Neurology Reviews

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with type 1 diabetes appears similar to that of type 2 diabetes, contrary to some official advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new finding indicates that people with both types should be priority for receiving a vaccine, investigators say.

The study is the first to prospectively evaluate both inpatients and outpatients and to examine COVID-19 severity factors in addition to death in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and was published online Dec. 2 in Diabetes Care. 

Among the patients, who were seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., between March and August of 2020, those with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes had between a three- and fourfold greater risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and greater illness severity compared with people without diabetes after adjustments for age, race, and a number of other risk factors.

This finding is important since as of Dec. 1, 2020, the CDC has classified the diabetes types differently in terms of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk for severe COVID-19.

Adults of any age with type 2 diabetes are considered “at increased risk of severe illness” from the virus that causes COVID-19 whereas the CDC says those with type 1 “might be at an increased risk.”

Lead author of the new paper Justin M. Gregory, MD, said in an interview: “I think this needs revision based on the current evidence. I think the data presented in our study and that of Barron et al. in Lancet Endocrinology 2020 indicate the need to place type 1 diabetes at parity with type 2 diabetes.

“These studies indicate both conditions carry an adjusted odds ratio of three to four when compared with people without diabetes for hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality,” he stressed.
 

Vaccines look promising for patients with diabetes

There were no phase 3 vaccine data available for the vaccine at the time that Dr. Gregory, of the Ian M. Burr Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues were writing their manuscript in late summer, so the article does not mention this.

But now, Dr. Gregory said, “Based on the initial press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, I am now optimistic that these vaccines might mitigate the excess morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 experienced by patients with diabetes.

“I am eager to see what we learn on December 10 and 17 [the scheduled dates for the meetings of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to review the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively].”

But with the winter pandemic surge in the meantime, “Our investigation suggests that as COVID-19 hospitalizations rise, patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes will comprise a disproportionately higher number of those admissions and, once hospitalized, demonstrate a greater degree of illness severity,” he and his colleagues said.

“In light of these data, we call on our colleagues to emphasize the importance of social distancing measures and hand hygiene, with particular emphasis on patients with diabetes, including those in the most vulnerable communities whom our study affirms will face the most severe impact.”
 

After adjustments, excess severity risk similar for both diabetes types

The new study data came from electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, comprising 137 primary care, urgent care, and hospital facilities where patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the reason for their visit.

Between March 17 and August 7, 2020, 6,451 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Of those, 273 had type 2 diabetes and 40 had type 1 diabetes.

Children younger than 18 years accounted for 20% of those with type 1 diabetes and 9.4% of those without diabetes, but none of the type 2 group. The group with type 2 diabetes was considerably older than the type 1 diabetes and no-diabetes groups, 58 years versus 37 and 33 years, respectively. 

Before adjustment for baseline characteristics that differed between groups, patients with type 1 diabetes appeared to have a risk for hospitalization and greater illness severity that was intermediate between the group with no diabetes and the group with type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

But after adjustment for age, race, sex, hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, people with type 1 diabetes had odds ratios of 3.90 for hospitalization and 3.35 for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes (3.36 and 3.42, respectively), compared to those without diabetes.
 

Deep dive explores COVID-19 severity risk factors in type 1 diabetes

The investigators then conducted a detailed chart review for 37 of the 40 patients with type 1 diabetes and phone surveys with 15 of them.

The majority (28) had not been hospitalized, and only one was hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) within 14 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

This contrasts with a report from the T1D Exchange, in which nearly half of 33 patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 had been hospitalized with DKA. The reason for the discrepancy may be that more severe patients would more likely be referred to the T1D Exchange Registry, Dr. Gregory and colleagues hypothesized.

Clinical factors associated with COVID-19 severity (P < .05) in their study included a prior hypertension diagnosis, higher hemoglobin A1c, at least one prior DKA admission in the past year, and not using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 

Hospitalizations were twice as likely and illness severity nearly twice as great among those with type 1 diabetes who were Black versus White. Just 8% of those with private insurance were hospitalized, compared with 60% of those with public insurance and 67% with no insurance (P = .001).

“Whereas previous reports have indicated proportionally higher rates of hospitalizations from COVID-19 among Black patients and those with public insurance, this study is the first to show a similar finding in the population with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gregory and colleagues wrote.

Only 9% of patients using a CGM were hospitalized versus 47% who used blood glucose meters (P < .016). Similarly, hospitalizations occurred in 6% using an insulin pump versus 33% using multiple daily injections (P < .085).

“Our analysis cannot exclude the possibility that greater amounts of diabetes technology use are a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status,” they noted.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, JDRF, and the Appleby Foundation. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with type 1 diabetes appears similar to that of type 2 diabetes, contrary to some official advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new finding indicates that people with both types should be priority for receiving a vaccine, investigators say.

The study is the first to prospectively evaluate both inpatients and outpatients and to examine COVID-19 severity factors in addition to death in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and was published online Dec. 2 in Diabetes Care. 

Among the patients, who were seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., between March and August of 2020, those with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes had between a three- and fourfold greater risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and greater illness severity compared with people without diabetes after adjustments for age, race, and a number of other risk factors.

This finding is important since as of Dec. 1, 2020, the CDC has classified the diabetes types differently in terms of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk for severe COVID-19.

Adults of any age with type 2 diabetes are considered “at increased risk of severe illness” from the virus that causes COVID-19 whereas the CDC says those with type 1 “might be at an increased risk.”

Lead author of the new paper Justin M. Gregory, MD, said in an interview: “I think this needs revision based on the current evidence. I think the data presented in our study and that of Barron et al. in Lancet Endocrinology 2020 indicate the need to place type 1 diabetes at parity with type 2 diabetes.

“These studies indicate both conditions carry an adjusted odds ratio of three to four when compared with people without diabetes for hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality,” he stressed.
 

Vaccines look promising for patients with diabetes

There were no phase 3 vaccine data available for the vaccine at the time that Dr. Gregory, of the Ian M. Burr Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues were writing their manuscript in late summer, so the article does not mention this.

But now, Dr. Gregory said, “Based on the initial press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, I am now optimistic that these vaccines might mitigate the excess morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 experienced by patients with diabetes.

“I am eager to see what we learn on December 10 and 17 [the scheduled dates for the meetings of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to review the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively].”

But with the winter pandemic surge in the meantime, “Our investigation suggests that as COVID-19 hospitalizations rise, patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes will comprise a disproportionately higher number of those admissions and, once hospitalized, demonstrate a greater degree of illness severity,” he and his colleagues said.

“In light of these data, we call on our colleagues to emphasize the importance of social distancing measures and hand hygiene, with particular emphasis on patients with diabetes, including those in the most vulnerable communities whom our study affirms will face the most severe impact.”
 

After adjustments, excess severity risk similar for both diabetes types

The new study data came from electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, comprising 137 primary care, urgent care, and hospital facilities where patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the reason for their visit.

Between March 17 and August 7, 2020, 6,451 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Of those, 273 had type 2 diabetes and 40 had type 1 diabetes.

Children younger than 18 years accounted for 20% of those with type 1 diabetes and 9.4% of those without diabetes, but none of the type 2 group. The group with type 2 diabetes was considerably older than the type 1 diabetes and no-diabetes groups, 58 years versus 37 and 33 years, respectively. 

Before adjustment for baseline characteristics that differed between groups, patients with type 1 diabetes appeared to have a risk for hospitalization and greater illness severity that was intermediate between the group with no diabetes and the group with type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

But after adjustment for age, race, sex, hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, people with type 1 diabetes had odds ratios of 3.90 for hospitalization and 3.35 for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes (3.36 and 3.42, respectively), compared to those without diabetes.
 

Deep dive explores COVID-19 severity risk factors in type 1 diabetes

The investigators then conducted a detailed chart review for 37 of the 40 patients with type 1 diabetes and phone surveys with 15 of them.

The majority (28) had not been hospitalized, and only one was hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) within 14 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

This contrasts with a report from the T1D Exchange, in which nearly half of 33 patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 had been hospitalized with DKA. The reason for the discrepancy may be that more severe patients would more likely be referred to the T1D Exchange Registry, Dr. Gregory and colleagues hypothesized.

Clinical factors associated with COVID-19 severity (P < .05) in their study included a prior hypertension diagnosis, higher hemoglobin A1c, at least one prior DKA admission in the past year, and not using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 

Hospitalizations were twice as likely and illness severity nearly twice as great among those with type 1 diabetes who were Black versus White. Just 8% of those with private insurance were hospitalized, compared with 60% of those with public insurance and 67% with no insurance (P = .001).

“Whereas previous reports have indicated proportionally higher rates of hospitalizations from COVID-19 among Black patients and those with public insurance, this study is the first to show a similar finding in the population with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gregory and colleagues wrote.

Only 9% of patients using a CGM were hospitalized versus 47% who used blood glucose meters (P < .016). Similarly, hospitalizations occurred in 6% using an insulin pump versus 33% using multiple daily injections (P < .085).

“Our analysis cannot exclude the possibility that greater amounts of diabetes technology use are a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status,” they noted.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, JDRF, and the Appleby Foundation. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk for increased COVID-19 severity in people with type 1 diabetes appears similar to that of type 2 diabetes, contrary to some official advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new finding indicates that people with both types should be priority for receiving a vaccine, investigators say.

The study is the first to prospectively evaluate both inpatients and outpatients and to examine COVID-19 severity factors in addition to death in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes separately, and was published online Dec. 2 in Diabetes Care. 

Among the patients, who were seen at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., between March and August of 2020, those with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes had between a three- and fourfold greater risk for COVID-19 hospitalization and greater illness severity compared with people without diabetes after adjustments for age, race, and a number of other risk factors.

This finding is important since as of Dec. 1, 2020, the CDC has classified the diabetes types differently in terms of underlying medical conditions that increase the risk for severe COVID-19.

Adults of any age with type 2 diabetes are considered “at increased risk of severe illness” from the virus that causes COVID-19 whereas the CDC says those with type 1 “might be at an increased risk.”

Lead author of the new paper Justin M. Gregory, MD, said in an interview: “I think this needs revision based on the current evidence. I think the data presented in our study and that of Barron et al. in Lancet Endocrinology 2020 indicate the need to place type 1 diabetes at parity with type 2 diabetes.

“These studies indicate both conditions carry an adjusted odds ratio of three to four when compared with people without diabetes for hospitalization, illness severity, and mortality,” he stressed.
 

Vaccines look promising for patients with diabetes

There were no phase 3 vaccine data available for the vaccine at the time that Dr. Gregory, of the Ian M. Burr Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues were writing their manuscript in late summer, so the article does not mention this.

But now, Dr. Gregory said, “Based on the initial press releases from Pfizer and Moderna, I am now optimistic that these vaccines might mitigate the excess morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 experienced by patients with diabetes.

“I am eager to see what we learn on December 10 and 17 [the scheduled dates for the meetings of the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to review the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively].”

But with the winter pandemic surge in the meantime, “Our investigation suggests that as COVID-19 hospitalizations rise, patients with both type 1 and 2 diabetes will comprise a disproportionately higher number of those admissions and, once hospitalized, demonstrate a greater degree of illness severity,” he and his colleagues said.

“In light of these data, we call on our colleagues to emphasize the importance of social distancing measures and hand hygiene, with particular emphasis on patients with diabetes, including those in the most vulnerable communities whom our study affirms will face the most severe impact.”
 

After adjustments, excess severity risk similar for both diabetes types

The new study data came from electronic health records at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, comprising 137 primary care, urgent care, and hospital facilities where patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of the reason for their visit.

Between March 17 and August 7, 2020, 6,451 patients tested positive for COVID-19. Of those, 273 had type 2 diabetes and 40 had type 1 diabetes.

Children younger than 18 years accounted for 20% of those with type 1 diabetes and 9.4% of those without diabetes, but none of the type 2 group. The group with type 2 diabetes was considerably older than the type 1 diabetes and no-diabetes groups, 58 years versus 37 and 33 years, respectively. 

Before adjustment for baseline characteristics that differed between groups, patients with type 1 diabetes appeared to have a risk for hospitalization and greater illness severity that was intermediate between the group with no diabetes and the group with type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

But after adjustment for age, race, sex, hypertension, smoking, and body mass index, people with type 1 diabetes had odds ratios of 3.90 for hospitalization and 3.35 for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes (3.36 and 3.42, respectively), compared to those without diabetes.
 

Deep dive explores COVID-19 severity risk factors in type 1 diabetes

The investigators then conducted a detailed chart review for 37 of the 40 patients with type 1 diabetes and phone surveys with 15 of them.

The majority (28) had not been hospitalized, and only one was hospitalized for diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) within 14 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 testing.

This contrasts with a report from the T1D Exchange, in which nearly half of 33 patients with type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 had been hospitalized with DKA. The reason for the discrepancy may be that more severe patients would more likely be referred to the T1D Exchange Registry, Dr. Gregory and colleagues hypothesized.

Clinical factors associated with COVID-19 severity (P < .05) in their study included a prior hypertension diagnosis, higher hemoglobin A1c, at least one prior DKA admission in the past year, and not using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM). 

Hospitalizations were twice as likely and illness severity nearly twice as great among those with type 1 diabetes who were Black versus White. Just 8% of those with private insurance were hospitalized, compared with 60% of those with public insurance and 67% with no insurance (P = .001).

“Whereas previous reports have indicated proportionally higher rates of hospitalizations from COVID-19 among Black patients and those with public insurance, this study is the first to show a similar finding in the population with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Gregory and colleagues wrote.

Only 9% of patients using a CGM were hospitalized versus 47% who used blood glucose meters (P < .016). Similarly, hospitalizations occurred in 6% using an insulin pump versus 33% using multiple daily injections (P < .085).

“Our analysis cannot exclude the possibility that greater amounts of diabetes technology use are a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status,” they noted.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, JDRF, and the Appleby Foundation. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

After a patient’s face was burned in the outline of a mask worn during a 3-Tesla MRI neck scan, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned that face masks containing metal can heat to unsafe temperatures during scanning.

Clinicians have known for years to ask patients to remove all metal jewelry and other objects prior to an MRI. The widespread wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, adds one more consideration to the list.

The FDA’s December 7 safety communication applies to surgical and nonsurgical face masks and respirators.

The injury risk relates to rapid heating of metal components. Many face masks contain a nose wire or metal clip that helps the product conform to the face. Some masks contain metal nanoparticles, while others feature antimicrobial coatings with silver or copper. Each of these products should be avoided during MRI scanning. Also watch out for staples on headbands, the FDA warned.

If the metal content of a face mask is unknown, the FDA suggests providing the patient with a facial covering that is known not to contain any metal.

Robert E. Watson Jr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Committee on MR Safety, agreed. He recommended that facilities “provide patients with masks known to be MRI-safe and not permit patient-owned masks in the MRI.”

Watson suggested this strategy at a time when face masks are required.

“COVID-19 safety protocols require that patients wear masks when being scanned, to decrease infection risk to MRI staff, decrease risk of contaminating the MRI scanner, and to protect themselves from infection,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Any conducting metal that enters the MRI machine is at risk of heating due to the radiofrequency fields inherent to image generation.”

Adverse events related to the metal components of a face mask should be reported to the FDA using the MedWatch voluntary reporting form. In addition, healthcare providers subject to the FDA user facility reporting requirements should follow procedures at their facilities to report such events.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After a patient’s face was burned in the outline of a mask worn during a 3-Tesla MRI neck scan, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned that face masks containing metal can heat to unsafe temperatures during scanning.

Clinicians have known for years to ask patients to remove all metal jewelry and other objects prior to an MRI. The widespread wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, adds one more consideration to the list.

The FDA’s December 7 safety communication applies to surgical and nonsurgical face masks and respirators.

The injury risk relates to rapid heating of metal components. Many face masks contain a nose wire or metal clip that helps the product conform to the face. Some masks contain metal nanoparticles, while others feature antimicrobial coatings with silver or copper. Each of these products should be avoided during MRI scanning. Also watch out for staples on headbands, the FDA warned.

If the metal content of a face mask is unknown, the FDA suggests providing the patient with a facial covering that is known not to contain any metal.

Robert E. Watson Jr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Committee on MR Safety, agreed. He recommended that facilities “provide patients with masks known to be MRI-safe and not permit patient-owned masks in the MRI.”

Watson suggested this strategy at a time when face masks are required.

“COVID-19 safety protocols require that patients wear masks when being scanned, to decrease infection risk to MRI staff, decrease risk of contaminating the MRI scanner, and to protect themselves from infection,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Any conducting metal that enters the MRI machine is at risk of heating due to the radiofrequency fields inherent to image generation.”

Adverse events related to the metal components of a face mask should be reported to the FDA using the MedWatch voluntary reporting form. In addition, healthcare providers subject to the FDA user facility reporting requirements should follow procedures at their facilities to report such events.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After a patient’s face was burned in the outline of a mask worn during a 3-Tesla MRI neck scan, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned that face masks containing metal can heat to unsafe temperatures during scanning.

Clinicians have known for years to ask patients to remove all metal jewelry and other objects prior to an MRI. The widespread wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, adds one more consideration to the list.

The FDA’s December 7 safety communication applies to surgical and nonsurgical face masks and respirators.

The injury risk relates to rapid heating of metal components. Many face masks contain a nose wire or metal clip that helps the product conform to the face. Some masks contain metal nanoparticles, while others feature antimicrobial coatings with silver or copper. Each of these products should be avoided during MRI scanning. Also watch out for staples on headbands, the FDA warned.

If the metal content of a face mask is unknown, the FDA suggests providing the patient with a facial covering that is known not to contain any metal.

Robert E. Watson Jr, MD, PhD, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Committee on MR Safety, agreed. He recommended that facilities “provide patients with masks known to be MRI-safe and not permit patient-owned masks in the MRI.”

Watson suggested this strategy at a time when face masks are required.

“COVID-19 safety protocols require that patients wear masks when being scanned, to decrease infection risk to MRI staff, decrease risk of contaminating the MRI scanner, and to protect themselves from infection,” he told Medscape Medical News. “Any conducting metal that enters the MRI machine is at risk of heating due to the radiofrequency fields inherent to image generation.”

Adverse events related to the metal components of a face mask should be reported to the FDA using the MedWatch voluntary reporting form. In addition, healthcare providers subject to the FDA user facility reporting requirements should follow procedures at their facilities to report such events.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk for amyloid-beta pathology in a new study of older adults with cognitive impairment. “Many studies have now found a link between air pollution and clinical outcomes of dementia or cognitive decline,” said lead author Leonardo Iaccarino, PhD, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. “But this study is now showing a clear link between air pollution and a biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease: It shows a relationship between bad air quality and pathology in the brain.

“We believe that exposure to air pollution should be considered as one factor in the lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease,” he added. “We believe it is a significant determinant. Our results suggest that, if we can reduce occupational and residential exposure to air pollution, then this could help reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.”

The study was published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Neurology.
 

A modifiable risk factor

Dr. Iaccarino explained that it is well known that air pollution is linked to poor health outcomes. “As well as cardiovascular and respiratory disease, there is also growing interest in the relationship between air pollution and brain health,” he said. “The link is becoming more and more convincing, with evidence from laboratory, animal, and human studies suggesting that individuals exposed to poor air quality have an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia.”

In addition, this year, the Lancet Commission included air pollution in its updated list of modifiable risk factors for dementia.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed data from the Imaging Dementia–Evidence for Amyloid Scanning (IDEAS) Study, which included more than 18,000 U.S. participants with cognitive impairment who received an amyloid positron-emission tomography scan between 2016 and 2018.

The investigators used data from the IDEAS study to assess the relationship between the air quality at the place of residence of each patient and the likelihood of a positive amyloid PET result. Public records from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were used to estimate air quality in individual ZIP-code areas during two periods – 2002-2003 (approximately 14 years before the amyloid PET scan) and 2015-2016 (approximately 1 year before the amyloid PET scan).

Results showed that those living in an area with increased air pollution, as determined using concentrations of predicted fine particulate matter (PM2.5), had a higher probability of a positive amyloid PET scan. This association was dose dependent and statistically significant after adjusting for demographic, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors as well as medical comorbidities. The association was seen in both periods; the adjusted odds ratio was 1.10 in 2002-2003 and 1.15 in 2015-2016.

“This shows about a 10% increased probability of a positive amyloid test for individuals living in the worst polluted areas, compared with those in the least polluted areas,” Dr. Iaccarino explained.

Every unit increase in PM2.5 in 2002-2003 was associated with an increased probability of positive amyloid findings on PET of 0.5%. Every unit increase in PM2.5 in for the 2015-2016 period was associated with an increased probability of positive amyloid findings on PET of 0.8%.

“This was a very large cohort study, and we adjusted for multiple other factors, so these are pretty robust findings,” Dr. Iaccarino said.

Exposure to higher ozone concentrations was not associated with amyloid positivity on PET scans in either time window.

“These findings suggest that brain amyloid-beta accumulation could be one of the biological pathways in the increased incidence of dementia and cognitive decline associated with exposure to air pollution,” the researchers stated.
 

A public health concern

“Adverse effects of airborne toxic pollutants associated with amyloid-beta pathology should be considered in public health policy decisions and should inform individual lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” they concluded.

Dr. Iaccarino noted that, although governments need to take primary action in reducing air pollution, individuals can make some changes to reduce their exposure to poor-quality air.

“Such changes could include not going out or using masks when pollution levels are very high (as happened recently in California with the wildfires) and avoiding areas where the air quality is known to be bad. In addition, there are activities which increase indoor air pollution which can be changed, such as certain types of cooking, cigarette smoking, use of coal fires,” he commented.

“Based on our findings, it would be reasonable to take action on these things, especially for individuals at higher risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease or Alzheimer’s,” he added.

On a more optimistic note, Dr. Iaccarino pointed out that air quality in the United States has improved significantly in recent years. Meaningful improvements were found between the two periods in this analysis study (2002-2016), “so we are going in the right direction.”

The IDEAS Study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the American College of Radiology, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, GE Healthcare, and Life Molecular Imaging. Dr. Iaccarino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk for amyloid-beta pathology in a new study of older adults with cognitive impairment. “Many studies have now found a link between air pollution and clinical outcomes of dementia or cognitive decline,” said lead author Leonardo Iaccarino, PhD, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. “But this study is now showing a clear link between air pollution and a biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease: It shows a relationship between bad air quality and pathology in the brain.

“We believe that exposure to air pollution should be considered as one factor in the lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease,” he added. “We believe it is a significant determinant. Our results suggest that, if we can reduce occupational and residential exposure to air pollution, then this could help reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.”

The study was published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Neurology.
 

A modifiable risk factor

Dr. Iaccarino explained that it is well known that air pollution is linked to poor health outcomes. “As well as cardiovascular and respiratory disease, there is also growing interest in the relationship between air pollution and brain health,” he said. “The link is becoming more and more convincing, with evidence from laboratory, animal, and human studies suggesting that individuals exposed to poor air quality have an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia.”

In addition, this year, the Lancet Commission included air pollution in its updated list of modifiable risk factors for dementia.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed data from the Imaging Dementia–Evidence for Amyloid Scanning (IDEAS) Study, which included more than 18,000 U.S. participants with cognitive impairment who received an amyloid positron-emission tomography scan between 2016 and 2018.

The investigators used data from the IDEAS study to assess the relationship between the air quality at the place of residence of each patient and the likelihood of a positive amyloid PET result. Public records from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were used to estimate air quality in individual ZIP-code areas during two periods – 2002-2003 (approximately 14 years before the amyloid PET scan) and 2015-2016 (approximately 1 year before the amyloid PET scan).

Results showed that those living in an area with increased air pollution, as determined using concentrations of predicted fine particulate matter (PM2.5), had a higher probability of a positive amyloid PET scan. This association was dose dependent and statistically significant after adjusting for demographic, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors as well as medical comorbidities. The association was seen in both periods; the adjusted odds ratio was 1.10 in 2002-2003 and 1.15 in 2015-2016.

“This shows about a 10% increased probability of a positive amyloid test for individuals living in the worst polluted areas, compared with those in the least polluted areas,” Dr. Iaccarino explained.

Every unit increase in PM2.5 in 2002-2003 was associated with an increased probability of positive amyloid findings on PET of 0.5%. Every unit increase in PM2.5 in for the 2015-2016 period was associated with an increased probability of positive amyloid findings on PET of 0.8%.

“This was a very large cohort study, and we adjusted for multiple other factors, so these are pretty robust findings,” Dr. Iaccarino said.

Exposure to higher ozone concentrations was not associated with amyloid positivity on PET scans in either time window.

“These findings suggest that brain amyloid-beta accumulation could be one of the biological pathways in the increased incidence of dementia and cognitive decline associated with exposure to air pollution,” the researchers stated.
 

A public health concern

“Adverse effects of airborne toxic pollutants associated with amyloid-beta pathology should be considered in public health policy decisions and should inform individual lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” they concluded.

Dr. Iaccarino noted that, although governments need to take primary action in reducing air pollution, individuals can make some changes to reduce their exposure to poor-quality air.

“Such changes could include not going out or using masks when pollution levels are very high (as happened recently in California with the wildfires) and avoiding areas where the air quality is known to be bad. In addition, there are activities which increase indoor air pollution which can be changed, such as certain types of cooking, cigarette smoking, use of coal fires,” he commented.

“Based on our findings, it would be reasonable to take action on these things, especially for individuals at higher risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease or Alzheimer’s,” he added.

On a more optimistic note, Dr. Iaccarino pointed out that air quality in the United States has improved significantly in recent years. Meaningful improvements were found between the two periods in this analysis study (2002-2016), “so we are going in the right direction.”

The IDEAS Study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the American College of Radiology, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, GE Healthcare, and Life Molecular Imaging. Dr. Iaccarino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk for amyloid-beta pathology in a new study of older adults with cognitive impairment. “Many studies have now found a link between air pollution and clinical outcomes of dementia or cognitive decline,” said lead author Leonardo Iaccarino, PhD, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. “But this study is now showing a clear link between air pollution and a biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease: It shows a relationship between bad air quality and pathology in the brain.

“We believe that exposure to air pollution should be considered as one factor in the lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease,” he added. “We believe it is a significant determinant. Our results suggest that, if we can reduce occupational and residential exposure to air pollution, then this could help reduce the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.”

The study was published online Nov. 30 in JAMA Neurology.
 

A modifiable risk factor

Dr. Iaccarino explained that it is well known that air pollution is linked to poor health outcomes. “As well as cardiovascular and respiratory disease, there is also growing interest in the relationship between air pollution and brain health,” he said. “The link is becoming more and more convincing, with evidence from laboratory, animal, and human studies suggesting that individuals exposed to poor air quality have an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia.”

In addition, this year, the Lancet Commission included air pollution in its updated list of modifiable risk factors for dementia.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed data from the Imaging Dementia–Evidence for Amyloid Scanning (IDEAS) Study, which included more than 18,000 U.S. participants with cognitive impairment who received an amyloid positron-emission tomography scan between 2016 and 2018.

The investigators used data from the IDEAS study to assess the relationship between the air quality at the place of residence of each patient and the likelihood of a positive amyloid PET result. Public records from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency were used to estimate air quality in individual ZIP-code areas during two periods – 2002-2003 (approximately 14 years before the amyloid PET scan) and 2015-2016 (approximately 1 year before the amyloid PET scan).

Results showed that those living in an area with increased air pollution, as determined using concentrations of predicted fine particulate matter (PM2.5), had a higher probability of a positive amyloid PET scan. This association was dose dependent and statistically significant after adjusting for demographic, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors as well as medical comorbidities. The association was seen in both periods; the adjusted odds ratio was 1.10 in 2002-2003 and 1.15 in 2015-2016.

“This shows about a 10% increased probability of a positive amyloid test for individuals living in the worst polluted areas, compared with those in the least polluted areas,” Dr. Iaccarino explained.

Every unit increase in PM2.5 in 2002-2003 was associated with an increased probability of positive amyloid findings on PET of 0.5%. Every unit increase in PM2.5 in for the 2015-2016 period was associated with an increased probability of positive amyloid findings on PET of 0.8%.

“This was a very large cohort study, and we adjusted for multiple other factors, so these are pretty robust findings,” Dr. Iaccarino said.

Exposure to higher ozone concentrations was not associated with amyloid positivity on PET scans in either time window.

“These findings suggest that brain amyloid-beta accumulation could be one of the biological pathways in the increased incidence of dementia and cognitive decline associated with exposure to air pollution,” the researchers stated.
 

A public health concern

“Adverse effects of airborne toxic pollutants associated with amyloid-beta pathology should be considered in public health policy decisions and should inform individual lifetime risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and dementia,” they concluded.

Dr. Iaccarino noted that, although governments need to take primary action in reducing air pollution, individuals can make some changes to reduce their exposure to poor-quality air.

“Such changes could include not going out or using masks when pollution levels are very high (as happened recently in California with the wildfires) and avoiding areas where the air quality is known to be bad. In addition, there are activities which increase indoor air pollution which can be changed, such as certain types of cooking, cigarette smoking, use of coal fires,” he commented.

“Based on our findings, it would be reasonable to take action on these things, especially for individuals at higher risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease or Alzheimer’s,” he added.

On a more optimistic note, Dr. Iaccarino pointed out that air quality in the United States has improved significantly in recent years. Meaningful improvements were found between the two periods in this analysis study (2002-2016), “so we are going in the right direction.”

The IDEAS Study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the American College of Radiology, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, GE Healthcare, and Life Molecular Imaging. Dr. Iaccarino has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease place a strong emphasis on antibody testing to assess for rheumatologic and neurologic syndromes. “Diagnostically, we recommend testing via antibodies, and an index of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] versus serum. Importantly, we recommend against using polymerase chain reaction [PCR] in CSF,” Jeffrey A. Rumbaugh, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the guidelines and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, AAN, and the American College of Rheumatology convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop the 43 recommendations, seeking input from 12 additional medical specialties, and patients. The panel conducted a systematic review of available evidence on preventing, diagnosing, and treating Lyme disease, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation model to evaluate clinical evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines were simultaneous published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Arthritis Care & Research.

This is the first time these organizations have collaborated on joint Lyme disease guidelines, which focus mainly on neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations.

“We are very excited to provide these updated guidelines to assist clinicians working in numerous medical specialties around the country, and even the world, as they care for patients suffering from Lyme disease,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
 

When to use and not to use PCR

Guideline authors called for specific testing regimens depending on presentation of symptoms. Generally, they advised that individuals with a skin rash suggestive of early disease seek a clinical diagnosis instead of laboratory testing.

Recommendations on Lyme arthritis support previous IDSA guidelines published in 2006, Linda K. Bockenstedt, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a coauthor of the guidelines, said in an interview.

To evaluate for potential Lyme arthritis, clinicians should choose serum antibody testing over PCR or culture of blood or synovial fluid/tissue. However, if a doctor is assessing a seropositive patient for Lyme arthritis diagnosis but needs more information for treatment decisions, the authors recommended PCR applied to synovial fluid or tissue over Borrelia culture.

“Synovial fluid can be analyzed by PCR, but sensitivity is generally lower than serology,” Dr. Bockenstedt explained. Additionally, culture of joint fluid or synovial tissue for Lyme spirochetes has 0% sensitivity in multiple studies. “For these reasons, we recommend serum antibody testing over PCR of joint fluid or other methods for an initial diagnosis.”

Serum antibody testing over PCR or culture is also recommended for identifying Lyme neuroborreliosis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS.

Despite the recent popularity of Lyme PCR testing in hospitals and labs, “with Lyme at least, antibodies are better in the CSF,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. Studies have shown that “most patients with even early neurologic Lyme disease are seropositive by conventional antibody testing at time of initial clinical presentation, and that intrathecal antibody production, as demonstrated by an elevated CSF:serum index, is highly specific for CNS involvement.”

If done correctly, antibody testing is both sensitive and specific for neurologic Lyme disease. “On the other hand, sensitivity of Lyme PCR performed on CSF has been only in the 5%-17% range in studies. Incidentally, Lyme PCR on blood is also not sensitive and therefore not recommended,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.

Guideline authors recommended testing in patients with the following conditions: acute neurologic disorders such as meningitis, painful radiculoneuritis, mononeuropathy multiplex; evidence of spinal cord or brain inflammation; and acute myocarditis/pericarditis of unknown cause in an appropriate epidemiologic setting.

They did not recommend testing in patients with typical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or cognitive decline; new-onset seizures; other neurologic syndromes or those lacking clinical or epidemiologic history that would support a diagnosis of Lyme disease; and patients with chronic cardiomyopathy of unknown cause.

The authors also called for judicious use of electrocardiogram to screen for Lyme carditis, recommending it only in patients signs or symptoms of this condition. However, patients at risk for or showing signs of severe cardiac complications of Lyme disease should be hospitalized and monitored via ECG.

Timelines for antibiotics

Most patients with Lyme disease should receive oral antibiotics, although duration times vary depending on the disease state. “We recommend that prophylactic antibiotic therapy be given to adults and children only within 72 hours of removal of an identified high-risk tick bite, but not for bites that are equivocal risk or low risk,” according to the guideline authors.

Specific antibiotic treatment regimens by condition are as follows: 10-14 days for early-stage disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14-21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis.

“Despite arthritis occurring late in the course of infection, treatment with a 28-day course of oral antibiotic is effective, although the rates of complete resolution of joint swelling can vary,” Dr. Bockenstedt said. Clinicians may consider a second 28-day course of oral antibiotics or a 2- to 4-week course of ceftriaxone in patients with persistent swelling, after an initial course of oral antibiotics.

Citing knowledge gaps, the authors made no recommendation on secondary antibiotic treatment for unresolved Lyme arthritis. Rheumatologists can play an important role in the care of this small subset of patients, Dr. Bockenstedt noted. “Studies of patients with ‘postantibiotic Lyme arthritis’ show that they can be treated successfully with intra-articular steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic response modifiers, and even synovectomy with successful outcomes.” Some of these therapies also work in cases where first courses of oral and intravenous antibiotics are unsuccessful.

“Antibiotic therapy for longer than 8 weeks is not expected to provide additional benefit to patients with persistent arthritis if that treatment has included one course of IV therapy,” the authors clarified.

For patients with Lyme disease–associated meningitis, cranial neuropathy, radiculoneuropathy, or other PNS manifestations, the authors recommended intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin G, or oral doxycycline over other antimicrobials.

“For most neurologic presentations, oral doxycycline is just as effective as appropriate IV antibiotics,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. “The exception is the relatively rare situation where the patient is felt to have parenchymal involvement of brain or spinal cord, in which case the guidelines recommend IV antibiotics over oral antibiotics.” In the studies, there was no statistically significant difference between oral or intravenous regimens in response rate or risk of adverse effects.

Patients with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment following treatment should not receive additional antibiotic therapy if there’s no evidence of treatment failure or infection. These two markers “would include objective signs of disease activity, such as arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy,” the guideline authors wrote in comments accompanying the recommendation.

Clinicians caring for patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by Lyme carditis should consider temporary pacing measures instead of a permanent pacemaker. For patients hospitalized with Lyme carditis, “we suggest initially using IV ceftriaxone over oral antibiotics until there is evidence of clinical improvement, then switching to oral antibiotics to complete treatment,” they advised. Outpatients with this condition should receive oral antibiotics instead of intravenous antibiotics.

Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’

For individuals without expertise in these areas, the recommendations are clear and useful, Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy), said in an interview.

“As a rheumatologist, I would have appreciated literature references for some of the recommendations but, nevertheless, find these useful. I applaud the care with which the evidence was gathered and the general formatting, which tried to review multiple possible scenarios surrounding Lyme arthritis,” said Dr. Furst, offering a third-party perspective.

The advice on using antibodies tests to make a diagnosis of Lyme arthritis “is particularly cogent and more useful than trying to culture these fastidious organisms,” he added.

The IDSA, AAN, and ACR provided support for the guideline. Dr. Bockenstedt reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gordon and the Llura Gund Foundation and remuneration from L2 Diagnostics for investigator-initiated NIH-sponsored research. Dr. Rumbaugh had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Furst reported no conflicts of interest in commenting on these guidelines.

SOURCE: Rumbaugh JA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.

New clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease place a strong emphasis on antibody testing to assess for rheumatologic and neurologic syndromes. “Diagnostically, we recommend testing via antibodies, and an index of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] versus serum. Importantly, we recommend against using polymerase chain reaction [PCR] in CSF,” Jeffrey A. Rumbaugh, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the guidelines and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, AAN, and the American College of Rheumatology convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop the 43 recommendations, seeking input from 12 additional medical specialties, and patients. The panel conducted a systematic review of available evidence on preventing, diagnosing, and treating Lyme disease, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation model to evaluate clinical evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines were simultaneous published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Arthritis Care & Research.

This is the first time these organizations have collaborated on joint Lyme disease guidelines, which focus mainly on neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations.

“We are very excited to provide these updated guidelines to assist clinicians working in numerous medical specialties around the country, and even the world, as they care for patients suffering from Lyme disease,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
 

When to use and not to use PCR

Guideline authors called for specific testing regimens depending on presentation of symptoms. Generally, they advised that individuals with a skin rash suggestive of early disease seek a clinical diagnosis instead of laboratory testing.

Recommendations on Lyme arthritis support previous IDSA guidelines published in 2006, Linda K. Bockenstedt, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a coauthor of the guidelines, said in an interview.

To evaluate for potential Lyme arthritis, clinicians should choose serum antibody testing over PCR or culture of blood or synovial fluid/tissue. However, if a doctor is assessing a seropositive patient for Lyme arthritis diagnosis but needs more information for treatment decisions, the authors recommended PCR applied to synovial fluid or tissue over Borrelia culture.

“Synovial fluid can be analyzed by PCR, but sensitivity is generally lower than serology,” Dr. Bockenstedt explained. Additionally, culture of joint fluid or synovial tissue for Lyme spirochetes has 0% sensitivity in multiple studies. “For these reasons, we recommend serum antibody testing over PCR of joint fluid or other methods for an initial diagnosis.”

Serum antibody testing over PCR or culture is also recommended for identifying Lyme neuroborreliosis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS.

Despite the recent popularity of Lyme PCR testing in hospitals and labs, “with Lyme at least, antibodies are better in the CSF,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. Studies have shown that “most patients with even early neurologic Lyme disease are seropositive by conventional antibody testing at time of initial clinical presentation, and that intrathecal antibody production, as demonstrated by an elevated CSF:serum index, is highly specific for CNS involvement.”

If done correctly, antibody testing is both sensitive and specific for neurologic Lyme disease. “On the other hand, sensitivity of Lyme PCR performed on CSF has been only in the 5%-17% range in studies. Incidentally, Lyme PCR on blood is also not sensitive and therefore not recommended,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.

Guideline authors recommended testing in patients with the following conditions: acute neurologic disorders such as meningitis, painful radiculoneuritis, mononeuropathy multiplex; evidence of spinal cord or brain inflammation; and acute myocarditis/pericarditis of unknown cause in an appropriate epidemiologic setting.

They did not recommend testing in patients with typical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or cognitive decline; new-onset seizures; other neurologic syndromes or those lacking clinical or epidemiologic history that would support a diagnosis of Lyme disease; and patients with chronic cardiomyopathy of unknown cause.

The authors also called for judicious use of electrocardiogram to screen for Lyme carditis, recommending it only in patients signs or symptoms of this condition. However, patients at risk for or showing signs of severe cardiac complications of Lyme disease should be hospitalized and monitored via ECG.

Timelines for antibiotics

Most patients with Lyme disease should receive oral antibiotics, although duration times vary depending on the disease state. “We recommend that prophylactic antibiotic therapy be given to adults and children only within 72 hours of removal of an identified high-risk tick bite, but not for bites that are equivocal risk or low risk,” according to the guideline authors.

Specific antibiotic treatment regimens by condition are as follows: 10-14 days for early-stage disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14-21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis.

“Despite arthritis occurring late in the course of infection, treatment with a 28-day course of oral antibiotic is effective, although the rates of complete resolution of joint swelling can vary,” Dr. Bockenstedt said. Clinicians may consider a second 28-day course of oral antibiotics or a 2- to 4-week course of ceftriaxone in patients with persistent swelling, after an initial course of oral antibiotics.

Citing knowledge gaps, the authors made no recommendation on secondary antibiotic treatment for unresolved Lyme arthritis. Rheumatologists can play an important role in the care of this small subset of patients, Dr. Bockenstedt noted. “Studies of patients with ‘postantibiotic Lyme arthritis’ show that they can be treated successfully with intra-articular steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic response modifiers, and even synovectomy with successful outcomes.” Some of these therapies also work in cases where first courses of oral and intravenous antibiotics are unsuccessful.

“Antibiotic therapy for longer than 8 weeks is not expected to provide additional benefit to patients with persistent arthritis if that treatment has included one course of IV therapy,” the authors clarified.

For patients with Lyme disease–associated meningitis, cranial neuropathy, radiculoneuropathy, or other PNS manifestations, the authors recommended intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin G, or oral doxycycline over other antimicrobials.

“For most neurologic presentations, oral doxycycline is just as effective as appropriate IV antibiotics,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. “The exception is the relatively rare situation where the patient is felt to have parenchymal involvement of brain or spinal cord, in which case the guidelines recommend IV antibiotics over oral antibiotics.” In the studies, there was no statistically significant difference between oral or intravenous regimens in response rate or risk of adverse effects.

Patients with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment following treatment should not receive additional antibiotic therapy if there’s no evidence of treatment failure or infection. These two markers “would include objective signs of disease activity, such as arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy,” the guideline authors wrote in comments accompanying the recommendation.

Clinicians caring for patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by Lyme carditis should consider temporary pacing measures instead of a permanent pacemaker. For patients hospitalized with Lyme carditis, “we suggest initially using IV ceftriaxone over oral antibiotics until there is evidence of clinical improvement, then switching to oral antibiotics to complete treatment,” they advised. Outpatients with this condition should receive oral antibiotics instead of intravenous antibiotics.

Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’

For individuals without expertise in these areas, the recommendations are clear and useful, Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy), said in an interview.

“As a rheumatologist, I would have appreciated literature references for some of the recommendations but, nevertheless, find these useful. I applaud the care with which the evidence was gathered and the general formatting, which tried to review multiple possible scenarios surrounding Lyme arthritis,” said Dr. Furst, offering a third-party perspective.

The advice on using antibodies tests to make a diagnosis of Lyme arthritis “is particularly cogent and more useful than trying to culture these fastidious organisms,” he added.

The IDSA, AAN, and ACR provided support for the guideline. Dr. Bockenstedt reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gordon and the Llura Gund Foundation and remuneration from L2 Diagnostics for investigator-initiated NIH-sponsored research. Dr. Rumbaugh had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Furst reported no conflicts of interest in commenting on these guidelines.

SOURCE: Rumbaugh JA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.

New clinical practice guidelines on Lyme disease place a strong emphasis on antibody testing to assess for rheumatologic and neurologic syndromes. “Diagnostically, we recommend testing via antibodies, and an index of antibodies in cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] versus serum. Importantly, we recommend against using polymerase chain reaction [PCR] in CSF,” Jeffrey A. Rumbaugh, MD, PhD, a coauthor of the guidelines and a member of the American Academy of Neurology, said in an interview.

CDC/ Dr. Amanda Loftis, Dr. William Nicholson, Dr. Will Reeves, Dr. Chris Paddock

The Infectious Diseases Society of America, AAN, and the American College of Rheumatology convened a multidisciplinary panel to develop the 43 recommendations, seeking input from 12 additional medical specialties, and patients. The panel conducted a systematic review of available evidence on preventing, diagnosing, and treating Lyme disease, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation model to evaluate clinical evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines were simultaneous published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Neurology, Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Arthritis Care & Research.

This is the first time these organizations have collaborated on joint Lyme disease guidelines, which focus mainly on neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations.

“We are very excited to provide these updated guidelines to assist clinicians working in numerous medical specialties around the country, and even the world, as they care for patients suffering from Lyme disease,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.
 

When to use and not to use PCR

Guideline authors called for specific testing regimens depending on presentation of symptoms. Generally, they advised that individuals with a skin rash suggestive of early disease seek a clinical diagnosis instead of laboratory testing.

Recommendations on Lyme arthritis support previous IDSA guidelines published in 2006, Linda K. Bockenstedt, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and a coauthor of the guidelines, said in an interview.

To evaluate for potential Lyme arthritis, clinicians should choose serum antibody testing over PCR or culture of blood or synovial fluid/tissue. However, if a doctor is assessing a seropositive patient for Lyme arthritis diagnosis but needs more information for treatment decisions, the authors recommended PCR applied to synovial fluid or tissue over Borrelia culture.

“Synovial fluid can be analyzed by PCR, but sensitivity is generally lower than serology,” Dr. Bockenstedt explained. Additionally, culture of joint fluid or synovial tissue for Lyme spirochetes has 0% sensitivity in multiple studies. “For these reasons, we recommend serum antibody testing over PCR of joint fluid or other methods for an initial diagnosis.”

Serum antibody testing over PCR or culture is also recommended for identifying Lyme neuroborreliosis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS) or CNS.

Despite the recent popularity of Lyme PCR testing in hospitals and labs, “with Lyme at least, antibodies are better in the CSF,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. Studies have shown that “most patients with even early neurologic Lyme disease are seropositive by conventional antibody testing at time of initial clinical presentation, and that intrathecal antibody production, as demonstrated by an elevated CSF:serum index, is highly specific for CNS involvement.”

If done correctly, antibody testing is both sensitive and specific for neurologic Lyme disease. “On the other hand, sensitivity of Lyme PCR performed on CSF has been only in the 5%-17% range in studies. Incidentally, Lyme PCR on blood is also not sensitive and therefore not recommended,” Dr. Rumbaugh said.

Guideline authors recommended testing in patients with the following conditions: acute neurologic disorders such as meningitis, painful radiculoneuritis, mononeuropathy multiplex; evidence of spinal cord or brain inflammation; and acute myocarditis/pericarditis of unknown cause in an appropriate epidemiologic setting.

They did not recommend testing in patients with typical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis; Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or cognitive decline; new-onset seizures; other neurologic syndromes or those lacking clinical or epidemiologic history that would support a diagnosis of Lyme disease; and patients with chronic cardiomyopathy of unknown cause.

The authors also called for judicious use of electrocardiogram to screen for Lyme carditis, recommending it only in patients signs or symptoms of this condition. However, patients at risk for or showing signs of severe cardiac complications of Lyme disease should be hospitalized and monitored via ECG.

Timelines for antibiotics

Most patients with Lyme disease should receive oral antibiotics, although duration times vary depending on the disease state. “We recommend that prophylactic antibiotic therapy be given to adults and children only within 72 hours of removal of an identified high-risk tick bite, but not for bites that are equivocal risk or low risk,” according to the guideline authors.

Specific antibiotic treatment regimens by condition are as follows: 10-14 days for early-stage disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14-21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis.

“Despite arthritis occurring late in the course of infection, treatment with a 28-day course of oral antibiotic is effective, although the rates of complete resolution of joint swelling can vary,” Dr. Bockenstedt said. Clinicians may consider a second 28-day course of oral antibiotics or a 2- to 4-week course of ceftriaxone in patients with persistent swelling, after an initial course of oral antibiotics.

Citing knowledge gaps, the authors made no recommendation on secondary antibiotic treatment for unresolved Lyme arthritis. Rheumatologists can play an important role in the care of this small subset of patients, Dr. Bockenstedt noted. “Studies of patients with ‘postantibiotic Lyme arthritis’ show that they can be treated successfully with intra-articular steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic response modifiers, and even synovectomy with successful outcomes.” Some of these therapies also work in cases where first courses of oral and intravenous antibiotics are unsuccessful.

“Antibiotic therapy for longer than 8 weeks is not expected to provide additional benefit to patients with persistent arthritis if that treatment has included one course of IV therapy,” the authors clarified.

For patients with Lyme disease–associated meningitis, cranial neuropathy, radiculoneuropathy, or other PNS manifestations, the authors recommended intravenous ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, penicillin G, or oral doxycycline over other antimicrobials.

“For most neurologic presentations, oral doxycycline is just as effective as appropriate IV antibiotics,” Dr. Rumbaugh said. “The exception is the relatively rare situation where the patient is felt to have parenchymal involvement of brain or spinal cord, in which case the guidelines recommend IV antibiotics over oral antibiotics.” In the studies, there was no statistically significant difference between oral or intravenous regimens in response rate or risk of adverse effects.

Patients with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, pain, or cognitive impairment following treatment should not receive additional antibiotic therapy if there’s no evidence of treatment failure or infection. These two markers “would include objective signs of disease activity, such as arthritis, meningitis, or neuropathy,” the guideline authors wrote in comments accompanying the recommendation.

Clinicians caring for patients with symptomatic bradycardia caused by Lyme carditis should consider temporary pacing measures instead of a permanent pacemaker. For patients hospitalized with Lyme carditis, “we suggest initially using IV ceftriaxone over oral antibiotics until there is evidence of clinical improvement, then switching to oral antibiotics to complete treatment,” they advised. Outpatients with this condition should receive oral antibiotics instead of intravenous antibiotics.

Advice on antibodies testing ‘particularly cogent’

For individuals without expertise in these areas, the recommendations are clear and useful, Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and research professor at the University of Florence (Italy), said in an interview.

“As a rheumatologist, I would have appreciated literature references for some of the recommendations but, nevertheless, find these useful. I applaud the care with which the evidence was gathered and the general formatting, which tried to review multiple possible scenarios surrounding Lyme arthritis,” said Dr. Furst, offering a third-party perspective.

The advice on using antibodies tests to make a diagnosis of Lyme arthritis “is particularly cogent and more useful than trying to culture these fastidious organisms,” he added.

The IDSA, AAN, and ACR provided support for the guideline. Dr. Bockenstedt reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gordon and the Llura Gund Foundation and remuneration from L2 Diagnostics for investigator-initiated NIH-sponsored research. Dr. Rumbaugh had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Furst reported no conflicts of interest in commenting on these guidelines.

SOURCE: Rumbaugh JA et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 30. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa1215.

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

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

Adjunctive oral prednisone appears to significantly reduce cluster headache attacks, new research shows. Results of the multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial show that patients who received the steroid had 25% fewer attacks in the first week of therapy, compared with their counterparts who received placebo.

In addition, more than a third of patients in the prednisone group were pain free, and for almost half, headache frequency was reduced by at least 50% at day 7 of treatment.

These findings provide clear evidence that prednisone, in conjunction with the use of verapamil, is effective in cluster headache, said lead author Mark Obermann, MD, director, Center for Neurology, Asklepios Hospitals Seesen (Germany), and associate professor, University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany).

The key message, he added, is that all patients with cluster headache should receive prednisone at the start of an episode.

The study was published online Nov. 24 in the Lancet Neurology.
 

‘Suicide headaches’

Cluster headaches are intense unilateral attacks of facial and head pain. They last 15-180 minutes and predominantly affect men. They are accompanied by trigeminal autonomic symptoms and are extremely painful. “They’re referred to as ‘suicide headaches’ because the pain is so severe that patients often report they think about killing themselves to get rid of the pain,” said Dr. Obermann.

The cause is unclear, although there is some evidence that the hypothalamus is involved. The headaches sometimes follow a “strict circadian pattern,” said Dr. Obermann. He noted that the attacks might occur over a few weeks or months and then not return for months or even years.

An estimated 1 in 1,000 people experience cluster headache, but the condition is underrecognized, and research is scarce and poorly funded. Previous research does show that the calcium channel blocker verapamil, which is used to treat high blood pressure, is effective in cluster headache. However, it takes about 14 days to work and has to be slowly titrated because of cardiac side effects, said Dr. Obermann. For these reasons, international guidelines recommend initiating short-term preventive treatment with corticosteroids to suppress, or at least lessen, cluster headache attacks until long-term prevention is effective.

Although some clinicians treat cluster headaches with corticosteroids, others don’t because of a lack of evidence that shows they are effective. “There’s no evidence whatsoever on what the correct dose is or whether it helps at all. This is the gap we wanted to close,” said Dr. Obermann.

The study included 116 adult patients with cluster headache from 10 centers who were experiencing a cluster headache episode and were not taking prophylactic medication.

The trial only included patients who had an attack within 30 days of their current episode. The investigators included this restriction to reduce the possibility of spontaneous remission, which is “a big problem” in cluster headache trials, he said. To confirm that episodes were cluster headache attacks, patients were also required to have moderate to severe pain, indicated by a score of at least 5 on a numerical rating scale in which 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worse imaginable pain.

Participants were allowed to use treatments for acute attack, but these therapies were limited to triptans, high-flow oxygen, intranasal lidocaine, ergotamine, and oral analgesics.
 

Debilitating pain

Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral prednisone (n = 53) or placebo (n = 56). The study groups were matched with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics. Prednisone was initiated at 100 mg/d for 5 days and was then tapered by 20 mg every 3 days in the active-treatment group. All patients also received oral verapamil at a starting dose of 40 mg three times per day. The dose was increased every 3 days by 40 mg to a maximum of 360 mg/d.

All participants received pantoprazole 20 mg to prevent the gastric side effects of prednisone. An attack was defined as a unilateral headache of moderate to severe intensity. The study lasted 28 days.

The study’s primary outcome was the mean number of cluster headache attacks during the first week of treatment with prednisone versus placebo.

The mean number of attacks during the first week of treatment was 7.1 in the prednisone group and 9.5 in the placebo group, for a difference of –2.4 attacks (95% confidence interval, –4.8 to –0.03; P = .002). “This might not sound like much,” but reducing the number of daily attacks from, say, eight to six “really makes a difference because the attacks are so painful,” said Dr. Obermann.

The prednisone group also came out on top for a number secondary outcomes. After the first 7 days, attacks ceased in 35% of the prednisone group versus 7% in the placebo group.
 

‘Clear evidence’ of efficacy

About 49% of patients who took prednisone reported a reduction of at least 50% in attack frequency at day 7. By comparison, 15% of patients who received placebo reported such a reduction. The number of cluster attacks at day 28 was less in the prednisone group than in the patients who received placebo.

With respect to treatment effect, the difference between prednisone and placebo gradually lessened over time “in parallel to the verapamil dose reaching its therapeutic effect,” the investigators noted. “Therefore, attack frequency reduction slowly converged between groups,” they added.

The study results provide “clear evidence” and should reassure clinicians that short-term prednisone early in a cluster headache attack is effective, said Dr. Obermann.

Adverse events, which included headache, palpitations, dizziness, and nausea, were as expected and were similar in the two groups. There were only two severe adverse events, both of which occurred in participants in the placebo group.

Dr. Obermann said the investigators were surprised that so many patients in the study were taking analgesics. “Analgesics don’t work in cluster headache; they just don’t work in this kind of pain.”

He noted that prednisone exposure of study patients spanned only 19 days and amounted to only 1,100 mg, which he believes is safe.

The prednisone dose used in the study is “what most clinicians use in clinical practice,” although there have been reports of success using 500 mg of IV prednisone over 5 days, said Dr. Obermann. He added that it would be “interesting to see if 50 mg would be just as good” as a starting dose.

Potential limitations of the study include the fact that the majority of participants were White, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.
 

Long-awaited results

In an accompanying editorial, Anne Ducros, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the Headache Center, Montpellier (France) University Hospital, said the study provides “strong and long-awaited evidence supporting the use of oral steroids as a transitional treatment option.”

The trial “raises many topics for future research,” one of which is the long-term safety of prednisone for patients with cluster headache, said Dr. Ducros. She noted that use of high-dose steroids once or twice a year for 15 years or more “has the potential for severe systemic toxic effects,” such as corticosteroid-induced osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Other questions about corticosteroid use for patients with cluster headache remain. These include understanding whether these agents provide better efficacy than occipital nerve injections and determining the optimal verapamil regimen, she noted.

In addition, the risk for oral steroid misuse needs to be studied, she said. She noted that drug misuse is common among patients with cluster headache.

Despite these questions, the results of this new study “provide an important step forward for patients with cluster headache, for whom safe and effective transitional therapies are much needed,” Dr. Ducros wrote.


Dr. Obermann has received fees from Sanofi, Biogen, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Eli Lilly and grants from Allergan and Heel Pharmaceuticals outside of this work. Dr. Ducros has received fees from Amgen, Novartis, Teva, and Eli Lilly; grants from the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique and from the Appel d’Offre Interne of Montpellier University Hospital; and nonfinancial support from SOS Oxygene.

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

Adjunctive oral prednisone appears to significantly reduce cluster headache attacks, new research shows. Results of the multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial show that patients who received the steroid had 25% fewer attacks in the first week of therapy, compared with their counterparts who received placebo.

In addition, more than a third of patients in the prednisone group were pain free, and for almost half, headache frequency was reduced by at least 50% at day 7 of treatment.

These findings provide clear evidence that prednisone, in conjunction with the use of verapamil, is effective in cluster headache, said lead author Mark Obermann, MD, director, Center for Neurology, Asklepios Hospitals Seesen (Germany), and associate professor, University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany).

The key message, he added, is that all patients with cluster headache should receive prednisone at the start of an episode.

The study was published online Nov. 24 in the Lancet Neurology.
 

‘Suicide headaches’

Cluster headaches are intense unilateral attacks of facial and head pain. They last 15-180 minutes and predominantly affect men. They are accompanied by trigeminal autonomic symptoms and are extremely painful. “They’re referred to as ‘suicide headaches’ because the pain is so severe that patients often report they think about killing themselves to get rid of the pain,” said Dr. Obermann.

The cause is unclear, although there is some evidence that the hypothalamus is involved. The headaches sometimes follow a “strict circadian pattern,” said Dr. Obermann. He noted that the attacks might occur over a few weeks or months and then not return for months or even years.

An estimated 1 in 1,000 people experience cluster headache, but the condition is underrecognized, and research is scarce and poorly funded. Previous research does show that the calcium channel blocker verapamil, which is used to treat high blood pressure, is effective in cluster headache. However, it takes about 14 days to work and has to be slowly titrated because of cardiac side effects, said Dr. Obermann. For these reasons, international guidelines recommend initiating short-term preventive treatment with corticosteroids to suppress, or at least lessen, cluster headache attacks until long-term prevention is effective.

Although some clinicians treat cluster headaches with corticosteroids, others don’t because of a lack of evidence that shows they are effective. “There’s no evidence whatsoever on what the correct dose is or whether it helps at all. This is the gap we wanted to close,” said Dr. Obermann.

The study included 116 adult patients with cluster headache from 10 centers who were experiencing a cluster headache episode and were not taking prophylactic medication.

The trial only included patients who had an attack within 30 days of their current episode. The investigators included this restriction to reduce the possibility of spontaneous remission, which is “a big problem” in cluster headache trials, he said. To confirm that episodes were cluster headache attacks, patients were also required to have moderate to severe pain, indicated by a score of at least 5 on a numerical rating scale in which 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worse imaginable pain.

Participants were allowed to use treatments for acute attack, but these therapies were limited to triptans, high-flow oxygen, intranasal lidocaine, ergotamine, and oral analgesics.
 

Debilitating pain

Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral prednisone (n = 53) or placebo (n = 56). The study groups were matched with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics. Prednisone was initiated at 100 mg/d for 5 days and was then tapered by 20 mg every 3 days in the active-treatment group. All patients also received oral verapamil at a starting dose of 40 mg three times per day. The dose was increased every 3 days by 40 mg to a maximum of 360 mg/d.

All participants received pantoprazole 20 mg to prevent the gastric side effects of prednisone. An attack was defined as a unilateral headache of moderate to severe intensity. The study lasted 28 days.

The study’s primary outcome was the mean number of cluster headache attacks during the first week of treatment with prednisone versus placebo.

The mean number of attacks during the first week of treatment was 7.1 in the prednisone group and 9.5 in the placebo group, for a difference of –2.4 attacks (95% confidence interval, –4.8 to –0.03; P = .002). “This might not sound like much,” but reducing the number of daily attacks from, say, eight to six “really makes a difference because the attacks are so painful,” said Dr. Obermann.

The prednisone group also came out on top for a number secondary outcomes. After the first 7 days, attacks ceased in 35% of the prednisone group versus 7% in the placebo group.
 

‘Clear evidence’ of efficacy

About 49% of patients who took prednisone reported a reduction of at least 50% in attack frequency at day 7. By comparison, 15% of patients who received placebo reported such a reduction. The number of cluster attacks at day 28 was less in the prednisone group than in the patients who received placebo.

With respect to treatment effect, the difference between prednisone and placebo gradually lessened over time “in parallel to the verapamil dose reaching its therapeutic effect,” the investigators noted. “Therefore, attack frequency reduction slowly converged between groups,” they added.

The study results provide “clear evidence” and should reassure clinicians that short-term prednisone early in a cluster headache attack is effective, said Dr. Obermann.

Adverse events, which included headache, palpitations, dizziness, and nausea, were as expected and were similar in the two groups. There were only two severe adverse events, both of which occurred in participants in the placebo group.

Dr. Obermann said the investigators were surprised that so many patients in the study were taking analgesics. “Analgesics don’t work in cluster headache; they just don’t work in this kind of pain.”

He noted that prednisone exposure of study patients spanned only 19 days and amounted to only 1,100 mg, which he believes is safe.

The prednisone dose used in the study is “what most clinicians use in clinical practice,” although there have been reports of success using 500 mg of IV prednisone over 5 days, said Dr. Obermann. He added that it would be “interesting to see if 50 mg would be just as good” as a starting dose.

Potential limitations of the study include the fact that the majority of participants were White, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.
 

Long-awaited results

In an accompanying editorial, Anne Ducros, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the Headache Center, Montpellier (France) University Hospital, said the study provides “strong and long-awaited evidence supporting the use of oral steroids as a transitional treatment option.”

The trial “raises many topics for future research,” one of which is the long-term safety of prednisone for patients with cluster headache, said Dr. Ducros. She noted that use of high-dose steroids once or twice a year for 15 years or more “has the potential for severe systemic toxic effects,” such as corticosteroid-induced osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Other questions about corticosteroid use for patients with cluster headache remain. These include understanding whether these agents provide better efficacy than occipital nerve injections and determining the optimal verapamil regimen, she noted.

In addition, the risk for oral steroid misuse needs to be studied, she said. She noted that drug misuse is common among patients with cluster headache.

Despite these questions, the results of this new study “provide an important step forward for patients with cluster headache, for whom safe and effective transitional therapies are much needed,” Dr. Ducros wrote.


Dr. Obermann has received fees from Sanofi, Biogen, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Eli Lilly and grants from Allergan and Heel Pharmaceuticals outside of this work. Dr. Ducros has received fees from Amgen, Novartis, Teva, and Eli Lilly; grants from the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique and from the Appel d’Offre Interne of Montpellier University Hospital; and nonfinancial support from SOS Oxygene.

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

Adjunctive oral prednisone appears to significantly reduce cluster headache attacks, new research shows. Results of the multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial show that patients who received the steroid had 25% fewer attacks in the first week of therapy, compared with their counterparts who received placebo.

In addition, more than a third of patients in the prednisone group were pain free, and for almost half, headache frequency was reduced by at least 50% at day 7 of treatment.

These findings provide clear evidence that prednisone, in conjunction with the use of verapamil, is effective in cluster headache, said lead author Mark Obermann, MD, director, Center for Neurology, Asklepios Hospitals Seesen (Germany), and associate professor, University of Duisburg-Essen (Germany).

The key message, he added, is that all patients with cluster headache should receive prednisone at the start of an episode.

The study was published online Nov. 24 in the Lancet Neurology.
 

‘Suicide headaches’

Cluster headaches are intense unilateral attacks of facial and head pain. They last 15-180 minutes and predominantly affect men. They are accompanied by trigeminal autonomic symptoms and are extremely painful. “They’re referred to as ‘suicide headaches’ because the pain is so severe that patients often report they think about killing themselves to get rid of the pain,” said Dr. Obermann.

The cause is unclear, although there is some evidence that the hypothalamus is involved. The headaches sometimes follow a “strict circadian pattern,” said Dr. Obermann. He noted that the attacks might occur over a few weeks or months and then not return for months or even years.

An estimated 1 in 1,000 people experience cluster headache, but the condition is underrecognized, and research is scarce and poorly funded. Previous research does show that the calcium channel blocker verapamil, which is used to treat high blood pressure, is effective in cluster headache. However, it takes about 14 days to work and has to be slowly titrated because of cardiac side effects, said Dr. Obermann. For these reasons, international guidelines recommend initiating short-term preventive treatment with corticosteroids to suppress, or at least lessen, cluster headache attacks until long-term prevention is effective.

Although some clinicians treat cluster headaches with corticosteroids, others don’t because of a lack of evidence that shows they are effective. “There’s no evidence whatsoever on what the correct dose is or whether it helps at all. This is the gap we wanted to close,” said Dr. Obermann.

The study included 116 adult patients with cluster headache from 10 centers who were experiencing a cluster headache episode and were not taking prophylactic medication.

The trial only included patients who had an attack within 30 days of their current episode. The investigators included this restriction to reduce the possibility of spontaneous remission, which is “a big problem” in cluster headache trials, he said. To confirm that episodes were cluster headache attacks, patients were also required to have moderate to severe pain, indicated by a score of at least 5 on a numerical rating scale in which 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worse imaginable pain.

Participants were allowed to use treatments for acute attack, but these therapies were limited to triptans, high-flow oxygen, intranasal lidocaine, ergotamine, and oral analgesics.
 

Debilitating pain

Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral prednisone (n = 53) or placebo (n = 56). The study groups were matched with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics. Prednisone was initiated at 100 mg/d for 5 days and was then tapered by 20 mg every 3 days in the active-treatment group. All patients also received oral verapamil at a starting dose of 40 mg three times per day. The dose was increased every 3 days by 40 mg to a maximum of 360 mg/d.

All participants received pantoprazole 20 mg to prevent the gastric side effects of prednisone. An attack was defined as a unilateral headache of moderate to severe intensity. The study lasted 28 days.

The study’s primary outcome was the mean number of cluster headache attacks during the first week of treatment with prednisone versus placebo.

The mean number of attacks during the first week of treatment was 7.1 in the prednisone group and 9.5 in the placebo group, for a difference of –2.4 attacks (95% confidence interval, –4.8 to –0.03; P = .002). “This might not sound like much,” but reducing the number of daily attacks from, say, eight to six “really makes a difference because the attacks are so painful,” said Dr. Obermann.

The prednisone group also came out on top for a number secondary outcomes. After the first 7 days, attacks ceased in 35% of the prednisone group versus 7% in the placebo group.
 

‘Clear evidence’ of efficacy

About 49% of patients who took prednisone reported a reduction of at least 50% in attack frequency at day 7. By comparison, 15% of patients who received placebo reported such a reduction. The number of cluster attacks at day 28 was less in the prednisone group than in the patients who received placebo.

With respect to treatment effect, the difference between prednisone and placebo gradually lessened over time “in parallel to the verapamil dose reaching its therapeutic effect,” the investigators noted. “Therefore, attack frequency reduction slowly converged between groups,” they added.

The study results provide “clear evidence” and should reassure clinicians that short-term prednisone early in a cluster headache attack is effective, said Dr. Obermann.

Adverse events, which included headache, palpitations, dizziness, and nausea, were as expected and were similar in the two groups. There were only two severe adverse events, both of which occurred in participants in the placebo group.

Dr. Obermann said the investigators were surprised that so many patients in the study were taking analgesics. “Analgesics don’t work in cluster headache; they just don’t work in this kind of pain.”

He noted that prednisone exposure of study patients spanned only 19 days and amounted to only 1,100 mg, which he believes is safe.

The prednisone dose used in the study is “what most clinicians use in clinical practice,” although there have been reports of success using 500 mg of IV prednisone over 5 days, said Dr. Obermann. He added that it would be “interesting to see if 50 mg would be just as good” as a starting dose.

Potential limitations of the study include the fact that the majority of participants were White, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.
 

Long-awaited results

In an accompanying editorial, Anne Ducros, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the Headache Center, Montpellier (France) University Hospital, said the study provides “strong and long-awaited evidence supporting the use of oral steroids as a transitional treatment option.”

The trial “raises many topics for future research,” one of which is the long-term safety of prednisone for patients with cluster headache, said Dr. Ducros. She noted that use of high-dose steroids once or twice a year for 15 years or more “has the potential for severe systemic toxic effects,” such as corticosteroid-induced osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Other questions about corticosteroid use for patients with cluster headache remain. These include understanding whether these agents provide better efficacy than occipital nerve injections and determining the optimal verapamil regimen, she noted.

In addition, the risk for oral steroid misuse needs to be studied, she said. She noted that drug misuse is common among patients with cluster headache.

Despite these questions, the results of this new study “provide an important step forward for patients with cluster headache, for whom safe and effective transitional therapies are much needed,” Dr. Ducros wrote.


Dr. Obermann has received fees from Sanofi, Biogen, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Eli Lilly and grants from Allergan and Heel Pharmaceuticals outside of this work. Dr. Ducros has received fees from Amgen, Novartis, Teva, and Eli Lilly; grants from the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique and from the Appel d’Offre Interne of Montpellier University Hospital; and nonfinancial support from SOS Oxygene.

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

At the end of my second year of medical school was what I call “The Lost Month.”

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

At the end of my second year of medical school was what I call “The Lost Month.”

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

At the end of my second year of medical school was what I call “The Lost Month.”

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

The 2020 Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP), a division of the National Resident Matching Program, matched a record number of applicants to subspecialty training programs for positions beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.

“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.

The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.

Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.

By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.

More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.

The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.

More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.

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

The 2020 Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP), a division of the National Resident Matching Program, matched a record number of applicants to subspecialty training programs for positions beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.

“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.

The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.

Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.

By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.

More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.

The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.

More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.

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

The 2020 Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP), a division of the National Resident Matching Program, matched a record number of applicants to subspecialty training programs for positions beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.

“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.

The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.

Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.

By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.

More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.

The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.

More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.

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

There is “compelling” evidence of the harmful effects of alcohol on the brain. The greatest risk occurs during three periods of life that are marked by dynamic brain changes, say researchers from Australia and the United Kingdom.

alenkadr/Thinkstock

The three periods are:

• Gestation (conception to birth), which is characterized by extensive production, migration, and differentiation of neurons, as well as substantial apoptosis.
• Later adolescence (aged 15-19 years), a period marked by synaptic pruning and increased axonal myelination.
• Older adulthood (aged 65 and beyond), a period associated with brain atrophy. Changes accelerate after age 65, largely driven by decreases in neuron size and reductions in the number of dendritic spines and synapses.

These changes in neurocircuitry could increase sensitivity to the neurotoxic effects of alcohol, Louise Mewton, PhD, of the Center for Healthy Brain Aging, University of New South Wales, Sydney, and colleagues said.

“A life course perspective on brain health supports the formulation of policy and public health interventions to reduce alcohol use and misuse at all ages,” they wrote in an editorial published online Dec. 4 in The BMJ.
 

Worrisome trends

Research has shown that globally about 10% of pregnant women drink alcohol. In European countries, the rates are much higher than the global average.

Heavy drinking during gestation can cause fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which is associated with widespread reductions in brain volume and cognitive impairment.

Even low or moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy is significantly associated with poorer psychological and behavioral outcomes in children, the investigators noted.

In adolescence, more than 20% of 15- to 19-year-olds in European and other high-income countries report at least occasional binge drinking, which is linked to reduced brain volume, poorer white matter development, and deficits in a range of cognitive functions, they added.

In a recent study of older adults, alcohol use disorders emerged as one of the strongest modifiable risk factors for dementia (particularly early-onset dementia), compared with other established risk factors such as high blood pressure and smoking.

Alcohol use disorders are relatively rare in older adults, but even moderate drinking during midlife has been linked to “small but significant” brain volume loss, the authors said.

Dr. Mewton and colleagues said demographic trends may compound the effect of alcohol use on brain health.

They noted that women are now just as likely as men to drink alcohol and suffer alcohol-related problems. Global consumption is forecast to increase further in the next decade.

Although the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on alcohol intake and related harms remain unclear, alcohol use has increased in the long term after other major public health crises, they added.

Given the data, Dr. Mewton and colleagues called for “an integrated approach” to reducing the harms of alcohol intake at all ages.

“Population-based interventions such as guidelines on low-risk drinking, alcohol pricing policies, and lower drink driving limits need to be accompanied by the development of training and care pathways that consider the human brain at risk throughout life,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

There is “compelling” evidence of the harmful effects of alcohol on the brain. The greatest risk occurs during three periods of life that are marked by dynamic brain changes, say researchers from Australia and the United Kingdom.

alenkadr/Thinkstock

The three periods are:

• Gestation (conception to birth), which is characterized by extensive production, migration, and differentiation of neurons, as well as substantial apoptosis.
• Later adolescence (aged 15-19 years), a period marked by synaptic pruning and increased axonal myelination.
• Older adulthood (aged 65 and beyond), a period associated with brain atrophy. Changes accelerate after age 65, largely driven by decreases in neuron size and reductions in the number of dendritic spines and synapses.

These changes in neurocircuitry could increase sensitivity to the neurotoxic effects of alcohol, Louise Mewton, PhD, of the Center for Healthy Brain Aging, University of New South Wales, Sydney, and colleagues said.

“A life course perspective on brain health supports the formulation of policy and public health interventions to reduce alcohol use and misuse at all ages,” they wrote in an editorial published online Dec. 4 in The BMJ.
 

Worrisome trends

Research has shown that globally about 10% of pregnant women drink alcohol. In European countries, the rates are much higher than the global average.

Heavy drinking during gestation can cause fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which is associated with widespread reductions in brain volume and cognitive impairment.

Even low or moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy is significantly associated with poorer psychological and behavioral outcomes in children, the investigators noted.

In adolescence, more than 20% of 15- to 19-year-olds in European and other high-income countries report at least occasional binge drinking, which is linked to reduced brain volume, poorer white matter development, and deficits in a range of cognitive functions, they added.

In a recent study of older adults, alcohol use disorders emerged as one of the strongest modifiable risk factors for dementia (particularly early-onset dementia), compared with other established risk factors such as high blood pressure and smoking.

Alcohol use disorders are relatively rare in older adults, but even moderate drinking during midlife has been linked to “small but significant” brain volume loss, the authors said.

Dr. Mewton and colleagues said demographic trends may compound the effect of alcohol use on brain health.

They noted that women are now just as likely as men to drink alcohol and suffer alcohol-related problems. Global consumption is forecast to increase further in the next decade.

Although the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on alcohol intake and related harms remain unclear, alcohol use has increased in the long term after other major public health crises, they added.

Given the data, Dr. Mewton and colleagues called for “an integrated approach” to reducing the harms of alcohol intake at all ages.

“Population-based interventions such as guidelines on low-risk drinking, alcohol pricing policies, and lower drink driving limits need to be accompanied by the development of training and care pathways that consider the human brain at risk throughout life,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

There is “compelling” evidence of the harmful effects of alcohol on the brain. The greatest risk occurs during three periods of life that are marked by dynamic brain changes, say researchers from Australia and the United Kingdom.

alenkadr/Thinkstock

The three periods are:

• Gestation (conception to birth), which is characterized by extensive production, migration, and differentiation of neurons, as well as substantial apoptosis.
• Later adolescence (aged 15-19 years), a period marked by synaptic pruning and increased axonal myelination.
• Older adulthood (aged 65 and beyond), a period associated with brain atrophy. Changes accelerate after age 65, largely driven by decreases in neuron size and reductions in the number of dendritic spines and synapses.

These changes in neurocircuitry could increase sensitivity to the neurotoxic effects of alcohol, Louise Mewton, PhD, of the Center for Healthy Brain Aging, University of New South Wales, Sydney, and colleagues said.

“A life course perspective on brain health supports the formulation of policy and public health interventions to reduce alcohol use and misuse at all ages,” they wrote in an editorial published online Dec. 4 in The BMJ.
 

Worrisome trends

Research has shown that globally about 10% of pregnant women drink alcohol. In European countries, the rates are much higher than the global average.

Heavy drinking during gestation can cause fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which is associated with widespread reductions in brain volume and cognitive impairment.

Even low or moderate alcohol consumption during pregnancy is significantly associated with poorer psychological and behavioral outcomes in children, the investigators noted.

In adolescence, more than 20% of 15- to 19-year-olds in European and other high-income countries report at least occasional binge drinking, which is linked to reduced brain volume, poorer white matter development, and deficits in a range of cognitive functions, they added.

In a recent study of older adults, alcohol use disorders emerged as one of the strongest modifiable risk factors for dementia (particularly early-onset dementia), compared with other established risk factors such as high blood pressure and smoking.

Alcohol use disorders are relatively rare in older adults, but even moderate drinking during midlife has been linked to “small but significant” brain volume loss, the authors said.

Dr. Mewton and colleagues said demographic trends may compound the effect of alcohol use on brain health.

They noted that women are now just as likely as men to drink alcohol and suffer alcohol-related problems. Global consumption is forecast to increase further in the next decade.

Although the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on alcohol intake and related harms remain unclear, alcohol use has increased in the long term after other major public health crises, they added.

Given the data, Dr. Mewton and colleagues called for “an integrated approach” to reducing the harms of alcohol intake at all ages.

“Population-based interventions such as guidelines on low-risk drinking, alcohol pricing policies, and lower drink driving limits need to be accompanied by the development of training and care pathways that consider the human brain at risk throughout life,” they concluded.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

President-elect Joe Biden has nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to run the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) under his new administration, according to a statement from the Biden-Harris transition team.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP

If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.

Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.

The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.

“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
 

Recent advocacy

Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.

As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.

On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.

Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.

Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
 

A huge undertaking

As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.

Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President-elect Joe Biden has nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to run the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) under his new administration, according to a statement from the Biden-Harris transition team.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP

If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.

Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.

The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.

“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
 

Recent advocacy

Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.

As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.

On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.

Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.

Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
 

A huge undertaking

As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.

Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

President-elect Joe Biden has nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to run the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) under his new administration, according to a statement from the Biden-Harris transition team.

Rich Pedroncelli/AP

If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.

Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.

The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.

“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
 

Recent advocacy

Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.

As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.

On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.

Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.

Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
 

A huge undertaking

As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.

Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.