said. “Further along in the pathway you have mutations in PTEN, which cause Cowden syndrome, and mutations in TSC1 and TSC2, which cause tuberous sclerosis. Mutations in any of these genes can also present with café au lait macules.”

During a question-and-answer session Dr. Kannu was asked to comment about revised diagnostic criteria for NF1 based on an international consensus recommendation, such as changes in the eye that require a formal opthalmologic examination, which were recently published.

“We are understanding more about the phenotype,” he said. “If you fulfill diagnostic criteria for NF1, the main reasons for doing genetic testing are, one, if the family wants to know that information, and two, it informs our reproductive risk counseling. Genotype-phenotype correlations do exist in NF1 but they’re not very robust, so that information is not clinically useful.”

Dr. Kannu disclosed that he has been an advisory board member for Ipsen, Novartis, and Alexion. He has also been a primary investigator for QED and Clementia.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

For the sixth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., claimed the No. 1 spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals published July 27 by U.S. News & World Report.
 

This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.

With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.

Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.

The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.

“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.

“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.

Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops

Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.

UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.

In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.

Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
 

2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix

16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston

17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis

17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.

At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty

For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
 

Top five for cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston

5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

Top five for orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York

5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report is available online.

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

For the sixth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., claimed the No. 1 spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals published July 27 by U.S. News & World Report.
 

This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.

With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.

Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.

The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.

“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.

“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.

Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops

Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.

UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.

In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.

Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
 

2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix

16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston

17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis

17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.

At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty

For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
 

Top five for cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston

5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

Top five for orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York

5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report is available online.

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

For the sixth consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., claimed the No. 1 spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals published July 27 by U.S. News & World Report.
 

This year’s expanded report debuts new ratings for seven “important procedures and conditions to help patients, in consultation with their doctors, narrow down their choice of hospital based on the specific type of care they need,” Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis, said in a news release.

With new ratings for myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture, and back surgery (spinal fusion), the report now ranks 17 procedures and conditions.

Also new to the 2021 report, which marks the 32nd edition, is a look at racial disparities in health care and the inclusion of health equity measures alongside the hospital rankings.

The new measures examine whether the patients each hospital has treated reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the surrounding community, among other aspects of health equity.

“At roughly four out of five hospitals, we found that the community’s minority residents were underrepresented among patients receiving services such as joint replacement, cancer surgery and common heart procedures,” Mr. Harder said.

“Against this backdrop, however, we found important exceptions – hospitals that provide care to a disproportionate share of their community’s minority residents. These metrics are just a beginning; we aim to expand on our measurement of health equity in the future,” Mr. Harder added.

Mayo and Cleveland Clinic remain tops

Following the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic once again takes the No. 2 spot in the magazine’s latest annual honor roll of best hospitals, which highlights hospitals that deliver exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.

UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, holds the No. 3 spot in 2021. In 2020, UCLA Medical Center and New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York, sat in a tie at No. 4.

In 2021, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the No. 3 spot in 2020, drops to No. 4, while Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston takes the No. 5 spot, up from No. 6 in 2020.

Rounding out the top 10 (in order) are Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; NYU Langone Hospitals, New York; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; and Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.
 

2021-2022 Best Hospitals honor roll

1. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

2. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

3. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore

5. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston

6. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, San Francisco

7. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

8. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

9. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco

10. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago

11. University of Michigan Hospitals–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor.

12. Stanford Health Care–Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia

14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

15. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix, Phoenix

16. Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston

17. (tie) Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis

17. (tie) Mount Sinai Hospital, New York Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

19. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

20. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

For the 2021-2022 rankings and ratings, the magazine compared more than 4,750 hospitals nationwide in 15 specialties and 17 procedures and conditions.

At least 2,039 hospitals received a high performance rating in at least one of the services rated; 11 hospitals received high performance in all 17. A total of 175 hospitals were nationally ranked in at least one specialty

For specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center continues to hold the No. 1 spot in cancer care, the Hospital for Special Surgery continues to be No. 1 in orthopedics, and the Cleveland Clinic continues to be No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery.
 

Top five for cancer

1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York

3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

4. Dana-Farber/Brigham & Women’s Cancer Center, Boston

5. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

1. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York

5. NYU Langone Hospitals, New York

Top five for orthopedics

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York

2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

4. NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York

5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

The magazine noted that data for the 2021-2022 Best Hospitals rankings and ratings were not affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which began after the end of the data collection period.

The methodologies used in determining the rankings are based largely on objective measures, such as risk-adjusted survival, discharge-to-home rates, volume, and quality of nursing, among other care-related indicators.

The full report is available online.

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

As COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths mount again across the country, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nursing Association, and 54 other medical and allied healthcare associations released a joint statement calling on “all health care and long-term care employers” to require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

This injunction, issued July 26, covers everyone in healthcare, Emanuel Ezekiel, MD, PhD, chair of the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the organizer of the joint statement, said in an interview.

That includes not only hospitals, but also physician offices, ambulatory surgery centers, home care agencies, skilled nursing facilities, pharmacies, laboratories, and imaging centers, he said.

The exhortation to get vaccinated also extends to federal and state healthcare facilities, including those of the military health system — TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs — which instituted a mandate the same day.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) and other hospital groups recently said they supported hospitals and health systems that required their personnel to get vaccinated. Several dozen healthcare organizations have already done so, including some of the nation’s largest health systems.

A substantial fraction of U.S. healthcare workers have not yet gotten vaccinated, although how many are unvaccinated is unclear. An analysis by WebMD and Medscape Medical News estimated that 25% of hospital workers who had contact with patients were unvaccinated at the end of May.

More than 38% of nursing workers were not fully vaccinated by July 11, according to an analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data by LeadingAge, which was cited by the Washington Post. And more than 40% of nursing home employees have not been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The joint statement did not give any indication of how many employees of physician practices have failed to get COVID shots. However, a recent AMA survey shows that 96% of physicians have been fully vaccinated.
 

Ethical commitment

The main reason for vaccine mandates, according to the healthcare associations’ statement, is “the ethical commitment to put patients as well as residents of long-term care facilities first and take all steps necessary to ensure their health and well-being.”

In addition, the statement noted, vaccination can protect healthcare workers and their families from getting COVID-19.

The statement also pointed out that many healthcare and long-term care organizations already require vaccinations for influenza, hepatitis B, and pertussis.

Workers who have certain medical conditions should be exempt from the vaccination mandates, the statement added.

While recognizing the “historical mistrust of health care institutions” among some healthcare workers, the statement said, “We must continue to address workers’ concerns, engage with marginalized populations, and work with trusted messengers to improve vaccine acceptance.”

There has been some skepticism about the legality of requiring healthcare workers to get vaccinated as a condition of employment, partly because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet fully authorized any of the COVID-19 vaccines.

But in June, a federal judge turned down a legal challenge to Houston Methodist’s vaccination mandate.

“It is critical that all people in the health care workforce get vaccinated against COVID-19 for the safety of our patients and our colleagues. With more than 300 million doses administered in the United States and nearly 4 billion doses administered worldwide, we know the vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19.

“Increased vaccinations among health care personnel will not only reduce the spread of COVID-19 but also reduce the harmful toll this virus is taking within the health care workforce and those we are striving to serve,” Susan Bailey, MD, immediate past president of the AMA, said in a news release.

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

As COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths mount again across the country, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nursing Association, and 54 other medical and allied healthcare associations released a joint statement calling on “all health care and long-term care employers” to require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

This injunction, issued July 26, covers everyone in healthcare, Emanuel Ezekiel, MD, PhD, chair of the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the organizer of the joint statement, said in an interview.

That includes not only hospitals, but also physician offices, ambulatory surgery centers, home care agencies, skilled nursing facilities, pharmacies, laboratories, and imaging centers, he said.

The exhortation to get vaccinated also extends to federal and state healthcare facilities, including those of the military health system — TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs — which instituted a mandate the same day.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) and other hospital groups recently said they supported hospitals and health systems that required their personnel to get vaccinated. Several dozen healthcare organizations have already done so, including some of the nation’s largest health systems.

A substantial fraction of U.S. healthcare workers have not yet gotten vaccinated, although how many are unvaccinated is unclear. An analysis by WebMD and Medscape Medical News estimated that 25% of hospital workers who had contact with patients were unvaccinated at the end of May.

More than 38% of nursing workers were not fully vaccinated by July 11, according to an analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data by LeadingAge, which was cited by the Washington Post. And more than 40% of nursing home employees have not been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The joint statement did not give any indication of how many employees of physician practices have failed to get COVID shots. However, a recent AMA survey shows that 96% of physicians have been fully vaccinated.
 

Ethical commitment

The main reason for vaccine mandates, according to the healthcare associations’ statement, is “the ethical commitment to put patients as well as residents of long-term care facilities first and take all steps necessary to ensure their health and well-being.”

In addition, the statement noted, vaccination can protect healthcare workers and their families from getting COVID-19.

The statement also pointed out that many healthcare and long-term care organizations already require vaccinations for influenza, hepatitis B, and pertussis.

Workers who have certain medical conditions should be exempt from the vaccination mandates, the statement added.

While recognizing the “historical mistrust of health care institutions” among some healthcare workers, the statement said, “We must continue to address workers’ concerns, engage with marginalized populations, and work with trusted messengers to improve vaccine acceptance.”

There has been some skepticism about the legality of requiring healthcare workers to get vaccinated as a condition of employment, partly because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet fully authorized any of the COVID-19 vaccines.

But in June, a federal judge turned down a legal challenge to Houston Methodist’s vaccination mandate.

“It is critical that all people in the health care workforce get vaccinated against COVID-19 for the safety of our patients and our colleagues. With more than 300 million doses administered in the United States and nearly 4 billion doses administered worldwide, we know the vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19.

“Increased vaccinations among health care personnel will not only reduce the spread of COVID-19 but also reduce the harmful toll this virus is taking within the health care workforce and those we are striving to serve,” Susan Bailey, MD, immediate past president of the AMA, said in a news release.

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

As COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths mount again across the country, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Nursing Association, and 54 other medical and allied healthcare associations released a joint statement calling on “all health care and long-term care employers” to require their workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

This injunction, issued July 26, covers everyone in healthcare, Emanuel Ezekiel, MD, PhD, chair of the department of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the organizer of the joint statement, said in an interview.

That includes not only hospitals, but also physician offices, ambulatory surgery centers, home care agencies, skilled nursing facilities, pharmacies, laboratories, and imaging centers, he said.

The exhortation to get vaccinated also extends to federal and state healthcare facilities, including those of the military health system — TRICARE and the Department of Veterans Affairs — which instituted a mandate the same day.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) and other hospital groups recently said they supported hospitals and health systems that required their personnel to get vaccinated. Several dozen healthcare organizations have already done so, including some of the nation’s largest health systems.

A substantial fraction of U.S. healthcare workers have not yet gotten vaccinated, although how many are unvaccinated is unclear. An analysis by WebMD and Medscape Medical News estimated that 25% of hospital workers who had contact with patients were unvaccinated at the end of May.

More than 38% of nursing workers were not fully vaccinated by July 11, according to an analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data by LeadingAge, which was cited by the Washington Post. And more than 40% of nursing home employees have not been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The joint statement did not give any indication of how many employees of physician practices have failed to get COVID shots. However, a recent AMA survey shows that 96% of physicians have been fully vaccinated.
 

Ethical commitment

The main reason for vaccine mandates, according to the healthcare associations’ statement, is “the ethical commitment to put patients as well as residents of long-term care facilities first and take all steps necessary to ensure their health and well-being.”

In addition, the statement noted, vaccination can protect healthcare workers and their families from getting COVID-19.

The statement also pointed out that many healthcare and long-term care organizations already require vaccinations for influenza, hepatitis B, and pertussis.

Workers who have certain medical conditions should be exempt from the vaccination mandates, the statement added.

While recognizing the “historical mistrust of health care institutions” among some healthcare workers, the statement said, “We must continue to address workers’ concerns, engage with marginalized populations, and work with trusted messengers to improve vaccine acceptance.”

There has been some skepticism about the legality of requiring healthcare workers to get vaccinated as a condition of employment, partly because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet fully authorized any of the COVID-19 vaccines.

But in June, a federal judge turned down a legal challenge to Houston Methodist’s vaccination mandate.

“It is critical that all people in the health care workforce get vaccinated against COVID-19 for the safety of our patients and our colleagues. With more than 300 million doses administered in the United States and nearly 4 billion doses administered worldwide, we know the vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19.

“Increased vaccinations among health care personnel will not only reduce the spread of COVID-19 but also reduce the harmful toll this virus is taking within the health care workforce and those we are striving to serve,” Susan Bailey, MD, immediate past president of the AMA, said in a news release.

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

I don’t see anyone under 18. After all, I’m not a child neurologist.

People will occasionally argue with this policy, claiming that it’s too rigid. Why not 17½? I know that some adult neurologists do see teenagers.

But not me. It’s easier to just have a solid line and stick by it.

So, by habit, I often note someone’s birthday on the schedule to make sure they’re old enough to see me. And, over the years, this has made me realize the passage of time more than a lot of things.

Not much changes in my office. I’ve been in the same building since 2013, had the same furniture for longer, and the same staff since 2004. So it’s easy to lose track of how long I’ve been doing this.

But when I started out I didn’t see anyone born after 1979. Today that’s crept up to 2003. How the hell did that happen?

With that came the even more sobering realization that my kids are now all old enough to be my patients.

Time flies by in this world. You do the same thing day in and day out, and suddenly you’re 20 years older and starting to think about retirement.

We all see ourselves in the mirror each day, but rarely notice the changes. Watching patients grow older, seeing the minimum birth year for them advance, even being surprised when a drug I thought had just come out is now generic – those are the reminders of time’s passage that get my attention at work.

Not that it’s a bad thing. Time will go on, whether we want it to or not. After 20 years I still enjoy this job, and it allows me to support my family. I can’t ask for much more than that.

But each morning I scan through the names and birthdays on my schedule, and am amazed when I think about how clearly I remember my first day of medical school, college, and even high school like it had just happened.

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

I don’t see anyone under 18. After all, I’m not a child neurologist.

People will occasionally argue with this policy, claiming that it’s too rigid. Why not 17½? I know that some adult neurologists do see teenagers.

But not me. It’s easier to just have a solid line and stick by it.

So, by habit, I often note someone’s birthday on the schedule to make sure they’re old enough to see me. And, over the years, this has made me realize the passage of time more than a lot of things.

Not much changes in my office. I’ve been in the same building since 2013, had the same furniture for longer, and the same staff since 2004. So it’s easy to lose track of how long I’ve been doing this.

But when I started out I didn’t see anyone born after 1979. Today that’s crept up to 2003. How the hell did that happen?

With that came the even more sobering realization that my kids are now all old enough to be my patients.

Time flies by in this world. You do the same thing day in and day out, and suddenly you’re 20 years older and starting to think about retirement.

We all see ourselves in the mirror each day, but rarely notice the changes. Watching patients grow older, seeing the minimum birth year for them advance, even being surprised when a drug I thought had just come out is now generic – those are the reminders of time’s passage that get my attention at work.

Not that it’s a bad thing. Time will go on, whether we want it to or not. After 20 years I still enjoy this job, and it allows me to support my family. I can’t ask for much more than that.

But each morning I scan through the names and birthdays on my schedule, and am amazed when I think about how clearly I remember my first day of medical school, college, and even high school like it had just happened.

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

I don’t see anyone under 18. After all, I’m not a child neurologist.

People will occasionally argue with this policy, claiming that it’s too rigid. Why not 17½? I know that some adult neurologists do see teenagers.

But not me. It’s easier to just have a solid line and stick by it.

So, by habit, I often note someone’s birthday on the schedule to make sure they’re old enough to see me. And, over the years, this has made me realize the passage of time more than a lot of things.

Not much changes in my office. I’ve been in the same building since 2013, had the same furniture for longer, and the same staff since 2004. So it’s easy to lose track of how long I’ve been doing this.

But when I started out I didn’t see anyone born after 1979. Today that’s crept up to 2003. How the hell did that happen?

With that came the even more sobering realization that my kids are now all old enough to be my patients.

Time flies by in this world. You do the same thing day in and day out, and suddenly you’re 20 years older and starting to think about retirement.

We all see ourselves in the mirror each day, but rarely notice the changes. Watching patients grow older, seeing the minimum birth year for them advance, even being surprised when a drug I thought had just come out is now generic – those are the reminders of time’s passage that get my attention at work.

Not that it’s a bad thing. Time will go on, whether we want it to or not. After 20 years I still enjoy this job, and it allows me to support my family. I can’t ask for much more than that.

But each morning I scan through the names and birthdays on my schedule, and am amazed when I think about how clearly I remember my first day of medical school, college, and even high school like it had just happened.

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

In type 2 diabetes (T2D), a greater degree of hyperlipidemia and hypertension, although not hyperglycemia, was associated with measurable cognitive impairment even among patients with only a 4-year mean disease duration, according to a substudy of the GRADE trial.

The association of these cardiovascular (CV) risk factors with impairments in cognition has been reported before, but the findings are notable because the mean duration of T2D was short in a relatively healthy study population, reported a multicenter team of investigators.

The relative impairments in cognitive function “may not be clinically significant given the very small size of the differences,” conceded the authors of this study, led by José A. Luchsinger, MD, but they are consistent with previous reports of the same association in older patients with a longer duration of diabetes. In other words, the data suggest the risk of cognitive loss from CV risk factors in T2D patients begins early.

“A potential explanation for the small differences, compared with those previously reported, is that the GRADE cohort is relatively young with a healthier cardiovascular profile and shorter diabetes duration compared with other studies,” reported the investigators, whose results were published online July 20, 2021, in Diabetes Care.
 

99% complete cognitive assessments

In the GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: Comparative Effectiveness) trial, 5,018 (99.4%) of the 5,047 enrolled patients completed a battery of cognitive assessments at baseline. Patients were excluded from this study if they had any major CV event in the previous year, if they had T2D for more than 10 years, if they had significant renal impairment, and if they had any history of stage 3 or greater heart failure. Their mean age was 56.7 years.

By cross-sectional analysis, cognitive evaluations, including the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and the Spanish English Verbal Learning Test, were evaluated in relation to baseline LDL cholesterol levels, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, and statin use.

Unlike previous studies in T2D patients, no relationship was observed between cognitive function and A1c level at baseline. However, LDL cholesterol greater than 100 mg/dL was associated with cognitive impairment as measured with the DSST after adjustment for age, sex, education, and general health. The mean difference relative to LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL was only 1.8 points, but this was highly significant (P < .001).

Similarly, significant but modest cognitive impairment on DSST score after adjustment for variables were seen for those with a systolic BP between 120 mg and <140 mg relative to either <120 mm Hg or at least 140 mm Hg (P = .014). The same was seen for diastolic BPs of 80 to <90 when compared with either <80 mm Hg or to 90 mm Hg or higher (P = .01).

For those taking statins versus no statins at baseline, there was a 1.4-point mean advantage in DSST score after adjusting for variables (P < .001).

Modest cognitive impairments recorded

Again, the absolute mean differences in the DSST cognitive scores, despite their statistical significance, were modest, according to the authors. In general, the mean difference was rarely greater than 2.0 points and often 1.0 point or less. The authors acknowledged that these changes are of an uncertain clinical significance, but they considered the findings consistent with the association of CV risk factors with cognitive deficits in older T2DM patients or T2DM patients with longer duration of disease.

One difference between this GRADE substudy and previous studies was the lack of an association between cognitive impairment and hyperglycemia. In the ACCORD trial for example, increased levels of blood glycemia were associated with lower performance on numerous tests of cognitive function.

In the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), poorer glycemic control was related to poorer performance on tests of executive function.

Both of those studies also linked hypertension and hyperlipidemia with cognitive deficits, but given that patients in ACCORD had T2DM of substantially longer duration and those in DCCT were older, “it seems reasonable to speculate that, in patients with diabetes duration of less than 10 years, the association between hyperglycemia and cognitive performance may not yet be evident,” the GRADE authors reported.
 

GRADE trial compares drugs in four classes

The GRADE trial was conducted to compare four classes of T2D therapies for long-term glycemic control as expressed by A1c control over time. The results of the trial, presented recently at the 2021 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, found that insulin glargine and the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide performed best on the primary endpoint of maintaining A1c below 7.0%. Both performed significantly better than the sulfonylurea glimepiride and the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor sitagliptin.

This substudy of baseline cognitive function in the relatively large GRADE trial provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact of CV risk factors in patients with T2D of relatively short duration.

While the data support the adverse impact of inadequately controlled modifiable risk factors on cognitive function in T2D patients, David R. Matthews, DPhil, BM, BCh, emeritus professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford (England), noted that the association was weak and advised a cautious interpretation.

“The effect size is very small indeed. The data are found as a subset of multiple testing,” he said in an interview. He suggested the associations might be the result of “data farming,” and he emphasized that the relationships between these risk factors and cognitive deficits are associations that do not imply causation.

Nevertheless, and despite their unclear clinical implications, Dr. Matthews said that these data might still have a message.

“It is another reminder that for many reasons we all need to be alert to the need for lowering hyperlipidemia and hypertension to normal levels – the benefits may not just be limited to cardiovascular outcome,” Dr. Matthews stated.

The lead author of the study, Dr. Luchsinger, also cautioned against overinterpreting the data.

While the data show that “lipid and blood pressure control within recommended guidelines are associated with marginally better cognitive function in patients with type 2 diabetes of less than 5 years duration on average,” he added that “the study is limited by its cross-sectional nature.”

He indicated that further analysis will be helpful in assessing the implications.

“Longitudinal analyses of the same group of individuals will be conducted next year,” noted Dr. Luchsinger, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.

Dr. Luchsinger reported financial relationships with vTv therapeutics. Dr. Matthews reported no potential conflicts of interest.

In type 2 diabetes (T2D), a greater degree of hyperlipidemia and hypertension, although not hyperglycemia, was associated with measurable cognitive impairment even among patients with only a 4-year mean disease duration, according to a substudy of the GRADE trial.

The association of these cardiovascular (CV) risk factors with impairments in cognition has been reported before, but the findings are notable because the mean duration of T2D was short in a relatively healthy study population, reported a multicenter team of investigators.

The relative impairments in cognitive function “may not be clinically significant given the very small size of the differences,” conceded the authors of this study, led by José A. Luchsinger, MD, but they are consistent with previous reports of the same association in older patients with a longer duration of diabetes. In other words, the data suggest the risk of cognitive loss from CV risk factors in T2D patients begins early.

“A potential explanation for the small differences, compared with those previously reported, is that the GRADE cohort is relatively young with a healthier cardiovascular profile and shorter diabetes duration compared with other studies,” reported the investigators, whose results were published online July 20, 2021, in Diabetes Care.
 

99% complete cognitive assessments

In the GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: Comparative Effectiveness) trial, 5,018 (99.4%) of the 5,047 enrolled patients completed a battery of cognitive assessments at baseline. Patients were excluded from this study if they had any major CV event in the previous year, if they had T2D for more than 10 years, if they had significant renal impairment, and if they had any history of stage 3 or greater heart failure. Their mean age was 56.7 years.

By cross-sectional analysis, cognitive evaluations, including the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and the Spanish English Verbal Learning Test, were evaluated in relation to baseline LDL cholesterol levels, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, and statin use.

Unlike previous studies in T2D patients, no relationship was observed between cognitive function and A1c level at baseline. However, LDL cholesterol greater than 100 mg/dL was associated with cognitive impairment as measured with the DSST after adjustment for age, sex, education, and general health. The mean difference relative to LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL was only 1.8 points, but this was highly significant (P < .001).

Similarly, significant but modest cognitive impairment on DSST score after adjustment for variables were seen for those with a systolic BP between 120 mg and <140 mg relative to either <120 mm Hg or at least 140 mm Hg (P = .014). The same was seen for diastolic BPs of 80 to <90 when compared with either <80 mm Hg or to 90 mm Hg or higher (P = .01).

For those taking statins versus no statins at baseline, there was a 1.4-point mean advantage in DSST score after adjusting for variables (P < .001).

Modest cognitive impairments recorded

Again, the absolute mean differences in the DSST cognitive scores, despite their statistical significance, were modest, according to the authors. In general, the mean difference was rarely greater than 2.0 points and often 1.0 point or less. The authors acknowledged that these changes are of an uncertain clinical significance, but they considered the findings consistent with the association of CV risk factors with cognitive deficits in older T2DM patients or T2DM patients with longer duration of disease.

One difference between this GRADE substudy and previous studies was the lack of an association between cognitive impairment and hyperglycemia. In the ACCORD trial for example, increased levels of blood glycemia were associated with lower performance on numerous tests of cognitive function.

In the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), poorer glycemic control was related to poorer performance on tests of executive function.

Both of those studies also linked hypertension and hyperlipidemia with cognitive deficits, but given that patients in ACCORD had T2DM of substantially longer duration and those in DCCT were older, “it seems reasonable to speculate that, in patients with diabetes duration of less than 10 years, the association between hyperglycemia and cognitive performance may not yet be evident,” the GRADE authors reported.
 

GRADE trial compares drugs in four classes

The GRADE trial was conducted to compare four classes of T2D therapies for long-term glycemic control as expressed by A1c control over time. The results of the trial, presented recently at the 2021 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, found that insulin glargine and the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide performed best on the primary endpoint of maintaining A1c below 7.0%. Both performed significantly better than the sulfonylurea glimepiride and the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor sitagliptin.

This substudy of baseline cognitive function in the relatively large GRADE trial provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact of CV risk factors in patients with T2D of relatively short duration.

While the data support the adverse impact of inadequately controlled modifiable risk factors on cognitive function in T2D patients, David R. Matthews, DPhil, BM, BCh, emeritus professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford (England), noted that the association was weak and advised a cautious interpretation.

“The effect size is very small indeed. The data are found as a subset of multiple testing,” he said in an interview. He suggested the associations might be the result of “data farming,” and he emphasized that the relationships between these risk factors and cognitive deficits are associations that do not imply causation.

Nevertheless, and despite their unclear clinical implications, Dr. Matthews said that these data might still have a message.

“It is another reminder that for many reasons we all need to be alert to the need for lowering hyperlipidemia and hypertension to normal levels – the benefits may not just be limited to cardiovascular outcome,” Dr. Matthews stated.

The lead author of the study, Dr. Luchsinger, also cautioned against overinterpreting the data.

While the data show that “lipid and blood pressure control within recommended guidelines are associated with marginally better cognitive function in patients with type 2 diabetes of less than 5 years duration on average,” he added that “the study is limited by its cross-sectional nature.”

He indicated that further analysis will be helpful in assessing the implications.

“Longitudinal analyses of the same group of individuals will be conducted next year,” noted Dr. Luchsinger, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.

Dr. Luchsinger reported financial relationships with vTv therapeutics. Dr. Matthews reported no potential conflicts of interest.

In type 2 diabetes (T2D), a greater degree of hyperlipidemia and hypertension, although not hyperglycemia, was associated with measurable cognitive impairment even among patients with only a 4-year mean disease duration, according to a substudy of the GRADE trial.

The association of these cardiovascular (CV) risk factors with impairments in cognition has been reported before, but the findings are notable because the mean duration of T2D was short in a relatively healthy study population, reported a multicenter team of investigators.

The relative impairments in cognitive function “may not be clinically significant given the very small size of the differences,” conceded the authors of this study, led by José A. Luchsinger, MD, but they are consistent with previous reports of the same association in older patients with a longer duration of diabetes. In other words, the data suggest the risk of cognitive loss from CV risk factors in T2D patients begins early.

“A potential explanation for the small differences, compared with those previously reported, is that the GRADE cohort is relatively young with a healthier cardiovascular profile and shorter diabetes duration compared with other studies,” reported the investigators, whose results were published online July 20, 2021, in Diabetes Care.
 

99% complete cognitive assessments

In the GRADE (Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: Comparative Effectiveness) trial, 5,018 (99.4%) of the 5,047 enrolled patients completed a battery of cognitive assessments at baseline. Patients were excluded from this study if they had any major CV event in the previous year, if they had T2D for more than 10 years, if they had significant renal impairment, and if they had any history of stage 3 or greater heart failure. Their mean age was 56.7 years.

By cross-sectional analysis, cognitive evaluations, including the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and the Spanish English Verbal Learning Test, were evaluated in relation to baseline LDL cholesterol levels, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, and statin use.

Unlike previous studies in T2D patients, no relationship was observed between cognitive function and A1c level at baseline. However, LDL cholesterol greater than 100 mg/dL was associated with cognitive impairment as measured with the DSST after adjustment for age, sex, education, and general health. The mean difference relative to LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL was only 1.8 points, but this was highly significant (P < .001).

Similarly, significant but modest cognitive impairment on DSST score after adjustment for variables were seen for those with a systolic BP between 120 mg and <140 mg relative to either <120 mm Hg or at least 140 mm Hg (P = .014). The same was seen for diastolic BPs of 80 to <90 when compared with either <80 mm Hg or to 90 mm Hg or higher (P = .01).

For those taking statins versus no statins at baseline, there was a 1.4-point mean advantage in DSST score after adjusting for variables (P < .001).

Modest cognitive impairments recorded

Again, the absolute mean differences in the DSST cognitive scores, despite their statistical significance, were modest, according to the authors. In general, the mean difference was rarely greater than 2.0 points and often 1.0 point or less. The authors acknowledged that these changes are of an uncertain clinical significance, but they considered the findings consistent with the association of CV risk factors with cognitive deficits in older T2DM patients or T2DM patients with longer duration of disease.

One difference between this GRADE substudy and previous studies was the lack of an association between cognitive impairment and hyperglycemia. In the ACCORD trial for example, increased levels of blood glycemia were associated with lower performance on numerous tests of cognitive function.

In the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), poorer glycemic control was related to poorer performance on tests of executive function.

Both of those studies also linked hypertension and hyperlipidemia with cognitive deficits, but given that patients in ACCORD had T2DM of substantially longer duration and those in DCCT were older, “it seems reasonable to speculate that, in patients with diabetes duration of less than 10 years, the association between hyperglycemia and cognitive performance may not yet be evident,” the GRADE authors reported.
 

GRADE trial compares drugs in four classes

The GRADE trial was conducted to compare four classes of T2D therapies for long-term glycemic control as expressed by A1c control over time. The results of the trial, presented recently at the 2021 annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association, found that insulin glargine and the glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide performed best on the primary endpoint of maintaining A1c below 7.0%. Both performed significantly better than the sulfonylurea glimepiride and the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor sitagliptin.

This substudy of baseline cognitive function in the relatively large GRADE trial provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the impact of CV risk factors in patients with T2D of relatively short duration.

While the data support the adverse impact of inadequately controlled modifiable risk factors on cognitive function in T2D patients, David R. Matthews, DPhil, BM, BCh, emeritus professor of diabetes medicine at the University of Oxford (England), noted that the association was weak and advised a cautious interpretation.

“The effect size is very small indeed. The data are found as a subset of multiple testing,” he said in an interview. He suggested the associations might be the result of “data farming,” and he emphasized that the relationships between these risk factors and cognitive deficits are associations that do not imply causation.

Nevertheless, and despite their unclear clinical implications, Dr. Matthews said that these data might still have a message.

“It is another reminder that for many reasons we all need to be alert to the need for lowering hyperlipidemia and hypertension to normal levels – the benefits may not just be limited to cardiovascular outcome,” Dr. Matthews stated.

The lead author of the study, Dr. Luchsinger, also cautioned against overinterpreting the data.

While the data show that “lipid and blood pressure control within recommended guidelines are associated with marginally better cognitive function in patients with type 2 diabetes of less than 5 years duration on average,” he added that “the study is limited by its cross-sectional nature.”

He indicated that further analysis will be helpful in assessing the implications.

“Longitudinal analyses of the same group of individuals will be conducted next year,” noted Dr. Luchsinger, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York.

Dr. Luchsinger reported financial relationships with vTv therapeutics. Dr. Matthews reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Mark Nelson, PharmD, recalls the anguish when a major pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) moved all veteran patients with prostate cancer at his facility from an effective medication to a pricier alternative therapy. “All of these patients were stable on their therapy and were extremely distraught about their medications being changed,” said Dr. Nelson, CEO of Northwest Medical Specialties in Washington State. While there was no clinical reason to change the medication, “our oncologists had no choice other than to comply,” he said.

Niyazz/ThinkStock

It’s unclear why a PBM would switch to a more expensive medication that has no additional clinical benefit, he continued. “Why upset so many veterans? For what reason? We were not given a reason despite our very vocal protest.”

Angus B. Worthing, MD, sees these scenarios unfold every day in his rheumatology practice in the Washington, D.C., area. “In my clinic with 25 doctors, we have three full-time people that only handle PBMs,” he said in an interview. He and others in the medical community, as well as many states, have been pushing back on what they see as efforts by PBMs to raise drug prices and collect the profits at the expense of patients.

PCMA’s challenges against PBM law

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), a trade group that represents PBMs, has sued at least a half dozen states on their ability to regulate PBMs. However, a landmark case in late 2020 (Pharmaceutical Care Management Association v. Rutledge) set a new precedent. Reversing a lower appeals court decision, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of allowing states to put in place fair regulation of these entities.

Dr. Worthing and others hope that the medical community and states can leverage this ruling in another lawsuit PCMA brought against North Dakota (PCMA v. Wehbi). PCMA filed this lawsuit in 2017, which challenges two statutes on PBM regulation. The group has issued similar legal challenges in Maine, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Arkansas with the Rutledge case.

“PBMs have become massive profit centers while (ironically) increasing patients’ out-of-pocket costs, interfering with doctor-patient relationships, and impairing patient access to appropriate treatment,” according to an amicus brief filed by The Alliance for Transparent & Affordable Prescriptions (ATAP), the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), and American Pharmacies, supporting North Dakota in the Wehbi case.

This is to ensure the case represents the voices of physicians, patients, nurses, and other stakeholders, and underscores PBM abuses, said Dr. Worthing, vice president of ATAP. He also serves as the American College of Rheumatology’s representative on ATAP’s Executive Committee.

PCMA did not respond to requests for comment. Its CEO and president, J.C. Scott, emphasizes that PBMs have a long track record of reducing drug costs for patients and plan sponsors. In 2021, PCMA released 21 policy solutions, a set of industry principles and a three-part policy platform, all with an aim to bring down costs and increase access to pharmaceutical care, according to the organization.

PCMA estimates that the strategies in its platform (updating Medicare Part D, accelerating value-based care, and eliminating anticompetitive ‘pay for delay’ agreements) would save the federal government a maximum of $398.7 billion over 10 years.

According to Wendy Hemmen, senior director with Texas Oncology in Dallas, PBMs do their own unique calculations to arrive at their cost reductions. “Essentially in a PBM, they use things that make their story. Numbers reported to plan sponsors and to the public are not audited and are usually in terms of percentages or a per member per month. Data points are moved around, dropped, or reclassified to make the story that the PBM needs to tell,” Ms. Hemmen said.


 

Amicus briefs dispute ERISA connection

North Dakota legislation prohibits PBMs from charging copays to patients that exceed the cost of a drug. It also prohibits gag clause provisions that restrict what pharmacists may discuss with patients. PBMs may charge fees based on performance metrics, but they must use nationally recognized metrics. Fees must be disclosed at the point of sale.

In its legal challenges, PCMA has asserted that state laws violate the preemption clause in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). “Federal preemption allows employers flexibility to administer innovative benefit plans in an environment of increasing health care costs. The court’s decision in Rutledge v. PCMA will either uphold or threaten these federal protections,” PCMA asserted in a statement issued in March 2020.

ATAP’s amicus brief, and another one filed by 34 attorneys general that supports the North Dakota statute to regulate PBMs, counter that this isn’t the case.

“First, PBM regulation (in its common and standard form) does not reference ERISA itself. These laws leave all plans on equal footing; they do not single out ERISA plans for preferred or disfavored coverage, and they do not change the playing field for ERISA plans alone ... Second, PBM regulation does not have any prohibited connection with ERISA plans,” noted authors in the ATAP brief.

PCMA has also included Medicare preemption in its arguments against PBM regulation. This is meritless, wrote the state attorneys general. “Medicare preempts state laws only if a Medicare ‘standard’ particularly addresses the subject of state regulation. Because the challenged North Dakota laws do not dictate plan benefits or conflict with a Medicare standard, they are not preempted.”

The auctioning of medications

PBMs in theory could use their market power to drive down costs by extracting discounts from drug makers and pharmacies. In reality, they retain any price concessions and discounts for themselves, ATAP’s brief continued.

A system that PBMs have put into place, called step therapy, is essentially an auction for the preferred spot that will be authorized and covered, Dr. Worthing explained.

PBMs create formularies through this auction. The highest rebate to the PBM earns the top spot in the auction and becomes the preferred drug. “That highest bid gets paid for by passing the cost along to patients and insurance plans, and PBMs pocket the profits. This provides an incentive for pharmaceutical manufacturers to raise prices,” he said.

Dr. Worthing has seen these practices trickle down and affect his patients. “Frequently, the medication I prescribe based on what’s best for the patient based on their disease activity, values, and medical history is often not covered because a different drug or portfolio of drugs has earned the top spot in step therapy. This is an extremely frustrating and cumbersome process that not only delays access to treatments but also provides an incentive for higher drug prices,” he said.

There are other ways in which PBMs get in the way of care, said Ms. Hemmen, whose facility serves complex-care oncology patients.

“PBMs force scripts out of higher-quality pharmacies that preserve unfragmented care. They incentivize plan sponsors to put programs into place that take away patient choice, fragment care, and drive scripts to their own owned pharmacies,” she said.
 

Rutledge case sets precedent

In the Rutledge case, PCMA had challenged an Arkansas law that forbid PBMs from paying local pharmacies at a lower rate than what the pharmacies were reimbursed to fill prescriptions. Although the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with PCMA, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arkansas in late 2020.

The appeals court also backed PCMA in PCMA v. Wehbi. However, the Supreme Court vacated this decision and remanded it back to the appeals court, asking for a reconsideration in wake of the outcome in Rutledge v. PCMA.

PCMA has argued that Rutledge was a narrow decision, limited to state laws that regulate PBM reimbursements, and that Rutledge has no bearing on North Dakota law.

While it’s unfortunate that PCMA is trying to delay implementation of sensible regulations, “a lot of us are happy that this issue is coming to light,” Dr. Worthing said. “As a rheumatologist and health policy advocate, exposing drug middlemen is the most important bipartisan issue in the country today because it gets at the core of making sure that sick people get access to the medications they need and reducing the budget of insurance carriers, hospitals, and the federal budget.”

The ATAP brief noted that 28 state attorneys general have filed suit against PBMs, “securing settlements compelling PBMs to correct deceptive trade practices.”

Many people at the state and local level were waiting for the Supreme Court to decide on Rutledge before enacting legislation and sensible regulations, and now they can go ahead and do it, said Dr. Worthing. “I expect to see this across the country as states look at budgets, and as patients bring personal stories to light. We look forward to states passing these kinds of laws to regulate PBMs.”

The ACR doesn’t anticipate a ruling in the Wehbi case until the spring of 2022.

Recent laws passed around PBMs and the pharmacy benefit are a good first step in holding PBMs accountable for quality of care and honoring patient choice, Ms. Hemmen said. The laws also begin to address the fiscal manipulations PBMs use to gain advantage and direct scripts to their own coffers, she added. However, this may not have enough teeth. “These state laws are coming from a provider perspective, and they don’t anticipate what PBMs will do in response. The PBMs are going to work around it.”

Mark Nelson, PharmD, recalls the anguish when a major pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) moved all veteran patients with prostate cancer at his facility from an effective medication to a pricier alternative therapy. “All of these patients were stable on their therapy and were extremely distraught about their medications being changed,” said Dr. Nelson, CEO of Northwest Medical Specialties in Washington State. While there was no clinical reason to change the medication, “our oncologists had no choice other than to comply,” he said.

Niyazz/ThinkStock

It’s unclear why a PBM would switch to a more expensive medication that has no additional clinical benefit, he continued. “Why upset so many veterans? For what reason? We were not given a reason despite our very vocal protest.”

Angus B. Worthing, MD, sees these scenarios unfold every day in his rheumatology practice in the Washington, D.C., area. “In my clinic with 25 doctors, we have three full-time people that only handle PBMs,” he said in an interview. He and others in the medical community, as well as many states, have been pushing back on what they see as efforts by PBMs to raise drug prices and collect the profits at the expense of patients.

PCMA’s challenges against PBM law

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), a trade group that represents PBMs, has sued at least a half dozen states on their ability to regulate PBMs. However, a landmark case in late 2020 (Pharmaceutical Care Management Association v. Rutledge) set a new precedent. Reversing a lower appeals court decision, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of allowing states to put in place fair regulation of these entities.

Dr. Worthing and others hope that the medical community and states can leverage this ruling in another lawsuit PCMA brought against North Dakota (PCMA v. Wehbi). PCMA filed this lawsuit in 2017, which challenges two statutes on PBM regulation. The group has issued similar legal challenges in Maine, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Arkansas with the Rutledge case.

“PBMs have become massive profit centers while (ironically) increasing patients’ out-of-pocket costs, interfering with doctor-patient relationships, and impairing patient access to appropriate treatment,” according to an amicus brief filed by The Alliance for Transparent & Affordable Prescriptions (ATAP), the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), and American Pharmacies, supporting North Dakota in the Wehbi case.

This is to ensure the case represents the voices of physicians, patients, nurses, and other stakeholders, and underscores PBM abuses, said Dr. Worthing, vice president of ATAP. He also serves as the American College of Rheumatology’s representative on ATAP’s Executive Committee.

PCMA did not respond to requests for comment. Its CEO and president, J.C. Scott, emphasizes that PBMs have a long track record of reducing drug costs for patients and plan sponsors. In 2021, PCMA released 21 policy solutions, a set of industry principles and a three-part policy platform, all with an aim to bring down costs and increase access to pharmaceutical care, according to the organization.

PCMA estimates that the strategies in its platform (updating Medicare Part D, accelerating value-based care, and eliminating anticompetitive ‘pay for delay’ agreements) would save the federal government a maximum of $398.7 billion over 10 years.

According to Wendy Hemmen, senior director with Texas Oncology in Dallas, PBMs do their own unique calculations to arrive at their cost reductions. “Essentially in a PBM, they use things that make their story. Numbers reported to plan sponsors and to the public are not audited and are usually in terms of percentages or a per member per month. Data points are moved around, dropped, or reclassified to make the story that the PBM needs to tell,” Ms. Hemmen said.


 

Amicus briefs dispute ERISA connection

North Dakota legislation prohibits PBMs from charging copays to patients that exceed the cost of a drug. It also prohibits gag clause provisions that restrict what pharmacists may discuss with patients. PBMs may charge fees based on performance metrics, but they must use nationally recognized metrics. Fees must be disclosed at the point of sale.

In its legal challenges, PCMA has asserted that state laws violate the preemption clause in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). “Federal preemption allows employers flexibility to administer innovative benefit plans in an environment of increasing health care costs. The court’s decision in Rutledge v. PCMA will either uphold or threaten these federal protections,” PCMA asserted in a statement issued in March 2020.

ATAP’s amicus brief, and another one filed by 34 attorneys general that supports the North Dakota statute to regulate PBMs, counter that this isn’t the case.

“First, PBM regulation (in its common and standard form) does not reference ERISA itself. These laws leave all plans on equal footing; they do not single out ERISA plans for preferred or disfavored coverage, and they do not change the playing field for ERISA plans alone ... Second, PBM regulation does not have any prohibited connection with ERISA plans,” noted authors in the ATAP brief.

PCMA has also included Medicare preemption in its arguments against PBM regulation. This is meritless, wrote the state attorneys general. “Medicare preempts state laws only if a Medicare ‘standard’ particularly addresses the subject of state regulation. Because the challenged North Dakota laws do not dictate plan benefits or conflict with a Medicare standard, they are not preempted.”

The auctioning of medications

PBMs in theory could use their market power to drive down costs by extracting discounts from drug makers and pharmacies. In reality, they retain any price concessions and discounts for themselves, ATAP’s brief continued.

A system that PBMs have put into place, called step therapy, is essentially an auction for the preferred spot that will be authorized and covered, Dr. Worthing explained.

PBMs create formularies through this auction. The highest rebate to the PBM earns the top spot in the auction and becomes the preferred drug. “That highest bid gets paid for by passing the cost along to patients and insurance plans, and PBMs pocket the profits. This provides an incentive for pharmaceutical manufacturers to raise prices,” he said.

Dr. Worthing has seen these practices trickle down and affect his patients. “Frequently, the medication I prescribe based on what’s best for the patient based on their disease activity, values, and medical history is often not covered because a different drug or portfolio of drugs has earned the top spot in step therapy. This is an extremely frustrating and cumbersome process that not only delays access to treatments but also provides an incentive for higher drug prices,” he said.

There are other ways in which PBMs get in the way of care, said Ms. Hemmen, whose facility serves complex-care oncology patients.

“PBMs force scripts out of higher-quality pharmacies that preserve unfragmented care. They incentivize plan sponsors to put programs into place that take away patient choice, fragment care, and drive scripts to their own owned pharmacies,” she said.
 

Rutledge case sets precedent

In the Rutledge case, PCMA had challenged an Arkansas law that forbid PBMs from paying local pharmacies at a lower rate than what the pharmacies were reimbursed to fill prescriptions. Although the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with PCMA, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arkansas in late 2020.

The appeals court also backed PCMA in PCMA v. Wehbi. However, the Supreme Court vacated this decision and remanded it back to the appeals court, asking for a reconsideration in wake of the outcome in Rutledge v. PCMA.

PCMA has argued that Rutledge was a narrow decision, limited to state laws that regulate PBM reimbursements, and that Rutledge has no bearing on North Dakota law.

While it’s unfortunate that PCMA is trying to delay implementation of sensible regulations, “a lot of us are happy that this issue is coming to light,” Dr. Worthing said. “As a rheumatologist and health policy advocate, exposing drug middlemen is the most important bipartisan issue in the country today because it gets at the core of making sure that sick people get access to the medications they need and reducing the budget of insurance carriers, hospitals, and the federal budget.”

The ATAP brief noted that 28 state attorneys general have filed suit against PBMs, “securing settlements compelling PBMs to correct deceptive trade practices.”

Many people at the state and local level were waiting for the Supreme Court to decide on Rutledge before enacting legislation and sensible regulations, and now they can go ahead and do it, said Dr. Worthing. “I expect to see this across the country as states look at budgets, and as patients bring personal stories to light. We look forward to states passing these kinds of laws to regulate PBMs.”

The ACR doesn’t anticipate a ruling in the Wehbi case until the spring of 2022.

Recent laws passed around PBMs and the pharmacy benefit are a good first step in holding PBMs accountable for quality of care and honoring patient choice, Ms. Hemmen said. The laws also begin to address the fiscal manipulations PBMs use to gain advantage and direct scripts to their own coffers, she added. However, this may not have enough teeth. “These state laws are coming from a provider perspective, and they don’t anticipate what PBMs will do in response. The PBMs are going to work around it.”

Mark Nelson, PharmD, recalls the anguish when a major pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) moved all veteran patients with prostate cancer at his facility from an effective medication to a pricier alternative therapy. “All of these patients were stable on their therapy and were extremely distraught about their medications being changed,” said Dr. Nelson, CEO of Northwest Medical Specialties in Washington State. While there was no clinical reason to change the medication, “our oncologists had no choice other than to comply,” he said.

Niyazz/ThinkStock

It’s unclear why a PBM would switch to a more expensive medication that has no additional clinical benefit, he continued. “Why upset so many veterans? For what reason? We were not given a reason despite our very vocal protest.”

Angus B. Worthing, MD, sees these scenarios unfold every day in his rheumatology practice in the Washington, D.C., area. “In my clinic with 25 doctors, we have three full-time people that only handle PBMs,” he said in an interview. He and others in the medical community, as well as many states, have been pushing back on what they see as efforts by PBMs to raise drug prices and collect the profits at the expense of patients.

PCMA’s challenges against PBM law

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), a trade group that represents PBMs, has sued at least a half dozen states on their ability to regulate PBMs. However, a landmark case in late 2020 (Pharmaceutical Care Management Association v. Rutledge) set a new precedent. Reversing a lower appeals court decision, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of allowing states to put in place fair regulation of these entities.

Dr. Worthing and others hope that the medical community and states can leverage this ruling in another lawsuit PCMA brought against North Dakota (PCMA v. Wehbi). PCMA filed this lawsuit in 2017, which challenges two statutes on PBM regulation. The group has issued similar legal challenges in Maine, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Arkansas with the Rutledge case.

“PBMs have become massive profit centers while (ironically) increasing patients’ out-of-pocket costs, interfering with doctor-patient relationships, and impairing patient access to appropriate treatment,” according to an amicus brief filed by The Alliance for Transparent & Affordable Prescriptions (ATAP), the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), and American Pharmacies, supporting North Dakota in the Wehbi case.

This is to ensure the case represents the voices of physicians, patients, nurses, and other stakeholders, and underscores PBM abuses, said Dr. Worthing, vice president of ATAP. He also serves as the American College of Rheumatology’s representative on ATAP’s Executive Committee.

PCMA did not respond to requests for comment. Its CEO and president, J.C. Scott, emphasizes that PBMs have a long track record of reducing drug costs for patients and plan sponsors. In 2021, PCMA released 21 policy solutions, a set of industry principles and a three-part policy platform, all with an aim to bring down costs and increase access to pharmaceutical care, according to the organization.

PCMA estimates that the strategies in its platform (updating Medicare Part D, accelerating value-based care, and eliminating anticompetitive ‘pay for delay’ agreements) would save the federal government a maximum of $398.7 billion over 10 years.

According to Wendy Hemmen, senior director with Texas Oncology in Dallas, PBMs do their own unique calculations to arrive at their cost reductions. “Essentially in a PBM, they use things that make their story. Numbers reported to plan sponsors and to the public are not audited and are usually in terms of percentages or a per member per month. Data points are moved around, dropped, or reclassified to make the story that the PBM needs to tell,” Ms. Hemmen said.


 

Amicus briefs dispute ERISA connection

North Dakota legislation prohibits PBMs from charging copays to patients that exceed the cost of a drug. It also prohibits gag clause provisions that restrict what pharmacists may discuss with patients. PBMs may charge fees based on performance metrics, but they must use nationally recognized metrics. Fees must be disclosed at the point of sale.

In its legal challenges, PCMA has asserted that state laws violate the preemption clause in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). “Federal preemption allows employers flexibility to administer innovative benefit plans in an environment of increasing health care costs. The court’s decision in Rutledge v. PCMA will either uphold or threaten these federal protections,” PCMA asserted in a statement issued in March 2020.

ATAP’s amicus brief, and another one filed by 34 attorneys general that supports the North Dakota statute to regulate PBMs, counter that this isn’t the case.

“First, PBM regulation (in its common and standard form) does not reference ERISA itself. These laws leave all plans on equal footing; they do not single out ERISA plans for preferred or disfavored coverage, and they do not change the playing field for ERISA plans alone ... Second, PBM regulation does not have any prohibited connection with ERISA plans,” noted authors in the ATAP brief.

PCMA has also included Medicare preemption in its arguments against PBM regulation. This is meritless, wrote the state attorneys general. “Medicare preempts state laws only if a Medicare ‘standard’ particularly addresses the subject of state regulation. Because the challenged North Dakota laws do not dictate plan benefits or conflict with a Medicare standard, they are not preempted.”

The auctioning of medications

PBMs in theory could use their market power to drive down costs by extracting discounts from drug makers and pharmacies. In reality, they retain any price concessions and discounts for themselves, ATAP’s brief continued.

A system that PBMs have put into place, called step therapy, is essentially an auction for the preferred spot that will be authorized and covered, Dr. Worthing explained.

PBMs create formularies through this auction. The highest rebate to the PBM earns the top spot in the auction and becomes the preferred drug. “That highest bid gets paid for by passing the cost along to patients and insurance plans, and PBMs pocket the profits. This provides an incentive for pharmaceutical manufacturers to raise prices,” he said.

Dr. Worthing has seen these practices trickle down and affect his patients. “Frequently, the medication I prescribe based on what’s best for the patient based on their disease activity, values, and medical history is often not covered because a different drug or portfolio of drugs has earned the top spot in step therapy. This is an extremely frustrating and cumbersome process that not only delays access to treatments but also provides an incentive for higher drug prices,” he said.

There are other ways in which PBMs get in the way of care, said Ms. Hemmen, whose facility serves complex-care oncology patients.

“PBMs force scripts out of higher-quality pharmacies that preserve unfragmented care. They incentivize plan sponsors to put programs into place that take away patient choice, fragment care, and drive scripts to their own owned pharmacies,” she said.
 

Rutledge case sets precedent

In the Rutledge case, PCMA had challenged an Arkansas law that forbid PBMs from paying local pharmacies at a lower rate than what the pharmacies were reimbursed to fill prescriptions. Although the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with PCMA, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arkansas in late 2020.

The appeals court also backed PCMA in PCMA v. Wehbi. However, the Supreme Court vacated this decision and remanded it back to the appeals court, asking for a reconsideration in wake of the outcome in Rutledge v. PCMA.

PCMA has argued that Rutledge was a narrow decision, limited to state laws that regulate PBM reimbursements, and that Rutledge has no bearing on North Dakota law.

While it’s unfortunate that PCMA is trying to delay implementation of sensible regulations, “a lot of us are happy that this issue is coming to light,” Dr. Worthing said. “As a rheumatologist and health policy advocate, exposing drug middlemen is the most important bipartisan issue in the country today because it gets at the core of making sure that sick people get access to the medications they need and reducing the budget of insurance carriers, hospitals, and the federal budget.”

The ATAP brief noted that 28 state attorneys general have filed suit against PBMs, “securing settlements compelling PBMs to correct deceptive trade practices.”

Many people at the state and local level were waiting for the Supreme Court to decide on Rutledge before enacting legislation and sensible regulations, and now they can go ahead and do it, said Dr. Worthing. “I expect to see this across the country as states look at budgets, and as patients bring personal stories to light. We look forward to states passing these kinds of laws to regulate PBMs.”

The ACR doesn’t anticipate a ruling in the Wehbi case until the spring of 2022.

Recent laws passed around PBMs and the pharmacy benefit are a good first step in holding PBMs accountable for quality of care and honoring patient choice, Ms. Hemmen said. The laws also begin to address the fiscal manipulations PBMs use to gain advantage and direct scripts to their own coffers, she added. However, this may not have enough teeth. “These state laws are coming from a provider perspective, and they don’t anticipate what PBMs will do in response. The PBMs are going to work around it.”

The initial manifestations of dysautonomia may be dermatologic related, so awareness of what to look for is essential.

During the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, defined dysautonomia as an umbrella term describing conditions that result in a malfunction of the autonomic nervous system. “This encompasses both the sympathetic and the parasympathetic components of the nervous system,” said Dr. Hebert, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, and chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston. “Clinical findings may be neurometabolic, developmental, and/or degenerative,” representing a “whole constellation of issues” that physicians may encounter in practice, she noted. Of particular interest is postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which affects between 1 million and 3 million people in the United States. Typical symptoms include lightheadedness, fainting, and a rapid increase in heartbeat after standing up from a seated position. Other conditions associated with dysautonomia include neurocardiogenic syncope and multiple system atrophy.

Dysautonomia can impact the brain, heart, mouth, blood vessels, eyes, immune cells, and bladder, as well as the skin. Patient presentations vary with symptoms that can range from mild to debilitating. The average time from symptom onset to diagnosis of dysautonomia is 7 years. “It is very difficult to put together these mysterious symptoms that patients have unless one really thinks about dysautonomia as a possible diagnosis,” Dr. Hebert said.

One of the common symptoms that she has seen in her clinical practice is joint hypermobility. “There is a known association between dysautonomia and hypermobile-type Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), and these patients often have hyperhidrosis,” she said. “So, keep in mind that you could see hypermobility, especially in those with EDS, with associated hyperhidrosis and dysautonomia.” Two key references that she recommends to clinicians when evaluating patients with possible dysautonomia are a study on postural tachycardia in hypermobile EDS, and an article on cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction in hypermobile EDS.

The Beighton Scoring System, which measures joint mobility on a 9-point scale, involves assessment of the joint mobility of the knuckle of both pinky fingers, the base of both thumbs, the elbows, knees, and spine. An instructional video on how to perform a joint hypermobility assessment is available on the Ehler-Danlos Society website.

Literature review

In March 2021, Dr. Hebert and colleagues from other medical specialties published a summary of the literature on cutaneous manifestations in dysautonomia, with an emphasis on syndromes of orthostatic intolerance. “We had neurology, cardiology, along with dermatology involved in contributing the findings they had seen in the UTHealth McGovern Dysautonomia Center of Excellence as there was a dearth of literature that taught us about the cutaneous manifestations of orthostatic intolerance syndromes,” Dr. Hebert said.

One study included in the review showed that 23 out of 26 patients with POTS had at least one of the following cutaneous manifestations: flushing, Raynaud’s phenomenon, evanescent hyperemia, livedo reticularis, erythromelalgia, and hypo- or hyperhidrosis. “If you see a patient with any of these findings, you want to think about the possibility of dysautonomia,” she said, adding that urticaria can also be a finding.

To screen for dysautonomia, she advised, “ask patients if they have difficulty sitting or standing upright, if they have indigestion or other gastric symptoms, abnormal blood vessel functioning such as low or high blood pressure, increased or decreased sweating, changes in urinary frequency or urinary incontinence, or challenges with vision.”

If the patient answers yes to two or more of these questions, she said, consider a referral to neurology and/or cardiology or a center of excellence for further evaluation with tilt-table testing and other screening tools. She also recommended a review published in 2015 that describes the dermatological manifestations of postural tachycardia syndrome and includes illustrated cases.

One of Dr. Hebert’s future dermatology residents assembled a composite of data from the Dysautonomia Center of Excellence, and in the study, found that, compared with males, females with dysautonomia suffer more from excessive sweating, paleness of the face, pale extremities, swelling, cyanosis, cold intolerance, flushing, and hot flashes.

Dr. Hebert disclosed that she has been a consultant to and an adviser for several pharmaceutical companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The initial manifestations of dysautonomia may be dermatologic related, so awareness of what to look for is essential.

During the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, defined dysautonomia as an umbrella term describing conditions that result in a malfunction of the autonomic nervous system. “This encompasses both the sympathetic and the parasympathetic components of the nervous system,” said Dr. Hebert, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, and chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston. “Clinical findings may be neurometabolic, developmental, and/or degenerative,” representing a “whole constellation of issues” that physicians may encounter in practice, she noted. Of particular interest is postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which affects between 1 million and 3 million people in the United States. Typical symptoms include lightheadedness, fainting, and a rapid increase in heartbeat after standing up from a seated position. Other conditions associated with dysautonomia include neurocardiogenic syncope and multiple system atrophy.

Dysautonomia can impact the brain, heart, mouth, blood vessels, eyes, immune cells, and bladder, as well as the skin. Patient presentations vary with symptoms that can range from mild to debilitating. The average time from symptom onset to diagnosis of dysautonomia is 7 years. “It is very difficult to put together these mysterious symptoms that patients have unless one really thinks about dysautonomia as a possible diagnosis,” Dr. Hebert said.

One of the common symptoms that she has seen in her clinical practice is joint hypermobility. “There is a known association between dysautonomia and hypermobile-type Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), and these patients often have hyperhidrosis,” she said. “So, keep in mind that you could see hypermobility, especially in those with EDS, with associated hyperhidrosis and dysautonomia.” Two key references that she recommends to clinicians when evaluating patients with possible dysautonomia are a study on postural tachycardia in hypermobile EDS, and an article on cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction in hypermobile EDS.

The Beighton Scoring System, which measures joint mobility on a 9-point scale, involves assessment of the joint mobility of the knuckle of both pinky fingers, the base of both thumbs, the elbows, knees, and spine. An instructional video on how to perform a joint hypermobility assessment is available on the Ehler-Danlos Society website.

Literature review

In March 2021, Dr. Hebert and colleagues from other medical specialties published a summary of the literature on cutaneous manifestations in dysautonomia, with an emphasis on syndromes of orthostatic intolerance. “We had neurology, cardiology, along with dermatology involved in contributing the findings they had seen in the UTHealth McGovern Dysautonomia Center of Excellence as there was a dearth of literature that taught us about the cutaneous manifestations of orthostatic intolerance syndromes,” Dr. Hebert said.

One study included in the review showed that 23 out of 26 patients with POTS had at least one of the following cutaneous manifestations: flushing, Raynaud’s phenomenon, evanescent hyperemia, livedo reticularis, erythromelalgia, and hypo- or hyperhidrosis. “If you see a patient with any of these findings, you want to think about the possibility of dysautonomia,” she said, adding that urticaria can also be a finding.

To screen for dysautonomia, she advised, “ask patients if they have difficulty sitting or standing upright, if they have indigestion or other gastric symptoms, abnormal blood vessel functioning such as low or high blood pressure, increased or decreased sweating, changes in urinary frequency or urinary incontinence, or challenges with vision.”

If the patient answers yes to two or more of these questions, she said, consider a referral to neurology and/or cardiology or a center of excellence for further evaluation with tilt-table testing and other screening tools. She also recommended a review published in 2015 that describes the dermatological manifestations of postural tachycardia syndrome and includes illustrated cases.

One of Dr. Hebert’s future dermatology residents assembled a composite of data from the Dysautonomia Center of Excellence, and in the study, found that, compared with males, females with dysautonomia suffer more from excessive sweating, paleness of the face, pale extremities, swelling, cyanosis, cold intolerance, flushing, and hot flashes.

Dr. Hebert disclosed that she has been a consultant to and an adviser for several pharmaceutical companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The initial manifestations of dysautonomia may be dermatologic related, so awareness of what to look for is essential.

During the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Adelaide A. Hebert, MD, defined dysautonomia as an umbrella term describing conditions that result in a malfunction of the autonomic nervous system. “This encompasses both the sympathetic and the parasympathetic components of the nervous system,” said Dr. Hebert, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, and chief of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston. “Clinical findings may be neurometabolic, developmental, and/or degenerative,” representing a “whole constellation of issues” that physicians may encounter in practice, she noted. Of particular interest is postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), which affects between 1 million and 3 million people in the United States. Typical symptoms include lightheadedness, fainting, and a rapid increase in heartbeat after standing up from a seated position. Other conditions associated with dysautonomia include neurocardiogenic syncope and multiple system atrophy.

Dysautonomia can impact the brain, heart, mouth, blood vessels, eyes, immune cells, and bladder, as well as the skin. Patient presentations vary with symptoms that can range from mild to debilitating. The average time from symptom onset to diagnosis of dysautonomia is 7 years. “It is very difficult to put together these mysterious symptoms that patients have unless one really thinks about dysautonomia as a possible diagnosis,” Dr. Hebert said.

One of the common symptoms that she has seen in her clinical practice is joint hypermobility. “There is a known association between dysautonomia and hypermobile-type Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), and these patients often have hyperhidrosis,” she said. “So, keep in mind that you could see hypermobility, especially in those with EDS, with associated hyperhidrosis and dysautonomia.” Two key references that she recommends to clinicians when evaluating patients with possible dysautonomia are a study on postural tachycardia in hypermobile EDS, and an article on cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction in hypermobile EDS.

The Beighton Scoring System, which measures joint mobility on a 9-point scale, involves assessment of the joint mobility of the knuckle of both pinky fingers, the base of both thumbs, the elbows, knees, and spine. An instructional video on how to perform a joint hypermobility assessment is available on the Ehler-Danlos Society website.

Literature review

In March 2021, Dr. Hebert and colleagues from other medical specialties published a summary of the literature on cutaneous manifestations in dysautonomia, with an emphasis on syndromes of orthostatic intolerance. “We had neurology, cardiology, along with dermatology involved in contributing the findings they had seen in the UTHealth McGovern Dysautonomia Center of Excellence as there was a dearth of literature that taught us about the cutaneous manifestations of orthostatic intolerance syndromes,” Dr. Hebert said.

One study included in the review showed that 23 out of 26 patients with POTS had at least one of the following cutaneous manifestations: flushing, Raynaud’s phenomenon, evanescent hyperemia, livedo reticularis, erythromelalgia, and hypo- or hyperhidrosis. “If you see a patient with any of these findings, you want to think about the possibility of dysautonomia,” she said, adding that urticaria can also be a finding.

To screen for dysautonomia, she advised, “ask patients if they have difficulty sitting or standing upright, if they have indigestion or other gastric symptoms, abnormal blood vessel functioning such as low or high blood pressure, increased or decreased sweating, changes in urinary frequency or urinary incontinence, or challenges with vision.”

If the patient answers yes to two or more of these questions, she said, consider a referral to neurology and/or cardiology or a center of excellence for further evaluation with tilt-table testing and other screening tools. She also recommended a review published in 2015 that describes the dermatological manifestations of postural tachycardia syndrome and includes illustrated cases.

One of Dr. Hebert’s future dermatology residents assembled a composite of data from the Dysautonomia Center of Excellence, and in the study, found that, compared with males, females with dysautonomia suffer more from excessive sweating, paleness of the face, pale extremities, swelling, cyanosis, cold intolerance, flushing, and hot flashes.

Dr. Hebert disclosed that she has been a consultant to and an adviser for several pharmaceutical companies.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Despite recent reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, independent experts who advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines agree that the benefits of the one-dose shot still outweigh its risks.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

The company also presented new data suggesting that the shots generate strong immune responses against circulating variants and that antibodies generated by the vaccine stay elevated for at least 8 months.

Members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) did not vote, but discussed and affirmed their support for recent decisions by the Food and Drug Administration and CDC to update patient information about the very low risk of GBS that appears to be associated with the vaccine, but to continue offering the vaccine to people in the United States.

The Johnson & Johnson shot has been a minor player in the U.S. vaccination campaign, accounting for less than 4% of all vaccine doses given in this country. Still, the single-dose inoculation, which doesn’t require ultra-cold storage, has been important for reaching people in rural areas, through mobile clinics, at colleges and primary care offices, and in vulnerable populations – those who are incarcerated or homeless.

The FDA says it has received reports of 100 cases of GBS after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in its Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database through the end of June. The cases are still under investigation.

To date, more than 12 million doses of the vaccine have been administered, making the rate of GBS 8.1 cases for every million doses administered.

Although it is still extremely rare, that’s above the expected background rate of GBS of 1.6 cases for every million people, said Grace Lee, MD, a Stanford, Calif., pediatrician who chairs the ACIP’s Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group. 

So far, most GBS cases (61%) have been among men. The midpoint age of the cases was 57 years. The average time to onset was 14 days, and 98% of cases occurred within 42 days of the shot.  Facial paralysis has been associated with an estimated 30%-50% of cases. One person, who had heart failure, high blood pressure, and diabetes, has died.

Still, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh its risks. For every million doses given to people over age 50, the vaccine prevents nearly 7,500 COVID-19 hospitalizations and nearly 100 deaths in women, and more than 13,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations and more than 2,400 deaths in men. 

Rates of GBS after the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna were around 1 case for every 1 million doses given, which is not above the rate that would be expected without vaccination.

The link to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine prompted the FDA to add a warning to the vaccine’s patient safety information on July 12.

Also in July, the European Medicines Agency recommended a similar warning for the product information of the AstraZeneca vaccine Vaxzevria, which relies on similar technology.
 

Good against variants

Johnson & Johnson also presented new information showing its vaccine maintained high levels of neutralizing antibodies against four of the so-called “variants of concern” – Alpha, Gamma, Beta, and Delta. The protection generated by the vaccine lasted for at least 8 months after the shot, the company said.

“We’re still learning about the duration of protection and the breadth of coverage against this evolving variant landscape for each of the authorized vaccines,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development at Janssen, the company that makes the vaccine for J&J.

The company also said that its vaccine generated very strong T-cell responses. T cells destroy infected cells and, along with antibodies, are an important part of the body’s immune response.

Antibody levels and T-cell responses are markers for immunity. Measuring these levels isn’t the same as proving that shots can fend off an infection. 

It’s still unclear exactly which component of the immune response is most important for fighting off COVID-19.

Dr. Mammen said the companies are still gathering that clinical data, and would present it soon.

“We will have a better view of the clinical efficacy in the coming weeks,” he said.


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

Despite recent reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, independent experts who advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines agree that the benefits of the one-dose shot still outweigh its risks.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

The company also presented new data suggesting that the shots generate strong immune responses against circulating variants and that antibodies generated by the vaccine stay elevated for at least 8 months.

Members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) did not vote, but discussed and affirmed their support for recent decisions by the Food and Drug Administration and CDC to update patient information about the very low risk of GBS that appears to be associated with the vaccine, but to continue offering the vaccine to people in the United States.

The Johnson & Johnson shot has been a minor player in the U.S. vaccination campaign, accounting for less than 4% of all vaccine doses given in this country. Still, the single-dose inoculation, which doesn’t require ultra-cold storage, has been important for reaching people in rural areas, through mobile clinics, at colleges and primary care offices, and in vulnerable populations – those who are incarcerated or homeless.

The FDA says it has received reports of 100 cases of GBS after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in its Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database through the end of June. The cases are still under investigation.

To date, more than 12 million doses of the vaccine have been administered, making the rate of GBS 8.1 cases for every million doses administered.

Although it is still extremely rare, that’s above the expected background rate of GBS of 1.6 cases for every million people, said Grace Lee, MD, a Stanford, Calif., pediatrician who chairs the ACIP’s Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group. 

So far, most GBS cases (61%) have been among men. The midpoint age of the cases was 57 years. The average time to onset was 14 days, and 98% of cases occurred within 42 days of the shot.  Facial paralysis has been associated with an estimated 30%-50% of cases. One person, who had heart failure, high blood pressure, and diabetes, has died.

Still, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh its risks. For every million doses given to people over age 50, the vaccine prevents nearly 7,500 COVID-19 hospitalizations and nearly 100 deaths in women, and more than 13,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations and more than 2,400 deaths in men. 

Rates of GBS after the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna were around 1 case for every 1 million doses given, which is not above the rate that would be expected without vaccination.

The link to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine prompted the FDA to add a warning to the vaccine’s patient safety information on July 12.

Also in July, the European Medicines Agency recommended a similar warning for the product information of the AstraZeneca vaccine Vaxzevria, which relies on similar technology.
 

Good against variants

Johnson & Johnson also presented new information showing its vaccine maintained high levels of neutralizing antibodies against four of the so-called “variants of concern” – Alpha, Gamma, Beta, and Delta. The protection generated by the vaccine lasted for at least 8 months after the shot, the company said.

“We’re still learning about the duration of protection and the breadth of coverage against this evolving variant landscape for each of the authorized vaccines,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development at Janssen, the company that makes the vaccine for J&J.

The company also said that its vaccine generated very strong T-cell responses. T cells destroy infected cells and, along with antibodies, are an important part of the body’s immune response.

Antibody levels and T-cell responses are markers for immunity. Measuring these levels isn’t the same as proving that shots can fend off an infection. 

It’s still unclear exactly which component of the immune response is most important for fighting off COVID-19.

Dr. Mammen said the companies are still gathering that clinical data, and would present it soon.

“We will have a better view of the clinical efficacy in the coming weeks,” he said.


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

Despite recent reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, independent experts who advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines agree that the benefits of the one-dose shot still outweigh its risks.

Johnson &amp; Johnson

The company also presented new data suggesting that the shots generate strong immune responses against circulating variants and that antibodies generated by the vaccine stay elevated for at least 8 months.

Members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) did not vote, but discussed and affirmed their support for recent decisions by the Food and Drug Administration and CDC to update patient information about the very low risk of GBS that appears to be associated with the vaccine, but to continue offering the vaccine to people in the United States.

The Johnson & Johnson shot has been a minor player in the U.S. vaccination campaign, accounting for less than 4% of all vaccine doses given in this country. Still, the single-dose inoculation, which doesn’t require ultra-cold storage, has been important for reaching people in rural areas, through mobile clinics, at colleges and primary care offices, and in vulnerable populations – those who are incarcerated or homeless.

The FDA says it has received reports of 100 cases of GBS after the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in its Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database through the end of June. The cases are still under investigation.

To date, more than 12 million doses of the vaccine have been administered, making the rate of GBS 8.1 cases for every million doses administered.

Although it is still extremely rare, that’s above the expected background rate of GBS of 1.6 cases for every million people, said Grace Lee, MD, a Stanford, Calif., pediatrician who chairs the ACIP’s Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group. 

So far, most GBS cases (61%) have been among men. The midpoint age of the cases was 57 years. The average time to onset was 14 days, and 98% of cases occurred within 42 days of the shot.  Facial paralysis has been associated with an estimated 30%-50% of cases. One person, who had heart failure, high blood pressure, and diabetes, has died.

Still, the benefits of the vaccine far outweigh its risks. For every million doses given to people over age 50, the vaccine prevents nearly 7,500 COVID-19 hospitalizations and nearly 100 deaths in women, and more than 13,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations and more than 2,400 deaths in men. 

Rates of GBS after the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna were around 1 case for every 1 million doses given, which is not above the rate that would be expected without vaccination.

The link to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine prompted the FDA to add a warning to the vaccine’s patient safety information on July 12.

Also in July, the European Medicines Agency recommended a similar warning for the product information of the AstraZeneca vaccine Vaxzevria, which relies on similar technology.
 

Good against variants

Johnson & Johnson also presented new information showing its vaccine maintained high levels of neutralizing antibodies against four of the so-called “variants of concern” – Alpha, Gamma, Beta, and Delta. The protection generated by the vaccine lasted for at least 8 months after the shot, the company said.

“We’re still learning about the duration of protection and the breadth of coverage against this evolving variant landscape for each of the authorized vaccines,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development at Janssen, the company that makes the vaccine for J&J.

The company also said that its vaccine generated very strong T-cell responses. T cells destroy infected cells and, along with antibodies, are an important part of the body’s immune response.

Antibody levels and T-cell responses are markers for immunity. Measuring these levels isn’t the same as proving that shots can fend off an infection. 

It’s still unclear exactly which component of the immune response is most important for fighting off COVID-19.

Dr. Mammen said the companies are still gathering that clinical data, and would present it soon.

“We will have a better view of the clinical efficacy in the coming weeks,” he said.


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

Rates of heart failure (HF) caused by methamphetamine abuse are climbing quickly in the western United States, at great financial and societal cost, suggests an analysis that documents the trends in California over a recent decade.

In the new study, methamphetamine-associated HF (meth-HF) admissions in the state rose by 585% between 2008 and 2018, and charges related those hospitalizations jumped 840%. Cases of HF unrelated to meth fell by 6% during the same period.

The recent explosion in meth-HF hospitalizations has also been costly for society in general, because most cases are younger adults in their most productive, prime earning years, Susan X. Zhao, MD, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., said in an interview.

“Over the past 11 years, especially since 2018, it has really started to take off, with a pretty dramatic rise. And it happened without much attention, because when we think about drugs, we think about acute overdose and not so much about the chronic, smoldering, long-term effects,” said Dr. Zhao, who is lead author on the study published July 13, 2021, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

“It’s really affecting a section of the population that is not supposed to be having heart failure problems. I think it is going to continue for the next decade until we put a stop to the parent problem, which is methamphetamine,” Dr. Zhao said. “We’re at the beginning, even though the rise has been pretty dramatic. The worst is yet to come.”
 

Under the radar

Methamphetamine-associated HF has been a growing problem for many years but has largely been “flying under the radar” because HF hospitalization data focus on Medicare-age patients, not the overwhelmingly younger meth-HF population, the report notes.

“We have to get this message out. Many of my patients with meth heart failure had no idea this would happen to them. They didn’t know,” Dr. Zhao said. “Once I tell them that this is what methamphetamines will do to you after years and years of use, they say they wish someone had told them.”

Dr. Zhao and colleagues looked at HF admission data collected by California’s Health and Human Services Agency to assess meth-HF trends and disease burden. They identified 1,033,076 HF hospitalizations during the decade, of which 42,565 (4.12%) were for meth-HF.

Patients hospitalized with meth-HF had a mean age of 49.6 years, compared with 72.2 for the other patients admitted with HF (P < .001). Virtually all of the patients hospitalized for meth-HF were younger than 65 years: 94.5%, compared with 30% for the other HF patients (P < .001).

Hospitalized patients with meth-HF were mostly men, their prevalence of 80% contrasting with 52.4% for patients with non–meth-related HF (P < .001).

Rates of hospitalization for meth-HF steadily increased during the study period. The age-adjusted rate of meth-HF hospitalization per 100,000 rose from 4.1 in 2008 to 28.1 in 2018. The rate of hospitalization for HF unrelated to meth actually declined, going from 342.3 in 2008 to 321.6 in 2018.

Charges for hospitalizations related to meth-HF shot up more than eight times, from $41.5 million in 2008 to $390.2 million in 2018. In contrast, charges for other HF hospitalizations rose by only 82%, from $3.5 billion to $6.3 billion.
 

Multiple layers of prevention

Dr. Zhao proposed ways that clinicians can communicate with their patients who are using or considering to use meth. “There are multiple layers of prevention. For people who are thinking of using meth, they need to get the message that something really bad can happen to them years down the road. They’re not going to die from it overnight, but it will damage the heart slowly,” she said.

The next layer of prevention can potentially help meth users who have not yet developed heart problems, Dr. Zhao said. “This would be the time to say, ‘you’re so lucky, your heart is still good. It’s time to stop because people like you, a few years from now are going to die prematurely from a very horrible, very suffering kind of death’.”

Importantly, in meth users who have already developed HF, even then it may not be too late to reverse the cardiomyopathy and symptoms. For up to a third of people with established meth-HF, “if they stop using meth, if they take good cardiac medications, and if the heart failure is in an early enough course, their heart can entirely revert to normal,” Dr. Zhao said, citing an earlier work from her and her colleagues.

Currently, methamphetamine abuse has taken especially strong root in rural areas in California and the Midwest. But Dr. Zhao predicts it will soon become prevalent throughout the United States.
 

Spotlight on an ‘epidemic’

The rapid growth of the methamphetamine “epidemic” has been well-documented in the United States and around the world, observed an accompanying editorial from Pavan Reddy, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, and Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

They contend that more attention has been given to opioid overdose deaths; meth abuse does not seem to command the same attention, likely because meth is not as strongly associated with acute overdose.

But meth, wrote Dr. Reddy and Dr. Elkayam, “is a different drug with its own M.O., equally dangerous and costly to society but more insidious in nature, its effects potentially causing decades of mental and physical debilitation before ending in premature death.”

The current study “has turned a spotlight on a public health crisis that has grown unfettered for over 2 decades,” and is a call for the “medical community to recognize and manage cases of meth-HF with a comprehensive approach that addresses both mental and physical illness,” they concluded. “Only then can we hope to properly help these patients and with that, reduce the socioeconomic burden of meth-HF.”
 

A quietly building crisis

The sharp rise in meth-HF hospitalizations is an expected reflection of the methamphetamine crisis, which has been quietly building over the last few years, addiction psychiatrist Corneliu N. Stanciu, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview.

“This new version of methamphetamines looks like ice and is more potent and toxic than former versions traditionally made in home-built labs,” he said. Lately the vast majority of methamphetamines in the United States have come from Mexico, are less expensive with higher purity, “and can be manufactured in greater quantities.”

Some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) also inject methamphetamines, which can make OUD treatment clinics good places to screen for meth abuse and educate about its cardiovascular implications, Dr. Stanciu said.

“Just as addiction treatment centers present an opportunity to implement cardiac screening and referrals,” he said, “cardiology visits and hospitalizations such as those for meth-HF also present a golden opportunity for involvement of substance use disorder interventions and referrals to get patients into treatment and prevent further damage through ongoing use.”

Dr. Zhao, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Eklayam, and Dr. Stanciu report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rates of heart failure (HF) caused by methamphetamine abuse are climbing quickly in the western United States, at great financial and societal cost, suggests an analysis that documents the trends in California over a recent decade.

In the new study, methamphetamine-associated HF (meth-HF) admissions in the state rose by 585% between 2008 and 2018, and charges related those hospitalizations jumped 840%. Cases of HF unrelated to meth fell by 6% during the same period.

The recent explosion in meth-HF hospitalizations has also been costly for society in general, because most cases are younger adults in their most productive, prime earning years, Susan X. Zhao, MD, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., said in an interview.

“Over the past 11 years, especially since 2018, it has really started to take off, with a pretty dramatic rise. And it happened without much attention, because when we think about drugs, we think about acute overdose and not so much about the chronic, smoldering, long-term effects,” said Dr. Zhao, who is lead author on the study published July 13, 2021, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

“It’s really affecting a section of the population that is not supposed to be having heart failure problems. I think it is going to continue for the next decade until we put a stop to the parent problem, which is methamphetamine,” Dr. Zhao said. “We’re at the beginning, even though the rise has been pretty dramatic. The worst is yet to come.”
 

Under the radar

Methamphetamine-associated HF has been a growing problem for many years but has largely been “flying under the radar” because HF hospitalization data focus on Medicare-age patients, not the overwhelmingly younger meth-HF population, the report notes.

“We have to get this message out. Many of my patients with meth heart failure had no idea this would happen to them. They didn’t know,” Dr. Zhao said. “Once I tell them that this is what methamphetamines will do to you after years and years of use, they say they wish someone had told them.”

Dr. Zhao and colleagues looked at HF admission data collected by California’s Health and Human Services Agency to assess meth-HF trends and disease burden. They identified 1,033,076 HF hospitalizations during the decade, of which 42,565 (4.12%) were for meth-HF.

Patients hospitalized with meth-HF had a mean age of 49.6 years, compared with 72.2 for the other patients admitted with HF (P < .001). Virtually all of the patients hospitalized for meth-HF were younger than 65 years: 94.5%, compared with 30% for the other HF patients (P < .001).

Hospitalized patients with meth-HF were mostly men, their prevalence of 80% contrasting with 52.4% for patients with non–meth-related HF (P < .001).

Rates of hospitalization for meth-HF steadily increased during the study period. The age-adjusted rate of meth-HF hospitalization per 100,000 rose from 4.1 in 2008 to 28.1 in 2018. The rate of hospitalization for HF unrelated to meth actually declined, going from 342.3 in 2008 to 321.6 in 2018.

Charges for hospitalizations related to meth-HF shot up more than eight times, from $41.5 million in 2008 to $390.2 million in 2018. In contrast, charges for other HF hospitalizations rose by only 82%, from $3.5 billion to $6.3 billion.
 

Multiple layers of prevention

Dr. Zhao proposed ways that clinicians can communicate with their patients who are using or considering to use meth. “There are multiple layers of prevention. For people who are thinking of using meth, they need to get the message that something really bad can happen to them years down the road. They’re not going to die from it overnight, but it will damage the heart slowly,” she said.

The next layer of prevention can potentially help meth users who have not yet developed heart problems, Dr. Zhao said. “This would be the time to say, ‘you’re so lucky, your heart is still good. It’s time to stop because people like you, a few years from now are going to die prematurely from a very horrible, very suffering kind of death’.”

Importantly, in meth users who have already developed HF, even then it may not be too late to reverse the cardiomyopathy and symptoms. For up to a third of people with established meth-HF, “if they stop using meth, if they take good cardiac medications, and if the heart failure is in an early enough course, their heart can entirely revert to normal,” Dr. Zhao said, citing an earlier work from her and her colleagues.

Currently, methamphetamine abuse has taken especially strong root in rural areas in California and the Midwest. But Dr. Zhao predicts it will soon become prevalent throughout the United States.
 

Spotlight on an ‘epidemic’

The rapid growth of the methamphetamine “epidemic” has been well-documented in the United States and around the world, observed an accompanying editorial from Pavan Reddy, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, and Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

They contend that more attention has been given to opioid overdose deaths; meth abuse does not seem to command the same attention, likely because meth is not as strongly associated with acute overdose.

But meth, wrote Dr. Reddy and Dr. Elkayam, “is a different drug with its own M.O., equally dangerous and costly to society but more insidious in nature, its effects potentially causing decades of mental and physical debilitation before ending in premature death.”

The current study “has turned a spotlight on a public health crisis that has grown unfettered for over 2 decades,” and is a call for the “medical community to recognize and manage cases of meth-HF with a comprehensive approach that addresses both mental and physical illness,” they concluded. “Only then can we hope to properly help these patients and with that, reduce the socioeconomic burden of meth-HF.”
 

A quietly building crisis

The sharp rise in meth-HF hospitalizations is an expected reflection of the methamphetamine crisis, which has been quietly building over the last few years, addiction psychiatrist Corneliu N. Stanciu, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview.

“This new version of methamphetamines looks like ice and is more potent and toxic than former versions traditionally made in home-built labs,” he said. Lately the vast majority of methamphetamines in the United States have come from Mexico, are less expensive with higher purity, “and can be manufactured in greater quantities.”

Some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) also inject methamphetamines, which can make OUD treatment clinics good places to screen for meth abuse and educate about its cardiovascular implications, Dr. Stanciu said.

“Just as addiction treatment centers present an opportunity to implement cardiac screening and referrals,” he said, “cardiology visits and hospitalizations such as those for meth-HF also present a golden opportunity for involvement of substance use disorder interventions and referrals to get patients into treatment and prevent further damage through ongoing use.”

Dr. Zhao, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Eklayam, and Dr. Stanciu report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rates of heart failure (HF) caused by methamphetamine abuse are climbing quickly in the western United States, at great financial and societal cost, suggests an analysis that documents the trends in California over a recent decade.

In the new study, methamphetamine-associated HF (meth-HF) admissions in the state rose by 585% between 2008 and 2018, and charges related those hospitalizations jumped 840%. Cases of HF unrelated to meth fell by 6% during the same period.

The recent explosion in meth-HF hospitalizations has also been costly for society in general, because most cases are younger adults in their most productive, prime earning years, Susan X. Zhao, MD, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., said in an interview.

“Over the past 11 years, especially since 2018, it has really started to take off, with a pretty dramatic rise. And it happened without much attention, because when we think about drugs, we think about acute overdose and not so much about the chronic, smoldering, long-term effects,” said Dr. Zhao, who is lead author on the study published July 13, 2021, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

“It’s really affecting a section of the population that is not supposed to be having heart failure problems. I think it is going to continue for the next decade until we put a stop to the parent problem, which is methamphetamine,” Dr. Zhao said. “We’re at the beginning, even though the rise has been pretty dramatic. The worst is yet to come.”
 

Under the radar

Methamphetamine-associated HF has been a growing problem for many years but has largely been “flying under the radar” because HF hospitalization data focus on Medicare-age patients, not the overwhelmingly younger meth-HF population, the report notes.

“We have to get this message out. Many of my patients with meth heart failure had no idea this would happen to them. They didn’t know,” Dr. Zhao said. “Once I tell them that this is what methamphetamines will do to you after years and years of use, they say they wish someone had told them.”

Dr. Zhao and colleagues looked at HF admission data collected by California’s Health and Human Services Agency to assess meth-HF trends and disease burden. They identified 1,033,076 HF hospitalizations during the decade, of which 42,565 (4.12%) were for meth-HF.

Patients hospitalized with meth-HF had a mean age of 49.6 years, compared with 72.2 for the other patients admitted with HF (P < .001). Virtually all of the patients hospitalized for meth-HF were younger than 65 years: 94.5%, compared with 30% for the other HF patients (P < .001).

Hospitalized patients with meth-HF were mostly men, their prevalence of 80% contrasting with 52.4% for patients with non–meth-related HF (P < .001).

Rates of hospitalization for meth-HF steadily increased during the study period. The age-adjusted rate of meth-HF hospitalization per 100,000 rose from 4.1 in 2008 to 28.1 in 2018. The rate of hospitalization for HF unrelated to meth actually declined, going from 342.3 in 2008 to 321.6 in 2018.

Charges for hospitalizations related to meth-HF shot up more than eight times, from $41.5 million in 2008 to $390.2 million in 2018. In contrast, charges for other HF hospitalizations rose by only 82%, from $3.5 billion to $6.3 billion.
 

Multiple layers of prevention

Dr. Zhao proposed ways that clinicians can communicate with their patients who are using or considering to use meth. “There are multiple layers of prevention. For people who are thinking of using meth, they need to get the message that something really bad can happen to them years down the road. They’re not going to die from it overnight, but it will damage the heart slowly,” she said.

The next layer of prevention can potentially help meth users who have not yet developed heart problems, Dr. Zhao said. “This would be the time to say, ‘you’re so lucky, your heart is still good. It’s time to stop because people like you, a few years from now are going to die prematurely from a very horrible, very suffering kind of death’.”

Importantly, in meth users who have already developed HF, even then it may not be too late to reverse the cardiomyopathy and symptoms. For up to a third of people with established meth-HF, “if they stop using meth, if they take good cardiac medications, and if the heart failure is in an early enough course, their heart can entirely revert to normal,” Dr. Zhao said, citing an earlier work from her and her colleagues.

Currently, methamphetamine abuse has taken especially strong root in rural areas in California and the Midwest. But Dr. Zhao predicts it will soon become prevalent throughout the United States.
 

Spotlight on an ‘epidemic’

The rapid growth of the methamphetamine “epidemic” has been well-documented in the United States and around the world, observed an accompanying editorial from Pavan Reddy, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, and Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

They contend that more attention has been given to opioid overdose deaths; meth abuse does not seem to command the same attention, likely because meth is not as strongly associated with acute overdose.

But meth, wrote Dr. Reddy and Dr. Elkayam, “is a different drug with its own M.O., equally dangerous and costly to society but more insidious in nature, its effects potentially causing decades of mental and physical debilitation before ending in premature death.”

The current study “has turned a spotlight on a public health crisis that has grown unfettered for over 2 decades,” and is a call for the “medical community to recognize and manage cases of meth-HF with a comprehensive approach that addresses both mental and physical illness,” they concluded. “Only then can we hope to properly help these patients and with that, reduce the socioeconomic burden of meth-HF.”
 

A quietly building crisis

The sharp rise in meth-HF hospitalizations is an expected reflection of the methamphetamine crisis, which has been quietly building over the last few years, addiction psychiatrist Corneliu N. Stanciu, MD, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview.

“This new version of methamphetamines looks like ice and is more potent and toxic than former versions traditionally made in home-built labs,” he said. Lately the vast majority of methamphetamines in the United States have come from Mexico, are less expensive with higher purity, “and can be manufactured in greater quantities.”

Some patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) also inject methamphetamines, which can make OUD treatment clinics good places to screen for meth abuse and educate about its cardiovascular implications, Dr. Stanciu said.

“Just as addiction treatment centers present an opportunity to implement cardiac screening and referrals,” he said, “cardiology visits and hospitalizations such as those for meth-HF also present a golden opportunity for involvement of substance use disorder interventions and referrals to get patients into treatment and prevent further damage through ongoing use.”

Dr. Zhao, Dr. Reddy, Dr. Eklayam, and Dr. Stanciu report no relevant financial relationships.

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