Neurology Reviews

MONTREAL – Levels of neurofilament light chain (Nfl) may be a biomarker of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN), new research suggests.

Investigators found Nfl levels increased in cancer patients following a first infusion of the medication paclitaxel and corresponded to neuropathy severity 6-12 months post-treatment, suggesting the blood protein may provide an early CIPN biomarker.

“Nfl after a single cycle could detect axonal degeneration,” said lead investigator Masarra Joda, a researcher and PhD candidate at the University of Sydney in Australia. She added that “quantification of Nfl may provide a clinically useful marker of emerging neurotoxicity in patients vulnerable to CIPN.”

The findings were presented at the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Common, Burdensome Side Effect

A common side effect of chemotherapy, CIPN manifests as sensory neuropathy and causes degeneration of the peripheral axons. A protein biomarker of axonal degeneration, Nfl has previously been investigated as a way of identifying patients at risk of CIPN.

The goal of the current study was to identify the potential link between Nfl with neurophysiological markers of axon degeneration in patients receiving the neurotoxin chemotherapy paclitaxel.

The study included 93 cancer patients. All were assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of treatment. CIPN was assessed using blood samples of Nfl and the Total Neuropathy Score (TNS), the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) neuropathy scale, and patient-reported measures using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Module (EORTC-CIPN20).

Axonal degeneration was measured with neurophysiological tests including sural nerve compound sensory action potential (CSAP) for the lower limbs, and sensory median nerve CSAP, as well as stimulus threshold testing, for the upper limbs. 

Almost all of study participants (97%) were female. The majority (66%) had breast cancer and 30% had gynecological cancer. Most (73%) were receiving a weekly regimen of paclitaxel, and the remainder were treated with taxanes plus platinum once every 3 weeks. By the end of treatment, 82% of the patients had developed CIPN, which was mild in 44% and moderate/severe in 38%. 

Nfl levels increased significantly from baseline to after the first dose of chemotherapy (P < .001), “highlighting that nerve damage occurs from the very beginning of treatment,” senior investigator Susanna Park, PhD, told this news organization. 

In addition, “patients with higher Nfl levels after a single paclitaxel treatment had greater neuropathy at the end of treatment (higher EORTC scores [P ≤ .026], and higher TNS scores [P ≤ .00]),” added Dr. Park, who is associate professor at the University of Sydney.

“Importantly, we also looked at long-term outcomes beyond the end of chemotherapy, because chronic neuropathy produces a significant burden in cancer survivors,” said Dr. Park. 

“Among a total of 44 patients who completed the 6- to 12-month post-treatment follow-up, NfL levels after a single treatment were linked to severity of nerve damage quantified with neurophysiological tests, and greater Nfl levels at mid-treatment were correlated with worse patient and neurologically graded neuropathy at 6-12 months.”

Dr. Park said the results suggest that NfL may provide a biomarker of long-term axon damage and that Nfl assays “may enable clinicians to evaluate the risk of long-term toxicity early during paclitaxel treatment to hopefully provide clinically significant information to guide better treatment titration.” 

Currently, she said, CIPN is a prominent cause of dose reduction and early chemotherapy cessation. 

“For example, in early breast cancer around 25% of patients experience a dose reduction due to the severity of neuropathy symptoms.” But, she said, “there is no standardized way of identifying which patients are at risk of long-term neuropathy and therefore, may benefit more from dose reduction. In this setting, a biomarker such as Nfl could provide oncologists with more information about the risk of long-term toxicity and take that into account in dose decision-making.” 

For some cancers, she added, there are multiple potential therapy options.

“A biomarker such as NfL could assist in determining risk-benefit profile in terms of switching to alternate therapies. However, further studies will be needed to fully define the utility of NfL as a biomarker of paclitaxel neuropathy.” 
 

Promising Research

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Maryam Lustberg, MD, associate professor, director of the Center for Breast Cancer at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale Cancer Center, and chief of Breast Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center, in New Haven, Connecticut, said the study “builds on a body of work previously reported by others showing that neurofilament light chains as detected in the blood can be associated with early signs of neurotoxic injury.” 

She added that the research “is promising, since existing clinical and patient-reported measures tend to under-detect chemotherapy-induced neuropathy until more permanent injury might have occurred.” 

Dr. Lustberg, who is immediate past president of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, said future studies are needed before Nfl testing can be implemented in routine practice, but that “early detection will allow earlier initiation of supportive care strategies such as physical therapy and exercise, as well as dose modifications, which may be helpful for preventing permanent damage and improving quality of life.” 

The investigators and Dr. Lustberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Levels of neurofilament light chain (Nfl) may be a biomarker of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN), new research suggests.

Investigators found Nfl levels increased in cancer patients following a first infusion of the medication paclitaxel and corresponded to neuropathy severity 6-12 months post-treatment, suggesting the blood protein may provide an early CIPN biomarker.

“Nfl after a single cycle could detect axonal degeneration,” said lead investigator Masarra Joda, a researcher and PhD candidate at the University of Sydney in Australia. She added that “quantification of Nfl may provide a clinically useful marker of emerging neurotoxicity in patients vulnerable to CIPN.”

The findings were presented at the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Common, Burdensome Side Effect

A common side effect of chemotherapy, CIPN manifests as sensory neuropathy and causes degeneration of the peripheral axons. A protein biomarker of axonal degeneration, Nfl has previously been investigated as a way of identifying patients at risk of CIPN.

The goal of the current study was to identify the potential link between Nfl with neurophysiological markers of axon degeneration in patients receiving the neurotoxin chemotherapy paclitaxel.

The study included 93 cancer patients. All were assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of treatment. CIPN was assessed using blood samples of Nfl and the Total Neuropathy Score (TNS), the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) neuropathy scale, and patient-reported measures using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Module (EORTC-CIPN20).

Axonal degeneration was measured with neurophysiological tests including sural nerve compound sensory action potential (CSAP) for the lower limbs, and sensory median nerve CSAP, as well as stimulus threshold testing, for the upper limbs. 

Almost all of study participants (97%) were female. The majority (66%) had breast cancer and 30% had gynecological cancer. Most (73%) were receiving a weekly regimen of paclitaxel, and the remainder were treated with taxanes plus platinum once every 3 weeks. By the end of treatment, 82% of the patients had developed CIPN, which was mild in 44% and moderate/severe in 38%. 

Nfl levels increased significantly from baseline to after the first dose of chemotherapy (P < .001), “highlighting that nerve damage occurs from the very beginning of treatment,” senior investigator Susanna Park, PhD, told this news organization. 

In addition, “patients with higher Nfl levels after a single paclitaxel treatment had greater neuropathy at the end of treatment (higher EORTC scores [P ≤ .026], and higher TNS scores [P ≤ .00]),” added Dr. Park, who is associate professor at the University of Sydney.

“Importantly, we also looked at long-term outcomes beyond the end of chemotherapy, because chronic neuropathy produces a significant burden in cancer survivors,” said Dr. Park. 

“Among a total of 44 patients who completed the 6- to 12-month post-treatment follow-up, NfL levels after a single treatment were linked to severity of nerve damage quantified with neurophysiological tests, and greater Nfl levels at mid-treatment were correlated with worse patient and neurologically graded neuropathy at 6-12 months.”

Dr. Park said the results suggest that NfL may provide a biomarker of long-term axon damage and that Nfl assays “may enable clinicians to evaluate the risk of long-term toxicity early during paclitaxel treatment to hopefully provide clinically significant information to guide better treatment titration.” 

Currently, she said, CIPN is a prominent cause of dose reduction and early chemotherapy cessation. 

“For example, in early breast cancer around 25% of patients experience a dose reduction due to the severity of neuropathy symptoms.” But, she said, “there is no standardized way of identifying which patients are at risk of long-term neuropathy and therefore, may benefit more from dose reduction. In this setting, a biomarker such as Nfl could provide oncologists with more information about the risk of long-term toxicity and take that into account in dose decision-making.” 

For some cancers, she added, there are multiple potential therapy options.

“A biomarker such as NfL could assist in determining risk-benefit profile in terms of switching to alternate therapies. However, further studies will be needed to fully define the utility of NfL as a biomarker of paclitaxel neuropathy.” 
 

Promising Research

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Maryam Lustberg, MD, associate professor, director of the Center for Breast Cancer at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale Cancer Center, and chief of Breast Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center, in New Haven, Connecticut, said the study “builds on a body of work previously reported by others showing that neurofilament light chains as detected in the blood can be associated with early signs of neurotoxic injury.” 

She added that the research “is promising, since existing clinical and patient-reported measures tend to under-detect chemotherapy-induced neuropathy until more permanent injury might have occurred.” 

Dr. Lustberg, who is immediate past president of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, said future studies are needed before Nfl testing can be implemented in routine practice, but that “early detection will allow earlier initiation of supportive care strategies such as physical therapy and exercise, as well as dose modifications, which may be helpful for preventing permanent damage and improving quality of life.” 

The investigators and Dr. Lustberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Levels of neurofilament light chain (Nfl) may be a biomarker of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN), new research suggests.

Investigators found Nfl levels increased in cancer patients following a first infusion of the medication paclitaxel and corresponded to neuropathy severity 6-12 months post-treatment, suggesting the blood protein may provide an early CIPN biomarker.

“Nfl after a single cycle could detect axonal degeneration,” said lead investigator Masarra Joda, a researcher and PhD candidate at the University of Sydney in Australia. She added that “quantification of Nfl may provide a clinically useful marker of emerging neurotoxicity in patients vulnerable to CIPN.”

The findings were presented at the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) 2024 annual meeting.
 

Common, Burdensome Side Effect

A common side effect of chemotherapy, CIPN manifests as sensory neuropathy and causes degeneration of the peripheral axons. A protein biomarker of axonal degeneration, Nfl has previously been investigated as a way of identifying patients at risk of CIPN.

The goal of the current study was to identify the potential link between Nfl with neurophysiological markers of axon degeneration in patients receiving the neurotoxin chemotherapy paclitaxel.

The study included 93 cancer patients. All were assessed at the beginning, middle, and end of treatment. CIPN was assessed using blood samples of Nfl and the Total Neuropathy Score (TNS), the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) neuropathy scale, and patient-reported measures using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Module (EORTC-CIPN20).

Axonal degeneration was measured with neurophysiological tests including sural nerve compound sensory action potential (CSAP) for the lower limbs, and sensory median nerve CSAP, as well as stimulus threshold testing, for the upper limbs. 

Almost all of study participants (97%) were female. The majority (66%) had breast cancer and 30% had gynecological cancer. Most (73%) were receiving a weekly regimen of paclitaxel, and the remainder were treated with taxanes plus platinum once every 3 weeks. By the end of treatment, 82% of the patients had developed CIPN, which was mild in 44% and moderate/severe in 38%. 

Nfl levels increased significantly from baseline to after the first dose of chemotherapy (P < .001), “highlighting that nerve damage occurs from the very beginning of treatment,” senior investigator Susanna Park, PhD, told this news organization. 

In addition, “patients with higher Nfl levels after a single paclitaxel treatment had greater neuropathy at the end of treatment (higher EORTC scores [P ≤ .026], and higher TNS scores [P ≤ .00]),” added Dr. Park, who is associate professor at the University of Sydney.

“Importantly, we also looked at long-term outcomes beyond the end of chemotherapy, because chronic neuropathy produces a significant burden in cancer survivors,” said Dr. Park. 

“Among a total of 44 patients who completed the 6- to 12-month post-treatment follow-up, NfL levels after a single treatment were linked to severity of nerve damage quantified with neurophysiological tests, and greater Nfl levels at mid-treatment were correlated with worse patient and neurologically graded neuropathy at 6-12 months.”

Dr. Park said the results suggest that NfL may provide a biomarker of long-term axon damage and that Nfl assays “may enable clinicians to evaluate the risk of long-term toxicity early during paclitaxel treatment to hopefully provide clinically significant information to guide better treatment titration.” 

Currently, she said, CIPN is a prominent cause of dose reduction and early chemotherapy cessation. 

“For example, in early breast cancer around 25% of patients experience a dose reduction due to the severity of neuropathy symptoms.” But, she said, “there is no standardized way of identifying which patients are at risk of long-term neuropathy and therefore, may benefit more from dose reduction. In this setting, a biomarker such as Nfl could provide oncologists with more information about the risk of long-term toxicity and take that into account in dose decision-making.” 

For some cancers, she added, there are multiple potential therapy options.

“A biomarker such as NfL could assist in determining risk-benefit profile in terms of switching to alternate therapies. However, further studies will be needed to fully define the utility of NfL as a biomarker of paclitaxel neuropathy.” 
 

Promising Research

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Maryam Lustberg, MD, associate professor, director of the Center for Breast Cancer at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale Cancer Center, and chief of Breast Medical Oncology at Yale Cancer Center, in New Haven, Connecticut, said the study “builds on a body of work previously reported by others showing that neurofilament light chains as detected in the blood can be associated with early signs of neurotoxic injury.” 

She added that the research “is promising, since existing clinical and patient-reported measures tend to under-detect chemotherapy-induced neuropathy until more permanent injury might have occurred.” 

Dr. Lustberg, who is immediate past president of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, said future studies are needed before Nfl testing can be implemented in routine practice, but that “early detection will allow earlier initiation of supportive care strategies such as physical therapy and exercise, as well as dose modifications, which may be helpful for preventing permanent damage and improving quality of life.” 

The investigators and Dr. Lustberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new analysis showed that preeclampsia is associated with an increased risk for young-onset dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the French Conception study, a nationwide prospective cohort study of more than 1.9 million pregnancies.
• Mothers were followed for an average of 9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 3% of the mothers had preeclampsia, and 128 developed young-onset dementia.
• Preeclampsia was associated with a 2.65-fold increased risk for young-onset dementia after adjusting for obesity, diabetes, smoking, drug or alcohol addiction, and social deprivation.
• The risk was greater when preeclampsia occurred before 34 weeks of gestation (hazard ratio [HR], 4.15) or was superimposed on chronic hypertension (HR, 4.76).
• Prior research has found an association between preeclampsia and vascular dementia, but this analysis “is the first to show an increase in early-onset dementia risk,” the authors of the study wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Individuals who have had preeclampsia should be reassured that young-onset dementia remains a very rare condition. Their absolute risk increases only imperceptibly,” Stephen Tong, PhD, and Roxanne Hastie, PhD, both with the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, wrote in a related commentary about the findings.

“Individuals who have been affected by preeclampsia in a prior pregnancy might instead focus on reducing their risk of developing the many chronic health ailments that are far more common,” they added. “Although it is yet to be proven in clinical trials, it is plausible that after an episode of preeclampsia, adopting a healthy lifestyle may improve vascular health and reduce the risk of many serious cardiovascular conditions.”

SOURCE:

Valérie Olié, PhD, of the Santé Publique France in Saint-Maurice, France, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators relied on hospital records to identify cases of dementia, which may have led to underestimation of incidence of the disease.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the French Hypertension Society, the French Hypertension Research Foundation, and the French Cardiology Federation. A co-author disclosed personal fees from pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new analysis showed that preeclampsia is associated with an increased risk for young-onset dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the French Conception study, a nationwide prospective cohort study of more than 1.9 million pregnancies.
• Mothers were followed for an average of 9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 3% of the mothers had preeclampsia, and 128 developed young-onset dementia.
• Preeclampsia was associated with a 2.65-fold increased risk for young-onset dementia after adjusting for obesity, diabetes, smoking, drug or alcohol addiction, and social deprivation.
• The risk was greater when preeclampsia occurred before 34 weeks of gestation (hazard ratio [HR], 4.15) or was superimposed on chronic hypertension (HR, 4.76).
• Prior research has found an association between preeclampsia and vascular dementia, but this analysis “is the first to show an increase in early-onset dementia risk,” the authors of the study wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Individuals who have had preeclampsia should be reassured that young-onset dementia remains a very rare condition. Their absolute risk increases only imperceptibly,” Stephen Tong, PhD, and Roxanne Hastie, PhD, both with the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, wrote in a related commentary about the findings.

“Individuals who have been affected by preeclampsia in a prior pregnancy might instead focus on reducing their risk of developing the many chronic health ailments that are far more common,” they added. “Although it is yet to be proven in clinical trials, it is plausible that after an episode of preeclampsia, adopting a healthy lifestyle may improve vascular health and reduce the risk of many serious cardiovascular conditions.”

SOURCE:

Valérie Olié, PhD, of the Santé Publique France in Saint-Maurice, France, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators relied on hospital records to identify cases of dementia, which may have led to underestimation of incidence of the disease.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the French Hypertension Society, the French Hypertension Research Foundation, and the French Cardiology Federation. A co-author disclosed personal fees from pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new analysis showed that preeclampsia is associated with an increased risk for young-onset dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the French Conception study, a nationwide prospective cohort study of more than 1.9 million pregnancies.
• Mothers were followed for an average of 9 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 3% of the mothers had preeclampsia, and 128 developed young-onset dementia.
• Preeclampsia was associated with a 2.65-fold increased risk for young-onset dementia after adjusting for obesity, diabetes, smoking, drug or alcohol addiction, and social deprivation.
• The risk was greater when preeclampsia occurred before 34 weeks of gestation (hazard ratio [HR], 4.15) or was superimposed on chronic hypertension (HR, 4.76).
• Prior research has found an association between preeclampsia and vascular dementia, but this analysis “is the first to show an increase in early-onset dementia risk,” the authors of the study wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Individuals who have had preeclampsia should be reassured that young-onset dementia remains a very rare condition. Their absolute risk increases only imperceptibly,” Stephen Tong, PhD, and Roxanne Hastie, PhD, both with the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, wrote in a related commentary about the findings.

“Individuals who have been affected by preeclampsia in a prior pregnancy might instead focus on reducing their risk of developing the many chronic health ailments that are far more common,” they added. “Although it is yet to be proven in clinical trials, it is plausible that after an episode of preeclampsia, adopting a healthy lifestyle may improve vascular health and reduce the risk of many serious cardiovascular conditions.”

SOURCE:

Valérie Olié, PhD, of the Santé Publique France in Saint-Maurice, France, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators relied on hospital records to identify cases of dementia, which may have led to underestimation of incidence of the disease.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the French Hypertension Society, the French Hypertension Research Foundation, and the French Cardiology Federation. A co-author disclosed personal fees from pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An algorithm using two well-known tests has shown strong accuracy (91%) in predicting whether an older driver can pass an on-road driving evaluation according to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association .

The Fit2Drive algorithm combines the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), a 30-point dementia screening tool that has been found in several studies to have an association with driving ability, and the Trails B test, which gauges cognitive flexibility and set-shifting (task switching), considered to be measures of executive functioning.
 

Algorithm Available for Providers

The algorithm is clinically available and providers can fill in patients’ information and results of the two tests at the Fit2Drive website. Results may help physicians with often-difficult conversations with older patients about driving when they present with cognitive concerns.

Families report it is one of the most difficult conversations they have with a loved one and doctors are often asked to be part of the conversation. This is particularly difficult when, often, little objective information is available. In the past, a clinical rule of thumb has been that people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD) will usually be able to drive for 3 years after diagnosis.

“[T]he anger, tears, and frustration on the part of the individual patient and the lack of objective data to guide provider recommendations are the driving forces behind our effort to develop a highly accurate, evidence-based predictor of the ability to pass an on-road driving test,” the authors write. They added that the goal of the study was to identify the smallest number of cognitive test results that could predict likelihood of passing an on-road driver evaluation.

A number of tests were evaluated for the algorithm, but the combination of Trails B in seconds and MMSE using the highest scores of the serial 7s (counting back from 100 by 7s) or WORLD spelled backward accounted for the highest correlation with passing the on-road driving test, according to the authors, led by Ruth Tappen, EdD, FN, with the Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing at Florida Atlantic University, in Boca Raton.

A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted on the linear combination of the two assessments.

“Because an ROC of 0.70 is considered to be the minimal requirement [for predictive value], 0.80 is considered good, and higher than 0.90 is excellent, these findings [with 91% area under the curve] suggest excellent accuracy using these two cognitive tests in this population,” the authors write.

For this analysis, researchers included 412 older drivers (179 men and 233 women) with an average age of 80. T he study was conducted at the Florida Atlantic University’s Memory Center and Clinical Research Unit. Participants included those who received a driving evaluation at the Memory Center and agreed to have their results included in the Driving Repository, and community-based older drivers who volunteered to participate.
 

Limitations of the Study

There were marginal differences between sexes on the measures, but they were not significant. The sample was composed of relatively well-educated people, primarily of European American ethnic origin, which is a consideration in generalizing the results.

Among other limitations are that physical and sensory factors, in addition to cognitive issues, may affect an individual’s ability to drive safely and are not included in the algorithm. Sensory disabilities, including reduced visual acuity caused by binocular field vision loss, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity, and other conditions, may affect driving ability as well as the ability to fully rotate the head and neck. Medical conditions affecting the cardiovascular, neurological, and orthopedic systems can also influence driving ability.

“Future studies should involve more diverse samples and a greater variety of driving challenges, including school zones and multilane highways, which are not included in the study,” the authors write.

The study received grant support from the State of Florida Department of Health and the Ed and Ethel Moore Alzheimer’s Disease Research Program.

An algorithm using two well-known tests has shown strong accuracy (91%) in predicting whether an older driver can pass an on-road driving evaluation according to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association .

The Fit2Drive algorithm combines the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), a 30-point dementia screening tool that has been found in several studies to have an association with driving ability, and the Trails B test, which gauges cognitive flexibility and set-shifting (task switching), considered to be measures of executive functioning.
 

Algorithm Available for Providers

The algorithm is clinically available and providers can fill in patients’ information and results of the two tests at the Fit2Drive website. Results may help physicians with often-difficult conversations with older patients about driving when they present with cognitive concerns.

Families report it is one of the most difficult conversations they have with a loved one and doctors are often asked to be part of the conversation. This is particularly difficult when, often, little objective information is available. In the past, a clinical rule of thumb has been that people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD) will usually be able to drive for 3 years after diagnosis.

“[T]he anger, tears, and frustration on the part of the individual patient and the lack of objective data to guide provider recommendations are the driving forces behind our effort to develop a highly accurate, evidence-based predictor of the ability to pass an on-road driving test,” the authors write. They added that the goal of the study was to identify the smallest number of cognitive test results that could predict likelihood of passing an on-road driver evaluation.

A number of tests were evaluated for the algorithm, but the combination of Trails B in seconds and MMSE using the highest scores of the serial 7s (counting back from 100 by 7s) or WORLD spelled backward accounted for the highest correlation with passing the on-road driving test, according to the authors, led by Ruth Tappen, EdD, FN, with the Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing at Florida Atlantic University, in Boca Raton.

A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted on the linear combination of the two assessments.

“Because an ROC of 0.70 is considered to be the minimal requirement [for predictive value], 0.80 is considered good, and higher than 0.90 is excellent, these findings [with 91% area under the curve] suggest excellent accuracy using these two cognitive tests in this population,” the authors write.

For this analysis, researchers included 412 older drivers (179 men and 233 women) with an average age of 80. T he study was conducted at the Florida Atlantic University’s Memory Center and Clinical Research Unit. Participants included those who received a driving evaluation at the Memory Center and agreed to have their results included in the Driving Repository, and community-based older drivers who volunteered to participate.
 

Limitations of the Study

There were marginal differences between sexes on the measures, but they were not significant. The sample was composed of relatively well-educated people, primarily of European American ethnic origin, which is a consideration in generalizing the results.

Among other limitations are that physical and sensory factors, in addition to cognitive issues, may affect an individual’s ability to drive safely and are not included in the algorithm. Sensory disabilities, including reduced visual acuity caused by binocular field vision loss, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity, and other conditions, may affect driving ability as well as the ability to fully rotate the head and neck. Medical conditions affecting the cardiovascular, neurological, and orthopedic systems can also influence driving ability.

“Future studies should involve more diverse samples and a greater variety of driving challenges, including school zones and multilane highways, which are not included in the study,” the authors write.

The study received grant support from the State of Florida Department of Health and the Ed and Ethel Moore Alzheimer’s Disease Research Program.

An algorithm using two well-known tests has shown strong accuracy (91%) in predicting whether an older driver can pass an on-road driving evaluation according to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association .

The Fit2Drive algorithm combines the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), a 30-point dementia screening tool that has been found in several studies to have an association with driving ability, and the Trails B test, which gauges cognitive flexibility and set-shifting (task switching), considered to be measures of executive functioning.
 

Algorithm Available for Providers

The algorithm is clinically available and providers can fill in patients’ information and results of the two tests at the Fit2Drive website. Results may help physicians with often-difficult conversations with older patients about driving when they present with cognitive concerns.

Families report it is one of the most difficult conversations they have with a loved one and doctors are often asked to be part of the conversation. This is particularly difficult when, often, little objective information is available. In the past, a clinical rule of thumb has been that people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD) will usually be able to drive for 3 years after diagnosis.

“[T]he anger, tears, and frustration on the part of the individual patient and the lack of objective data to guide provider recommendations are the driving forces behind our effort to develop a highly accurate, evidence-based predictor of the ability to pass an on-road driving test,” the authors write. They added that the goal of the study was to identify the smallest number of cognitive test results that could predict likelihood of passing an on-road driver evaluation.

A number of tests were evaluated for the algorithm, but the combination of Trails B in seconds and MMSE using the highest scores of the serial 7s (counting back from 100 by 7s) or WORLD spelled backward accounted for the highest correlation with passing the on-road driving test, according to the authors, led by Ruth Tappen, EdD, FN, with the Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing at Florida Atlantic University, in Boca Raton.

A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted on the linear combination of the two assessments.

“Because an ROC of 0.70 is considered to be the minimal requirement [for predictive value], 0.80 is considered good, and higher than 0.90 is excellent, these findings [with 91% area under the curve] suggest excellent accuracy using these two cognitive tests in this population,” the authors write.

For this analysis, researchers included 412 older drivers (179 men and 233 women) with an average age of 80. T he study was conducted at the Florida Atlantic University’s Memory Center and Clinical Research Unit. Participants included those who received a driving evaluation at the Memory Center and agreed to have their results included in the Driving Repository, and community-based older drivers who volunteered to participate.
 

Limitations of the Study

There were marginal differences between sexes on the measures, but they were not significant. The sample was composed of relatively well-educated people, primarily of European American ethnic origin, which is a consideration in generalizing the results.

Among other limitations are that physical and sensory factors, in addition to cognitive issues, may affect an individual’s ability to drive safely and are not included in the algorithm. Sensory disabilities, including reduced visual acuity caused by binocular field vision loss, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity, and other conditions, may affect driving ability as well as the ability to fully rotate the head and neck. Medical conditions affecting the cardiovascular, neurological, and orthopedic systems can also influence driving ability.

“Future studies should involve more diverse samples and a greater variety of driving challenges, including school zones and multilane highways, which are not included in the study,” the authors write.

The study received grant support from the State of Florida Department of Health and the Ed and Ethel Moore Alzheimer’s Disease Research Program.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: My guest today is Dr. Jose Merino, editor in chief of the Neurology family of journals and professor of neurology and co-vice chair of education at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

Our program today is a follow-up of Dr. Merino’s presentation at the recent American Academy of Neurology meeting in Denver, Colorado. Along with two other panelists, Dr. Merino discussed the role of open-access publication and the dangers of predatory journals. 

Jose G. Merino, MD, MPhil: Thank you for having me here. It’s a pleasure.
 

Open Access Defined

Dr. Wilner: I remember when publication in neurology was pretty straightforward. It was either the green journal or the blue journal, but things have certainly changed. I think one topic that is not clear to everyone is this concept of open access. Could you define that for us? 

Dr. Merino: Sure. Open access is a mode of publication that fosters more open or accessible science. The idea of open access is that it combines two main elements. One is that the papers that are published become immediately available to anybody with an internet connection anywhere in the world without any restrictions. 

The second important element from open access, which makes it different from other models we can talk about, is the fact that the authors retain the copyright of their work, but they give the journal and readers a license to use, reproduce, and modify the content.

This is different, for example, from instances where we have funder mandates. For example, NIH papers have to become available 6 months after publication, so they’re available to everybody but not immediately. 

Then copyright is retained, in the case of NIH employees, for example, by the government or by the journals themselves. The two elements of open access, I think, are immediate access to the material and the fact that it’s published with a Creative Commons license. 

Dr. Wilner: I remember that when a journal article was published, say, in Neurology, if you didn’t have a subscription to Neurology, you went to the library that hopefully had a subscription.

If they didn’t have it, you would write to the author and say, “Hey, I heard you have this great paper because the abstract was out there. Could you send me a reprint?” Has that whole universe evaporated? 

Dr. Merino: It depends on how the paper is published. For example, in Neurology, some of the research we publish is open access. Basically, if you have an internet connection, you can access the paper.

That’s the case for papers published in our wholly open-access journals in the Neurology family like Neurology Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation, Neurology Genetics, or Neurology Education. 

For other papers that are published in Neurology, not under open access, there is a paywall. For some of them, the paywall comes down after a few months based on funder mandates and so on. As I was mentioning, the NIH-funded papers are available 6 months later. 

In the first 6 months, you may have to go to your library, and if your library has a subscription, you can download it directly. [This is also true for] those that always stay behind the paywall, where you have to have a subscription or your library has to have a subscription.
 

Is Pay to Publish a Red Flag?

Dr. Wilner: I’m a professional writer. With any luck, when I write something, I get paid to write it. There’s been a long tradition in academic medicine that when you submit an article to, say, Neurology, you don’t get paid as an author for the publication. Your reward is the honor of it being published. 

Neurology supports itself in various ways, including advertising and so on. That’s been the contract: free publication for work that merits it, and the journal survives on its own. 

With open access, one of the things that’s happened is that — and I’ve published open access myself — is that I get a notification that I need to pay to have my article that I’ve slaved over published. Explain that, please. 

Dr. Merino: This is the issue with open access. As I mentioned, the paper gets published. You’re giving the journal a license to publish it. You’re retaining the copyright of your work. That means that the journal cannot make money or support itself by just publishing open access because they belong to you. 

Typically, open-access journals are not in print and don’t have much in terms of advertising. The contract is you’re giving me a license to publish it, but it’s your journal, so you’re paying a fee for the journal expenses to basically produce your paper. That’s what’s happening with open access. 

That’s been recognized with many funders, for example, with NIH funding or many of the European funders, they’re including open-access fees as part of their funding for research. Now, of course, this doesn’t help if you’re not a funded researcher or if you’re a fellow who’s doing work and so on. 

Typically, most journals will have waived fees or lower fees for these situations. The reason for the open-access fee is the fact that you’re retaining the copyright. You’re not giving it to the journal who can then use it to generate its revenue for supporting itself, the editorial staff, and so on. 

Dr. Wilner: This idea of charging for publication has created a satellite business of what are called predatory journals. How does one know if the open-access journal that I’m submitting to is really just in the business of wanting my $300 or my $900 to get published? How do I know if that’s a reasonable place to publish? 
 

Predatory Journals

Dr. Merino: That’s a big challenge that has come with this whole idea of open access and the fact that now, many journals are online only, so you’re no longer seeing a physical copy. That has given rise to the predatory journals. 

The predatory journal, by definition, is a journal that claims to be open access. They’ll take your paper and publish it, but they don’t provide all the other services that you would typically expect from the fact that you’re paying an open-access fee. This includes getting appropriate peer review, production of the manuscript, and long-term curation and storage of the manuscript. 

Many predatory journals will take your open-access fee, accept any paper that you submit, regardless of the quality, because they’re charging the fees for that. They don’t send it to real peer review, and then in a few months, the journal disappears so there’s no way for anybody to actually find your paper anymore. 

There are certain checklists. Dr. David Moher at the University of Toronto has produced some work trying to help us identify predatory journals. 

One thing I typically suggest to people who ask me this question is: Have you ever heard of this journal before? Does the journal have a track record? How far back does the story of the journal go? Is it supported by a publisher that you know? Do you know anybody who has published there? Is it something you can easily access?

If in doubt, always ask your friendly medical librarian. There used to be lists that were kept in terms of predatory journals that were being constantly updated, but those had to be shut down. As far as I understand, there were legal issues in terms of how things got on that list. 

I think that overall, if you’ve heard of it, if it’s relevant, if it’s known in your field, and if your librarian knows it, it’s probably a good legitimate open-access journal. There are many very good legitimate open-access journals. 

I mentioned the two that we have in our family, but all the other major journals have their own open-access journal within their family. There are some, like BMC or PLOS, that are completely open-access and legitimate journals. 
 

Impact Factor

Dr. Wilner: What about impact factor? Many journals boast about their impact factor. I’m not sure how to interpret that number. 

Dr. Merino: Impact factor is very interesting. The impact factor was developed by medical librarians to try to identify the journals they should be subscribing to. It’s a measure of the average citations to an average paper in the journal. 

It doesn’t tell you about specific papers. It tells you, on average, how many of the papers in this journal get cited so many times. It’s calculated by the number of articles that were cited divided by the number of articles that were published. Journals that publish many papers, like Neurology, have a hard time bringing up their impact factor beyond a certain level. 

Similarly, very small journals with one or two very highly cited papers have a very high impact factor. It’s being used as a measure, perhaps inappropriately, of how good or how reputable a journal is. We all say we don’t care about journal impact factors, but we all know our journal impact factor and we used to know it to three decimals. Now, they changed the system, and there’s only one decimal point, which makes more sense. 

This is more important, for example, for authors when deciding where to submit papers. I know that in some countries, particularly in Europe, the impact factor of the journal where you publish has an impact on your promotion decisions. 

I would say what’s even more important than the impact factor, is to say, “Well, is this the journal that fits the scope of my paper? Is this the journal that reaches the audience that I want to reach when I write my paper?” 

There are some papers, for example, that are very influential. The impact factor just captures citations. There are some papers that are very influential that may not get cited very often. There may be papers that change clinical practice. 

If you read a paper that tells you that you should be changing how you treat your patients with myasthenia based on this paper, that may not get cited. It’s a very clinically focused paper, but it’s probably more impactful than one that gets cited very much in some respect, or they make it to public policy decisions, and so on. 

I think it’s important to look more at the audience and the journal scope when you submit your papers. 

Dr. Wilner: One other technical question. The journals also say they’re indexed in PubMed or Google Scholar. If I want to publish my paper and I want it indexed where the right people are going to find it, where does it need to be indexed? 

Dr. Merino: I grew up using Index Medicus, MedlinePlus, and the Library of Science. I still do. If I need to find something, I go to PubMed. Ideally, papers are listed in MedlinePlus or can be found in PubMed. They’re not the same thing, but you can find them through them. 

That would be an important thing. Nowadays, a lot more people are using Google Scholar or Google just to identify papers. It may be a little bit less relevant, but it’s still a measure of the quality of the journal before they get indexed in some of these. For example, if you get listed in MedlinePlus, it has gone through certain quality checks by the index itself to see whether they would accept the journal or not. That’s something you want to check.

Typically, most of the large journals or the journals you and I know about are listed in more than one place, right? They’re listed in Scopus and Web of Science. They’re listed in MedlinePlus and so on. Again, if you’re submitting your paper, go somewhere where you know the journal and you’ve heard about it. 

Dr. Wilner: I’m not going to ask you about artificial intelligence. We can do that another time. I want to ask something closer to me, which is this question of publish or perish. 

There seems to be, in academics, more emphasis on the number of papers that one has published rather than their quality. How does a younger academician or one who really needs to publish cope with that? 

Dr. Merino: Many people are writing up research that may not be relevant or that may not be high quality just because you need to have a long list of papers to get promoted, for example, if you’re an academician. 

Doug Altman, who was a very influential person in the field quality of not only medical statistics but also medical publishing, had the idea that we need less research, but we need better research. 

We often receive papers where you say, well, what’s the rationale behind the question in this paper? It’s like they had a large amount of data and were trying to squeeze as much as they could out of that. I think, as a young academician, the important thing to think about is whether it is an important question that matters to you and to the field, from whatever perspective, whether it’s going to advance research, advance clinical care, or have public policy implications. 

Is this one where the answer will be important no matter what the answer is? If you’re thinking of that, your work will be well recognized, people will know you, and you’ll get invited to collaborate. I think that’s the most important thing rather than just churning out a large number of papers. 

The productivity will come from the fact that you start by saying, let me ask something that’s really meaningful to me and to the field, with a good question and using strong research methodology. 

Dr. Wilner: Thanks for that, Dr. Merino. I think that’s very valuable for all of us. This has been a great discussion. Do you have any final comments before we wrap up? 

Dr. Merino: I want to encourage people to continue reading medical journals all the time and submitting to us, again, good research and important questions with robust methodology. That’s what we’re looking for in Neurology and most serious medical journals.
 

Dr. Wilner is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. Dr. Merino is a professor in the department of neurology at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Dr. Wilner reported conflicts of interest with Accordant Health Services and Lulu Publishing. Dr. Merino reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

When he completed his fellowship at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, Moshe Chasky, MD, joined a small five-person practice that rented space from the city’s Jefferson Hospital in Philadelphia. The arrangement seemed to work well for the hospital and the small practice, which remained independent.

Within 10 years, the hospital sought to buy the practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists.

But the oncologists at Alliance did not want to join Jefferson.

The hospital eventually entered into an exclusive agreement with its own medical group to provide inpatient oncology/hematology services at three Jefferson Health–Northeast hospitals and stripped Dr. Chasky and his colleagues of their privileges at those facilities, Medscape Medical News reported last year.

The Alliance story is a familiar one for independent community oncology practices, said Jeff Patton, MD, CEO of OneOncology, a management services organization.

A 2020 report from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), for instance, tracked mergers, acquisitions, and closures in the community oncology setting and found the number of practices acquired by hospitals, known as vertical integration, nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020.

“Some hospitals are pretty predatory in their approach,” Dr. Patton said. If hospitals have their own oncology program, “they’ll employ the referring doctors and then discourage them or prevent them from referring patients to our independent practices that are not owned by the hospital.”

Still, in the face of growing pressure to join hospitals, some community oncology practices are finding ways to survive and maintain their independence.
 

A Growing Trend

The latest data continue to show a clear trend: Consolidation in oncology is on the rise.

A 2024 study revealed that the pace of consolidation seems to be increasing.

The analysis found that, between 2015 and 2022, the number of medical oncologists increased by 14% and the number of medical oncologists per practice increased by 40%, while the number of practices decreased by 18%.

While about 44% of practices remain independent, the percentage of medical oncologists working in practices with more than 25 clinicians has increased from 34% in 2015 to 44% in 2022. By 2022, the largest 102 practices in the United States employed more than 40% of all medical oncologists.

“The rate of consolidation seems to be rapid,” study coauthor Parsa Erfani, MD, an internal medicine resident at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, explained.

Consolidation appears to breed more consolidation. The researchers found, for instance, that markets with greater hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to undergo consolidation in oncology.

Consolidation may be higher in these markets “because hospitals or health systems are buying up oncology practices or conversely because oncology practices are merging to compete more effectively with larger hospitals in the area,” Dr. Erfani told this news organization.

Mergers among independent practices, known as horizontal integration, have also been on the rise, according to the 2020 COA report. These mergers can help counter pressures from hospitals seeking to acquire community practices as well as prevent practices and their clinics from closing.

Although Dr. Erfani’s research wasn’t designed to determine the factors behind consolidation, he and his colleagues point to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program as potential drivers of this trend.

The ACA encouraged consolidation as a way to improve efficiency and created the need for ever-larger information systems to collect and report quality data. But these data collection and reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for smaller practices to take on.

The 340B Program, however, may be a bigger contributing factor to consolidation. Created in 1992, the 340B Program allows qualifying hospitals and clinics that treat low-income and uninsured patients to buy outpatient prescription drugs at a 25%-50% discount.

Hospitals seeking to capitalize on the margins possible under the 340B Program will “buy all the referring physicians in a market so that the medical oncology group is left with little choice but to sell to the hospital,” said Dr. Patton.

“Those 340B dollars are worth a lot to hospitals,” said David A. Eagle, MD, a hematologist/oncologist with New York Cancer & Blood Specialists and past president of COA. The program “creates an appetite for nonprofit hospitals to want to grow their medical oncology programs,” he told this news organization.

Declining Medicare reimbursement has also hit independent practices hard.

Over the past 15 years, compared with inflation, physicians have gotten “a pay rate decrease from Medicare,” said Dr. Patton. Payers have followed that lead and tried to cut pay for clinicians, especially those who do not have market share, he said. Paying them less is “disingenuous knowing that our costs of providing care are going up,” he said.
 

Less Access, Higher Costs, Worse Care?

Many studies have demonstrated that, when hospitals become behemoths in a given market, healthcare costs go up.

“There are robust data showing that consolidation increases healthcare costs by reducing competition, including in oncology,” wrote Dr. Erfani and colleagues.

Oncology practices that are owned by hospitals bill facility fees for outpatient chemotherapy treatment, adding another layer of cost, the researchers explained, citing a 2019 Health Economics study.

Another analysis, published in 2020, found that hospital prices for the top 37 infused cancer drugs averaged 86% more per unit than the price charged by physician offices. Hospital outpatient departments charged even more, on average, for drugs — 128% more for nivolumab and 428% more for fluorouracil, for instance.

In their 2024 analysis, Dr. Erfani and colleagues also found that increased hospital market concentration was associated with worse quality of care, across all assessed patient satisfaction measures, and may result in worse access to care as well.

Overall, these consolidation “trends have important implications for cancer care cost, quality, and access,” the authors concluded.
 

Navigating the Consolidation Trend

In the face of mounting pressure to join hospitals, community oncology practices have typically relied on horizontal mergers to maintain their independence. An increasing number of practices, however, are now turning to another strategy: Management services organizations.

According to some oncologists, a core benefit of joining a management services organization is their community practices can maintain autonomy, hold on to referrals, and benefit from access to a wider network of peers and recently approved treatments such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies.

In these arrangements, the management company also provides business assistance to practices, including help with billing and collection, payer negotiations, supply chain issues, and credentialing, as well as recruiting, hiring, and marketing.

These management organizations, which include American Oncology Network, Integrated Oncology Network, OneOncology, and Verdi Oncology, are, however, backed by private equity. According to a 2022 report, private equity–backed management organizations have ramped up arrangements with community oncology practices over the past few years — a trend that has concerned some experts.

The authors of a recent analysis in JAMA Internal Medicine explained that, although private equity involvement in physician practices may enable operational efficiencies, “critics point to potential conflicts of interest” and highlight concerns that patients “may face additional barriers to both accessibility and affordability of care.”

The difference, according to some oncologists, is their practices are not owned by the management services organization; instead, the practices enter contracts that outline the boundaries of the relationship and stipulate fees to the management organizations.

In 2020, Dr. Chasky’s practice, Alliance Cancer Specialists, joined The US Oncology Network, a management services organization wholly owned by McKesson. The organization provides the practice with capital and other resources, as well as access to the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, so patients can participate in clinical trials.

“We totally function as an independent practice,” said Dr. Chasky. “We make our own management decisions,” he said. For instance, if Alliance wants to hire a new clinician, US Oncology helps with the recruitment. “But at the end of the day, it’s our practice,” he said.

Davey Daniel, MD — whose community practice joined the management services organization OneOncology — has seen the benefits of being part of a larger network. For instance, bispecific therapies for leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma are typically administered at academic centers because of the risk for cytokine release syndrome.

However, physician leaders in the OneOncology network “came up with a playbook on how to do it safely” in the community setting, said Dr. Daniel. “It meant that we were adopting FDA newly approved therapies in a very short course.”

Being able to draw from a wider pool of expertise has had other advantages. Dr. Daniel can lean on pathologists and research scientists in the network for advice on targeted therapy use. “We’re actually bringing precision medicine expertise to the community,” Dr. Daniel said.

Dr. Chasky and Dr. Eagle, whose practice is also part of OneOncology, said that continuing to work in the community setting has allowed them greater flexibility.

Dr. Eagle explained that New York Cancer & Blood Specialists tries to offer patients an appointment within 2 days of a referral, and it allows walk-in visits.

Dr. Chasky leans into the flexibility by having staff stay late, when needed, to ensure that all patients are seen. “We’re there for our patients at all hours,” Dr. Chasky said, adding that often “you don’t have that flexibility when you work for a big hospital system.”

The bottom line is community oncology can still thrive, said Nick Ferreyros, managing director of COA, “as long as we have a healthy competitive ecosystem where [we] are valued and seen as an important part of our cancer care system.”

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

TOPLINE:

Men with immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-related disease exhibit significantly lower serum lipase levels and a greater likelihood of organ involvement than women, highlighting significant sex-dependent differences in disease manifestations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 328 patients (69% men) diagnosed with IgG4-related disease at the Massachusetts General Hospital – Rheumatology Clinic, Boston, who met the American College of Rheumatology–European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ACR-EULAR) classification criteria between January 2008 and May 2023.
• Among the 328 patients, 69% were men and 31% were women, with a significant male-to-female ratio of 2.2:1.0. Men were typically older at diagnosis (median age, 63.7 vs 58.2 years).
• Data on serum lipase levels, renal involvement, and other clinical and laboratory parameters were collected.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men had higher baseline ACR-EULAR scores, indicating more severe disease (median score of 35.0 vs 29.5; P = .0010).
• Male patients demonstrated a median baseline serum lipase concentration of 24.5 U/L, significantly lower than the 33.5 U/L observed in women.
• Pancreatic (50% vs 26%) or renal (36% vs 18%) involvement was more common in men.
• Men exhibited higher IgG4 levels (P = .0050) and active B-cell responses in the blood (P = .0095).

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, this work confirms “the impression of an important sex disparity among patients with IgG4-related disease, with most patients being male, and male patients demonstrating strong tendencies toward more severe disease than female patients.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Isha Jha, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It was published online on May 30, 2024, in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective design may limit the ability to establish causality between sex differences and IgG4-related disease manifestations. A relatively small percentage of patients were assessed before receiving any immunosuppressive treatment, potentially influencing the observed clinical parameters.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Some authors declared financial ties outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Men with immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-related disease exhibit significantly lower serum lipase levels and a greater likelihood of organ involvement than women, highlighting significant sex-dependent differences in disease manifestations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 328 patients (69% men) diagnosed with IgG4-related disease at the Massachusetts General Hospital – Rheumatology Clinic, Boston, who met the American College of Rheumatology–European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ACR-EULAR) classification criteria between January 2008 and May 2023.
• Among the 328 patients, 69% were men and 31% were women, with a significant male-to-female ratio of 2.2:1.0. Men were typically older at diagnosis (median age, 63.7 vs 58.2 years).
• Data on serum lipase levels, renal involvement, and other clinical and laboratory parameters were collected.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men had higher baseline ACR-EULAR scores, indicating more severe disease (median score of 35.0 vs 29.5; P = .0010).
• Male patients demonstrated a median baseline serum lipase concentration of 24.5 U/L, significantly lower than the 33.5 U/L observed in women.
• Pancreatic (50% vs 26%) or renal (36% vs 18%) involvement was more common in men.
• Men exhibited higher IgG4 levels (P = .0050) and active B-cell responses in the blood (P = .0095).

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, this work confirms “the impression of an important sex disparity among patients with IgG4-related disease, with most patients being male, and male patients demonstrating strong tendencies toward more severe disease than female patients.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Isha Jha, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It was published online on May 30, 2024, in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective design may limit the ability to establish causality between sex differences and IgG4-related disease manifestations. A relatively small percentage of patients were assessed before receiving any immunosuppressive treatment, potentially influencing the observed clinical parameters.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Some authors declared financial ties outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Men with immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-related disease exhibit significantly lower serum lipase levels and a greater likelihood of organ involvement than women, highlighting significant sex-dependent differences in disease manifestations.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 328 patients (69% men) diagnosed with IgG4-related disease at the Massachusetts General Hospital – Rheumatology Clinic, Boston, who met the American College of Rheumatology–European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ACR-EULAR) classification criteria between January 2008 and May 2023.
• Among the 328 patients, 69% were men and 31% were women, with a significant male-to-female ratio of 2.2:1.0. Men were typically older at diagnosis (median age, 63.7 vs 58.2 years).
• Data on serum lipase levels, renal involvement, and other clinical and laboratory parameters were collected.

TAKEAWAY:

• Men had higher baseline ACR-EULAR scores, indicating more severe disease (median score of 35.0 vs 29.5; P = .0010).
• Male patients demonstrated a median baseline serum lipase concentration of 24.5 U/L, significantly lower than the 33.5 U/L observed in women.
• Pancreatic (50% vs 26%) or renal (36% vs 18%) involvement was more common in men.
• Men exhibited higher IgG4 levels (P = .0050) and active B-cell responses in the blood (P = .0095).

IN PRACTICE:

According to the authors, this work confirms “the impression of an important sex disparity among patients with IgG4-related disease, with most patients being male, and male patients demonstrating strong tendencies toward more severe disease than female patients.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Isha Jha, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It was published online on May 30, 2024, in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective design may limit the ability to establish causality between sex differences and IgG4-related disease manifestations. A relatively small percentage of patients were assessed before receiving any immunosuppressive treatment, potentially influencing the observed clinical parameters.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Some authors declared financial ties outside this work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

In October 2023, Robert Card — a grenade instructor in the Army Reserve — shot and killed 18 people in Maine, before turning the gun on himself. As reported by The New York Times, his family said that he had become increasingly erratic and violent during the months before the rampage.

A postmortem conducted by the Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) Center at Boston University found “significant evidence of traumatic brain injuries” [TBIs] and “significant degeneration, axonal and myelin loss, inflammation, and small blood vessel injury” in the white matter, the center’s director, Ann McKee, MD, said in a press release. “These findings align with our previous studies on the effects of blast injury in humans and experimental models.”

Members of the military, such as Mr. Card, are exposed to blasts from repeated firing of heavy weapons not only during combat but also during training.

New data suggest that repeated blast exposure may impair the brain’s waste clearance system, leading to biomarker changes indicative of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease 20 years earlier than typical. A higher index of suspicion for dementia or Alzheimer’s disease may be warranted in patients with a history of blast exposure or subconcussive brain injury who present with cognitive issues, according to experts interviewed.

In 2022, the US Department of Defense (DOD) launched its Warfighter Brain Health Initiative with the aim of “optimizing service member brain health and countering traumatic brain injuries.”

In April 2024, the Blast Overpressure Safety Act was introduced in the Senate to require the DOD to enact better blast screening, tracking, prevention, and treatment. The DOD initiated 26 blast overpressure studies.

Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of Medical and Scientific Relations, said that an important component of that research involves “the need to study the difference between TBI-caused dementia and dementia caused independently” and “the need to study biomarkers to better understand the long-term consequences of TBI.”
 

What Is the Underlying Biology?

Dr. Snyder was the lead author of a white paper produced by the Alzheimer’s Association in 2018 on military-related risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. “There is a lot of work trying to understand the effect of pure blast waves on the brain, as opposed to the actual impact of the injury,” she said.

The white paper speculated that blast exposure may be analogous to subconcussive brain injury in athletes where there are no obvious immediate clinical symptoms or neurological dysfunction but which can cause cumulative injury and functional impairment over time.

“We are also trying to understand the underlying biology around brain changes, such as accumulation of tau and amyloid and other specific markers related to brain changes in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Snyder, chair of the Peer Reviewed Alzheimer’s Research Program Programmatic Panel for Alzheimer’s Disease/Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias and TBI.
 

Common Biomarker Signatures

A recent study in Neurology comparing 51 veterans with mild TBI (mTBI) with 85 veterans and civilians with no lifetime history of TBI is among the first to explore these biomarker changes in human beings.

“Our findings suggest that chronic neuropathologic processes associated with blast mTBI share properties in common with pathogenic processes that are precursors to Alzheimer’s disease onset,” said coauthor Elaine R. Peskind, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Washington, Seattle.

The largely male participants were a mean age of 34 years and underwent standardized clinical and neuropsychological testing as well as lumbar puncture to collect cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The mTBI group had experienced at least one war zone blast or combined blast/impact that met criteria for mTBI, but 91% had more than one blast mTBI, and the study took place over 13 years.

The researchers found that the mTBI group “had biomarker signatures in common with the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Peskind.

For example, at age 50, they had lower mean levels of CSF amyloid beta 42 (Abeta42), the earliest marker of brain parenchymal Abeta deposition, compared with the control group (154 pg/mL and 1864 pg/mL lower, respectively).

High CSF phosphorylated tau181 (p-tau181) and total tau are established biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease. However, levels of these biomarkers remained “relatively constant with age” in participants with mTBI but were higher in older ages for the non-TBI group.

The mTBI group also showed worse cognitive performance at older ages (P < .08). Poorer verbal memory and verbal fluency performance were associated with lower CSF Abeta42 in older participants (P ≤ .05).

In Alzheimer’s disease, a reduction in CSF Abeta42 may occur up to 20 years before the onset of clinical symptoms, according to Dr. Peskind. “But what we don’t know from this study is what this means, as total tau protein and p-tau181 in the CSF were also low, which isn’t entirely typical in the picture of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease,” she said. However, changes in total tau and p-tau181 lag behind changes in Abeta42.
 

Is Impaired Clearance the Culprit?

Coauthor Jeffrey Iliff, PhD, professor, University of Washington Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and University of Washington Department of Neurology, Seattle, elaborated.

“In the setting of Alzheimer’s disease, a signature of the disease is reduced CSF Abeta42, which is thought to reflect that much of the amyloid gets ‘stuck’ in the brain in the form of amyloid plaques,” he said. “There are usually higher levels of phosphorylated tau and total tau, which are thought to reflect the presence of tau tangles and degeneration of neurons in the brain. But in this study, all of those were lowered, which is not exactly an Alzheimer’s disease profile.”

Dr. Iliff, associate director for research, VA Northwest Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center at VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, suggested that the culprit may be impairment in the brain’s glymphatic system. “Recently described biological research supports [the concept of] clearance of waste out of the brain during sleep via the glymphatic system, with amyloid and tau being cleared from the brain interstitium during sleep.”

A recent hypothesis is that blast TBI impairs that process. “This is why we see less of those proteins in the CSF. They’re not being cleared, which might contribute downstream to the clumping up of protein in the brain,” he suggested.

The evidence base corroborating that hypothesis is in its infancy; however, new research conducted by Dr. Iliff and his colleagues sheds light on this potential mechanism.

In blast TBI, energy from the explosion and resulting overpressure wave are “transmitted through the brain, which causes tissues of different densities — such as gray and white matter — to accelerate at different rates,” according to Dr. Iliff. This results in the shearing and stretching of brain tissue, leading to a “diffuse pattern of tissue damage.”

It is known that blast TBI has clinical overlap and associations with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and persistent neurobehavioral symptoms; that veterans with a history of TBI are more than twice as likely to die by suicide than veterans with no TBI history; and that TBI may increase the risk for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementing disorders, as well as CTE.

The missing link may be the glymphatic system — a “brain-wide network of perivascular pathways, along which CSF and interstitial fluid (ISF) exchange, supporting the clearance of interstitial solutes, including amyloid-beta.”

Dr. Iliff and his group previously found that glymphatic function is “markedly and chronically impaired” following impact TBI in mice and that this impairment is associated with the mislocalization of astroglial aquaporin 4 (AQP4), a water channel that lines perivascular spaces and plays a role in healthy glymphatic exchange.

In their new study, the researchers examined both the expression and the localization of AQP4 in the human postmortem frontal cortex and found “distinct laminar differences” in AQP4 expression following blast exposure. They observed similar changes as well as impairment of glymphatic function, which emerged 28 days following blast injury in a mouse model of repetitive blast mTBI.

And in a cohort of veterans with blast mTBI, blast exposure was found to be associated with an increased burden of frontal cortical MRI-visible perivascular spaces — a “putative neuroimaging marker” of glymphatic perivascular dysfunction.

The earlier Neurology study “showed impairment of biomarkers in the CSF, but the new study showed ‘why’ or ‘how’ these biomarkers are impaired, which is via impairment of the glymphatic clearance process,” Dr. Iliff explained.
 

Veterans Especially Vulnerable

Dr. Peskind, co-director of the VA Northwest Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, noted that while the veterans in the earlier study had at least one TBI, the average number was 20, and it was more common to have more than 50 mTBIs than to have a single one.

“These were highly exposed combat vets,” she said. “And that number doesn’t even account for subconcussive exposure to blasts, which now appear to cause detectable brain damage, even in the absence of a diagnosable TBI.”

The Maine shooter, Mr. Card, had not seen combat and was not assessed for TBI during a psychiatric hospitalization, according to The New York Times.

Dr. Peskind added that this type of blast damage is likely specific to individuals in the military. “It isn’t the sound that causes the damage,” she explained. “It’s the blast wave, the pressure wave, and there aren’t a lot of other occupations that have those types of occupational exposures.”

Dr. Snyder added that the majority of blast TBIs have been studied in military personnel, and she is not aware of studies that have looked at blast injuries in other industries, such as demolition or mining, to see if they have the same type of biologic consequences.

Dr. Snyder hopes that the researchers will follow the participants in the Neurology study and continue looking at specific markers related to Alzheimer’s disease brain changes. What the research so far shows “is that, at an earlier age, we’re starting to see those markers changing, suggesting that the underlying biology in people with mild blast TBI is similar to the underlying biology in Alzheimer’s disease as well.”

Michael Alosco, PhD, associate professor and vice chair of research, department of neurology, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, called the issue of blast exposure and TBI “a very complex and nuanced topic,” especially because TBI is “considered a risk factor of Alzheimer’s disease” and “different types of TBIs could trigger distinct pathophysiologic processes; however, the long-term impact of repetitive blast TBIs on neurodegenerative disease changes remains unknown.”

He coauthored an editorial on the earlier Neurology study that noted its limitations, such as a small sample size and lack of consideration of lifestyle and health factors but acknowledged that the “findings provide preliminary evidence that repetitive blast exposures might influence beta-amyloid accumulation.”
 

Clinical Implications

For Dr. Peskind, the “inflection point” was seeing lower CSF Abeta42, about 20 years earlier than ages 60 and 70, which is more typical in cognitively normal community volunteers.

But she described herself as “loath to say that veterans or service members have a 20-year acceleration of risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” adding, “I don’t want to scare the heck out of our service members of veterans.” Although “this is what we fear, we’re not ready to say it for sure yet because we need to do more work. Nevertheless, it does increase the index of suspicion.”

The clinical take-home messages are not unique to service members or veterans or people with a history of head injuries or a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer’s disease, she emphasized. “If anyone of any age or occupation comes in with cognitive issues, such as [impaired] memory or executive function, they deserve a workup for dementing disorders.” Frontotemporal dementia, for example, can present earlier than Alzheimer’s disease typically does.

Common comorbidities with TBI are PTSD and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which can also cause cognitive issues and are also risk factors for dementia.

Dr. Iliff agreed. “If you see a veteran with a history of PTSD, a history of blast TBI, and a history of OSA or some combination of those three, I recommend having a higher index of suspicion [for potential dementia] than for an average person without any of these, even at a younger age than one would ordinarily expect.”

Of all of these factors, the only truly directly modifiable one is sleep disruption, including that caused by OSA or sleep disorders related to PTSD, he added. “Epidemiologic data suggest a connection particularly between midlife sleep disruption and the risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, and so it’s worth thinking about sleep as a modifiable risk factor even as early as the 40s and 50s, whether the patient is or isn’t a veteran.”

Dr. Peskind recommended asking patients, “Do they snore? Do they thrash about during sleep? Do they have trauma nightmares? This will inform the type of intervention required.”

Dr. Alosco added that there is no known “safe” threshold of exposure to blasts, and that thresholds are “unclear, particularly at the individual level.” In American football, there is a dose-response relationship between years of play and risk for later-life neurological disorder. “The best way to mitigate risk is to limit cumulative exposure,” he said.

The study by Li and colleagues was funded by grant funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service and the University of Washington Friends of Alzheimer’s Research. Other sources of funding to individual researchers are listed in the original paper. The study by Braun and colleagues was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service; and the National Institute on Aging. The white paper included studies that received funding from numerous sources, including the National Institutes of Health and the DOD. Dr. Iliff serves as the chair of the Scientific Advisory Board for Applied Cognition Inc., from which he receives compensation and in which he holds an equity stake. In the last year, he served as a paid consultant to Gryphon Biosciences. Dr. Peskind has served as a paid consultant to the companies Genentech, Roche, and Alpha Cognition. Dr. Alosco was supported by grant funding from the NIH; he received research support from Rainwater Charitable Foundation Inc., and Life Molecular Imaging Inc.; he has received a single honorarium from the Michael J. Fox Foundation for services unrelated to this editorial; and he received royalties from Oxford University Press Inc. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original papers.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In October 2023, Robert Card — a grenade instructor in the Army Reserve — shot and killed 18 people in Maine, before turning the gun on himself. As reported by The New York Times, his family said that he had become increasingly erratic and violent during the months before the rampage.

A postmortem conducted by the Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) Center at Boston University found “significant evidence of traumatic brain injuries” [TBIs] and “significant degeneration, axonal and myelin loss, inflammation, and small blood vessel injury” in the white matter, the center’s director, Ann McKee, MD, said in a press release. “These findings align with our previous studies on the effects of blast injury in humans and experimental models.”

Members of the military, such as Mr. Card, are exposed to blasts from repeated firing of heavy weapons not only during combat but also during training.

New data suggest that repeated blast exposure may impair the brain’s waste clearance system, leading to biomarker changes indicative of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease 20 years earlier than typical. A higher index of suspicion for dementia or Alzheimer’s disease may be warranted in patients with a history of blast exposure or subconcussive brain injury who present with cognitive issues, according to experts interviewed.

In 2022, the US Department of Defense (DOD) launched its Warfighter Brain Health Initiative with the aim of “optimizing service member brain health and countering traumatic brain injuries.”

In April 2024, the Blast Overpressure Safety Act was introduced in the Senate to require the DOD to enact better blast screening, tracking, prevention, and treatment. The DOD initiated 26 blast overpressure studies.

Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of Medical and Scientific Relations, said that an important component of that research involves “the need to study the difference between TBI-caused dementia and dementia caused independently” and “the need to study biomarkers to better understand the long-term consequences of TBI.”
 

What Is the Underlying Biology?

Dr. Snyder was the lead author of a white paper produced by the Alzheimer’s Association in 2018 on military-related risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. “There is a lot of work trying to understand the effect of pure blast waves on the brain, as opposed to the actual impact of the injury,” she said.

The white paper speculated that blast exposure may be analogous to subconcussive brain injury in athletes where there are no obvious immediate clinical symptoms or neurological dysfunction but which can cause cumulative injury and functional impairment over time.

“We are also trying to understand the underlying biology around brain changes, such as accumulation of tau and amyloid and other specific markers related to brain changes in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Snyder, chair of the Peer Reviewed Alzheimer’s Research Program Programmatic Panel for Alzheimer’s Disease/Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias and TBI.
 

Common Biomarker Signatures

A recent study in Neurology comparing 51 veterans with mild TBI (mTBI) with 85 veterans and civilians with no lifetime history of TBI is among the first to explore these biomarker changes in human beings.

“Our findings suggest that chronic neuropathologic processes associated with blast mTBI share properties in common with pathogenic processes that are precursors to Alzheimer’s disease onset,” said coauthor Elaine R. Peskind, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Washington, Seattle.

The largely male participants were a mean age of 34 years and underwent standardized clinical and neuropsychological testing as well as lumbar puncture to collect cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The mTBI group had experienced at least one war zone blast or combined blast/impact that met criteria for mTBI, but 91% had more than one blast mTBI, and the study took place over 13 years.

The researchers found that the mTBI group “had biomarker signatures in common with the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Peskind.

For example, at age 50, they had lower mean levels of CSF amyloid beta 42 (Abeta42), the earliest marker of brain parenchymal Abeta deposition, compared with the control group (154 pg/mL and 1864 pg/mL lower, respectively).

High CSF phosphorylated tau181 (p-tau181) and total tau are established biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease. However, levels of these biomarkers remained “relatively constant with age” in participants with mTBI but were higher in older ages for the non-TBI group.

The mTBI group also showed worse cognitive performance at older ages (P < .08). Poorer verbal memory and verbal fluency performance were associated with lower CSF Abeta42 in older participants (P ≤ .05).

In Alzheimer’s disease, a reduction in CSF Abeta42 may occur up to 20 years before the onset of clinical symptoms, according to Dr. Peskind. “But what we don’t know from this study is what this means, as total tau protein and p-tau181 in the CSF were also low, which isn’t entirely typical in the picture of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease,” she said. However, changes in total tau and p-tau181 lag behind changes in Abeta42.
 

Is Impaired Clearance the Culprit?

Coauthor Jeffrey Iliff, PhD, professor, University of Washington Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and University of Washington Department of Neurology, Seattle, elaborated.

“In the setting of Alzheimer’s disease, a signature of the disease is reduced CSF Abeta42, which is thought to reflect that much of the amyloid gets ‘stuck’ in the brain in the form of amyloid plaques,” he said. “There are usually higher levels of phosphorylated tau and total tau, which are thought to reflect the presence of tau tangles and degeneration of neurons in the brain. But in this study, all of those were lowered, which is not exactly an Alzheimer’s disease profile.”

Dr. Iliff, associate director for research, VA Northwest Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center at VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, suggested that the culprit may be impairment in the brain’s glymphatic system. “Recently described biological research supports [the concept of] clearance of waste out of the brain during sleep via the glymphatic system, with amyloid and tau being cleared from the brain interstitium during sleep.”

A recent hypothesis is that blast TBI impairs that process. “This is why we see less of those proteins in the CSF. They’re not being cleared, which might contribute downstream to the clumping up of protein in the brain,” he suggested.

The evidence base corroborating that hypothesis is in its infancy; however, new research conducted by Dr. Iliff and his colleagues sheds light on this potential mechanism.

In blast TBI, energy from the explosion and resulting overpressure wave are “transmitted through the brain, which causes tissues of different densities — such as gray and white matter — to accelerate at different rates,” according to Dr. Iliff. This results in the shearing and stretching of brain tissue, leading to a “diffuse pattern of tissue damage.”

It is known that blast TBI has clinical overlap and associations with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and persistent neurobehavioral symptoms; that veterans with a history of TBI are more than twice as likely to die by suicide than veterans with no TBI history; and that TBI may increase the risk for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementing disorders, as well as CTE.

The missing link may be the glymphatic system — a “brain-wide network of perivascular pathways, along which CSF and interstitial fluid (ISF) exchange, supporting the clearance of interstitial solutes, including amyloid-beta.”

Dr. Iliff and his group previously found that glymphatic function is “markedly and chronically impaired” following impact TBI in mice and that this impairment is associated with the mislocalization of astroglial aquaporin 4 (AQP4), a water channel that lines perivascular spaces and plays a role in healthy glymphatic exchange.

In their new study, the researchers examined both the expression and the localization of AQP4 in the human postmortem frontal cortex and found “distinct laminar differences” in AQP4 expression following blast exposure. They observed similar changes as well as impairment of glymphatic function, which emerged 28 days following blast injury in a mouse model of repetitive blast mTBI.

And in a cohort of veterans with blast mTBI, blast exposure was found to be associated with an increased burden of frontal cortical MRI-visible perivascular spaces — a “putative neuroimaging marker” of glymphatic perivascular dysfunction.

The earlier Neurology study “showed impairment of biomarkers in the CSF, but the new study showed ‘why’ or ‘how’ these biomarkers are impaired, which is via impairment of the glymphatic clearance process,” Dr. Iliff explained.
 

Veterans Especially Vulnerable

Dr. Peskind, co-director of the VA Northwest Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, noted that while the veterans in the earlier study had at least one TBI, the average number was 20, and it was more common to have more than 50 mTBIs than to have a single one.

“These were highly exposed combat vets,” she said. “And that number doesn’t even account for subconcussive exposure to blasts, which now appear to cause detectable brain damage, even in the absence of a diagnosable TBI.”

The Maine shooter, Mr. Card, had not seen combat and was not assessed for TBI during a psychiatric hospitalization, according to The New York Times.

Dr. Peskind added that this type of blast damage is likely specific to individuals in the military. “It isn’t the sound that causes the damage,” she explained. “It’s the blast wave, the pressure wave, and there aren’t a lot of other occupations that have those types of occupational exposures.”

Dr. Snyder added that the majority of blast TBIs have been studied in military personnel, and she is not aware of studies that have looked at blast injuries in other industries, such as demolition or mining, to see if they have the same type of biologic consequences.

Dr. Snyder hopes that the researchers will follow the participants in the Neurology study and continue looking at specific markers related to Alzheimer’s disease brain changes. What the research so far shows “is that, at an earlier age, we’re starting to see those markers changing, suggesting that the underlying biology in people with mild blast TBI is similar to the underlying biology in Alzheimer’s disease as well.”

Michael Alosco, PhD, associate professor and vice chair of research, department of neurology, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, called the issue of blast exposure and TBI “a very complex and nuanced topic,” especially because TBI is “considered a risk factor of Alzheimer’s disease” and “different types of TBIs could trigger distinct pathophysiologic processes; however, the long-term impact of repetitive blast TBIs on neurodegenerative disease changes remains unknown.”

He coauthored an editorial on the earlier Neurology study that noted its limitations, such as a small sample size and lack of consideration of lifestyle and health factors but acknowledged that the “findings provide preliminary evidence that repetitive blast exposures might influence beta-amyloid accumulation.”
 

Clinical Implications

For Dr. Peskind, the “inflection point” was seeing lower CSF Abeta42, about 20 years earlier than ages 60 and 70, which is more typical in cognitively normal community volunteers.

But she described herself as “loath to say that veterans or service members have a 20-year acceleration of risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” adding, “I don’t want to scare the heck out of our service members of veterans.” Although “this is what we fear, we’re not ready to say it for sure yet because we need to do more work. Nevertheless, it does increase the index of suspicion.”

The clinical take-home messages are not unique to service members or veterans or people with a history of head injuries or a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer’s disease, she emphasized. “If anyone of any age or occupation comes in with cognitive issues, such as [impaired] memory or executive function, they deserve a workup for dementing disorders.” Frontotemporal dementia, for example, can present earlier than Alzheimer’s disease typically does.

Common comorbidities with TBI are PTSD and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which can also cause cognitive issues and are also risk factors for dementia.

Dr. Iliff agreed. “If you see a veteran with a history of PTSD, a history of blast TBI, and a history of OSA or some combination of those three, I recommend having a higher index of suspicion [for potential dementia] than for an average person without any of these, even at a younger age than one would ordinarily expect.”

Of all of these factors, the only truly directly modifiable one is sleep disruption, including that caused by OSA or sleep disorders related to PTSD, he added. “Epidemiologic data suggest a connection particularly between midlife sleep disruption and the risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, and so it’s worth thinking about sleep as a modifiable risk factor even as early as the 40s and 50s, whether the patient is or isn’t a veteran.”

Dr. Peskind recommended asking patients, “Do they snore? Do they thrash about during sleep? Do they have trauma nightmares? This will inform the type of intervention required.”

Dr. Alosco added that there is no known “safe” threshold of exposure to blasts, and that thresholds are “unclear, particularly at the individual level.” In American football, there is a dose-response relationship between years of play and risk for later-life neurological disorder. “The best way to mitigate risk is to limit cumulative exposure,” he said.

The study by Li and colleagues was funded by grant funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service and the University of Washington Friends of Alzheimer’s Research. Other sources of funding to individual researchers are listed in the original paper. The study by Braun and colleagues was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service; and the National Institute on Aging. The white paper included studies that received funding from numerous sources, including the National Institutes of Health and the DOD. Dr. Iliff serves as the chair of the Scientific Advisory Board for Applied Cognition Inc., from which he receives compensation and in which he holds an equity stake. In the last year, he served as a paid consultant to Gryphon Biosciences. Dr. Peskind has served as a paid consultant to the companies Genentech, Roche, and Alpha Cognition. Dr. Alosco was supported by grant funding from the NIH; he received research support from Rainwater Charitable Foundation Inc., and Life Molecular Imaging Inc.; he has received a single honorarium from the Michael J. Fox Foundation for services unrelated to this editorial; and he received royalties from Oxford University Press Inc. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original papers.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In October 2023, Robert Card — a grenade instructor in the Army Reserve — shot and killed 18 people in Maine, before turning the gun on himself. As reported by The New York Times, his family said that he had become increasingly erratic and violent during the months before the rampage.

A postmortem conducted by the Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) Center at Boston University found “significant evidence of traumatic brain injuries” [TBIs] and “significant degeneration, axonal and myelin loss, inflammation, and small blood vessel injury” in the white matter, the center’s director, Ann McKee, MD, said in a press release. “These findings align with our previous studies on the effects of blast injury in humans and experimental models.”

Members of the military, such as Mr. Card, are exposed to blasts from repeated firing of heavy weapons not only during combat but also during training.

New data suggest that repeated blast exposure may impair the brain’s waste clearance system, leading to biomarker changes indicative of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease 20 years earlier than typical. A higher index of suspicion for dementia or Alzheimer’s disease may be warranted in patients with a history of blast exposure or subconcussive brain injury who present with cognitive issues, according to experts interviewed.

In 2022, the US Department of Defense (DOD) launched its Warfighter Brain Health Initiative with the aim of “optimizing service member brain health and countering traumatic brain injuries.”

In April 2024, the Blast Overpressure Safety Act was introduced in the Senate to require the DOD to enact better blast screening, tracking, prevention, and treatment. The DOD initiated 26 blast overpressure studies.

Heather Snyder, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association vice president of Medical and Scientific Relations, said that an important component of that research involves “the need to study the difference between TBI-caused dementia and dementia caused independently” and “the need to study biomarkers to better understand the long-term consequences of TBI.”
 

What Is the Underlying Biology?

Dr. Snyder was the lead author of a white paper produced by the Alzheimer’s Association in 2018 on military-related risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. “There is a lot of work trying to understand the effect of pure blast waves on the brain, as opposed to the actual impact of the injury,” she said.

The white paper speculated that blast exposure may be analogous to subconcussive brain injury in athletes where there are no obvious immediate clinical symptoms or neurological dysfunction but which can cause cumulative injury and functional impairment over time.

“We are also trying to understand the underlying biology around brain changes, such as accumulation of tau and amyloid and other specific markers related to brain changes in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Snyder, chair of the Peer Reviewed Alzheimer’s Research Program Programmatic Panel for Alzheimer’s Disease/Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias and TBI.
 

Common Biomarker Signatures

A recent study in Neurology comparing 51 veterans with mild TBI (mTBI) with 85 veterans and civilians with no lifetime history of TBI is among the first to explore these biomarker changes in human beings.

“Our findings suggest that chronic neuropathologic processes associated with blast mTBI share properties in common with pathogenic processes that are precursors to Alzheimer’s disease onset,” said coauthor Elaine R. Peskind, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Washington, Seattle.

The largely male participants were a mean age of 34 years and underwent standardized clinical and neuropsychological testing as well as lumbar puncture to collect cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). The mTBI group had experienced at least one war zone blast or combined blast/impact that met criteria for mTBI, but 91% had more than one blast mTBI, and the study took place over 13 years.

The researchers found that the mTBI group “had biomarker signatures in common with the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Peskind.

For example, at age 50, they had lower mean levels of CSF amyloid beta 42 (Abeta42), the earliest marker of brain parenchymal Abeta deposition, compared with the control group (154 pg/mL and 1864 pg/mL lower, respectively).

High CSF phosphorylated tau181 (p-tau181) and total tau are established biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease. However, levels of these biomarkers remained “relatively constant with age” in participants with mTBI but were higher in older ages for the non-TBI group.

The mTBI group also showed worse cognitive performance at older ages (P < .08). Poorer verbal memory and verbal fluency performance were associated with lower CSF Abeta42 in older participants (P ≤ .05).

In Alzheimer’s disease, a reduction in CSF Abeta42 may occur up to 20 years before the onset of clinical symptoms, according to Dr. Peskind. “But what we don’t know from this study is what this means, as total tau protein and p-tau181 in the CSF were also low, which isn’t entirely typical in the picture of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease,” she said. However, changes in total tau and p-tau181 lag behind changes in Abeta42.
 

Is Impaired Clearance the Culprit?

Coauthor Jeffrey Iliff, PhD, professor, University of Washington Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and University of Washington Department of Neurology, Seattle, elaborated.

“In the setting of Alzheimer’s disease, a signature of the disease is reduced CSF Abeta42, which is thought to reflect that much of the amyloid gets ‘stuck’ in the brain in the form of amyloid plaques,” he said. “There are usually higher levels of phosphorylated tau and total tau, which are thought to reflect the presence of tau tangles and degeneration of neurons in the brain. But in this study, all of those were lowered, which is not exactly an Alzheimer’s disease profile.”

Dr. Iliff, associate director for research, VA Northwest Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center at VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, suggested that the culprit may be impairment in the brain’s glymphatic system. “Recently described biological research supports [the concept of] clearance of waste out of the brain during sleep via the glymphatic system, with amyloid and tau being cleared from the brain interstitium during sleep.”

A recent hypothesis is that blast TBI impairs that process. “This is why we see less of those proteins in the CSF. They’re not being cleared, which might contribute downstream to the clumping up of protein in the brain,” he suggested.

The evidence base corroborating that hypothesis is in its infancy; however, new research conducted by Dr. Iliff and his colleagues sheds light on this potential mechanism.

In blast TBI, energy from the explosion and resulting overpressure wave are “transmitted through the brain, which causes tissues of different densities — such as gray and white matter — to accelerate at different rates,” according to Dr. Iliff. This results in the shearing and stretching of brain tissue, leading to a “diffuse pattern of tissue damage.”

It is known that blast TBI has clinical overlap and associations with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and persistent neurobehavioral symptoms; that veterans with a history of TBI are more than twice as likely to die by suicide than veterans with no TBI history; and that TBI may increase the risk for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementing disorders, as well as CTE.

The missing link may be the glymphatic system — a “brain-wide network of perivascular pathways, along which CSF and interstitial fluid (ISF) exchange, supporting the clearance of interstitial solutes, including amyloid-beta.”

Dr. Iliff and his group previously found that glymphatic function is “markedly and chronically impaired” following impact TBI in mice and that this impairment is associated with the mislocalization of astroglial aquaporin 4 (AQP4), a water channel that lines perivascular spaces and plays a role in healthy glymphatic exchange.

In their new study, the researchers examined both the expression and the localization of AQP4 in the human postmortem frontal cortex and found “distinct laminar differences” in AQP4 expression following blast exposure. They observed similar changes as well as impairment of glymphatic function, which emerged 28 days following blast injury in a mouse model of repetitive blast mTBI.

And in a cohort of veterans with blast mTBI, blast exposure was found to be associated with an increased burden of frontal cortical MRI-visible perivascular spaces — a “putative neuroimaging marker” of glymphatic perivascular dysfunction.

The earlier Neurology study “showed impairment of biomarkers in the CSF, but the new study showed ‘why’ or ‘how’ these biomarkers are impaired, which is via impairment of the glymphatic clearance process,” Dr. Iliff explained.
 

Veterans Especially Vulnerable

Dr. Peskind, co-director of the VA Northwest Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, noted that while the veterans in the earlier study had at least one TBI, the average number was 20, and it was more common to have more than 50 mTBIs than to have a single one.

“These were highly exposed combat vets,” she said. “And that number doesn’t even account for subconcussive exposure to blasts, which now appear to cause detectable brain damage, even in the absence of a diagnosable TBI.”

The Maine shooter, Mr. Card, had not seen combat and was not assessed for TBI during a psychiatric hospitalization, according to The New York Times.

Dr. Peskind added that this type of blast damage is likely specific to individuals in the military. “It isn’t the sound that causes the damage,” she explained. “It’s the blast wave, the pressure wave, and there aren’t a lot of other occupations that have those types of occupational exposures.”

Dr. Snyder added that the majority of blast TBIs have been studied in military personnel, and she is not aware of studies that have looked at blast injuries in other industries, such as demolition or mining, to see if they have the same type of biologic consequences.

Dr. Snyder hopes that the researchers will follow the participants in the Neurology study and continue looking at specific markers related to Alzheimer’s disease brain changes. What the research so far shows “is that, at an earlier age, we’re starting to see those markers changing, suggesting that the underlying biology in people with mild blast TBI is similar to the underlying biology in Alzheimer’s disease as well.”

Michael Alosco, PhD, associate professor and vice chair of research, department of neurology, Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, called the issue of blast exposure and TBI “a very complex and nuanced topic,” especially because TBI is “considered a risk factor of Alzheimer’s disease” and “different types of TBIs could trigger distinct pathophysiologic processes; however, the long-term impact of repetitive blast TBIs on neurodegenerative disease changes remains unknown.”

He coauthored an editorial on the earlier Neurology study that noted its limitations, such as a small sample size and lack of consideration of lifestyle and health factors but acknowledged that the “findings provide preliminary evidence that repetitive blast exposures might influence beta-amyloid accumulation.”
 

Clinical Implications

For Dr. Peskind, the “inflection point” was seeing lower CSF Abeta42, about 20 years earlier than ages 60 and 70, which is more typical in cognitively normal community volunteers.

But she described herself as “loath to say that veterans or service members have a 20-year acceleration of risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” adding, “I don’t want to scare the heck out of our service members of veterans.” Although “this is what we fear, we’re not ready to say it for sure yet because we need to do more work. Nevertheless, it does increase the index of suspicion.”

The clinical take-home messages are not unique to service members or veterans or people with a history of head injuries or a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer’s disease, she emphasized. “If anyone of any age or occupation comes in with cognitive issues, such as [impaired] memory or executive function, they deserve a workup for dementing disorders.” Frontotemporal dementia, for example, can present earlier than Alzheimer’s disease typically does.

Common comorbidities with TBI are PTSD and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which can also cause cognitive issues and are also risk factors for dementia.

Dr. Iliff agreed. “If you see a veteran with a history of PTSD, a history of blast TBI, and a history of OSA or some combination of those three, I recommend having a higher index of suspicion [for potential dementia] than for an average person without any of these, even at a younger age than one would ordinarily expect.”

Of all of these factors, the only truly directly modifiable one is sleep disruption, including that caused by OSA or sleep disorders related to PTSD, he added. “Epidemiologic data suggest a connection particularly between midlife sleep disruption and the risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, and so it’s worth thinking about sleep as a modifiable risk factor even as early as the 40s and 50s, whether the patient is or isn’t a veteran.”

Dr. Peskind recommended asking patients, “Do they snore? Do they thrash about during sleep? Do they have trauma nightmares? This will inform the type of intervention required.”

Dr. Alosco added that there is no known “safe” threshold of exposure to blasts, and that thresholds are “unclear, particularly at the individual level.” In American football, there is a dose-response relationship between years of play and risk for later-life neurological disorder. “The best way to mitigate risk is to limit cumulative exposure,” he said.

The study by Li and colleagues was funded by grant funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service and the University of Washington Friends of Alzheimer’s Research. Other sources of funding to individual researchers are listed in the original paper. The study by Braun and colleagues was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service; and the National Institute on Aging. The white paper included studies that received funding from numerous sources, including the National Institutes of Health and the DOD. Dr. Iliff serves as the chair of the Scientific Advisory Board for Applied Cognition Inc., from which he receives compensation and in which he holds an equity stake. In the last year, he served as a paid consultant to Gryphon Biosciences. Dr. Peskind has served as a paid consultant to the companies Genentech, Roche, and Alpha Cognition. Dr. Alosco was supported by grant funding from the NIH; he received research support from Rainwater Charitable Foundation Inc., and Life Molecular Imaging Inc.; he has received a single honorarium from the Michael J. Fox Foundation for services unrelated to this editorial; and he received royalties from Oxford University Press Inc. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original papers.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In a bid to address the severe shortage of headache neurologists across the United States, the American Headache Society (AHS) has developed a program aimed at primary care physicians (PCPs) to help address the unmet demand for headache treatment and management.

It is estimated that about 4 million PCP office visits annually are headache related, and that 52.8% of all migraine encounters occur in primary care settings.

However, PCPs aren’t always adequately trained in headache management and referral times to specialist care can be lengthy.

Data published in Headache show only 564 accredited headache specialists practice in the United States, but at least 3700 headache specialists are needed to treat those affected by migraine, with even more needed to address other disabling headache types such as tension-type headache and cluster headache. To keep up with population growth, it is estimated that the United States will require 4500 headache specialists by 2040.
 

First Contact

To tackle this specialist shortfall, the AHS developed the First Contact program with the aim of improving headache education in primary care and help alleviate at least some of the demand for specialist care.

The national program was rolled out in 2020 and 2021. The educational symposia were delivered to PCPs at multiple locations across the country. The initiative also included a comprehensive website with numerous support resources.

After participating in the initiative, attendees were surveyed about the value of the program, and the results were subsequently analyzed and presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The analysis included 636 survey respondents, a 38% response rate. Almost all participants (96%) were MDs and DOs. The remainder included nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and dentists.

About 85.6% of respondents reported being completely or very confident in their ability to recognize and accurately diagnose headache disorders, and 81.3% said they were completely or very confident in their ability to create tailored treatment plans.

Just over 90% of participants reported they would implement practice changes as a result of the program. The most commonly cited change was the use of diagnostic tools such as the three-question Migraine ID screener, followed closely by consideration of prescribing triptans and reducing the use of unnecessary neuroimaging.

“Overall, there was a positive response to this type of educational programming and interest in ongoing education in addressing headache disorders with both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical treatment options,” said Nisha Malhotra, MD, a resident at New York University (NYU) Langone Health, New York City, who presented the findings at the conference.

The fact that so many general practitioners were keen to use this easy-to-use screen [Migraine ID screener], which can pick up about 90% of people with migraine, is “great,” said study investigator Mia Minen, MD, associate professor and chief of headache research at NYU Langone Health. “I’m pleased primary care providers said they were considering implementing this simple tool.”

However, respondents also cited barriers to change. These included cost constraints (48.9%), insurance reimbursement issues (48.6%), and lack of time (45.3%). Dr. Malhotra noted these concerns are primarily related to workflow rather than knowledge gaps or lack of training.

“This is exciting in that there doesn’t seem to be an issue with education primarily but rather with the logistical issues that exist in the workflow in a primary care setting,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Participants also noted the need for other improvements. For example, they expressed interest in differentiating migraine from other headache types and having a better understanding of how and when to refer to specialists, said Dr. Malhotra.

These practitioners also want to know more about treatment options beyond first-line medications. “They were interested in understanding more advanced medication treatment options beyond just the typical triptan,” said Dr. Malhotra.

In addition, they want to become more skilled in non-pharmaceutical options such as occipital nerve blocks and in massage, acupuncture, and other complementary forms of migraine management, she said.

The study may be vulnerable to sampling bias as survey participants had just attended an educational symposium on headaches. “They were already, to some degree, interested in improving their knowledge on headache,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Another study limitation was that researchers didn’t conduct a pre-survey analysis to determine changes as a result of the symposia. And as the survey was conducted so close to the symposium, “it’s difficult to draw conclusions on the long-term effects,” she added.

“That being said, First Contact is one of the first national initiatives for primary care education, and thus far, it has been very well received.”

The next step is to continue expanding the program and to create a First Contact for women and First Contact for pediatrics, said Dr. Minen.
 

Improved Diagnosis, Better Care

Commenting on the initiative, Juliana VanderPluym, MD, a headache specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who co-chaired the session where the survey results were presented, said it helps address the supply-demand imbalance in headache healthcare.

“Many, many people have headache disorders, and very few people are technically headache specialists, so we have to rely on our colleagues in primary care to help address the great need that’s out there for patients with headache disorders.”

Too many patients don’t get a proper diagnosis or appropriate treatment, said Dr. VanderPluym, so as time passes, “diseases can become more chronic and more refractory, and it affects people’s quality of life and productivity.”

The First Contact program, she said, helps increase providers’ comfort and confidence that they are providing the best patient care possible and lead to a reduction in the need for specialist referrals.

Dr. Minen serves on the First Contact advisory board.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In a bid to address the severe shortage of headache neurologists across the United States, the American Headache Society (AHS) has developed a program aimed at primary care physicians (PCPs) to help address the unmet demand for headache treatment and management.

It is estimated that about 4 million PCP office visits annually are headache related, and that 52.8% of all migraine encounters occur in primary care settings.

However, PCPs aren’t always adequately trained in headache management and referral times to specialist care can be lengthy.

Data published in Headache show only 564 accredited headache specialists practice in the United States, but at least 3700 headache specialists are needed to treat those affected by migraine, with even more needed to address other disabling headache types such as tension-type headache and cluster headache. To keep up with population growth, it is estimated that the United States will require 4500 headache specialists by 2040.
 

First Contact

To tackle this specialist shortfall, the AHS developed the First Contact program with the aim of improving headache education in primary care and help alleviate at least some of the demand for specialist care.

The national program was rolled out in 2020 and 2021. The educational symposia were delivered to PCPs at multiple locations across the country. The initiative also included a comprehensive website with numerous support resources.

After participating in the initiative, attendees were surveyed about the value of the program, and the results were subsequently analyzed and presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The analysis included 636 survey respondents, a 38% response rate. Almost all participants (96%) were MDs and DOs. The remainder included nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and dentists.

About 85.6% of respondents reported being completely or very confident in their ability to recognize and accurately diagnose headache disorders, and 81.3% said they were completely or very confident in their ability to create tailored treatment plans.

Just over 90% of participants reported they would implement practice changes as a result of the program. The most commonly cited change was the use of diagnostic tools such as the three-question Migraine ID screener, followed closely by consideration of prescribing triptans and reducing the use of unnecessary neuroimaging.

“Overall, there was a positive response to this type of educational programming and interest in ongoing education in addressing headache disorders with both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical treatment options,” said Nisha Malhotra, MD, a resident at New York University (NYU) Langone Health, New York City, who presented the findings at the conference.

The fact that so many general practitioners were keen to use this easy-to-use screen [Migraine ID screener], which can pick up about 90% of people with migraine, is “great,” said study investigator Mia Minen, MD, associate professor and chief of headache research at NYU Langone Health. “I’m pleased primary care providers said they were considering implementing this simple tool.”

However, respondents also cited barriers to change. These included cost constraints (48.9%), insurance reimbursement issues (48.6%), and lack of time (45.3%). Dr. Malhotra noted these concerns are primarily related to workflow rather than knowledge gaps or lack of training.

“This is exciting in that there doesn’t seem to be an issue with education primarily but rather with the logistical issues that exist in the workflow in a primary care setting,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Participants also noted the need for other improvements. For example, they expressed interest in differentiating migraine from other headache types and having a better understanding of how and when to refer to specialists, said Dr. Malhotra.

These practitioners also want to know more about treatment options beyond first-line medications. “They were interested in understanding more advanced medication treatment options beyond just the typical triptan,” said Dr. Malhotra.

In addition, they want to become more skilled in non-pharmaceutical options such as occipital nerve blocks and in massage, acupuncture, and other complementary forms of migraine management, she said.

The study may be vulnerable to sampling bias as survey participants had just attended an educational symposium on headaches. “They were already, to some degree, interested in improving their knowledge on headache,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Another study limitation was that researchers didn’t conduct a pre-survey analysis to determine changes as a result of the symposia. And as the survey was conducted so close to the symposium, “it’s difficult to draw conclusions on the long-term effects,” she added.

“That being said, First Contact is one of the first national initiatives for primary care education, and thus far, it has been very well received.”

The next step is to continue expanding the program and to create a First Contact for women and First Contact for pediatrics, said Dr. Minen.
 

Improved Diagnosis, Better Care

Commenting on the initiative, Juliana VanderPluym, MD, a headache specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who co-chaired the session where the survey results were presented, said it helps address the supply-demand imbalance in headache healthcare.

“Many, many people have headache disorders, and very few people are technically headache specialists, so we have to rely on our colleagues in primary care to help address the great need that’s out there for patients with headache disorders.”

Too many patients don’t get a proper diagnosis or appropriate treatment, said Dr. VanderPluym, so as time passes, “diseases can become more chronic and more refractory, and it affects people’s quality of life and productivity.”

The First Contact program, she said, helps increase providers’ comfort and confidence that they are providing the best patient care possible and lead to a reduction in the need for specialist referrals.

Dr. Minen serves on the First Contact advisory board.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In a bid to address the severe shortage of headache neurologists across the United States, the American Headache Society (AHS) has developed a program aimed at primary care physicians (PCPs) to help address the unmet demand for headache treatment and management.

It is estimated that about 4 million PCP office visits annually are headache related, and that 52.8% of all migraine encounters occur in primary care settings.

However, PCPs aren’t always adequately trained in headache management and referral times to specialist care can be lengthy.

Data published in Headache show only 564 accredited headache specialists practice in the United States, but at least 3700 headache specialists are needed to treat those affected by migraine, with even more needed to address other disabling headache types such as tension-type headache and cluster headache. To keep up with population growth, it is estimated that the United States will require 4500 headache specialists by 2040.
 

First Contact

To tackle this specialist shortfall, the AHS developed the First Contact program with the aim of improving headache education in primary care and help alleviate at least some of the demand for specialist care.

The national program was rolled out in 2020 and 2021. The educational symposia were delivered to PCPs at multiple locations across the country. The initiative also included a comprehensive website with numerous support resources.

After participating in the initiative, attendees were surveyed about the value of the program, and the results were subsequently analyzed and presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

The analysis included 636 survey respondents, a 38% response rate. Almost all participants (96%) were MDs and DOs. The remainder included nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and dentists.

About 85.6% of respondents reported being completely or very confident in their ability to recognize and accurately diagnose headache disorders, and 81.3% said they were completely or very confident in their ability to create tailored treatment plans.

Just over 90% of participants reported they would implement practice changes as a result of the program. The most commonly cited change was the use of diagnostic tools such as the three-question Migraine ID screener, followed closely by consideration of prescribing triptans and reducing the use of unnecessary neuroimaging.

“Overall, there was a positive response to this type of educational programming and interest in ongoing education in addressing headache disorders with both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical treatment options,” said Nisha Malhotra, MD, a resident at New York University (NYU) Langone Health, New York City, who presented the findings at the conference.

The fact that so many general practitioners were keen to use this easy-to-use screen [Migraine ID screener], which can pick up about 90% of people with migraine, is “great,” said study investigator Mia Minen, MD, associate professor and chief of headache research at NYU Langone Health. “I’m pleased primary care providers said they were considering implementing this simple tool.”

However, respondents also cited barriers to change. These included cost constraints (48.9%), insurance reimbursement issues (48.6%), and lack of time (45.3%). Dr. Malhotra noted these concerns are primarily related to workflow rather than knowledge gaps or lack of training.

“This is exciting in that there doesn’t seem to be an issue with education primarily but rather with the logistical issues that exist in the workflow in a primary care setting,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Participants also noted the need for other improvements. For example, they expressed interest in differentiating migraine from other headache types and having a better understanding of how and when to refer to specialists, said Dr. Malhotra.

These practitioners also want to know more about treatment options beyond first-line medications. “They were interested in understanding more advanced medication treatment options beyond just the typical triptan,” said Dr. Malhotra.

In addition, they want to become more skilled in non-pharmaceutical options such as occipital nerve blocks and in massage, acupuncture, and other complementary forms of migraine management, she said.

The study may be vulnerable to sampling bias as survey participants had just attended an educational symposium on headaches. “They were already, to some degree, interested in improving their knowledge on headache,” said Dr. Malhotra.

Another study limitation was that researchers didn’t conduct a pre-survey analysis to determine changes as a result of the symposia. And as the survey was conducted so close to the symposium, “it’s difficult to draw conclusions on the long-term effects,” she added.

“That being said, First Contact is one of the first national initiatives for primary care education, and thus far, it has been very well received.”

The next step is to continue expanding the program and to create a First Contact for women and First Contact for pediatrics, said Dr. Minen.
 

Improved Diagnosis, Better Care

Commenting on the initiative, Juliana VanderPluym, MD, a headache specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who co-chaired the session where the survey results were presented, said it helps address the supply-demand imbalance in headache healthcare.

“Many, many people have headache disorders, and very few people are technically headache specialists, so we have to rely on our colleagues in primary care to help address the great need that’s out there for patients with headache disorders.”

Too many patients don’t get a proper diagnosis or appropriate treatment, said Dr. VanderPluym, so as time passes, “diseases can become more chronic and more refractory, and it affects people’s quality of life and productivity.”

The First Contact program, she said, helps increase providers’ comfort and confidence that they are providing the best patient care possible and lead to a reduction in the need for specialist referrals.

Dr. Minen serves on the First Contact advisory board.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some 15%-20% of the world’s population are neurodivergent, with conditions such as autism, dyslexia, Tourette syndrome, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and others. With different strengths and challenges around learning, engaging socially, or completing certain tasks, neurodivergent people can face barriers in the workforce.

Meanwhile, studies suggest that neurodivergent people may be overrepresented in STEM fields such as medicine. The medical field may self-select for traits associated with neurodivergent conditions, researchers say, including a hyperfocus on intense interests, pattern recognition, increased curiosity and empathy, and thinking quickly under pressure.

But neurodivergent physicians report difficult, even damaging, experiences in the healthcare field. They struggle with stigma, a culture of nondisclosure, and lack of accommodations, which can lead to burnout and poor mental health.

“The medical system and the mental health system are some of the spaces that are holding on tightly to some of the outdated understandings of things like autism and ADHD,” says Megan Anna Neff, PsyD, a psychologist with autism and ADHD based in Portland, Oregon.

Situations can get dire: A 2023 survey of more than 200 autistic doctors from several countries found that 77% had considered suicide and 24% had attempted it.

But here’s the crux of it: Many neurodivergent doctors believe their unique ways of thinking and outside-the-box creativity are skills and strengths that can benefit the field. And they say making medicine more inclusive — and better understanding how a neurodivergent physician’s brain works — would allow them to thrive.
 

Blending In and Breaking Down

The exact number of neurodivergent physicians in the workforce remains unknown. Existing studies are small and focus mainly on autism. But researchers believe the percentage could be higher than we think, because neurodiversity can be underidentified.

Although autism can sometimes be diagnosed as early as 18 months, it’s not uncommon to receive a diagnosis well into adulthood. “Like many late-identified autistic adults, I got my autism diagnosis in the context of autistic burnout,” says Melissa Houser, MD, a primary care physician who received a diagnosis in 2021. Dr. Houser, who uses the pronouns she/they, explains that her experience is common, “a consequence of chronically having your life’s demands exceed your capacity.”

Dr. Houser, who also has ADHD and dyslexia, among other neurodivergent conditions, says that before her diagnosis, she worked in a traditional practice setting. Eventually, she began to notice intense dysregulation and fatigue. “I began to have a lot more difficulties with communication and my motor planning and sequencing,” Dr. Houser says. “I was sleep-deprived, and my needs were not being met. I was in a situation where I had a complete lack of autonomy over my practice.”

Deep in burnout, Dr. Houser says she lost her ability to “mask,” a term used to describe how some neurodivergent people work to “blend in” with societal expectations. This led to further communication breakdowns with her supervisor. Finally, Dr. Houser saw a psychiatrist.

Shortly after her diagnosis, Dr. Houser quit her job and founded All Brains Belong, a nonprofit that provides neurodiversity-affirming medical care, education, and advocacy. Research has found that people with autism are at increased risk for physical health conditions, including immune conditions, gastrointestinal disorders, metabolic conditions, and increased mortality in hospital settings. Understanding these connections can “mean the difference between life and death” for neurodivergent patients, Dr. Houser says.

Yet, in a 2015 study that assessed providers’ ability to recognize autism, a high proportion were not aware that they had patients with autism spectrum disorder, and most reported lacking both the skills and the tools to care for them.
 

Different as a Doctor and a Patient

Bernadette Grosjean, MD, a retired associate professor of psychiatry at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, also found insight into lifelong experiences as both a doctor and a patient with her autism diagnosis, which came when she was 61.

“Looking back, I was a smart kid but kind of clumsy and different in other ways,” Dr. Grosjean says. According to a 2021 survey by Cambridge University, autistic individuals are significantly more likely to identify as LGBTQ+, and Dr. Grosjean, who is gay, says that not being fully accepted by family or friends played a role in her struggles with mental health issues.

Throughout her mental health treatment, Dr. Grosjean felt as though her providers “were expecting from me things that I didn’t know how to do or fix. I didn’t know how to be a ‘good’ patient,” she recalls.

As a psychiatrist, Dr. Grosjean started to notice that many of the women she treated for borderline personality disorder, which is categorized by unstable relationships and emotions, were autistic. “I then started asking lots of questions about myself — the fact that I’ve always been very sensitive or that I’ve been accused of being both hypersensitive and not having emotions, and I understood a lot.”

When Dr. Grosjean came across Autistic Doctors International, a group of over 800 autistic doctors worldwide, she says, “I found my tribe.” She now serves as the US lead for psychiatry for the group, which is focused on support, advocacy, research, and education around neurodiversity.

Psychiatric comorbidities can accompany neurodivergent conditions. But a growing body of research, including a 2022 study published in the European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, indicates that autism and ADHD are frequently misdiagnosed as depression or anxiety.

Dr. Neff was unaware of her conditions until one of her children was diagnosed with autism in 2021. She started to research it. “As I was learning about autism and girls, I was like, ‘Oh, my gosh, this is me,’ ” Dr. Neff recalls. Within a few weeks, she had her own diagnosis.

In hindsight, Dr. Neff has more clarity regarding her struggles in the traditional medical space. She had found it difficult to fit patients into short appointment windows and keep their notes concise. Although she loved hospital work, the environment had been overwhelming and led to burnout.
 

‘A Deficit-Based Lens’

Dr. Houser believes that too often, autism is viewed through a “deficit-based lens.” Stressors like sensory overload, changes in routine, or unexpected events can exacerbate behavioral challenges for neurodivergent people in the workplace. The DSM-5 criteria for autism, she points out, are largely based on autistic “stress behaviors.”

The result, Dr. Houser says, is that neurodivergent doctors are judged by their response to stressors that put them at a disadvantage rather than their capabilities under more positive circumstances. “The more dysregulated someone is,” she says, “the more likely they are to manifest those observable behaviors.”

Dr. Neff notes that medicine is a very “sensory overwhelming work environment.” Working in ob.gyn. and primary care clinics, she remembers often coming home with a headache and a low-grade fever. “I had no idea why, but I now realize it’s because I was so sensory sick.”

Fearing for her job, Dr. Neff intentionally waited until she was in private practice to disclose her neurodiversity. “I don’t think it would have been received well if I was in a hospital system,” she says. “There’s a lot of invalidation that can come when someone chooses to self-disclose, and their colleagues don’t have a framework in mind to understand.” In one instance, after revealing her diagnosis, she remembers a well-known researcher telling her she wasn’t autistic.
Dr. Grosjean has also had former colleagues invalidate her diagnosis, something she says “keeps people quiet.”
 

Understanding the Neurodivergent Brain

The general lack of education on how neurodivergent brains work, physicians with these conditions say, means they are not often recognized for how they can function with certain accommodations and how they could contribute in unique ways if their workplace challenges were reduced.

“What we know about autistic brains is that we are systems-thinking pattern matchers,” says Dr. Houser, who formed an interdisciplinary task force to explore medical conditions that are more common in autistic people. Through that comprehensive approach, she has worked to find best practices to treat the constellation of conditions that can arise among these patients. “My autistic brain allowed me to do that,” Dr. Houser says.

Catriona McVey, a medical student in the United Kingdom and creator of the blog Attention Deficit Doctor, points out that “ADHD brains are interest-driven; they can be very focused when you’re doing something enjoyable or new due to increased dopaminergic stimulation.” Ms. McVey speaks from personal experience. “I’ve hyperfocused before on an essay that interested me for over 10 hours,” she recalls, “so I imagine if I was interested in surgery, I could easily hyperfocus on a long operation.” 

Empathy is another key part of medical practice. Contrary to stereotypes of neurodivergent people lacking empathy, current research suggests this isn’t true. A concept known as the “double empathy problem,” a term coined by British researcher Damian Milton in 2012, challenges the misconception that autistic people do not have empathy, explains Dr. Grosjean.

Mr. Milton theorized that there are two types of empathy: emotional, when you feel someone else’s pain, and cognitive, which involves critical thinking to understand someone’s emotions or thoughts. “Autistic people have, in general, a lot of emotional empathy,” Dr. Grosjean says, “but the cognitive empathy they don’t have as well.”

Dr. Neff has experienced this in her practice. “I will often feel what my clients are feeling as they’re feeling it,” she says, adding that she has always had an innate ability to analyze and connect with clients. She’s good at observing the interplay of health conditions, incorporating biology, psychology, and social conceptualizations of issues, with nuance. She feels that recognizing behavioral patterns or psychological triggers in her patients helps her see them holistically and provide better care. “That was a skill even before I realized I was autistic, but I always thought it was just intuitive to everyone,” she says. 
 

Support Can Lead to Success

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to neurodivergent employees. However, getting those accommodations involves disclosure, which many physicians have reasons to avoid.

It also means more work. Requesting and putting adjustments in place can take a lot of time and energy to organize. Ms. McVey says they can be “long-winded, multistep tasks” that are not very compatible with ADHD. “Some doctors report that service pressures and funding are used as excuses to refuse adjustments,” she adds. 

Ms. McVey lists several workplace accommodations that could be helpful, including flexible working hours, a quiet space to complete paperwork, dictation software, and extra time for medical students to complete written exams.

Neurodivergent physicians have also called for increased diversity of senior leadership and utilizing “cognitive apprenticeship models,” where employees explain their thought processes and receive timely feedback.

But far too often, there is little intervention until a doctor reaches a crisis point. “I look forward to the day when we don’t have to wait until people are profoundly depleted to discover how their brains work,” says Dr. Houser.

Beyond logistical and structural changes in the medical field, Dr. Grosjean speaks of the simple need to listen to colleagues with an open mind and believe them when they express their feelings and experiences. “Everyone has a role to play in challenging stigma, misconceptions, and stereotypes,” Ms. McVey agrees. Ask yourself the old question, she suggests: “If not me, then who? If not now, then when?”

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

Some 15%-20% of the world’s population are neurodivergent, with conditions such as autism, dyslexia, Tourette syndrome, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and others. With different strengths and challenges around learning, engaging socially, or completing certain tasks, neurodivergent people can face barriers in the workforce.

Meanwhile, studies suggest that neurodivergent people may be overrepresented in STEM fields such as medicine. The medical field may self-select for traits associated with neurodivergent conditions, researchers say, including a hyperfocus on intense interests, pattern recognition, increased curiosity and empathy, and thinking quickly under pressure.

But neurodivergent physicians report difficult, even damaging, experiences in the healthcare field. They struggle with stigma, a culture of nondisclosure, and lack of accommodations, which can lead to burnout and poor mental health.

“The medical system and the mental health system are some of the spaces that are holding on tightly to some of the outdated understandings of things like autism and ADHD,” says Megan Anna Neff, PsyD, a psychologist with autism and ADHD based in Portland, Oregon.

Situations can get dire: A 2023 survey of more than 200 autistic doctors from several countries found that 77% had considered suicide and 24% had attempted it.

But here’s the crux of it: Many neurodivergent doctors believe their unique ways of thinking and outside-the-box creativity are skills and strengths that can benefit the field. And they say making medicine more inclusive — and better understanding how a neurodivergent physician’s brain works — would allow them to thrive.
 

Blending In and Breaking Down

The exact number of neurodivergent physicians in the workforce remains unknown. Existing studies are small and focus mainly on autism. But researchers believe the percentage could be higher than we think, because neurodiversity can be underidentified.

Although autism can sometimes be diagnosed as early as 18 months, it’s not uncommon to receive a diagnosis well into adulthood. “Like many late-identified autistic adults, I got my autism diagnosis in the context of autistic burnout,” says Melissa Houser, MD, a primary care physician who received a diagnosis in 2021. Dr. Houser, who uses the pronouns she/they, explains that her experience is common, “a consequence of chronically having your life’s demands exceed your capacity.”

Dr. Houser, who also has ADHD and dyslexia, among other neurodivergent conditions, says that before her diagnosis, she worked in a traditional practice setting. Eventually, she began to notice intense dysregulation and fatigue. “I began to have a lot more difficulties with communication and my motor planning and sequencing,” Dr. Houser says. “I was sleep-deprived, and my needs were not being met. I was in a situation where I had a complete lack of autonomy over my practice.”

Deep in burnout, Dr. Houser says she lost her ability to “mask,” a term used to describe how some neurodivergent people work to “blend in” with societal expectations. This led to further communication breakdowns with her supervisor. Finally, Dr. Houser saw a psychiatrist.

Shortly after her diagnosis, Dr. Houser quit her job and founded All Brains Belong, a nonprofit that provides neurodiversity-affirming medical care, education, and advocacy. Research has found that people with autism are at increased risk for physical health conditions, including immune conditions, gastrointestinal disorders, metabolic conditions, and increased mortality in hospital settings. Understanding these connections can “mean the difference between life and death” for neurodivergent patients, Dr. Houser says.

Yet, in a 2015 study that assessed providers’ ability to recognize autism, a high proportion were not aware that they had patients with autism spectrum disorder, and most reported lacking both the skills and the tools to care for them.
 

Different as a Doctor and a Patient

Bernadette Grosjean, MD, a retired associate professor of psychiatry at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, also found insight into lifelong experiences as both a doctor and a patient with her autism diagnosis, which came when she was 61.

“Looking back, I was a smart kid but kind of clumsy and different in other ways,” Dr. Grosjean says. According to a 2021 survey by Cambridge University, autistic individuals are significantly more likely to identify as LGBTQ+, and Dr. Grosjean, who is gay, says that not being fully accepted by family or friends played a role in her struggles with mental health issues.

Throughout her mental health treatment, Dr. Grosjean felt as though her providers “were expecting from me things that I didn’t know how to do or fix. I didn’t know how to be a ‘good’ patient,” she recalls.

As a psychiatrist, Dr. Grosjean started to notice that many of the women she treated for borderline personality disorder, which is categorized by unstable relationships and emotions, were autistic. “I then started asking lots of questions about myself — the fact that I’ve always been very sensitive or that I’ve been accused of being both hypersensitive and not having emotions, and I understood a lot.”

When Dr. Grosjean came across Autistic Doctors International, a group of over 800 autistic doctors worldwide, she says, “I found my tribe.” She now serves as the US lead for psychiatry for the group, which is focused on support, advocacy, research, and education around neurodiversity.

Psychiatric comorbidities can accompany neurodivergent conditions. But a growing body of research, including a 2022 study published in the European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, indicates that autism and ADHD are frequently misdiagnosed as depression or anxiety.

Dr. Neff was unaware of her conditions until one of her children was diagnosed with autism in 2021. She started to research it. “As I was learning about autism and girls, I was like, ‘Oh, my gosh, this is me,’ ” Dr. Neff recalls. Within a few weeks, she had her own diagnosis.

In hindsight, Dr. Neff has more clarity regarding her struggles in the traditional medical space. She had found it difficult to fit patients into short appointment windows and keep their notes concise. Although she loved hospital work, the environment had been overwhelming and led to burnout.
 

‘A Deficit-Based Lens’

Dr. Houser believes that too often, autism is viewed through a “deficit-based lens.” Stressors like sensory overload, changes in routine, or unexpected events can exacerbate behavioral challenges for neurodivergent people in the workplace. The DSM-5 criteria for autism, she points out, are largely based on autistic “stress behaviors.”

The result, Dr. Houser says, is that neurodivergent doctors are judged by their response to stressors that put them at a disadvantage rather than their capabilities under more positive circumstances. “The more dysregulated someone is,” she says, “the more likely they are to manifest those observable behaviors.”

Dr. Neff notes that medicine is a very “sensory overwhelming work environment.” Working in ob.gyn. and primary care clinics, she remembers often coming home with a headache and a low-grade fever. “I had no idea why, but I now realize it’s because I was so sensory sick.”

Fearing for her job, Dr. Neff intentionally waited until she was in private practice to disclose her neurodiversity. “I don’t think it would have been received well if I was in a hospital system,” she says. “There’s a lot of invalidation that can come when someone chooses to self-disclose, and their colleagues don’t have a framework in mind to understand.” In one instance, after revealing her diagnosis, she remembers a well-known researcher telling her she wasn’t autistic.
Dr. Grosjean has also had former colleagues invalidate her diagnosis, something she says “keeps people quiet.”
 

Understanding the Neurodivergent Brain

The general lack of education on how neurodivergent brains work, physicians with these conditions say, means they are not often recognized for how they can function with certain accommodations and how they could contribute in unique ways if their workplace challenges were reduced.

“What we know about autistic brains is that we are systems-thinking pattern matchers,” says Dr. Houser, who formed an interdisciplinary task force to explore medical conditions that are more common in autistic people. Through that comprehensive approach, she has worked to find best practices to treat the constellation of conditions that can arise among these patients. “My autistic brain allowed me to do that,” Dr. Houser says.

Catriona McVey, a medical student in the United Kingdom and creator of the blog Attention Deficit Doctor, points out that “ADHD brains are interest-driven; they can be very focused when you’re doing something enjoyable or new due to increased dopaminergic stimulation.” Ms. McVey speaks from personal experience. “I’ve hyperfocused before on an essay that interested me for over 10 hours,” she recalls, “so I imagine if I was interested in surgery, I could easily hyperfocus on a long operation.” 

Empathy is another key part of medical practice. Contrary to stereotypes of neurodivergent people lacking empathy, current research suggests this isn’t true. A concept known as the “double empathy problem,” a term coined by British researcher Damian Milton in 2012, challenges the misconception that autistic people do not have empathy, explains Dr. Grosjean.

Mr. Milton theorized that there are two types of empathy: emotional, when you feel someone else’s pain, and cognitive, which involves critical thinking to understand someone’s emotions or thoughts. “Autistic people have, in general, a lot of emotional empathy,” Dr. Grosjean says, “but the cognitive empathy they don’t have as well.”

Dr. Neff has experienced this in her practice. “I will often feel what my clients are feeling as they’re feeling it,” she says, adding that she has always had an innate ability to analyze and connect with clients. She’s good at observing the interplay of health conditions, incorporating biology, psychology, and social conceptualizations of issues, with nuance. She feels that recognizing behavioral patterns or psychological triggers in her patients helps her see them holistically and provide better care. “That was a skill even before I realized I was autistic, but I always thought it was just intuitive to everyone,” she says. 
 

Support Can Lead to Success

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to neurodivergent employees. However, getting those accommodations involves disclosure, which many physicians have reasons to avoid.

It also means more work. Requesting and putting adjustments in place can take a lot of time and energy to organize. Ms. McVey says they can be “long-winded, multistep tasks” that are not very compatible with ADHD. “Some doctors report that service pressures and funding are used as excuses to refuse adjustments,” she adds. 

Ms. McVey lists several workplace accommodations that could be helpful, including flexible working hours, a quiet space to complete paperwork, dictation software, and extra time for medical students to complete written exams.

Neurodivergent physicians have also called for increased diversity of senior leadership and utilizing “cognitive apprenticeship models,” where employees explain their thought processes and receive timely feedback.

But far too often, there is little intervention until a doctor reaches a crisis point. “I look forward to the day when we don’t have to wait until people are profoundly depleted to discover how their brains work,” says Dr. Houser.

Beyond logistical and structural changes in the medical field, Dr. Grosjean speaks of the simple need to listen to colleagues with an open mind and believe them when they express their feelings and experiences. “Everyone has a role to play in challenging stigma, misconceptions, and stereotypes,” Ms. McVey agrees. Ask yourself the old question, she suggests: “If not me, then who? If not now, then when?”

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

Some 15%-20% of the world’s population are neurodivergent, with conditions such as autism, dyslexia, Tourette syndrome, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and others. With different strengths and challenges around learning, engaging socially, or completing certain tasks, neurodivergent people can face barriers in the workforce.

Meanwhile, studies suggest that neurodivergent people may be overrepresented in STEM fields such as medicine. The medical field may self-select for traits associated with neurodivergent conditions, researchers say, including a hyperfocus on intense interests, pattern recognition, increased curiosity and empathy, and thinking quickly under pressure.

But neurodivergent physicians report difficult, even damaging, experiences in the healthcare field. They struggle with stigma, a culture of nondisclosure, and lack of accommodations, which can lead to burnout and poor mental health.

“The medical system and the mental health system are some of the spaces that are holding on tightly to some of the outdated understandings of things like autism and ADHD,” says Megan Anna Neff, PsyD, a psychologist with autism and ADHD based in Portland, Oregon.

Situations can get dire: A 2023 survey of more than 200 autistic doctors from several countries found that 77% had considered suicide and 24% had attempted it.

But here’s the crux of it: Many neurodivergent doctors believe their unique ways of thinking and outside-the-box creativity are skills and strengths that can benefit the field. And they say making medicine more inclusive — and better understanding how a neurodivergent physician’s brain works — would allow them to thrive.
 

Blending In and Breaking Down

The exact number of neurodivergent physicians in the workforce remains unknown. Existing studies are small and focus mainly on autism. But researchers believe the percentage could be higher than we think, because neurodiversity can be underidentified.

Although autism can sometimes be diagnosed as early as 18 months, it’s not uncommon to receive a diagnosis well into adulthood. “Like many late-identified autistic adults, I got my autism diagnosis in the context of autistic burnout,” says Melissa Houser, MD, a primary care physician who received a diagnosis in 2021. Dr. Houser, who uses the pronouns she/they, explains that her experience is common, “a consequence of chronically having your life’s demands exceed your capacity.”

Dr. Houser, who also has ADHD and dyslexia, among other neurodivergent conditions, says that before her diagnosis, she worked in a traditional practice setting. Eventually, she began to notice intense dysregulation and fatigue. “I began to have a lot more difficulties with communication and my motor planning and sequencing,” Dr. Houser says. “I was sleep-deprived, and my needs were not being met. I was in a situation where I had a complete lack of autonomy over my practice.”

Deep in burnout, Dr. Houser says she lost her ability to “mask,” a term used to describe how some neurodivergent people work to “blend in” with societal expectations. This led to further communication breakdowns with her supervisor. Finally, Dr. Houser saw a psychiatrist.

Shortly after her diagnosis, Dr. Houser quit her job and founded All Brains Belong, a nonprofit that provides neurodiversity-affirming medical care, education, and advocacy. Research has found that people with autism are at increased risk for physical health conditions, including immune conditions, gastrointestinal disorders, metabolic conditions, and increased mortality in hospital settings. Understanding these connections can “mean the difference between life and death” for neurodivergent patients, Dr. Houser says.

Yet, in a 2015 study that assessed providers’ ability to recognize autism, a high proportion were not aware that they had patients with autism spectrum disorder, and most reported lacking both the skills and the tools to care for them.
 

Different as a Doctor and a Patient

Bernadette Grosjean, MD, a retired associate professor of psychiatry at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, also found insight into lifelong experiences as both a doctor and a patient with her autism diagnosis, which came when she was 61.

“Looking back, I was a smart kid but kind of clumsy and different in other ways,” Dr. Grosjean says. According to a 2021 survey by Cambridge University, autistic individuals are significantly more likely to identify as LGBTQ+, and Dr. Grosjean, who is gay, says that not being fully accepted by family or friends played a role in her struggles with mental health issues.

Throughout her mental health treatment, Dr. Grosjean felt as though her providers “were expecting from me things that I didn’t know how to do or fix. I didn’t know how to be a ‘good’ patient,” she recalls.

As a psychiatrist, Dr. Grosjean started to notice that many of the women she treated for borderline personality disorder, which is categorized by unstable relationships and emotions, were autistic. “I then started asking lots of questions about myself — the fact that I’ve always been very sensitive or that I’ve been accused of being both hypersensitive and not having emotions, and I understood a lot.”

When Dr. Grosjean came across Autistic Doctors International, a group of over 800 autistic doctors worldwide, she says, “I found my tribe.” She now serves as the US lead for psychiatry for the group, which is focused on support, advocacy, research, and education around neurodiversity.

Psychiatric comorbidities can accompany neurodivergent conditions. But a growing body of research, including a 2022 study published in the European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, indicates that autism and ADHD are frequently misdiagnosed as depression or anxiety.

Dr. Neff was unaware of her conditions until one of her children was diagnosed with autism in 2021. She started to research it. “As I was learning about autism and girls, I was like, ‘Oh, my gosh, this is me,’ ” Dr. Neff recalls. Within a few weeks, she had her own diagnosis.

In hindsight, Dr. Neff has more clarity regarding her struggles in the traditional medical space. She had found it difficult to fit patients into short appointment windows and keep their notes concise. Although she loved hospital work, the environment had been overwhelming and led to burnout.
 

‘A Deficit-Based Lens’

Dr. Houser believes that too often, autism is viewed through a “deficit-based lens.” Stressors like sensory overload, changes in routine, or unexpected events can exacerbate behavioral challenges for neurodivergent people in the workplace. The DSM-5 criteria for autism, she points out, are largely based on autistic “stress behaviors.”

The result, Dr. Houser says, is that neurodivergent doctors are judged by their response to stressors that put them at a disadvantage rather than their capabilities under more positive circumstances. “The more dysregulated someone is,” she says, “the more likely they are to manifest those observable behaviors.”

Dr. Neff notes that medicine is a very “sensory overwhelming work environment.” Working in ob.gyn. and primary care clinics, she remembers often coming home with a headache and a low-grade fever. “I had no idea why, but I now realize it’s because I was so sensory sick.”

Fearing for her job, Dr. Neff intentionally waited until she was in private practice to disclose her neurodiversity. “I don’t think it would have been received well if I was in a hospital system,” she says. “There’s a lot of invalidation that can come when someone chooses to self-disclose, and their colleagues don’t have a framework in mind to understand.” In one instance, after revealing her diagnosis, she remembers a well-known researcher telling her she wasn’t autistic.
Dr. Grosjean has also had former colleagues invalidate her diagnosis, something she says “keeps people quiet.”
 

Understanding the Neurodivergent Brain

The general lack of education on how neurodivergent brains work, physicians with these conditions say, means they are not often recognized for how they can function with certain accommodations and how they could contribute in unique ways if their workplace challenges were reduced.

“What we know about autistic brains is that we are systems-thinking pattern matchers,” says Dr. Houser, who formed an interdisciplinary task force to explore medical conditions that are more common in autistic people. Through that comprehensive approach, she has worked to find best practices to treat the constellation of conditions that can arise among these patients. “My autistic brain allowed me to do that,” Dr. Houser says.

Catriona McVey, a medical student in the United Kingdom and creator of the blog Attention Deficit Doctor, points out that “ADHD brains are interest-driven; they can be very focused when you’re doing something enjoyable or new due to increased dopaminergic stimulation.” Ms. McVey speaks from personal experience. “I’ve hyperfocused before on an essay that interested me for over 10 hours,” she recalls, “so I imagine if I was interested in surgery, I could easily hyperfocus on a long operation.” 

Empathy is another key part of medical practice. Contrary to stereotypes of neurodivergent people lacking empathy, current research suggests this isn’t true. A concept known as the “double empathy problem,” a term coined by British researcher Damian Milton in 2012, challenges the misconception that autistic people do not have empathy, explains Dr. Grosjean.

Mr. Milton theorized that there are two types of empathy: emotional, when you feel someone else’s pain, and cognitive, which involves critical thinking to understand someone’s emotions or thoughts. “Autistic people have, in general, a lot of emotional empathy,” Dr. Grosjean says, “but the cognitive empathy they don’t have as well.”

Dr. Neff has experienced this in her practice. “I will often feel what my clients are feeling as they’re feeling it,” she says, adding that she has always had an innate ability to analyze and connect with clients. She’s good at observing the interplay of health conditions, incorporating biology, psychology, and social conceptualizations of issues, with nuance. She feels that recognizing behavioral patterns or psychological triggers in her patients helps her see them holistically and provide better care. “That was a skill even before I realized I was autistic, but I always thought it was just intuitive to everyone,” she says. 
 

Support Can Lead to Success

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to neurodivergent employees. However, getting those accommodations involves disclosure, which many physicians have reasons to avoid.

It also means more work. Requesting and putting adjustments in place can take a lot of time and energy to organize. Ms. McVey says they can be “long-winded, multistep tasks” that are not very compatible with ADHD. “Some doctors report that service pressures and funding are used as excuses to refuse adjustments,” she adds. 

Ms. McVey lists several workplace accommodations that could be helpful, including flexible working hours, a quiet space to complete paperwork, dictation software, and extra time for medical students to complete written exams.

Neurodivergent physicians have also called for increased diversity of senior leadership and utilizing “cognitive apprenticeship models,” where employees explain their thought processes and receive timely feedback.

But far too often, there is little intervention until a doctor reaches a crisis point. “I look forward to the day when we don’t have to wait until people are profoundly depleted to discover how their brains work,” says Dr. Houser.

Beyond logistical and structural changes in the medical field, Dr. Grosjean speaks of the simple need to listen to colleagues with an open mind and believe them when they express their feelings and experiences. “Everyone has a role to play in challenging stigma, misconceptions, and stereotypes,” Ms. McVey agrees. Ask yourself the old question, she suggests: “If not me, then who? If not now, then when?”

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

TOPLINE:

Poor vision and contrast sensitivity at baseline increase the likelihood of incident dementia in older adults; a decline in contrast sensitivity over time also correlates with the risk of developing dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a longitudinal study to analyze the association of visual function with the risk for dementia in 2159 men and women (mean age, 77.9 years; 54% women) included from the National Health and Aging Trends Study between 2021 and 2022.
• All participants were free from dementia at baseline and underwent visual assessment while wearing their usual glasses or contact lenses.
• Distance and near visual acuity were measured as the log minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units where higher values indicated worse visual acuity; contrast sensitivity was measured as the log contrast sensitivity (logCS) units where lower values represented worse outcomes.
• Dementia status was determined by a medical diagnosis, a dementia score of 2 or more, or poor performance on cognitive testing.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over the 1-year follow-up period, 192 adults (6.6%) developed dementia.
• Worsening of distant and near vision by 0.1 logMAR increased the risk for dementia by 8% (P = .01) and 7% (P = .02), respectively.
• Each 0.1 logCS decline in baseline contrast sensitivity increased the risk for dementia by 9% (P = .003).
• A yearly decline in contrast sensitivity by 0.1 logCS increased the likelihood of dementia by 14% (P = .007).
• Changes in distant and near vision over time did not show a significant association with risk for dementia (P = .58 and P = .79, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“Visual function, especially contrast sensitivity, might be a risk factor for developing dementia,” the authors wrote. “Early vision screening may help identify adults at higher risk of dementia, allowing for timely interventions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Louay Almidani, MD, MSc, of the Wilmer Eye Institute at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in Baltimore, and was published online in the American Journal of Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a limited follow-up period of 1 year and may not have captured the long-term association between visual impairment and the risk for dementia. Moreover, the researchers did not consider other visual function measures such as depth perception and visual field, which might have affected the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not have any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Poor vision and contrast sensitivity at baseline increase the likelihood of incident dementia in older adults; a decline in contrast sensitivity over time also correlates with the risk of developing dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a longitudinal study to analyze the association of visual function with the risk for dementia in 2159 men and women (mean age, 77.9 years; 54% women) included from the National Health and Aging Trends Study between 2021 and 2022.
• All participants were free from dementia at baseline and underwent visual assessment while wearing their usual glasses or contact lenses.
• Distance and near visual acuity were measured as the log minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units where higher values indicated worse visual acuity; contrast sensitivity was measured as the log contrast sensitivity (logCS) units where lower values represented worse outcomes.
• Dementia status was determined by a medical diagnosis, a dementia score of 2 or more, or poor performance on cognitive testing.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over the 1-year follow-up period, 192 adults (6.6%) developed dementia.
• Worsening of distant and near vision by 0.1 logMAR increased the risk for dementia by 8% (P = .01) and 7% (P = .02), respectively.
• Each 0.1 logCS decline in baseline contrast sensitivity increased the risk for dementia by 9% (P = .003).
• A yearly decline in contrast sensitivity by 0.1 logCS increased the likelihood of dementia by 14% (P = .007).
• Changes in distant and near vision over time did not show a significant association with risk for dementia (P = .58 and P = .79, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“Visual function, especially contrast sensitivity, might be a risk factor for developing dementia,” the authors wrote. “Early vision screening may help identify adults at higher risk of dementia, allowing for timely interventions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Louay Almidani, MD, MSc, of the Wilmer Eye Institute at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in Baltimore, and was published online in the American Journal of Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a limited follow-up period of 1 year and may not have captured the long-term association between visual impairment and the risk for dementia. Moreover, the researchers did not consider other visual function measures such as depth perception and visual field, which might have affected the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not have any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Poor vision and contrast sensitivity at baseline increase the likelihood of incident dementia in older adults; a decline in contrast sensitivity over time also correlates with the risk of developing dementia.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a longitudinal study to analyze the association of visual function with the risk for dementia in 2159 men and women (mean age, 77.9 years; 54% women) included from the National Health and Aging Trends Study between 2021 and 2022.
• All participants were free from dementia at baseline and underwent visual assessment while wearing their usual glasses or contact lenses.
• Distance and near visual acuity were measured as the log minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units where higher values indicated worse visual acuity; contrast sensitivity was measured as the log contrast sensitivity (logCS) units where lower values represented worse outcomes.
• Dementia status was determined by a medical diagnosis, a dementia score of 2 or more, or poor performance on cognitive testing.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over the 1-year follow-up period, 192 adults (6.6%) developed dementia.
• Worsening of distant and near vision by 0.1 logMAR increased the risk for dementia by 8% (P = .01) and 7% (P = .02), respectively.
• Each 0.1 logCS decline in baseline contrast sensitivity increased the risk for dementia by 9% (P = .003).
• A yearly decline in contrast sensitivity by 0.1 logCS increased the likelihood of dementia by 14% (P = .007).
• Changes in distant and near vision over time did not show a significant association with risk for dementia (P = .58 and P = .79, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

“Visual function, especially contrast sensitivity, might be a risk factor for developing dementia,” the authors wrote. “Early vision screening may help identify adults at higher risk of dementia, allowing for timely interventions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Louay Almidani, MD, MSc, of the Wilmer Eye Institute at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, in Baltimore, and was published online in the American Journal of Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a limited follow-up period of 1 year and may not have captured the long-term association between visual impairment and the risk for dementia. Moreover, the researchers did not consider other visual function measures such as depth perception and visual field, which might have affected the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not have any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.