Neurology Reviews

With the approval of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies to treat early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, the need for accurate and early diagnosis is crucial.

Blood-based biomarkers offer a promising alternative to amyloid PET scans and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis and are being increasingly used in clinical practice to support an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis.

Recently, an expert workgroup convened by the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer’s Disease published recommendations for the clinical implementation of Alzheimer’s disease blood-based biomarkers.

“Our hope was to provide some recommendations that clinicians could use to develop the best pathways for their clinical practice,” said workgroup co-chair Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
 

Triage and Confirmatory Pathways

The group recommends two implementation pathways for Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers — one for current use for triaging and another for future use to confirm amyloid pathology once blood biomarker tests have reached sufficient performance for this purpose.

In the triage pathway, a negative blood biomarker test would flag individuals unlikely to have detectable brain amyloid pathology. This outcome would prompt clinicians to focus on evaluating non–Alzheimer’s disease-related causes of cognitive impairment, which may streamline the diagnosis of other causes of cognitive impairment, the authors said.

A positive triage blood test would suggest a higher likelihood of amyloid pathology and prompt referral to secondary care for further assessment and consideration for a second, more accurate test, such as amyloid PET or CSF for amyloid confirmation.

In the confirmatory pathway, a positive blood biomarker test result would identify amyloid pathology without the need for a second test, providing a faster route to diagnosis, the authors noted.

Mielke emphasized that these recommendations represent a “first step” and will need to be updated as experiences with the Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers in clinical care increase and additional barriers and facilitators are identified.

“These updates will likely include community-informed approaches that incorporate feedback from patients as well as healthcare providers, alongside results from validation in diverse real-world settings,” said workgroup co-chair Chi Udeh-Momoh, PhD, MSc, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine and the Brain and Mind Institute, Aga Khan University, Nairobi, Kenya.

The Alzheimer’s Association published “appropriate use” recommendations for blood biomarkers in 2022.

“Currently, the Alzheimer’s Association is building an updated library of clinical guidance that distills the scientific evidence using de novo systematic reviews and translates them into clear and actionable recommendations for clinical practice,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, vice president of scientific engagement, Alzheimer’s Association.

“The first major effort with our new process will be the upcoming Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline on the Use of Blood-based Biomarkers (BBMs) in Specialty Care Settings. This guideline’s recommendations will be published in early 2025,” Edelmayer said.
 

Availability and Accuracy

Research has shown that amyloid beta and tau protein blood biomarkers — especially a high plasma phosphorylated (p)–tau217 levels — are highly accurate in identifying Alzheimer’s disease in patients with cognitive symptoms attending primary and secondary care clinics.

Several tests targeting plasma p-tau217 are now available for use. They include the PrecivityAD2 blood test from C2N Diagnostics and the Simoa p-Tau 217 Planar Kit and LucentAD p-Tau 217 — both from Quanterix.

In a recent head-to-head comparison of seven leading blood tests for AD pathology, measures of plasma p-tau217, either individually or in combination with other plasma biomarkers, had the strongest relationships with Alzheimer’s disease outcomes.

A recent Swedish study showed that the PrecivityAD2 test had an accuracy of 91% for correctly classifying clinical, biomarker-verified Alzheimer’s disease.

“We’ve been using these blood biomarkers in research for a long time and we’re now taking the jump to start using them in clinic to risk stratify patients,” said Fanny Elahi, MD, PhD, director of fluid biomarker research for the Barbara and Maurice Deane Center for Wellness and Cognitive Health at Icahn Mount Sinai in New York City.

New York’s Mount Sinai Health System is among the first in the northeast to offer blood tests across primary and specialty care settings for early diagnosis of AD and related dementias.

Edelmayer cautioned, “There is no single, stand-alone test to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease today. Blood testing is one piece of the diagnostic process.”

“Currently, physicians use well-established diagnostic tools combined with medical history and other information, including neurological exams, cognitive and functional assessments as well as brain imaging and spinal fluid analysis and blood to make an accurate diagnosis and to understand which patients are eligible for approved treatments,” she said.

There are also emerging biomarkers in the research pipeline, Edelmayer said.

“For example, some researchers think retinal imaging has the potential to detect biological signs of Alzheimer’s disease within certain areas of the eye,” she explained.

“Other emerging biomarkers include examining components in saliva and the skin for signals that may indicate early biological changes in the brain. These biomarkers are still very exploratory, and more research is needed before these tests or biomarkers can be used more routinely to study risk or aid in diagnosis,” Edelmayer said.
 

Ideal Candidates for Alzheimer’s Disease Blood Testing?

Experts agree that blood tests represent a convenient and scalable option to address the anticipated surge in demand for biomarker testing with the availability of disease-modifying treatments. For now, however, they are not for all older adults worried about their memory.

“Current practice should focus on using these blood biomarkers in individuals with cognitive impairment rather than in those with normal cognition or subjective cognitive decline until further research demonstrates effective interventions for individuals considered cognitively normal with elevated levels of amyloid,” the authors of a recent JAMA editorial noted.

At Mount Sinai, “we’re not starting with stone-cold asymptomatic individuals. But ultimately, this is what the blood tests are intended for — screening,” Elahi noted.

She also noted that Mount Sinai has a “very diverse population” — some with young onset cognitive symptoms, so the entry criteria for testing are “very wide.”

“Anyone above age 40 with symptoms can qualify to get a blood test. We do ask at this stage that either the individual report symptoms or someone in their life or their clinician be worried about their cognition or their brain function,” Elahi said.
 

Ethical Considerations, Counseling

Elahi emphasized the importance of counseling patients who come to the clinic seeking an Alzheimer’s disease blood test. This should include how the diagnostic process will unfold and what the next steps are with a given result.

Elahi said patients need to be informed that Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers are still “relatively new,” and a test can help a patient “know the likelihood of having the disease, but it won’t be 100% definitive.”

To ensure the ethical principle of “do no harm,” counseling should ensure that patients are fully prepared for the implications of the test results and ensure that the decision to test aligns with the patient’s readiness and well-being, Elahi said.

Edelmayer said the forthcoming clinical practice guidelines will provide “evidence-based recommendations for physicians to help guide them through the decision-making process around who should be tested and when. In the meantime, the Alzheimer’s Association urges providers to refer to the 2022 appropriate use recommendations for blood tests in clinical practice and trial settings.”

Mielke has served on scientific advisory boards and/or having consulted for Acadia, Biogen, Eisai, LabCorp, Lilly, Merck, PeerView Institute, Roche, Siemens Healthineers, and Sunbird Bio. Edelmayer and Elahi had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With the approval of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies to treat early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, the need for accurate and early diagnosis is crucial.

Blood-based biomarkers offer a promising alternative to amyloid PET scans and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis and are being increasingly used in clinical practice to support an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis.

Recently, an expert workgroup convened by the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer’s Disease published recommendations for the clinical implementation of Alzheimer’s disease blood-based biomarkers.

“Our hope was to provide some recommendations that clinicians could use to develop the best pathways for their clinical practice,” said workgroup co-chair Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
 

Triage and Confirmatory Pathways

The group recommends two implementation pathways for Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers — one for current use for triaging and another for future use to confirm amyloid pathology once blood biomarker tests have reached sufficient performance for this purpose.

In the triage pathway, a negative blood biomarker test would flag individuals unlikely to have detectable brain amyloid pathology. This outcome would prompt clinicians to focus on evaluating non–Alzheimer’s disease-related causes of cognitive impairment, which may streamline the diagnosis of other causes of cognitive impairment, the authors said.

A positive triage blood test would suggest a higher likelihood of amyloid pathology and prompt referral to secondary care for further assessment and consideration for a second, more accurate test, such as amyloid PET or CSF for amyloid confirmation.

In the confirmatory pathway, a positive blood biomarker test result would identify amyloid pathology without the need for a second test, providing a faster route to diagnosis, the authors noted.

Mielke emphasized that these recommendations represent a “first step” and will need to be updated as experiences with the Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers in clinical care increase and additional barriers and facilitators are identified.

“These updates will likely include community-informed approaches that incorporate feedback from patients as well as healthcare providers, alongside results from validation in diverse real-world settings,” said workgroup co-chair Chi Udeh-Momoh, PhD, MSc, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine and the Brain and Mind Institute, Aga Khan University, Nairobi, Kenya.

The Alzheimer’s Association published “appropriate use” recommendations for blood biomarkers in 2022.

“Currently, the Alzheimer’s Association is building an updated library of clinical guidance that distills the scientific evidence using de novo systematic reviews and translates them into clear and actionable recommendations for clinical practice,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, vice president of scientific engagement, Alzheimer’s Association.

“The first major effort with our new process will be the upcoming Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline on the Use of Blood-based Biomarkers (BBMs) in Specialty Care Settings. This guideline’s recommendations will be published in early 2025,” Edelmayer said.
 

Availability and Accuracy

Research has shown that amyloid beta and tau protein blood biomarkers — especially a high plasma phosphorylated (p)–tau217 levels — are highly accurate in identifying Alzheimer’s disease in patients with cognitive symptoms attending primary and secondary care clinics.

Several tests targeting plasma p-tau217 are now available for use. They include the PrecivityAD2 blood test from C2N Diagnostics and the Simoa p-Tau 217 Planar Kit and LucentAD p-Tau 217 — both from Quanterix.

In a recent head-to-head comparison of seven leading blood tests for AD pathology, measures of plasma p-tau217, either individually or in combination with other plasma biomarkers, had the strongest relationships with Alzheimer’s disease outcomes.

A recent Swedish study showed that the PrecivityAD2 test had an accuracy of 91% for correctly classifying clinical, biomarker-verified Alzheimer’s disease.

“We’ve been using these blood biomarkers in research for a long time and we’re now taking the jump to start using them in clinic to risk stratify patients,” said Fanny Elahi, MD, PhD, director of fluid biomarker research for the Barbara and Maurice Deane Center for Wellness and Cognitive Health at Icahn Mount Sinai in New York City.

New York’s Mount Sinai Health System is among the first in the northeast to offer blood tests across primary and specialty care settings for early diagnosis of AD and related dementias.

Edelmayer cautioned, “There is no single, stand-alone test to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease today. Blood testing is one piece of the diagnostic process.”

“Currently, physicians use well-established diagnostic tools combined with medical history and other information, including neurological exams, cognitive and functional assessments as well as brain imaging and spinal fluid analysis and blood to make an accurate diagnosis and to understand which patients are eligible for approved treatments,” she said.

There are also emerging biomarkers in the research pipeline, Edelmayer said.

“For example, some researchers think retinal imaging has the potential to detect biological signs of Alzheimer’s disease within certain areas of the eye,” she explained.

“Other emerging biomarkers include examining components in saliva and the skin for signals that may indicate early biological changes in the brain. These biomarkers are still very exploratory, and more research is needed before these tests or biomarkers can be used more routinely to study risk or aid in diagnosis,” Edelmayer said.
 

Ideal Candidates for Alzheimer’s Disease Blood Testing?

Experts agree that blood tests represent a convenient and scalable option to address the anticipated surge in demand for biomarker testing with the availability of disease-modifying treatments. For now, however, they are not for all older adults worried about their memory.

“Current practice should focus on using these blood biomarkers in individuals with cognitive impairment rather than in those with normal cognition or subjective cognitive decline until further research demonstrates effective interventions for individuals considered cognitively normal with elevated levels of amyloid,” the authors of a recent JAMA editorial noted.

At Mount Sinai, “we’re not starting with stone-cold asymptomatic individuals. But ultimately, this is what the blood tests are intended for — screening,” Elahi noted.

She also noted that Mount Sinai has a “very diverse population” — some with young onset cognitive symptoms, so the entry criteria for testing are “very wide.”

“Anyone above age 40 with symptoms can qualify to get a blood test. We do ask at this stage that either the individual report symptoms or someone in their life or their clinician be worried about their cognition or their brain function,” Elahi said.
 

Ethical Considerations, Counseling

Elahi emphasized the importance of counseling patients who come to the clinic seeking an Alzheimer’s disease blood test. This should include how the diagnostic process will unfold and what the next steps are with a given result.

Elahi said patients need to be informed that Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers are still “relatively new,” and a test can help a patient “know the likelihood of having the disease, but it won’t be 100% definitive.”

To ensure the ethical principle of “do no harm,” counseling should ensure that patients are fully prepared for the implications of the test results and ensure that the decision to test aligns with the patient’s readiness and well-being, Elahi said.

Edelmayer said the forthcoming clinical practice guidelines will provide “evidence-based recommendations for physicians to help guide them through the decision-making process around who should be tested and when. In the meantime, the Alzheimer’s Association urges providers to refer to the 2022 appropriate use recommendations for blood tests in clinical practice and trial settings.”

Mielke has served on scientific advisory boards and/or having consulted for Acadia, Biogen, Eisai, LabCorp, Lilly, Merck, PeerView Institute, Roche, Siemens Healthineers, and Sunbird Bio. Edelmayer and Elahi had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With the approval of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies to treat early-stage Alzheimer’s disease, the need for accurate and early diagnosis is crucial.

Blood-based biomarkers offer a promising alternative to amyloid PET scans and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis and are being increasingly used in clinical practice to support an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis.

Recently, an expert workgroup convened by the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer’s Disease published recommendations for the clinical implementation of Alzheimer’s disease blood-based biomarkers.

“Our hope was to provide some recommendations that clinicians could use to develop the best pathways for their clinical practice,” said workgroup co-chair Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
 

Triage and Confirmatory Pathways

The group recommends two implementation pathways for Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers — one for current use for triaging and another for future use to confirm amyloid pathology once blood biomarker tests have reached sufficient performance for this purpose.

In the triage pathway, a negative blood biomarker test would flag individuals unlikely to have detectable brain amyloid pathology. This outcome would prompt clinicians to focus on evaluating non–Alzheimer’s disease-related causes of cognitive impairment, which may streamline the diagnosis of other causes of cognitive impairment, the authors said.

A positive triage blood test would suggest a higher likelihood of amyloid pathology and prompt referral to secondary care for further assessment and consideration for a second, more accurate test, such as amyloid PET or CSF for amyloid confirmation.

In the confirmatory pathway, a positive blood biomarker test result would identify amyloid pathology without the need for a second test, providing a faster route to diagnosis, the authors noted.

Mielke emphasized that these recommendations represent a “first step” and will need to be updated as experiences with the Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers in clinical care increase and additional barriers and facilitators are identified.

“These updates will likely include community-informed approaches that incorporate feedback from patients as well as healthcare providers, alongside results from validation in diverse real-world settings,” said workgroup co-chair Chi Udeh-Momoh, PhD, MSc, with Wake Forest University School of Medicine and the Brain and Mind Institute, Aga Khan University, Nairobi, Kenya.

The Alzheimer’s Association published “appropriate use” recommendations for blood biomarkers in 2022.

“Currently, the Alzheimer’s Association is building an updated library of clinical guidance that distills the scientific evidence using de novo systematic reviews and translates them into clear and actionable recommendations for clinical practice,” said Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, vice president of scientific engagement, Alzheimer’s Association.

“The first major effort with our new process will be the upcoming Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline on the Use of Blood-based Biomarkers (BBMs) in Specialty Care Settings. This guideline’s recommendations will be published in early 2025,” Edelmayer said.
 

Availability and Accuracy

Research has shown that amyloid beta and tau protein blood biomarkers — especially a high plasma phosphorylated (p)–tau217 levels — are highly accurate in identifying Alzheimer’s disease in patients with cognitive symptoms attending primary and secondary care clinics.

Several tests targeting plasma p-tau217 are now available for use. They include the PrecivityAD2 blood test from C2N Diagnostics and the Simoa p-Tau 217 Planar Kit and LucentAD p-Tau 217 — both from Quanterix.

In a recent head-to-head comparison of seven leading blood tests for AD pathology, measures of plasma p-tau217, either individually or in combination with other plasma biomarkers, had the strongest relationships with Alzheimer’s disease outcomes.

A recent Swedish study showed that the PrecivityAD2 test had an accuracy of 91% for correctly classifying clinical, biomarker-verified Alzheimer’s disease.

“We’ve been using these blood biomarkers in research for a long time and we’re now taking the jump to start using them in clinic to risk stratify patients,” said Fanny Elahi, MD, PhD, director of fluid biomarker research for the Barbara and Maurice Deane Center for Wellness and Cognitive Health at Icahn Mount Sinai in New York City.

New York’s Mount Sinai Health System is among the first in the northeast to offer blood tests across primary and specialty care settings for early diagnosis of AD and related dementias.

Edelmayer cautioned, “There is no single, stand-alone test to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease today. Blood testing is one piece of the diagnostic process.”

“Currently, physicians use well-established diagnostic tools combined with medical history and other information, including neurological exams, cognitive and functional assessments as well as brain imaging and spinal fluid analysis and blood to make an accurate diagnosis and to understand which patients are eligible for approved treatments,” she said.

There are also emerging biomarkers in the research pipeline, Edelmayer said.

“For example, some researchers think retinal imaging has the potential to detect biological signs of Alzheimer’s disease within certain areas of the eye,” she explained.

“Other emerging biomarkers include examining components in saliva and the skin for signals that may indicate early biological changes in the brain. These biomarkers are still very exploratory, and more research is needed before these tests or biomarkers can be used more routinely to study risk or aid in diagnosis,” Edelmayer said.
 

Ideal Candidates for Alzheimer’s Disease Blood Testing?

Experts agree that blood tests represent a convenient and scalable option to address the anticipated surge in demand for biomarker testing with the availability of disease-modifying treatments. For now, however, they are not for all older adults worried about their memory.

“Current practice should focus on using these blood biomarkers in individuals with cognitive impairment rather than in those with normal cognition or subjective cognitive decline until further research demonstrates effective interventions for individuals considered cognitively normal with elevated levels of amyloid,” the authors of a recent JAMA editorial noted.

At Mount Sinai, “we’re not starting with stone-cold asymptomatic individuals. But ultimately, this is what the blood tests are intended for — screening,” Elahi noted.

She also noted that Mount Sinai has a “very diverse population” — some with young onset cognitive symptoms, so the entry criteria for testing are “very wide.”

“Anyone above age 40 with symptoms can qualify to get a blood test. We do ask at this stage that either the individual report symptoms or someone in their life or their clinician be worried about their cognition or their brain function,” Elahi said.
 

Ethical Considerations, Counseling

Elahi emphasized the importance of counseling patients who come to the clinic seeking an Alzheimer’s disease blood test. This should include how the diagnostic process will unfold and what the next steps are with a given result.

Elahi said patients need to be informed that Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers are still “relatively new,” and a test can help a patient “know the likelihood of having the disease, but it won’t be 100% definitive.”

To ensure the ethical principle of “do no harm,” counseling should ensure that patients are fully prepared for the implications of the test results and ensure that the decision to test aligns with the patient’s readiness and well-being, Elahi said.

Edelmayer said the forthcoming clinical practice guidelines will provide “evidence-based recommendations for physicians to help guide them through the decision-making process around who should be tested and when. In the meantime, the Alzheimer’s Association urges providers to refer to the 2022 appropriate use recommendations for blood tests in clinical practice and trial settings.”

Mielke has served on scientific advisory boards and/or having consulted for Acadia, Biogen, Eisai, LabCorp, Lilly, Merck, PeerView Institute, Roche, Siemens Healthineers, and Sunbird Bio. Edelmayer and Elahi had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Remote monitoring of respiratory scores in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) helps predict the best timing for the introduction of bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), results of a retrospective study showed.

The findings, along with those of another study by the same group, suggest that remote monitoring of patients with ALS is a feasible option for both maximizing quality of life and minimizing cost and disruption.

Both studies were presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.

“What we’re trying to do is look for screening tools that we can use when these patients are in the community to see if a specific score transition is associated with a high probability of needing an intervention that would require bringing them in to do gold standard tests,” said study investigator Tefani Perera, MD, a neurology resident at the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada.
 

Optimizing Quality of Life

Tailoring in-person care is particularly important for patients with ALS who often face significant challenges with mobility, Perera said. However, most multidisciplinary ALS clinics schedule in-person follow-ups at regular intervals rather than “as needed.

“These are very long clinic days where they are assessed for one thing after another, even if they don’t need it. So maybe we can actually select for what they need to be assessed for at each specific visit? Life expectancy is not that long for these patients, so we want to make sure their quality of life is optimized.”

For the BiPAP study, the investigators used the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trials database to identify patients with ALS with two or more respiratory assessments on the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R).

The ALSFRS-R is a 12-item questionnaire, which includes three respiratory sub-scores for respiratory insufficiency (RiS), dyspnea (DyS) and orthopnea (OS).

Patients with a baseline RiS sub-score of 4 — meaning no need for BiPAP — were included in the study (n = 3838), with the primary outcome being a drop in RiS sub-score indicating the need for BiPAP.

The median time from baseline to transition to BiPAP was 563 days, with 3.4% of patients reaching this outcome by 3 months.

Results showed the probability of needing BiPAP was significantly associated with baseline DyS and OS scores (P < .0001). Among patients with baseline DyS scores of 3, 2, and 1, the percentages of patients needing BiPAP within 3 months were 5.5%, 8.7%, and 20.1%, respectively. In addition, in patients with baseline OS scores of 3, 2, and 1, the percentages of patients needing BiPAP within 3 months were 9.1%, 12.7%, and 24.2%, respectively.

Regardless of the baseline score, any drop in either of these sub-scores over the study period was also associated with an increased likelihood of requiring BiPAP within 3 months, with a DyS transition from 3 to 2 and an OS transition from 4 to 3 being most notable.

These scores could be used to trigger gold standard assessments for BiPAP, such as nocturnal oximetry, overnight polysomnography, daytime hypercapnia, and forced and slow vital capacities, Perera said. On the other hand, the scores could also help patients and clinicians avoid unnecessary visits.

“When the dyspnea and orthopnea scores are high, they might not need this intervention until 2 years later, so do we even need to bring them in to do these tests or see a respirologist when they don’t actually need it?”

The group’s second study was a systematic review of 26 papers on ALS remote assessment devices and methods, including accelerometers (15.4%), telenursing protocols (3.8%), speech collection apps (26.9%), questionnaires (15.4%), multifactorial sensors (15.4%), and respiratory function monitors (19.2%). Domains of symptoms monitored included speech (12 studies), motor (11 studies), respiratory (11 studies), cardiac (three studies), and bulbar, psychiatric, and autonomic (one study each).

The researchers characterized various remote tools as having potential and concluded that a multidomain approach to symptom monitoring is achievable. They also noted that the majority of studies assessing adherence and patient feedback indicated a favorable response to patient monitoring.

“I work in a resource-rich center, where we have these huge multidisciplinary clinics, and we have the capacity to bring patients back every 3 months, but outside these big centers, in resource-limited settings, to have an ability to track remotely and bring patients in when they really need it is very important,” said Perera.
 

Best of Both Worlds

Ileana Howard, MD, physiatrist and professor of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Washington and medical co-director of the ALS Center of Excellence at VA Puget Sound in Seattle, agreed.

“One of the biggest challenges in ALS care today is ensuring equitable access to high quality care and supports, and telehealth was adopted by the VA early on as a means of doing that,” she said. “Remote monitoring technology is a really key development to help improve that type of care.”

However, she added that it should not be a question of one type of care versus the other. “The ideal care is when we have access to providing both face-to-face and virtual care for our patients so that we can meet their needs and preferences for care,” she said.

“Sometimes, in my experience, patients don’t understand why it’s important to go to an ALS specialty center. In those cases, I’ve been able to make initial contact with those individuals through telehealth and be able to provide education, which, in turn, often results in them making the decision to come to the specialty center once they understand what resources we have to offer.” 

Also commenting on the research, Ghazala Hayat, MD, also endorsed a mixed approach.

“Telehealth is a very good tool that we should use interspersed with in-person visits,” said Hayat, director of the multidisciplinary ALS clinic at St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, and professor of neurology and director of neuromuscular and clinical neurophysiology.

“I think the first few visits should always be in person — you need to connect with the patient,” she said. “But then, once they feel comfortable, remote monitoring is a very good idea, especially later in the disease process, when it becomes really difficult for the family to bring the patient in.” 

The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Howard reported no disclosures. Hayat reported serving as a speaker and in advisory roles for argenx, Alexion, and MTPA. The study was funded by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Remote monitoring of respiratory scores in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) helps predict the best timing for the introduction of bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), results of a retrospective study showed.

The findings, along with those of another study by the same group, suggest that remote monitoring of patients with ALS is a feasible option for both maximizing quality of life and minimizing cost and disruption.

Both studies were presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.

“What we’re trying to do is look for screening tools that we can use when these patients are in the community to see if a specific score transition is associated with a high probability of needing an intervention that would require bringing them in to do gold standard tests,” said study investigator Tefani Perera, MD, a neurology resident at the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada.
 

Optimizing Quality of Life

Tailoring in-person care is particularly important for patients with ALS who often face significant challenges with mobility, Perera said. However, most multidisciplinary ALS clinics schedule in-person follow-ups at regular intervals rather than “as needed.

“These are very long clinic days where they are assessed for one thing after another, even if they don’t need it. So maybe we can actually select for what they need to be assessed for at each specific visit? Life expectancy is not that long for these patients, so we want to make sure their quality of life is optimized.”

For the BiPAP study, the investigators used the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trials database to identify patients with ALS with two or more respiratory assessments on the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R).

The ALSFRS-R is a 12-item questionnaire, which includes three respiratory sub-scores for respiratory insufficiency (RiS), dyspnea (DyS) and orthopnea (OS).

Patients with a baseline RiS sub-score of 4 — meaning no need for BiPAP — were included in the study (n = 3838), with the primary outcome being a drop in RiS sub-score indicating the need for BiPAP.

The median time from baseline to transition to BiPAP was 563 days, with 3.4% of patients reaching this outcome by 3 months.

Results showed the probability of needing BiPAP was significantly associated with baseline DyS and OS scores (P < .0001). Among patients with baseline DyS scores of 3, 2, and 1, the percentages of patients needing BiPAP within 3 months were 5.5%, 8.7%, and 20.1%, respectively. In addition, in patients with baseline OS scores of 3, 2, and 1, the percentages of patients needing BiPAP within 3 months were 9.1%, 12.7%, and 24.2%, respectively.

Regardless of the baseline score, any drop in either of these sub-scores over the study period was also associated with an increased likelihood of requiring BiPAP within 3 months, with a DyS transition from 3 to 2 and an OS transition from 4 to 3 being most notable.

These scores could be used to trigger gold standard assessments for BiPAP, such as nocturnal oximetry, overnight polysomnography, daytime hypercapnia, and forced and slow vital capacities, Perera said. On the other hand, the scores could also help patients and clinicians avoid unnecessary visits.

“When the dyspnea and orthopnea scores are high, they might not need this intervention until 2 years later, so do we even need to bring them in to do these tests or see a respirologist when they don’t actually need it?”

The group’s second study was a systematic review of 26 papers on ALS remote assessment devices and methods, including accelerometers (15.4%), telenursing protocols (3.8%), speech collection apps (26.9%), questionnaires (15.4%), multifactorial sensors (15.4%), and respiratory function monitors (19.2%). Domains of symptoms monitored included speech (12 studies), motor (11 studies), respiratory (11 studies), cardiac (three studies), and bulbar, psychiatric, and autonomic (one study each).

The researchers characterized various remote tools as having potential and concluded that a multidomain approach to symptom monitoring is achievable. They also noted that the majority of studies assessing adherence and patient feedback indicated a favorable response to patient monitoring.

“I work in a resource-rich center, where we have these huge multidisciplinary clinics, and we have the capacity to bring patients back every 3 months, but outside these big centers, in resource-limited settings, to have an ability to track remotely and bring patients in when they really need it is very important,” said Perera.
 

Best of Both Worlds

Ileana Howard, MD, physiatrist and professor of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Washington and medical co-director of the ALS Center of Excellence at VA Puget Sound in Seattle, agreed.

“One of the biggest challenges in ALS care today is ensuring equitable access to high quality care and supports, and telehealth was adopted by the VA early on as a means of doing that,” she said. “Remote monitoring technology is a really key development to help improve that type of care.”

However, she added that it should not be a question of one type of care versus the other. “The ideal care is when we have access to providing both face-to-face and virtual care for our patients so that we can meet their needs and preferences for care,” she said.

“Sometimes, in my experience, patients don’t understand why it’s important to go to an ALS specialty center. In those cases, I’ve been able to make initial contact with those individuals through telehealth and be able to provide education, which, in turn, often results in them making the decision to come to the specialty center once they understand what resources we have to offer.” 

Also commenting on the research, Ghazala Hayat, MD, also endorsed a mixed approach.

“Telehealth is a very good tool that we should use interspersed with in-person visits,” said Hayat, director of the multidisciplinary ALS clinic at St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, and professor of neurology and director of neuromuscular and clinical neurophysiology.

“I think the first few visits should always be in person — you need to connect with the patient,” she said. “But then, once they feel comfortable, remote monitoring is a very good idea, especially later in the disease process, when it becomes really difficult for the family to bring the patient in.” 

The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Howard reported no disclosures. Hayat reported serving as a speaker and in advisory roles for argenx, Alexion, and MTPA. The study was funded by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Remote monitoring of respiratory scores in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) helps predict the best timing for the introduction of bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP), results of a retrospective study showed.

The findings, along with those of another study by the same group, suggest that remote monitoring of patients with ALS is a feasible option for both maximizing quality of life and minimizing cost and disruption.

Both studies were presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.

“What we’re trying to do is look for screening tools that we can use when these patients are in the community to see if a specific score transition is associated with a high probability of needing an intervention that would require bringing them in to do gold standard tests,” said study investigator Tefani Perera, MD, a neurology resident at the University of Calgary, in Alberta, Canada.
 

Optimizing Quality of Life

Tailoring in-person care is particularly important for patients with ALS who often face significant challenges with mobility, Perera said. However, most multidisciplinary ALS clinics schedule in-person follow-ups at regular intervals rather than “as needed.

“These are very long clinic days where they are assessed for one thing after another, even if they don’t need it. So maybe we can actually select for what they need to be assessed for at each specific visit? Life expectancy is not that long for these patients, so we want to make sure their quality of life is optimized.”

For the BiPAP study, the investigators used the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trials database to identify patients with ALS with two or more respiratory assessments on the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R).

The ALSFRS-R is a 12-item questionnaire, which includes three respiratory sub-scores for respiratory insufficiency (RiS), dyspnea (DyS) and orthopnea (OS).

Patients with a baseline RiS sub-score of 4 — meaning no need for BiPAP — were included in the study (n = 3838), with the primary outcome being a drop in RiS sub-score indicating the need for BiPAP.

The median time from baseline to transition to BiPAP was 563 days, with 3.4% of patients reaching this outcome by 3 months.

Results showed the probability of needing BiPAP was significantly associated with baseline DyS and OS scores (P < .0001). Among patients with baseline DyS scores of 3, 2, and 1, the percentages of patients needing BiPAP within 3 months were 5.5%, 8.7%, and 20.1%, respectively. In addition, in patients with baseline OS scores of 3, 2, and 1, the percentages of patients needing BiPAP within 3 months were 9.1%, 12.7%, and 24.2%, respectively.

Regardless of the baseline score, any drop in either of these sub-scores over the study period was also associated with an increased likelihood of requiring BiPAP within 3 months, with a DyS transition from 3 to 2 and an OS transition from 4 to 3 being most notable.

These scores could be used to trigger gold standard assessments for BiPAP, such as nocturnal oximetry, overnight polysomnography, daytime hypercapnia, and forced and slow vital capacities, Perera said. On the other hand, the scores could also help patients and clinicians avoid unnecessary visits.

“When the dyspnea and orthopnea scores are high, they might not need this intervention until 2 years later, so do we even need to bring them in to do these tests or see a respirologist when they don’t actually need it?”

The group’s second study was a systematic review of 26 papers on ALS remote assessment devices and methods, including accelerometers (15.4%), telenursing protocols (3.8%), speech collection apps (26.9%), questionnaires (15.4%), multifactorial sensors (15.4%), and respiratory function monitors (19.2%). Domains of symptoms monitored included speech (12 studies), motor (11 studies), respiratory (11 studies), cardiac (three studies), and bulbar, psychiatric, and autonomic (one study each).

The researchers characterized various remote tools as having potential and concluded that a multidomain approach to symptom monitoring is achievable. They also noted that the majority of studies assessing adherence and patient feedback indicated a favorable response to patient monitoring.

“I work in a resource-rich center, where we have these huge multidisciplinary clinics, and we have the capacity to bring patients back every 3 months, but outside these big centers, in resource-limited settings, to have an ability to track remotely and bring patients in when they really need it is very important,” said Perera.
 

Best of Both Worlds

Ileana Howard, MD, physiatrist and professor of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Washington and medical co-director of the ALS Center of Excellence at VA Puget Sound in Seattle, agreed.

“One of the biggest challenges in ALS care today is ensuring equitable access to high quality care and supports, and telehealth was adopted by the VA early on as a means of doing that,” she said. “Remote monitoring technology is a really key development to help improve that type of care.”

However, she added that it should not be a question of one type of care versus the other. “The ideal care is when we have access to providing both face-to-face and virtual care for our patients so that we can meet their needs and preferences for care,” she said.

“Sometimes, in my experience, patients don’t understand why it’s important to go to an ALS specialty center. In those cases, I’ve been able to make initial contact with those individuals through telehealth and be able to provide education, which, in turn, often results in them making the decision to come to the specialty center once they understand what resources we have to offer.” 

Also commenting on the research, Ghazala Hayat, MD, also endorsed a mixed approach.

“Telehealth is a very good tool that we should use interspersed with in-person visits,” said Hayat, director of the multidisciplinary ALS clinic at St. Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, and professor of neurology and director of neuromuscular and clinical neurophysiology.

“I think the first few visits should always be in person — you need to connect with the patient,” she said. “But then, once they feel comfortable, remote monitoring is a very good idea, especially later in the disease process, when it becomes really difficult for the family to bring the patient in.” 

The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Howard reported no disclosures. Hayat reported serving as a speaker and in advisory roles for argenx, Alexion, and MTPA. The study was funded by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

More than half of the US peer reviewers for four major medical journals received industry payments between 2020-2022, new research shows. Altogether they received more than $64 million in general, non-research payments, with a median payment per physician of $7614. Research payments — including money paid directly to physicians as well as funds related to research for which a physician was registered as a principal investigator — exceeded $1 billion.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified peer reviewers in 2022 for The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine using each journal’s list of reviewers for that year. They included 1962 US-based physicians in their analysis.
• General and research payments made to the peer reviewers between 2020-2022 were extracted from the Open Payments database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 59% of the peer reviewers received industry payments between 2020-2022.
• Payments included $34.31 million in consulting fees and $11.8 million for speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs.
• Male reviewers received a significantly higher median total payment than did female reviewers ($38,959 vs $19,586). General payments were higher for men as well ($8663 vs $4183).
• For comparison, the median general payment to all physicians in 2018 was $216, the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, with the division of urology at the University of Toronto, Canada, was the corresponding author for the study. The article was published online October 10 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

Whether the financial ties were relevant to any of the papers that the peer reviewers critiqued is not known. Some reviewers might have received additional payments from insurance and technology companies that were not captured in this study. The findings might not apply to other journals, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

Wallis disclosed personal fees from Janssen Oncology, Nanostics, Precision Point Specialty, Sesen Bio, AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, EMD Serono, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Science and Medicine Canada, TerSera, and Tolmar. He and some coauthors also disclosed support and grants from foundations and government institutions.

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

TOPLINE: 

More than half of the US peer reviewers for four major medical journals received industry payments between 2020-2022, new research shows. Altogether they received more than $64 million in general, non-research payments, with a median payment per physician of $7614. Research payments — including money paid directly to physicians as well as funds related to research for which a physician was registered as a principal investigator — exceeded $1 billion.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified peer reviewers in 2022 for The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine using each journal’s list of reviewers for that year. They included 1962 US-based physicians in their analysis.
• General and research payments made to the peer reviewers between 2020-2022 were extracted from the Open Payments database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 59% of the peer reviewers received industry payments between 2020-2022.
• Payments included $34.31 million in consulting fees and $11.8 million for speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs.
• Male reviewers received a significantly higher median total payment than did female reviewers ($38,959 vs $19,586). General payments were higher for men as well ($8663 vs $4183).
• For comparison, the median general payment to all physicians in 2018 was $216, the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, with the division of urology at the University of Toronto, Canada, was the corresponding author for the study. The article was published online October 10 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

Whether the financial ties were relevant to any of the papers that the peer reviewers critiqued is not known. Some reviewers might have received additional payments from insurance and technology companies that were not captured in this study. The findings might not apply to other journals, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

Wallis disclosed personal fees from Janssen Oncology, Nanostics, Precision Point Specialty, Sesen Bio, AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, EMD Serono, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Science and Medicine Canada, TerSera, and Tolmar. He and some coauthors also disclosed support and grants from foundations and government institutions.

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

TOPLINE: 

More than half of the US peer reviewers for four major medical journals received industry payments between 2020-2022, new research shows. Altogether they received more than $64 million in general, non-research payments, with a median payment per physician of $7614. Research payments — including money paid directly to physicians as well as funds related to research for which a physician was registered as a principal investigator — exceeded $1 billion.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified peer reviewers in 2022 for The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine using each journal’s list of reviewers for that year. They included 1962 US-based physicians in their analysis.
• General and research payments made to the peer reviewers between 2020-2022 were extracted from the Open Payments database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 59% of the peer reviewers received industry payments between 2020-2022.
• Payments included $34.31 million in consulting fees and $11.8 million for speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs.
• Male reviewers received a significantly higher median total payment than did female reviewers ($38,959 vs $19,586). General payments were higher for men as well ($8663 vs $4183).
• For comparison, the median general payment to all physicians in 2018 was $216, the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, with the division of urology at the University of Toronto, Canada, was the corresponding author for the study. The article was published online October 10 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

Whether the financial ties were relevant to any of the papers that the peer reviewers critiqued is not known. Some reviewers might have received additional payments from insurance and technology companies that were not captured in this study. The findings might not apply to other journals, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

Wallis disclosed personal fees from Janssen Oncology, Nanostics, Precision Point Specialty, Sesen Bio, AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, EMD Serono, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Science and Medicine Canada, TerSera, and Tolmar. He and some coauthors also disclosed support and grants from foundations and government institutions.

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

Words do have power. Names have power. Words are events, they do things, change things. They transform both speaker and hearer ... They feed understanding or emotion back and forth and amplify it. — Ursula K. Le Guin
 

Every medical student should have a class in linguistics. I’m just unsure what it might replace. Maybe physiology? (When was the last time you used Fick’s or Fourier’s Laws anyway?). Even if we don’t supplant any core curriculum, it’s worth noting that we spend more time in our daily work calculating how to communicate things than calculating cardiac outputs. That we can convey so much so consistently and without specific training is a marvel. Making the diagnosis or a plan is often the easy part. The difficulty comes in trying to communicate what we know to patients such that they understand and can act on it.

Linguistics is a broad field. At its essence, it studies how we communicate. It’s fascinating how we use tone, word choice, gestures, syntax, and grammar to explain, reassure, instruct or implore patients. Medical appointments are sometimes high stakes and occur within a huge variety of circumstances. In a single day of clinic, I had a patient with dementia, and one pursuing a PhD in P-Chem. I had English speakers, second language English speakers, and a Vietnamese patient who knew no English. In just one day, I explained things to toddlers and adults, a Black woman from Oklahoma and a Jewish woman from New York. For a brief few minutes, each of them was my partner in a game of medical charades. For each one, I had to figure out how to get them to know what I’m thinking.

Dr. Benabio

I learned of this game of charades concept from a podcast featuring Morten Christiansen, professor of psychology at Cornell University, and professor in Cognitive Science of Language, at Aarhus University, Denmark. The idea is that language can be thought of as a game where speakers constantly improvise based on the topic, each one’s expertise, and the shared understanding. I found this intriguing. In his explanation, grammar and definitions are less important than the mutual understanding of what is being communicated. It helps explain the wide variations of speech even among those speaking the same language. It also flips the idea that brains are designed for language, a concept proposed by linguistic greats such as Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker. Rather, what we call language is just the best solution our brains could create to convey information.

I thought about how each of us instinctively varies the complexity of sentences and tone of voice based on the ability of each patient to understand. Gestures, storytelling and analogies are linguistic tools we use without thinking about them. We’ve a unique communications conundrum in that we often need patients to understand a complex idea, but only have minutes to get them there. We don’t want them to panic. We also don’t want them to be so dispassionate as to not act. To speed things up, we often use a technique known as chunking, short phrases that capture an idea in one bite. For example, “soak and smear” to get atopic patients to moisturize or “scrape and burn” to describe a curettage and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma or “a stick and a burn” before injecting them (I never liked that one). These are pithy, efficient. But they don’t always work.

One afternoon I had a 93-year-old woman with glossodynia. She had dementia and her 96-year-old husband was helping. When I explained how she’d “swish and spit” her magic mouthwash, he looked perplexed. Is she swishing a wand or something? I shook my head, “No” and gestured with my hands palms down, waving back and forth. It is just a mouthwash. She should rinse, then spit it out. I lost that round.

Then a 64-year-old woman whom I had to advise that the pink bump on her arm was a cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor. Do I call it a Merkel cell carcinoma? Do I say, “You know, like the one Jimmy Buffett had?” (Nope, not a good use of storytelling). She wanted to know how she got it. Sun exposure, we think. Or, perhaps a virus. Just how does one explain a virus called MCPyV that is ubiquitous but somehow caused cancer just for you? How do you convey, “This is serious, but you might not die like Jimmy Buffett?” I had to use all my language skills to get this right.

Then there is the Henderson-Hasselbalch problem of linguistics: communicating through a translator. When doing so, I’m cognizant of choosing short, simple sentences. Subject, verb, object. First this, then that. This mitigates what’s lost in translation and reduces waiting for translations (especially when your patient is storytelling in paragraphs). But try doing this with an emotionally wrought condition like alopecia. Finding the fewest words to convey that your FSH and estrogen levels are irrelevant to your telogen effluvium to a Vietnamese speaker is tricky. “Yes, I see your primary care physician ordered these tests. No, the numbers do not matter.” Did that translate as they are normal? Or that they don’t matter because she is 54? Or that they don’t matter to me because I didn’t order them?

When you find yourself exhausted at the day’s end, perhaps you’ll better appreciate how it was not only the graduate level medicine you did today; you’ve practically got a PhD in linguistics as well. You just didn’t realize it.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Words do have power. Names have power. Words are events, they do things, change things. They transform both speaker and hearer ... They feed understanding or emotion back and forth and amplify it. — Ursula K. Le Guin
 

Every medical student should have a class in linguistics. I’m just unsure what it might replace. Maybe physiology? (When was the last time you used Fick’s or Fourier’s Laws anyway?). Even if we don’t supplant any core curriculum, it’s worth noting that we spend more time in our daily work calculating how to communicate things than calculating cardiac outputs. That we can convey so much so consistently and without specific training is a marvel. Making the diagnosis or a plan is often the easy part. The difficulty comes in trying to communicate what we know to patients such that they understand and can act on it.

Linguistics is a broad field. At its essence, it studies how we communicate. It’s fascinating how we use tone, word choice, gestures, syntax, and grammar to explain, reassure, instruct or implore patients. Medical appointments are sometimes high stakes and occur within a huge variety of circumstances. In a single day of clinic, I had a patient with dementia, and one pursuing a PhD in P-Chem. I had English speakers, second language English speakers, and a Vietnamese patient who knew no English. In just one day, I explained things to toddlers and adults, a Black woman from Oklahoma and a Jewish woman from New York. For a brief few minutes, each of them was my partner in a game of medical charades. For each one, I had to figure out how to get them to know what I’m thinking.

Dr. Benabio

I learned of this game of charades concept from a podcast featuring Morten Christiansen, professor of psychology at Cornell University, and professor in Cognitive Science of Language, at Aarhus University, Denmark. The idea is that language can be thought of as a game where speakers constantly improvise based on the topic, each one’s expertise, and the shared understanding. I found this intriguing. In his explanation, grammar and definitions are less important than the mutual understanding of what is being communicated. It helps explain the wide variations of speech even among those speaking the same language. It also flips the idea that brains are designed for language, a concept proposed by linguistic greats such as Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker. Rather, what we call language is just the best solution our brains could create to convey information.

I thought about how each of us instinctively varies the complexity of sentences and tone of voice based on the ability of each patient to understand. Gestures, storytelling and analogies are linguistic tools we use without thinking about them. We’ve a unique communications conundrum in that we often need patients to understand a complex idea, but only have minutes to get them there. We don’t want them to panic. We also don’t want them to be so dispassionate as to not act. To speed things up, we often use a technique known as chunking, short phrases that capture an idea in one bite. For example, “soak and smear” to get atopic patients to moisturize or “scrape and burn” to describe a curettage and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma or “a stick and a burn” before injecting them (I never liked that one). These are pithy, efficient. But they don’t always work.

One afternoon I had a 93-year-old woman with glossodynia. She had dementia and her 96-year-old husband was helping. When I explained how she’d “swish and spit” her magic mouthwash, he looked perplexed. Is she swishing a wand or something? I shook my head, “No” and gestured with my hands palms down, waving back and forth. It is just a mouthwash. She should rinse, then spit it out. I lost that round.

Then a 64-year-old woman whom I had to advise that the pink bump on her arm was a cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor. Do I call it a Merkel cell carcinoma? Do I say, “You know, like the one Jimmy Buffett had?” (Nope, not a good use of storytelling). She wanted to know how she got it. Sun exposure, we think. Or, perhaps a virus. Just how does one explain a virus called MCPyV that is ubiquitous but somehow caused cancer just for you? How do you convey, “This is serious, but you might not die like Jimmy Buffett?” I had to use all my language skills to get this right.

Then there is the Henderson-Hasselbalch problem of linguistics: communicating through a translator. When doing so, I’m cognizant of choosing short, simple sentences. Subject, verb, object. First this, then that. This mitigates what’s lost in translation and reduces waiting for translations (especially when your patient is storytelling in paragraphs). But try doing this with an emotionally wrought condition like alopecia. Finding the fewest words to convey that your FSH and estrogen levels are irrelevant to your telogen effluvium to a Vietnamese speaker is tricky. “Yes, I see your primary care physician ordered these tests. No, the numbers do not matter.” Did that translate as they are normal? Or that they don’t matter because she is 54? Or that they don’t matter to me because I didn’t order them?

When you find yourself exhausted at the day’s end, perhaps you’ll better appreciate how it was not only the graduate level medicine you did today; you’ve practically got a PhD in linguistics as well. You just didn’t realize it.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Words do have power. Names have power. Words are events, they do things, change things. They transform both speaker and hearer ... They feed understanding or emotion back and forth and amplify it. — Ursula K. Le Guin
 

Every medical student should have a class in linguistics. I’m just unsure what it might replace. Maybe physiology? (When was the last time you used Fick’s or Fourier’s Laws anyway?). Even if we don’t supplant any core curriculum, it’s worth noting that we spend more time in our daily work calculating how to communicate things than calculating cardiac outputs. That we can convey so much so consistently and without specific training is a marvel. Making the diagnosis or a plan is often the easy part. The difficulty comes in trying to communicate what we know to patients such that they understand and can act on it.

Linguistics is a broad field. At its essence, it studies how we communicate. It’s fascinating how we use tone, word choice, gestures, syntax, and grammar to explain, reassure, instruct or implore patients. Medical appointments are sometimes high stakes and occur within a huge variety of circumstances. In a single day of clinic, I had a patient with dementia, and one pursuing a PhD in P-Chem. I had English speakers, second language English speakers, and a Vietnamese patient who knew no English. In just one day, I explained things to toddlers and adults, a Black woman from Oklahoma and a Jewish woman from New York. For a brief few minutes, each of them was my partner in a game of medical charades. For each one, I had to figure out how to get them to know what I’m thinking.

Dr. Benabio

I learned of this game of charades concept from a podcast featuring Morten Christiansen, professor of psychology at Cornell University, and professor in Cognitive Science of Language, at Aarhus University, Denmark. The idea is that language can be thought of as a game where speakers constantly improvise based on the topic, each one’s expertise, and the shared understanding. I found this intriguing. In his explanation, grammar and definitions are less important than the mutual understanding of what is being communicated. It helps explain the wide variations of speech even among those speaking the same language. It also flips the idea that brains are designed for language, a concept proposed by linguistic greats such as Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker. Rather, what we call language is just the best solution our brains could create to convey information.

I thought about how each of us instinctively varies the complexity of sentences and tone of voice based on the ability of each patient to understand. Gestures, storytelling and analogies are linguistic tools we use without thinking about them. We’ve a unique communications conundrum in that we often need patients to understand a complex idea, but only have minutes to get them there. We don’t want them to panic. We also don’t want them to be so dispassionate as to not act. To speed things up, we often use a technique known as chunking, short phrases that capture an idea in one bite. For example, “soak and smear” to get atopic patients to moisturize or “scrape and burn” to describe a curettage and electrodesiccation of a basal cell carcinoma or “a stick and a burn” before injecting them (I never liked that one). These are pithy, efficient. But they don’t always work.

One afternoon I had a 93-year-old woman with glossodynia. She had dementia and her 96-year-old husband was helping. When I explained how she’d “swish and spit” her magic mouthwash, he looked perplexed. Is she swishing a wand or something? I shook my head, “No” and gestured with my hands palms down, waving back and forth. It is just a mouthwash. She should rinse, then spit it out. I lost that round.

Then a 64-year-old woman whom I had to advise that the pink bump on her arm was a cutaneous neuroendocrine tumor. Do I call it a Merkel cell carcinoma? Do I say, “You know, like the one Jimmy Buffett had?” (Nope, not a good use of storytelling). She wanted to know how she got it. Sun exposure, we think. Or, perhaps a virus. Just how does one explain a virus called MCPyV that is ubiquitous but somehow caused cancer just for you? How do you convey, “This is serious, but you might not die like Jimmy Buffett?” I had to use all my language skills to get this right.

Then there is the Henderson-Hasselbalch problem of linguistics: communicating through a translator. When doing so, I’m cognizant of choosing short, simple sentences. Subject, verb, object. First this, then that. This mitigates what’s lost in translation and reduces waiting for translations (especially when your patient is storytelling in paragraphs). But try doing this with an emotionally wrought condition like alopecia. Finding the fewest words to convey that your FSH and estrogen levels are irrelevant to your telogen effluvium to a Vietnamese speaker is tricky. “Yes, I see your primary care physician ordered these tests. No, the numbers do not matter.” Did that translate as they are normal? Or that they don’t matter because she is 54? Or that they don’t matter to me because I didn’t order them?

When you find yourself exhausted at the day’s end, perhaps you’ll better appreciate how it was not only the graduate level medicine you did today; you’ve practically got a PhD in linguistics as well. You just didn’t realize it.

Dr. Benabio is chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to access@webmd.net.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to access@webmd.net.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to access@webmd.net.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Many patients use cannabis to manage their cancer-related symptoms. However, research indicates that patients often do so without speaking to their oncologists first, and oncologists may be hesitant to broach the topic with their patients.

Updated guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) on the use of cannabis and cannabinoids in adults with cancer stress that it’s an important conversation to have.

According to the ASCO expert panel, access to and use of cannabis alongside cancer care have outpaced the science on evidence-based indications, and overall high-quality data on the effects of cannabis during cancer care are lacking. While several observational studies support cannabis use to help ease chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, the literature remains more divided on other potential benefits, such as alleviating cancer pain and sleep problems, and some evidence points to potential downsides of cannabis use.

Oncologists should “absolutely talk to patients” about cannabis, Brooke Worster, MD, medical director for the Master of Science in Medical Cannabis Science & Business program at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, told Medscape Medical News.

“Patients are interested, and they are going to find access to information. As a medical professional, it’s our job to help guide them through these spaces in a safe, nonjudgmental way.”

But, Worster noted, oncologists don’t have to be experts on cannabis to begin the conversation with patients.

So, “let yourself off the hook,” Worster urged.

Plus, avoiding the conversation won’t stop patients from using cannabis. In a recent study, Worster and her colleagues found that nearly one third of patients at 12 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers had used cannabis since their diagnosis — most often for sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and anxiety. Most (60%) felt somewhat or extremely comfortable talking to their healthcare provider about it, but only 21.5% said they had done so. Even fewer — about 10% — had talked to their treating oncologist.

Because patients may not discuss cannabis use, it’s especially important for oncologists to open up a line of communication, said Worster, also the enterprise director of supportive oncology at the Thomas Jefferson University.
 

Evidence on Cannabis During Cancer Care

A substantial proportion of people with cancer believe cannabis can help manage cancer-related symptoms.

In Worster’s recent survey study, regardless of whether patients had used cannabis, almost 90% of those surveyed reported a perceived benefit. Although 65% also reported perceived risks for cannabis use, including difficulty concentrating, lung damage, and impaired memory, the perceived benefits outweighed the risks.

Despite generally positive perceptions, the overall literature on the benefits of cannabis in patients with cancer paints a less clear picture.

The ASCO guidelines, which were based on 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies, reported that cannabis can improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens, but that there is no clear evidence of benefit or harm for other supportive care outcomes.

The “certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low,” the ASCO authors wrote.

The ASCO experts explained that, outside the context of a clinical trial, the evidence is not sufficient to recommend cannabis or cannabinoids for managing cancer pain, sleep issues, appetite loss, or anxiety and depression. For these outcomes, some studies indicate a benefit, while others don’t.

Real-world data from a large registry study, for instance, have indicated that medical cannabis is “a safe and effective complementary treatment for pain relief in patients with cancer.” However, a 2020 meta-analysis found that, in studies with a low risk for bias, adding cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain in adults with advanced cancer.

There can be downsides to cannabis use, too. In one recent study, some patients reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared with those who didn’t use cannabis. Another study found that oral cannabis was associated with “bothersome” side effects, including sedation, dizziness, and transient anxiety.

The ASCO guidelines also made it clear that cannabis or cannabinoids should not be used as cancer-directed treatment, outside of a clinical trial.
 

Talking to Patients About Cannabis

Given the level of evidence and patient interest in cannabis, it is important for oncologists to raise the topic of cannabis use with their patients.

To help inform decision-making and approaches to care, the ASCO guidelines suggest that oncologists can guide care themselves or direct patients to appropriate “unbiased, evidence-based” resources. For those who use cannabis or cannabinoids outside of evidence-based indications or clinician recommendations, it’s important to explore patients’ goals, educate them, and try to minimize harm.

One strategy for broaching the topic, Worster suggested, is to simply ask patients if they have tried or considered trying cannabis to control symptoms like nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, or cancer pain.

The conversation with patients should then include an overview of the potential benefits and potential risks for cannabis use as well as risk reduction strategies, Worster noted.

But “approach it in an open and nonjudgmental frame of mind,” she said. “Just have a conversation.”

Discussing the formulation and concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) in products matters as well.

Will the product be inhaled, ingested, or topical? Inhaled cannabis is not ideal but is sometimes what patients have access to, Worster explained. Inhaled formulations tend to have faster onset, which might be preferable for treating chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, whereas edible formulations may take a while to start working.

It’s also important to warn patients about taking too much, she said, explaining that inhaling THC at higher doses can increase the risk for cardiovascular effects, anxiety, paranoia, panic, and psychosis.

CBD, on the other hand, is anti-inflammatory, but early data suggest it may blunt immune responses in high doses and should be used cautiously by patients receiving immunotherapy.

Worster noted that as laws change and the science advances, new cannabis products and formulations will emerge, as will artificial intelligence tools for helping to guide patients and clinicians in optimal use of cannabis for cancer care. State websites are a particularly helpful tool for providing state-specific medical education related to cannabis laws and use, as well, she said.

The bottom line, she said, is that talking to patients about the ins and outs of cannabis use “really matters.”

Worster disclosed that she is a medical consultant for EO Care.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — At a pathophysiological level, juvenile myasthenia gravis (MG) seems to be identical to the adult form, neuromuscular specialists learned. But there are still important differences between children and their elders that affect pediatric care.

For example, “we have to think a little bit differently about the side effect profiles of the medications and their toxicity because children may react to medications differently,” said Matthew Ginsberg, MD, a pediatric neurologist based in Akron, Ohio, in a presentation at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.

And then there’s the matter of adherence. “It’s hard to get adults to take medication, but a teenager is sometimes an exceptional challenge,” Ginsberg said.
 

Case In Point: A 13-Year-Old With MG

Pediatric MG is rare. Cases in children are estimated to account for 10% of MG cases diagnosed each year. According to a 2020 report, “the majority will present with ptosis and a variable degree of ophthalmoplegia [paralysis of eye muscles].”

Ginsberg highlighted a case of a 13-year-old girl who’d been healthy but developed fatigable ptosis and mild restriction of extraocular movements. The patient’s acetylcholine receptor antibodies were very elevated, but she didn’t have MuSK antibodies.

“This isn’t a diagnostic conundrum. She has autoimmune myasthenia gravis with ocular manifestations,” Ginsberg said. “For someone like this, whether it’s an adult or a child, many people would start symptomatic treatment with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor like pyridostigmine.”

The use of the drug in children is similar to that in adults, he said, although weight-based dosing is used. “Usually it’s around 3-7 mg/kg/d, but it’s still very individualized based on patient response.” The timing of symptoms can affect the distribution of doses throughout the day, he said.

“There are extended-release formulations of the medication, and I think some people use them more than I do,” he said. “The side effects are basically similar to adults. Most of the patients I have on it tolerate it really well and don’t have a lot of the muscarinic side effects that you would expect.”
 

Consider Prescription Eye Drops for Ptosis

Alpha-1A agonists oxymetazoline and apraclonidine in the form of topical eye drops can help with ptosis. “They potentially avoid some of the systemic toxicity of the other medications,” Ginsberg said. “So they might be an option if you’re really just trying to target ptosis as a symptom.”

However, it can be difficult to get insurers to cover these medications, he said.

The 13-year-old patient initially improved but developed difficulty walking. “Her hands began to feel heavy, and she had difficulty chewing and nasal regurgitation. On her exam, she still had fatigable ptosis plus hypernasal speech and generalized weakness. At this point, we’re starting to see that she has generalized myasthenia gravis that may be an impending crisis.”
 

The Young Patient Worsens. Now What?

The patient was admitted and given intravenous immunoglobulin at 2 g/kg over a couple days. But her symptoms worsened following initial improvement.

Glucocorticoids can play a larger role in treatment at this stage, and the patient was initially on prednisone. But there are reasons for caution, including effects on bone growth and interference with live vaccines.

However, live vaccines aren’t common in children, with the exception of the MMRV vaccine, he said. “It’s worth noting that you can give that second dose as early as 3 months after the initial one, so most patients really should be able to complete a course before they start on immunosuppression,” he said.

Another option is immunotherapy. “There’s a really large menu of options for immunotherapy in myasthenia gravis right now,” Ginsberg said. “It’s great that we have all these options, but it adds to the complexity.”

Rituximab may be considered based on early data, he said. And thymectomy — removal of the thymus gland — should be considered early.
 

Don’t Neglect Supportive Care

Ginsberg urged colleagues to consider supportive care measures. Advocacy groups such as the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America can help with weight management and diet/exercise counseling, especially in patients taking glucocorticoids.

He added that “school accommodations are very important in this age group. They might need a plan, for example, to have modified gym class or an excuse not to carry a book bag between classes.”

How did the 13-year-old do? She underwent thymectomy, and her disease remained stable after 6 months. “Her rituximab was discontinued,” Ginsberg said. “She considered participating in a clinical trial but then started seeing improvements. About a year after the thymectomy, she just stopped her steroids on her own, and she was fine.”

Ginsberg had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — At a pathophysiological level, juvenile myasthenia gravis (MG) seems to be identical to the adult form, neuromuscular specialists learned. But there are still important differences between children and their elders that affect pediatric care.

For example, “we have to think a little bit differently about the side effect profiles of the medications and their toxicity because children may react to medications differently,” said Matthew Ginsberg, MD, a pediatric neurologist based in Akron, Ohio, in a presentation at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.

And then there’s the matter of adherence. “It’s hard to get adults to take medication, but a teenager is sometimes an exceptional challenge,” Ginsberg said.
 

Case In Point: A 13-Year-Old With MG

Pediatric MG is rare. Cases in children are estimated to account for 10% of MG cases diagnosed each year. According to a 2020 report, “the majority will present with ptosis and a variable degree of ophthalmoplegia [paralysis of eye muscles].”

Ginsberg highlighted a case of a 13-year-old girl who’d been healthy but developed fatigable ptosis and mild restriction of extraocular movements. The patient’s acetylcholine receptor antibodies were very elevated, but she didn’t have MuSK antibodies.

“This isn’t a diagnostic conundrum. She has autoimmune myasthenia gravis with ocular manifestations,” Ginsberg said. “For someone like this, whether it’s an adult or a child, many people would start symptomatic treatment with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor like pyridostigmine.”

The use of the drug in children is similar to that in adults, he said, although weight-based dosing is used. “Usually it’s around 3-7 mg/kg/d, but it’s still very individualized based on patient response.” The timing of symptoms can affect the distribution of doses throughout the day, he said.

“There are extended-release formulations of the medication, and I think some people use them more than I do,” he said. “The side effects are basically similar to adults. Most of the patients I have on it tolerate it really well and don’t have a lot of the muscarinic side effects that you would expect.”
 

Consider Prescription Eye Drops for Ptosis

Alpha-1A agonists oxymetazoline and apraclonidine in the form of topical eye drops can help with ptosis. “They potentially avoid some of the systemic toxicity of the other medications,” Ginsberg said. “So they might be an option if you’re really just trying to target ptosis as a symptom.”

However, it can be difficult to get insurers to cover these medications, he said.

The 13-year-old patient initially improved but developed difficulty walking. “Her hands began to feel heavy, and she had difficulty chewing and nasal regurgitation. On her exam, she still had fatigable ptosis plus hypernasal speech and generalized weakness. At this point, we’re starting to see that she has generalized myasthenia gravis that may be an impending crisis.”
 

The Young Patient Worsens. Now What?

The patient was admitted and given intravenous immunoglobulin at 2 g/kg over a couple days. But her symptoms worsened following initial improvement.

Glucocorticoids can play a larger role in treatment at this stage, and the patient was initially on prednisone. But there are reasons for caution, including effects on bone growth and interference with live vaccines.

However, live vaccines aren’t common in children, with the exception of the MMRV vaccine, he said. “It’s worth noting that you can give that second dose as early as 3 months after the initial one, so most patients really should be able to complete a course before they start on immunosuppression,” he said.

Another option is immunotherapy. “There’s a really large menu of options for immunotherapy in myasthenia gravis right now,” Ginsberg said. “It’s great that we have all these options, but it adds to the complexity.”

Rituximab may be considered based on early data, he said. And thymectomy — removal of the thymus gland — should be considered early.
 

Don’t Neglect Supportive Care

Ginsberg urged colleagues to consider supportive care measures. Advocacy groups such as the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America can help with weight management and diet/exercise counseling, especially in patients taking glucocorticoids.

He added that “school accommodations are very important in this age group. They might need a plan, for example, to have modified gym class or an excuse not to carry a book bag between classes.”

How did the 13-year-old do? She underwent thymectomy, and her disease remained stable after 6 months. “Her rituximab was discontinued,” Ginsberg said. “She considered participating in a clinical trial but then started seeing improvements. About a year after the thymectomy, she just stopped her steroids on her own, and she was fine.”

Ginsberg had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — At a pathophysiological level, juvenile myasthenia gravis (MG) seems to be identical to the adult form, neuromuscular specialists learned. But there are still important differences between children and their elders that affect pediatric care.

For example, “we have to think a little bit differently about the side effect profiles of the medications and their toxicity because children may react to medications differently,” said Matthew Ginsberg, MD, a pediatric neurologist based in Akron, Ohio, in a presentation at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.

And then there’s the matter of adherence. “It’s hard to get adults to take medication, but a teenager is sometimes an exceptional challenge,” Ginsberg said.
 

Case In Point: A 13-Year-Old With MG

Pediatric MG is rare. Cases in children are estimated to account for 10% of MG cases diagnosed each year. According to a 2020 report, “the majority will present with ptosis and a variable degree of ophthalmoplegia [paralysis of eye muscles].”

Ginsberg highlighted a case of a 13-year-old girl who’d been healthy but developed fatigable ptosis and mild restriction of extraocular movements. The patient’s acetylcholine receptor antibodies were very elevated, but she didn’t have MuSK antibodies.

“This isn’t a diagnostic conundrum. She has autoimmune myasthenia gravis with ocular manifestations,” Ginsberg said. “For someone like this, whether it’s an adult or a child, many people would start symptomatic treatment with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor like pyridostigmine.”

The use of the drug in children is similar to that in adults, he said, although weight-based dosing is used. “Usually it’s around 3-7 mg/kg/d, but it’s still very individualized based on patient response.” The timing of symptoms can affect the distribution of doses throughout the day, he said.

“There are extended-release formulations of the medication, and I think some people use them more than I do,” he said. “The side effects are basically similar to adults. Most of the patients I have on it tolerate it really well and don’t have a lot of the muscarinic side effects that you would expect.”
 

Consider Prescription Eye Drops for Ptosis

Alpha-1A agonists oxymetazoline and apraclonidine in the form of topical eye drops can help with ptosis. “They potentially avoid some of the systemic toxicity of the other medications,” Ginsberg said. “So they might be an option if you’re really just trying to target ptosis as a symptom.”

However, it can be difficult to get insurers to cover these medications, he said.

The 13-year-old patient initially improved but developed difficulty walking. “Her hands began to feel heavy, and she had difficulty chewing and nasal regurgitation. On her exam, she still had fatigable ptosis plus hypernasal speech and generalized weakness. At this point, we’re starting to see that she has generalized myasthenia gravis that may be an impending crisis.”
 

The Young Patient Worsens. Now What?

The patient was admitted and given intravenous immunoglobulin at 2 g/kg over a couple days. But her symptoms worsened following initial improvement.

Glucocorticoids can play a larger role in treatment at this stage, and the patient was initially on prednisone. But there are reasons for caution, including effects on bone growth and interference with live vaccines.

However, live vaccines aren’t common in children, with the exception of the MMRV vaccine, he said. “It’s worth noting that you can give that second dose as early as 3 months after the initial one, so most patients really should be able to complete a course before they start on immunosuppression,” he said.

Another option is immunotherapy. “There’s a really large menu of options for immunotherapy in myasthenia gravis right now,” Ginsberg said. “It’s great that we have all these options, but it adds to the complexity.”

Rituximab may be considered based on early data, he said. And thymectomy — removal of the thymus gland — should be considered early.
 

Don’t Neglect Supportive Care

Ginsberg urged colleagues to consider supportive care measures. Advocacy groups such as the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America can help with weight management and diet/exercise counseling, especially in patients taking glucocorticoids.

He added that “school accommodations are very important in this age group. They might need a plan, for example, to have modified gym class or an excuse not to carry a book bag between classes.”

How did the 13-year-old do? She underwent thymectomy, and her disease remained stable after 6 months. “Her rituximab was discontinued,” Ginsberg said. “She considered participating in a clinical trial but then started seeing improvements. About a year after the thymectomy, she just stopped her steroids on her own, and she was fine.”

Ginsberg had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved foscarbidopa and foslevodopa (Vyalev, AbbVie), a solution of carbidopa and levodopa prodrugs for 24-hour continuous subcutaneous infusion, for the treatment of motor fluctuations in adults with advanced Parkinson’s disease. 

Due to the progressive nature of Parkinson’s disease, “oral medications are eventually no longer as effective at motor symptom control and surgical treatment may be required. This new, non-surgical regimen provides continuous delivery of levodopa morning, day, and night,” Robert A. Hauser, MD, MBA, director of the Parkinson’s and Movement Disorder Center at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in a news release. 

The FDA approval was supported by results of a 12-week, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous infusion foscarbidopa/foslevodopa in adults with advanced Parkinson’s disease compared with oral immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa. 

The study showed that patients treated with foscarbidopa/foslevodopa had superior improvement in motor fluctuations, with increased “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia and decreased “off” time, compared with peers receiving oral immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa.

At week 12, the increase in “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia was 2.72 hours for foscarbidopa/foslevodopa continuous infusion versus 0.97 hours for carbidopa/levodopa (P =.0083). 

Improvements in “on” time were observed as early as the first week and persisted throughout the 12 weeks.

The approval of foscarbidopa/foslevodopa for advanced Parkinson’s disease was also supported by a 52-week, open-label study which evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of the drug.

Most adverse reactions with foscarbidopa/foslevodopa were non-serious and mild or moderate in severity. The most frequent adverse reactions were infusion site events, hallucinations, and dyskinesia.

Full prescribing information is available online. 

AbbVie said coverage for Medicare patients is expected in the second half of 2025.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved foscarbidopa and foslevodopa (Vyalev, AbbVie), a solution of carbidopa and levodopa prodrugs for 24-hour continuous subcutaneous infusion, for the treatment of motor fluctuations in adults with advanced Parkinson’s disease. 

Due to the progressive nature of Parkinson’s disease, “oral medications are eventually no longer as effective at motor symptom control and surgical treatment may be required. This new, non-surgical regimen provides continuous delivery of levodopa morning, day, and night,” Robert A. Hauser, MD, MBA, director of the Parkinson’s and Movement Disorder Center at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in a news release. 

The FDA approval was supported by results of a 12-week, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous infusion foscarbidopa/foslevodopa in adults with advanced Parkinson’s disease compared with oral immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa. 

The study showed that patients treated with foscarbidopa/foslevodopa had superior improvement in motor fluctuations, with increased “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia and decreased “off” time, compared with peers receiving oral immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa.

At week 12, the increase in “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia was 2.72 hours for foscarbidopa/foslevodopa continuous infusion versus 0.97 hours for carbidopa/levodopa (P =.0083). 

Improvements in “on” time were observed as early as the first week and persisted throughout the 12 weeks.

The approval of foscarbidopa/foslevodopa for advanced Parkinson’s disease was also supported by a 52-week, open-label study which evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of the drug.

Most adverse reactions with foscarbidopa/foslevodopa were non-serious and mild or moderate in severity. The most frequent adverse reactions were infusion site events, hallucinations, and dyskinesia.

Full prescribing information is available online. 

AbbVie said coverage for Medicare patients is expected in the second half of 2025.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved foscarbidopa and foslevodopa (Vyalev, AbbVie), a solution of carbidopa and levodopa prodrugs for 24-hour continuous subcutaneous infusion, for the treatment of motor fluctuations in adults with advanced Parkinson’s disease. 

Due to the progressive nature of Parkinson’s disease, “oral medications are eventually no longer as effective at motor symptom control and surgical treatment may be required. This new, non-surgical regimen provides continuous delivery of levodopa morning, day, and night,” Robert A. Hauser, MD, MBA, director of the Parkinson’s and Movement Disorder Center at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in a news release. 

The FDA approval was supported by results of a 12-week, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous infusion foscarbidopa/foslevodopa in adults with advanced Parkinson’s disease compared with oral immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa. 

The study showed that patients treated with foscarbidopa/foslevodopa had superior improvement in motor fluctuations, with increased “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia and decreased “off” time, compared with peers receiving oral immediate-release carbidopa/levodopa.

At week 12, the increase in “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia was 2.72 hours for foscarbidopa/foslevodopa continuous infusion versus 0.97 hours for carbidopa/levodopa (P =.0083). 

Improvements in “on” time were observed as early as the first week and persisted throughout the 12 weeks.

The approval of foscarbidopa/foslevodopa for advanced Parkinson’s disease was also supported by a 52-week, open-label study which evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of the drug.

Most adverse reactions with foscarbidopa/foslevodopa were non-serious and mild or moderate in severity. The most frequent adverse reactions were infusion site events, hallucinations, and dyskinesia.

Full prescribing information is available online. 

AbbVie said coverage for Medicare patients is expected in the second half of 2025.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Diagnostic errors are common in hospitals and are largely preventable, according to a new observational study led by Anuj K. Dalal, MD, from the Division of General Internal Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

Dalal and his colleagues found that 1 in 14 general medicine patients (7%) suffer harm due to diagnostic errors, and up to 85% of these cases could be prevented.
 

Few Studies on Diagnostic Errors

The study found that adverse event surveillance in hospital underestimated the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors.

“It is difficult to quantify and characterize diagnostic errors, which have been studied less than medication errors,” Micaela La Regina, MD, an internist and head of the Clinical Governance and Risk Management Unit at ASL 5 in La Spezia, Italy, told Univadis Italy. “Generally, it is estimated that around 50% of diagnostic errors are preventable, but the authors of this study went beyond simply observing the hospital admission period and followed their sample for 90 days after discharge. Their findings will need to be verified in other studies, but they seem convincing.”

The researchers in Boston selected a random sample of 675 hospital patients from a total of 9147 eligible cases who received general medical care between July 2019 and September 2021, excluding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-December 2020). They retrospectively reviewed the patients’ electronic health records using a structured method to evaluate the diagnostic process for potential errors and then estimated the impact and severity of any harm.

Cases sampled were those featuring transfer to intensive care more than 24 hours after admission (100% of 130 cases), death within 90 days of hospital admission or after discharge (38.5% of 141 cases), complex clinical problems without transfer to intensive care or death within 90 days of admission (7% of 298 cases), and 2.4% of 106 cases without high-risk criteria.

Each case was reviewed by two experts trained in the use of diagnostic error evaluation and research taxonomy, modified for acute care. Harm was classified as mild, moderate, severe, or fatal. The review assessed whether diagnostic error contributed to the harm and whether it was preventable. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainties regarding the diagnostic error or its impact were further examined by an expert panel.
 

Most Frequent Situations

Among all the cases examined, diagnostic errors were identified in 160 instances in 154 patients. The most frequent situations with diagnostic errors involved transfer to intensive care (54 cases), death within 90 days (34 cases), and complex clinical problems (52 cases). Diagnostic errors causing harm were found in 84 cases (82 patients), of which 37 (28.5%) occurred in those transferred to intensive care; 18 (13%) among patients who died within 90 days; 23 (8%) among patients with complex clinical issues; and 6 (6%) in low-risk cases.

The severity of harm was categorized as minor in 5 cases (6%), moderate in 36 (43%), major in 25 (30%), and fatal in 18 cases (21.5%). Overall, the researchers estimated that the proportion of harmful, preventable diagnostic errors with serious harm in general medicine patients was slightly more than 7%, 6%, and 1%, respectively.
 

Most Frequent Diagnoses

The most common diagnoses associated with diagnostic errors in the study included heart failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, altered mental state, abdominal pain, and hypoxemia. Dalal and colleagues emphasize the need for more attention to diagnostic error analysis, including the adoption of artificial intelligence–based tools for medical record screening.

“The technological approach, with alert-based systems, can certainly be helpful, but more attention must also be paid to continuous training and the well-being of healthcare workers. It is also crucial to encourage greater listening to caregivers and patients,” said La Regina. She noted that in the past, a focus on error prevention has often led to an increased workload and administrative burden on healthcare workers. However, the well-being of healthcare workers is key to ensuring patient safety.

“Countermeasures to reduce diagnostic errors require a multimodal approach, targeting professionals, the healthcare system, and organizational aspects, because even waiting lists are a critical factor,” she said. As a clinical risk expert, she recently proposed an adaptation of the value-based medicine formula in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care to include healthcare professionals’ care experience as one of the elements that contribute to determining high-value healthcare interventions. “Experiments are already underway to reimburse healthcare costs based on this formula, which also allows the assessment of the value of skills and expertise acquired by healthcare workers,” concluded La Regina.
 

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

Diagnostic errors are common in hospitals and are largely preventable, according to a new observational study led by Anuj K. Dalal, MD, from the Division of General Internal Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

Dalal and his colleagues found that 1 in 14 general medicine patients (7%) suffer harm due to diagnostic errors, and up to 85% of these cases could be prevented.
 

Few Studies on Diagnostic Errors

The study found that adverse event surveillance in hospital underestimated the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors.

“It is difficult to quantify and characterize diagnostic errors, which have been studied less than medication errors,” Micaela La Regina, MD, an internist and head of the Clinical Governance and Risk Management Unit at ASL 5 in La Spezia, Italy, told Univadis Italy. “Generally, it is estimated that around 50% of diagnostic errors are preventable, but the authors of this study went beyond simply observing the hospital admission period and followed their sample for 90 days after discharge. Their findings will need to be verified in other studies, but they seem convincing.”

The researchers in Boston selected a random sample of 675 hospital patients from a total of 9147 eligible cases who received general medical care between July 2019 and September 2021, excluding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-December 2020). They retrospectively reviewed the patients’ electronic health records using a structured method to evaluate the diagnostic process for potential errors and then estimated the impact and severity of any harm.

Cases sampled were those featuring transfer to intensive care more than 24 hours after admission (100% of 130 cases), death within 90 days of hospital admission or after discharge (38.5% of 141 cases), complex clinical problems without transfer to intensive care or death within 90 days of admission (7% of 298 cases), and 2.4% of 106 cases without high-risk criteria.

Each case was reviewed by two experts trained in the use of diagnostic error evaluation and research taxonomy, modified for acute care. Harm was classified as mild, moderate, severe, or fatal. The review assessed whether diagnostic error contributed to the harm and whether it was preventable. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainties regarding the diagnostic error or its impact were further examined by an expert panel.
 

Most Frequent Situations

Among all the cases examined, diagnostic errors were identified in 160 instances in 154 patients. The most frequent situations with diagnostic errors involved transfer to intensive care (54 cases), death within 90 days (34 cases), and complex clinical problems (52 cases). Diagnostic errors causing harm were found in 84 cases (82 patients), of which 37 (28.5%) occurred in those transferred to intensive care; 18 (13%) among patients who died within 90 days; 23 (8%) among patients with complex clinical issues; and 6 (6%) in low-risk cases.

The severity of harm was categorized as minor in 5 cases (6%), moderate in 36 (43%), major in 25 (30%), and fatal in 18 cases (21.5%). Overall, the researchers estimated that the proportion of harmful, preventable diagnostic errors with serious harm in general medicine patients was slightly more than 7%, 6%, and 1%, respectively.
 

Most Frequent Diagnoses

The most common diagnoses associated with diagnostic errors in the study included heart failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, altered mental state, abdominal pain, and hypoxemia. Dalal and colleagues emphasize the need for more attention to diagnostic error analysis, including the adoption of artificial intelligence–based tools for medical record screening.

“The technological approach, with alert-based systems, can certainly be helpful, but more attention must also be paid to continuous training and the well-being of healthcare workers. It is also crucial to encourage greater listening to caregivers and patients,” said La Regina. She noted that in the past, a focus on error prevention has often led to an increased workload and administrative burden on healthcare workers. However, the well-being of healthcare workers is key to ensuring patient safety.

“Countermeasures to reduce diagnostic errors require a multimodal approach, targeting professionals, the healthcare system, and organizational aspects, because even waiting lists are a critical factor,” she said. As a clinical risk expert, she recently proposed an adaptation of the value-based medicine formula in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care to include healthcare professionals’ care experience as one of the elements that contribute to determining high-value healthcare interventions. “Experiments are already underway to reimburse healthcare costs based on this formula, which also allows the assessment of the value of skills and expertise acquired by healthcare workers,” concluded La Regina.
 

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

Diagnostic errors are common in hospitals and are largely preventable, according to a new observational study led by Anuj K. Dalal, MD, from the Division of General Internal Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

Dalal and his colleagues found that 1 in 14 general medicine patients (7%) suffer harm due to diagnostic errors, and up to 85% of these cases could be prevented.
 

Few Studies on Diagnostic Errors

The study found that adverse event surveillance in hospital underestimated the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors.

“It is difficult to quantify and characterize diagnostic errors, which have been studied less than medication errors,” Micaela La Regina, MD, an internist and head of the Clinical Governance and Risk Management Unit at ASL 5 in La Spezia, Italy, told Univadis Italy. “Generally, it is estimated that around 50% of diagnostic errors are preventable, but the authors of this study went beyond simply observing the hospital admission period and followed their sample for 90 days after discharge. Their findings will need to be verified in other studies, but they seem convincing.”

The researchers in Boston selected a random sample of 675 hospital patients from a total of 9147 eligible cases who received general medical care between July 2019 and September 2021, excluding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-December 2020). They retrospectively reviewed the patients’ electronic health records using a structured method to evaluate the diagnostic process for potential errors and then estimated the impact and severity of any harm.

Cases sampled were those featuring transfer to intensive care more than 24 hours after admission (100% of 130 cases), death within 90 days of hospital admission or after discharge (38.5% of 141 cases), complex clinical problems without transfer to intensive care or death within 90 days of admission (7% of 298 cases), and 2.4% of 106 cases without high-risk criteria.

Each case was reviewed by two experts trained in the use of diagnostic error evaluation and research taxonomy, modified for acute care. Harm was classified as mild, moderate, severe, or fatal. The review assessed whether diagnostic error contributed to the harm and whether it was preventable. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainties regarding the diagnostic error or its impact were further examined by an expert panel.
 

Most Frequent Situations

Among all the cases examined, diagnostic errors were identified in 160 instances in 154 patients. The most frequent situations with diagnostic errors involved transfer to intensive care (54 cases), death within 90 days (34 cases), and complex clinical problems (52 cases). Diagnostic errors causing harm were found in 84 cases (82 patients), of which 37 (28.5%) occurred in those transferred to intensive care; 18 (13%) among patients who died within 90 days; 23 (8%) among patients with complex clinical issues; and 6 (6%) in low-risk cases.

The severity of harm was categorized as minor in 5 cases (6%), moderate in 36 (43%), major in 25 (30%), and fatal in 18 cases (21.5%). Overall, the researchers estimated that the proportion of harmful, preventable diagnostic errors with serious harm in general medicine patients was slightly more than 7%, 6%, and 1%, respectively.
 

Most Frequent Diagnoses

The most common diagnoses associated with diagnostic errors in the study included heart failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, altered mental state, abdominal pain, and hypoxemia. Dalal and colleagues emphasize the need for more attention to diagnostic error analysis, including the adoption of artificial intelligence–based tools for medical record screening.

“The technological approach, with alert-based systems, can certainly be helpful, but more attention must also be paid to continuous training and the well-being of healthcare workers. It is also crucial to encourage greater listening to caregivers and patients,” said La Regina. She noted that in the past, a focus on error prevention has often led to an increased workload and administrative burden on healthcare workers. However, the well-being of healthcare workers is key to ensuring patient safety.

“Countermeasures to reduce diagnostic errors require a multimodal approach, targeting professionals, the healthcare system, and organizational aspects, because even waiting lists are a critical factor,” she said. As a clinical risk expert, she recently proposed an adaptation of the value-based medicine formula in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care to include healthcare professionals’ care experience as one of the elements that contribute to determining high-value healthcare interventions. “Experiments are already underway to reimburse healthcare costs based on this formula, which also allows the assessment of the value of skills and expertise acquired by healthcare workers,” concluded La Regina.
 

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

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — A new clinical education tool aims to speed the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which often goes undetected for months even in neurologist offices.

The one-page “thinkALS” tool, designed for clinicians who don’t specialize in neuromuscular disorders, offers a guide to recognize ALS symptoms and determine when it’s time to refer patients to ALS clinics.

“Time is of the essence. It’s really important because the paradigm of looking at ALS is shifting from this being a fatal disease that nobody can do anything about,” said Suma Babu, MBBS, MPH, assistant professor of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School in Boston, in a presentation at American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024. “As a community, we need to think about how can get to the diagnosis point early and get patients started on therapies.”
 

On Average, ALS Diagnosis Takes 12-15 Months

As Babu noted, the percentage of patients initially diagnosed with something else may be as high as 52%. The time to diagnosis in ALS remained steady at a mean 12-15 months from 1996-1998 to 2000-2018.

“If you keep in mind that an average ALS patient lives only 3-5 years from symptom onset, they’re spending one third of their survival time in just trying to figure out what the diagnosis is,” Babu said. “Often, they may even undergo unnecessary testing and unnecessary surgeries — carpal tunnel releases, spinal surgeries, and so on.”

Babu’s own research, which is under review for publication, examined 2011-2021 Medicare claims to determine the typical time from first neurologist consult to confirmed ALS diagnosis. The mean for ALS/neuromuscular specialists is 9.6 months, while it’s 16.7 months for nonspecialist neurologists.

“It’s a hard pill to swallow,” Babu said, referring to the fact that neurologists are contributing to some of this situation. “But it is a challenge because ALS does not have a definitive diagnostic test, and you’re ruling out other possibilities.”
 

A ‘Sense of Nihilism’ About Prognoses

She added that “unless you’re seeing a lot of ALS patients, this is not going to be on a neurologist’s or a nurse practitioner’s radar to think about ALS early and then refer them to the right place.”

There’s also an unwarranted “sense of nihilism” about prognoses for patients, she said. “Sometimes people do not understand what’s going on within the ALS field in terms of ‘What are we going to do about it if it’s diagnosed?’ ”

The new one-page tool will be helpful in making diagnoses, she said. “If you have a patient who has asymmetric, progressive weakness, there is an instrument you can turn to that will walk you through the most common symptoms. It’ll also walk you through what to do next.”

The tool lists features of ALS and factors that support — or don’t support — an ALS diagnosis. Users are told to “think ALS” if features in two categories are present and no features in a third category are present.
 

Referral Wording Is Crucial

Babu added that the “important key feature of this instrument” is guidance for non-neurologists regarding what to write on a referral to neurology so the patient is channeled directly to an ALS clinic. The recommended wording: “CLINICAL SUSPICION FOR ALS.”

Neurologist Ximena Arcila-Londono, MD, of Henry Ford Health in Detroit, spoke after Babu’s presentation and agreed that wording is crucial in referrals. “Please include in your words ‘Rule out motor neuron disorder’ or ‘Rule out ALS,’ ” she said. “Some people in the community are very reluctant to use those words in their referral. If you don’t use the referral and you send them [regarding] weakness, that person is going to get stuck in the general neurology pile. The moment you use the word ‘motor neuron disorder’ or ALS, most of us will get to those patients within a month.”

The tool’s wording adds that “most ALS centers can accommodate urgent ALS referrals within 2 weeks.”

Babu disclosed receiving research funding from the AANEM Foundation, American Academy of Neurology, Muscular Dystrophy Association, OrphAI, Biogen, Ionis, Novartis, Denali, uniQure, and MarvelBiome. Arcila-Londono had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — A new clinical education tool aims to speed the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which often goes undetected for months even in neurologist offices.

The one-page “thinkALS” tool, designed for clinicians who don’t specialize in neuromuscular disorders, offers a guide to recognize ALS symptoms and determine when it’s time to refer patients to ALS clinics.

“Time is of the essence. It’s really important because the paradigm of looking at ALS is shifting from this being a fatal disease that nobody can do anything about,” said Suma Babu, MBBS, MPH, assistant professor of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School in Boston, in a presentation at American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024. “As a community, we need to think about how can get to the diagnosis point early and get patients started on therapies.”
 

On Average, ALS Diagnosis Takes 12-15 Months

As Babu noted, the percentage of patients initially diagnosed with something else may be as high as 52%. The time to diagnosis in ALS remained steady at a mean 12-15 months from 1996-1998 to 2000-2018.

“If you keep in mind that an average ALS patient lives only 3-5 years from symptom onset, they’re spending one third of their survival time in just trying to figure out what the diagnosis is,” Babu said. “Often, they may even undergo unnecessary testing and unnecessary surgeries — carpal tunnel releases, spinal surgeries, and so on.”

Babu’s own research, which is under review for publication, examined 2011-2021 Medicare claims to determine the typical time from first neurologist consult to confirmed ALS diagnosis. The mean for ALS/neuromuscular specialists is 9.6 months, while it’s 16.7 months for nonspecialist neurologists.

“It’s a hard pill to swallow,” Babu said, referring to the fact that neurologists are contributing to some of this situation. “But it is a challenge because ALS does not have a definitive diagnostic test, and you’re ruling out other possibilities.”
 

A ‘Sense of Nihilism’ About Prognoses

She added that “unless you’re seeing a lot of ALS patients, this is not going to be on a neurologist’s or a nurse practitioner’s radar to think about ALS early and then refer them to the right place.”

There’s also an unwarranted “sense of nihilism” about prognoses for patients, she said. “Sometimes people do not understand what’s going on within the ALS field in terms of ‘What are we going to do about it if it’s diagnosed?’ ”

The new one-page tool will be helpful in making diagnoses, she said. “If you have a patient who has asymmetric, progressive weakness, there is an instrument you can turn to that will walk you through the most common symptoms. It’ll also walk you through what to do next.”

The tool lists features of ALS and factors that support — or don’t support — an ALS diagnosis. Users are told to “think ALS” if features in two categories are present and no features in a third category are present.
 

Referral Wording Is Crucial

Babu added that the “important key feature of this instrument” is guidance for non-neurologists regarding what to write on a referral to neurology so the patient is channeled directly to an ALS clinic. The recommended wording: “CLINICAL SUSPICION FOR ALS.”

Neurologist Ximena Arcila-Londono, MD, of Henry Ford Health in Detroit, spoke after Babu’s presentation and agreed that wording is crucial in referrals. “Please include in your words ‘Rule out motor neuron disorder’ or ‘Rule out ALS,’ ” she said. “Some people in the community are very reluctant to use those words in their referral. If you don’t use the referral and you send them [regarding] weakness, that person is going to get stuck in the general neurology pile. The moment you use the word ‘motor neuron disorder’ or ALS, most of us will get to those patients within a month.”

The tool’s wording adds that “most ALS centers can accommodate urgent ALS referrals within 2 weeks.”

Babu disclosed receiving research funding from the AANEM Foundation, American Academy of Neurology, Muscular Dystrophy Association, OrphAI, Biogen, Ionis, Novartis, Denali, uniQure, and MarvelBiome. Arcila-Londono had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — A new clinical education tool aims to speed the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which often goes undetected for months even in neurologist offices.

The one-page “thinkALS” tool, designed for clinicians who don’t specialize in neuromuscular disorders, offers a guide to recognize ALS symptoms and determine when it’s time to refer patients to ALS clinics.

“Time is of the essence. It’s really important because the paradigm of looking at ALS is shifting from this being a fatal disease that nobody can do anything about,” said Suma Babu, MBBS, MPH, assistant professor of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School in Boston, in a presentation at American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024. “As a community, we need to think about how can get to the diagnosis point early and get patients started on therapies.”
 

On Average, ALS Diagnosis Takes 12-15 Months

As Babu noted, the percentage of patients initially diagnosed with something else may be as high as 52%. The time to diagnosis in ALS remained steady at a mean 12-15 months from 1996-1998 to 2000-2018.

“If you keep in mind that an average ALS patient lives only 3-5 years from symptom onset, they’re spending one third of their survival time in just trying to figure out what the diagnosis is,” Babu said. “Often, they may even undergo unnecessary testing and unnecessary surgeries — carpal tunnel releases, spinal surgeries, and so on.”

Babu’s own research, which is under review for publication, examined 2011-2021 Medicare claims to determine the typical time from first neurologist consult to confirmed ALS diagnosis. The mean for ALS/neuromuscular specialists is 9.6 months, while it’s 16.7 months for nonspecialist neurologists.

“It’s a hard pill to swallow,” Babu said, referring to the fact that neurologists are contributing to some of this situation. “But it is a challenge because ALS does not have a definitive diagnostic test, and you’re ruling out other possibilities.”
 

A ‘Sense of Nihilism’ About Prognoses

She added that “unless you’re seeing a lot of ALS patients, this is not going to be on a neurologist’s or a nurse practitioner’s radar to think about ALS early and then refer them to the right place.”

There’s also an unwarranted “sense of nihilism” about prognoses for patients, she said. “Sometimes people do not understand what’s going on within the ALS field in terms of ‘What are we going to do about it if it’s diagnosed?’ ”

The new one-page tool will be helpful in making diagnoses, she said. “If you have a patient who has asymmetric, progressive weakness, there is an instrument you can turn to that will walk you through the most common symptoms. It’ll also walk you through what to do next.”

The tool lists features of ALS and factors that support — or don’t support — an ALS diagnosis. Users are told to “think ALS” if features in two categories are present and no features in a third category are present.
 

Referral Wording Is Crucial

Babu added that the “important key feature of this instrument” is guidance for non-neurologists regarding what to write on a referral to neurology so the patient is channeled directly to an ALS clinic. The recommended wording: “CLINICAL SUSPICION FOR ALS.”

Neurologist Ximena Arcila-Londono, MD, of Henry Ford Health in Detroit, spoke after Babu’s presentation and agreed that wording is crucial in referrals. “Please include in your words ‘Rule out motor neuron disorder’ or ‘Rule out ALS,’ ” she said. “Some people in the community are very reluctant to use those words in their referral. If you don’t use the referral and you send them [regarding] weakness, that person is going to get stuck in the general neurology pile. The moment you use the word ‘motor neuron disorder’ or ALS, most of us will get to those patients within a month.”

The tool’s wording adds that “most ALS centers can accommodate urgent ALS referrals within 2 weeks.”

Babu disclosed receiving research funding from the AANEM Foundation, American Academy of Neurology, Muscular Dystrophy Association, OrphAI, Biogen, Ionis, Novartis, Denali, uniQure, and MarvelBiome. Arcila-Londono had no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.