Imaging

Adults with bipolar disorder showed a decline in total white matter volume, but stability in other brain features over time compared to healthy controls, based on data from 88 individuals.

Patients with bipolar disorder demonstrate cognitive impairment and brain structure abnormalities, including global white matter loss, that have been associated with poor outcomes, but data on the stability or progression of neuroanatomical changes are limited, wrote Julian Macoveanu, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark, and colleagues.

In a study published in The Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 97 adults aged 18 to 60 years with recently diagnosed bipolar disorder and matched them with 66 healthy controls. Participants were enrolled in the larger Bipolar Illness Onset (BIO) study. All participants underwent structural MRI and neuropsychological testing at baseline and were in full or partial remission based on total scores of 14 or less on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Young Mania Rating Scale. Approximately half of the participants (50 bipolar patients and 38 controls) participated in follow-up scans and testing after 6-27 months (mean 16 months), because of limited resources, according to the researchers.

The researchers compared changes in cortical gray matter volume and thickness, total cerebral white matter, hippocampal and amygdala volumes, estimated brain age, and cognitive functioning over time. In addition, they examined within-patient associations between baseline brain structure abnormalities and later mood episodes.

Overall, bipolar patients (BD) showed a significant decrease in total cerebral white matter from baseline, compared with healthy controls (HC) in mixed models (P = .006). “This effect was driven by BD patients showing a decrease in WM volume over time compared to HC who remained stable,” the researchers wrote, and the effect persisted in a post hoc analysis adjusting for subsyndromal symptoms and body mass index.

BD patients also had a larger amygdala volume at baseline and follow-up than HC, but no changes were noted between the groups. Changes in hippocampal volume also remained similar between the groups.

Analysis of cognitive data showed no significant differences in trajectories between BD patients and controls across cognitive domains or globally; although BD patients performed worse than controls at both time points.

BD patients in general experienced lower functioning and worse quality of life, compared with controls, but the trajectories of each group were similar for both functional and quality of life.

The researchers found no significant differences over time in total white matter, hippocampus, or amygdala volumes between BD patients who experienced at least one mood episode during the study period and those who remained in remission.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and limited generalizability of the findings because of the restriction to patients in full or partial remission, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variation in follow-up time and the potential impact of psychotropic medication use.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of neuropsychiatric testing in addition to MRI to compare brain structure and cognitive function, the researchers said. The data suggest that both amygdala volume and cognitive impairment may be stable markers of BD soon after diagnosis, but that decreases in white matter may stem from disease progression.

The BIO study is funded by the Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark, the Danish Council for Independent Research, Medical Sciences, Weimans Fund, Markedsmodningsfonden, Gangstedfonden, Læge Sofus Carl Emil og hustru Olga Boris Friis’ legat, Helsefonden, Innovation Fund Denmark, Copenhagen Center for Health Technology (CACHET), EU H2020 ITN, Augustinusfonden, and The Capital Region of Denmark. Macoveanu had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with bipolar disorder showed a decline in total white matter volume, but stability in other brain features over time compared to healthy controls, based on data from 88 individuals.

Patients with bipolar disorder demonstrate cognitive impairment and brain structure abnormalities, including global white matter loss, that have been associated with poor outcomes, but data on the stability or progression of neuroanatomical changes are limited, wrote Julian Macoveanu, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark, and colleagues.

In a study published in The Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 97 adults aged 18 to 60 years with recently diagnosed bipolar disorder and matched them with 66 healthy controls. Participants were enrolled in the larger Bipolar Illness Onset (BIO) study. All participants underwent structural MRI and neuropsychological testing at baseline and were in full or partial remission based on total scores of 14 or less on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Young Mania Rating Scale. Approximately half of the participants (50 bipolar patients and 38 controls) participated in follow-up scans and testing after 6-27 months (mean 16 months), because of limited resources, according to the researchers.

The researchers compared changes in cortical gray matter volume and thickness, total cerebral white matter, hippocampal and amygdala volumes, estimated brain age, and cognitive functioning over time. In addition, they examined within-patient associations between baseline brain structure abnormalities and later mood episodes.

Overall, bipolar patients (BD) showed a significant decrease in total cerebral white matter from baseline, compared with healthy controls (HC) in mixed models (P = .006). “This effect was driven by BD patients showing a decrease in WM volume over time compared to HC who remained stable,” the researchers wrote, and the effect persisted in a post hoc analysis adjusting for subsyndromal symptoms and body mass index.

BD patients also had a larger amygdala volume at baseline and follow-up than HC, but no changes were noted between the groups. Changes in hippocampal volume also remained similar between the groups.

Analysis of cognitive data showed no significant differences in trajectories between BD patients and controls across cognitive domains or globally; although BD patients performed worse than controls at both time points.

BD patients in general experienced lower functioning and worse quality of life, compared with controls, but the trajectories of each group were similar for both functional and quality of life.

The researchers found no significant differences over time in total white matter, hippocampus, or amygdala volumes between BD patients who experienced at least one mood episode during the study period and those who remained in remission.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and limited generalizability of the findings because of the restriction to patients in full or partial remission, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variation in follow-up time and the potential impact of psychotropic medication use.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of neuropsychiatric testing in addition to MRI to compare brain structure and cognitive function, the researchers said. The data suggest that both amygdala volume and cognitive impairment may be stable markers of BD soon after diagnosis, but that decreases in white matter may stem from disease progression.

The BIO study is funded by the Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark, the Danish Council for Independent Research, Medical Sciences, Weimans Fund, Markedsmodningsfonden, Gangstedfonden, Læge Sofus Carl Emil og hustru Olga Boris Friis’ legat, Helsefonden, Innovation Fund Denmark, Copenhagen Center for Health Technology (CACHET), EU H2020 ITN, Augustinusfonden, and The Capital Region of Denmark. Macoveanu had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with bipolar disorder showed a decline in total white matter volume, but stability in other brain features over time compared to healthy controls, based on data from 88 individuals.

Patients with bipolar disorder demonstrate cognitive impairment and brain structure abnormalities, including global white matter loss, that have been associated with poor outcomes, but data on the stability or progression of neuroanatomical changes are limited, wrote Julian Macoveanu, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark, and colleagues.

In a study published in The Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 97 adults aged 18 to 60 years with recently diagnosed bipolar disorder and matched them with 66 healthy controls. Participants were enrolled in the larger Bipolar Illness Onset (BIO) study. All participants underwent structural MRI and neuropsychological testing at baseline and were in full or partial remission based on total scores of 14 or less on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Young Mania Rating Scale. Approximately half of the participants (50 bipolar patients and 38 controls) participated in follow-up scans and testing after 6-27 months (mean 16 months), because of limited resources, according to the researchers.

The researchers compared changes in cortical gray matter volume and thickness, total cerebral white matter, hippocampal and amygdala volumes, estimated brain age, and cognitive functioning over time. In addition, they examined within-patient associations between baseline brain structure abnormalities and later mood episodes.

Overall, bipolar patients (BD) showed a significant decrease in total cerebral white matter from baseline, compared with healthy controls (HC) in mixed models (P = .006). “This effect was driven by BD patients showing a decrease in WM volume over time compared to HC who remained stable,” the researchers wrote, and the effect persisted in a post hoc analysis adjusting for subsyndromal symptoms and body mass index.

BD patients also had a larger amygdala volume at baseline and follow-up than HC, but no changes were noted between the groups. Changes in hippocampal volume also remained similar between the groups.

Analysis of cognitive data showed no significant differences in trajectories between BD patients and controls across cognitive domains or globally; although BD patients performed worse than controls at both time points.

BD patients in general experienced lower functioning and worse quality of life, compared with controls, but the trajectories of each group were similar for both functional and quality of life.

The researchers found no significant differences over time in total white matter, hippocampus, or amygdala volumes between BD patients who experienced at least one mood episode during the study period and those who remained in remission.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and limited generalizability of the findings because of the restriction to patients in full or partial remission, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the variation in follow-up time and the potential impact of psychotropic medication use.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of neuropsychiatric testing in addition to MRI to compare brain structure and cognitive function, the researchers said. The data suggest that both amygdala volume and cognitive impairment may be stable markers of BD soon after diagnosis, but that decreases in white matter may stem from disease progression.

The BIO study is funded by the Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark, the Danish Council for Independent Research, Medical Sciences, Weimans Fund, Markedsmodningsfonden, Gangstedfonden, Læge Sofus Carl Emil og hustru Olga Boris Friis’ legat, Helsefonden, Innovation Fund Denmark, Copenhagen Center for Health Technology (CACHET), EU H2020 ITN, Augustinusfonden, and The Capital Region of Denmark. Macoveanu had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This discussion was recorded on August 2, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Today, we’ll be discussing the results of a new study published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, looking at the incidence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage among older patients taking preinjury anticoagulants who present to the emergency department (ED) with blunt head trauma.

Joining me today is the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Shih, professor of emergency medicine at Florida Atlantic University. Also joining me is Dr. Christina Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill, with fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine. 

Welcome to both of you.

Richard D. Shih, MD: Thanks, Rob. 

Christina L. Shenvi, MD, PhD, MBA: Thanks. Pleasure to be here. 
 

ICH Study Methodology

Dr. Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you. Rich, this is a great study and targeted toward a population we see daily in the emergency department. I want you to describe your methodology, patient selection, and how you went about organizing your study to look at this important finding of delayed intracranial hemorrhage, especially in those on anticoagulants.

Dr. Shih: This all started for our research team when we first read the 2012 Annals of Emergency Medicine paper. The first author was Vincenzo Menditto, and he looked at a group of patients that had minor head injury, were anticoagulated, and had negative initial head CTs. 

There were about 100 patients, of which about 10 of them did not consent, but they hospitalized all these patients. These were anticoagulated, negative-first head CTs. They hospitalized the patients and then did a routine second CT at about 24 hours. They also followed them for a week, and it turned out a little over 7% of them had delayed head CT. 

We were wondering how many delayed intracranial hemorrhages we had missed because current practice for us was that, if patients had a good physical exam, their head CT was normal, and everything looked good, we would send them home.

Because of that, a number of people across the country wanted to verify those findings from the Menditto study. We tried to design a good study to answer that question. We happen to have a very large geriatric population in Florida, and our ED census is very high for age over 65, at nearly 60%. 

There are two Level I trauma centers in Palm Beach County. We included a second multicenter hospital, and we prospectively enrolled patients. We know the current state of practice is not to routinely do second CTs, so we followed these patients over time and followed their medical records to try to identify delayed bleeding. That’s how we set up our methodology.
 

Is It Safe to Discharge Patients With Trauma After 24 Hours?

Dr. Glatter: For the bulk of these patients with negative head CTs, it’s been my practice that when they’re stable and they look fine and there’s no other apparent, distracting painful trauma, injuries and so forth, they’re safe to discharge. 

The secondary outcome in your study is interesting: the need for neurosurgical intervention in terms of those with delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

Dr. Shih: I do believe that it’s certainly not the problem that Menditto described, which is 7%. There are two other prospective studies that have looked at this issue with delayed bleeding on anticoagulants. Both of these also showed a relatively low rate of delayed bleeding, which is between like 0.2% and 1.0%. In our study, it was 0.4%. 

The difference in the studies is that Menditto and colleagues routinely did 24-hour head CTs. They admitted everybody. For these other studies, routine head CT was not part of it. My bet is that there is a rate of delayed bleeding somewhere in between that seen in the Menditto study and that in all the other studies.

However, talking about significant intracranial hemorrhage, ones that perhaps need neurosurgery, I believe most of them are not significant. There’s some number that do occur, but the vast majority of those probably don’t need neurosurgery. We had 14 delayed bleeds out of 6000 patients with head trauma. One of them ended up requiring neurosurgery, so the answer is not zero, but I don’t think it’s 7% either. 

Dr. Glatter: Dr. Shenvi, I want to bring you into the conversation to talk about your experience at UNC, and how you run things in terms of older patients with blunt head trauma on preinjury anticoagulants.

Dr. Shenvi: Thanks, Rob. I remember when this paper came out showing this 7% rate of delayed bleeding and the question was, “Should we be admitting all these people?” Partly just from an overwhelming need for capacity that that would bring, it just wasn’t practical to say, “We’re going to admit every patient with a negative head CT to the hospital and rescan them.” That would be hundreds or thousands of patients each year in any given facility. 

The other thing is that delayed bleeds don’t always happen just in the first 24 hours. It’s not even a matter of bringing patients into observation for 24 hours, watching them, and rescanning them if they have symptoms. It can occur several days out. That never, in almost any institution that I know of, became standard practice. 

The way that it did change my care was to give good return precautions to patients, to make sure they have somebody with them to say, “Hey, sometimes you can have bleeding several days out after a fall, even though your CT scan here today looks perfect,” and to alert them that if they start having severe headaches, vomiting, or other symptoms of intracranial hemorrhage, that they should come back. 

I don’t think it ever became standard practice, and for good reason, because that was one study. The subsequent studies that Richard mentioned, pretty quickly on the heels of that initial one, showed a much lower rate of delayed ICH with the caveats that the methodology was different. 
 

Shift in Anticoagulants

Dr. Shenvi: One other big change from that original study, and now to Richard’s study, is the shift in anticoagulants. Back in the initial study you mentioned, it was all warfarin. We know from other studies looking at warfarin vs the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that DOACs have lower rates of ICH after a head injury, lower rates of need for neurosurgical intervention, and lower rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility after an intracranial hemorrhage.

Across the board, we know that the DOACs tend to do better. It’s difficult to compare newer studies because it’s a different medication. It did inform my practice to have an awareness of delayed intracranial hemorrhage so that I warn patients more proactively. 

Dr. Glatter: I haven’t seen a patient on warfarin in years. I don’t know if either of you have, but it’s all DOACs now unless there’s some other reason. That shift is quite apparent.

Dr. Shih: The problem with looking at delayed bleeding for DOACs vs warfarin is the numbers were so low. I think we had 13 people, and seven were in the no-anticoagulant group. The numbers are even lower, so it’s hard to say. 

I just wanted to comment on something that Dr. Shenvi said, and I pretty much agree with everything that she said. Anticoagulants and warfarin, and that Menditto study, have a carryover effect. People group DOACs with warfarin similarly. When a patient is brought in, the first thing they talk about with head trauma is, “Oh, they’re on an anticoagulant” or “They’re not on an anticoagulant.” It’s so ingrained.

I believe that, in emergency medicine, we’re pressed for space and time and we’re not as affected by that 24-hour observation. Maybe many of our surgeons will automatically admit those patients. 

I haven’t seen a guideline from the United States, but there are two international guidelines. One is from Austria from 2019, and one is from Scandinavia. Both recommended 24-hour observation if you’re on an anticoagulant.

There is a bit of controversy left over with that. Hopefully, as more and more of information, like in our study, comes out, people will be a little bit more clear about it. I don’t think there’s a need to routinely admit them. 

I do want to mention that the Menditto study had such a massive impact on everybody. They pointed out one subgroup (and it’s such a small number of patients). They had seven cases of delayed bleeding; four or five of them were within that 24 hours, and a couple were diagnosed later over the next couple days.

Of those seven people, four of them had international normalized ratios (INRs) greater than 3. Of those four patients, I’ve heard people talk about this and recommend, “Okay, that’s the subgroup I would admit.” There’s a toss-up with what to do with DOAC because it’s very hard to tell whether there’s an issue, whether there are problems with their dosing, and whatever. 

We actually recently looked at that. We have a much larger sample than four: close to 300 patients who were on warfarin. We looked at patients who had INRs below 3 and above 3, and we didn’t show a difference. We still don’t believe that warfarin is a big issue with delayed bleeding.
 

Should We Be Asking: ‘Are They on Blood Thinners?’

Dr. Shenvi: One of the interesting trends related to warfarin and the DOACs vs no anticoagulant is that as you mentioned, Dr Shih, the first question out of people’s mouths or the first piece of information emergency medical services gives you when they come in with a patient who’s had a head injury is, “Are they on blood thinners or not?”

Yet, the paradigm is shifting to say it’s not actually the blood thinners themselves that are giving older patients the higher risk for bleeding; it’s age and other comorbidities.

Certainly, if you’re on an anticoagulant and you start to bleed, your prognosis is much worse because the bleeding doesn’t stop. In terms of who has a bleeding event, there’s much less impact of anticoagulation than we used to think. That, in part, may be due to the change from warfarin to other medications.

Some of the experts I’ve talked to who have done the research on this have said, “Well, actually, warfarin was more of a marker for being much older and more frail, because it was primarily prescribed to older patients who have significant heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and so on.” It was more a marker for somebody who is at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. There are many changes that have happened in the past 10 years with medications and also our understanding. 
 

Challenges in Patient Follow-up

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. One thing, Rich, I want to ask you about is in terms of your proxy outcome assessment. When you use that at 14 and 60 days with telephone follow-up and then chart review at 60 and 90 days (because, obviously, everyone can’t get another head CT or it’s difficult to follow patients up), did you find that worked out well in your prospective cohort study, in terms of using that as a proxy, so to speak? 

Dr. Shih: I would say to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the patients to come back to follow up all of them, and there was obviously a large number of patients in our study. 

The next best thing was that we had dedicated research assistants calling all of the patients at 14 days and 60 days. I’ve certainly read research studies where, when they call them, they get 80%-90% follow-up, but we did not achieve that.

I don’t know if people are more inundated with spam phone calls now, or the older people are just afraid of picking up their phone sometimes with all the scams and so forth. I totally understand, but in all honesty, we only had about a 30%-35% follow-up using that follow-up pathway. 

Then the proxy pathway was to look at their charts at 60 and 90 days. Also, we looked at the Florida death registry, which is pretty good, and then finally, we had both Level I trauma centers in the county that we were in participating. It’s standard practice that if you have an intracranial hemorrhage at a non–Level I trauma center, you would be transferred to a Level I trauma center. That’s the protocol. I know that’s not followed 100% of the time, but that’s part of the proxy follow-up. You could criticize the study for not having closer to 90% actual contact, but that’s the best we could do. 

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s admirable. Using that paradigm of what you described certainly allows the reader to understand the difficulty in assessing patients that don’t get follow-up head CT, and hardly anyone does that, as we know.

To your point of having both Level I trauma centers in the county, that makes it pretty secure. If we’re going to do a study encompassing a similar type of regional aspect, it would be similar.

Dr. Shenvi: I think your proxies, to your credit, were as good as you can get. You can never get a 100% follow-up, but you really looked at all the different avenues by which patients might present, either in the death registry or a Level I center. Well done on that aspect.

 

Determining When to Admit Patients for Observation

Dr. Glatter: In terms of admissions: You admit a patient, then you hear back that this patient should not have been admitted because they had a negative head CT, but you put them in anyway in the sense of delayed bleeding happening or not happening.

It’s interesting. Maybe the insurers will start looking at this in some capacity, based on your study, that because it’s so infrequent that you see delayed bleeding, that admitting someone for any reason whatsoever would be declined. Do you see that being an issue? In other words, [do you see] this leading to a pattern in terms of the payers?

Dr. Shih: Certainly, you could interpret it that way, and that would be unfortunate. The [incidence of] delayed bleeding is definitely not zero. That’s the first thing. 

The second thing is that when you’re dealing with an older population, having some sense that they’re not doing well is an important contributor to trying to fully assess what’s going on — whether or not they have a bleed or whether they’re at risk for falling again and then hitting their head and causing a second bleed, and making sure they can do the activities of daily life. There really should be some room for a physician to say, “They just got here, and we don’t know him that well. There’s something that bothers me about this person” and have the ability to watch them for at least another 24 hours. That’s how I feel. 

Dr. Shenvi: In my location, it would be difficult to try to admit somebody purely for observation for delayed bleeding. I think we would get a lot of pushback on that. The reasons I might admit a patient after a fall with a negative head CT, though, are all the things that, Rob, you alluded to earlier — which are, what made them fall in the first place and were they unable to get up? 

I had this happen just this week. A patient who fell couldn’t get off the ground for 12 hours, and so now she’s dehydrated and delirious with slight rhabdomyolysis. Then you’re admitting them either for the sequelae of the fall that are not related to the intracranial hemorrhage, or the fact that they are so debilitated and deconditioned that they cannot take care of themselves. They need physical therapy. Often, we will have physical and occupational therapists come see them in the ED during business hours and help make an assessment of whether they are safe to go home or whether they fall again. That can give more evidence for the need for admission.

Dr. Glatter: To bring artificial intelligence into this discussion, algorithms that are out there that say, “Push a button and the patient’s safe for discharge.” Well, this argues for a clinical gestalt and a human being to make an assessment because you can use these predictive models, which are coming and they’re going to be here soon, and they already are in some sense. Again, we have to use clinical human judgment. 

Dr. Shih: I agree. 
 

Advice for Primary Care Physicians

Dr. Glatter: What return precautions do you discuss with patients who’ve had blunt head trauma that maybe had a head CT, or even didn’t? What are the main things we’re looking for?

Dr. Shenvi: What I usually tell people is if you start to have a worse headache, nausea or vomiting, any weakness in one area of your body, or vision changes, and if there’s a family member or friend there, I’ll say, “If you notice that they’re acting differently or seem confused, come back.”

Dr. Shih: I agree with what she said, and I’m also going to add one thing. The most important part is they are trying to prevent a subsequent fall. We know that when they’ve fallen and they present to the ED, they’re at even higher risk for falling and reinjuring themselves, and that’s a population that’s already at risk.

One of the secondary studies that we published out of this project was looking at follow-up with their primary care physicians, and there were two things that we wanted to address. The first was, how often did they do it? Then, when they did do it, did their primary care physicians try to address and prevent subsequent falls?

Both the answers are actually bad. Amazingly, just over like 60% followed up. 

In some of our subsequent research, because we’re in the midst of a randomized, controlled trial where we do a home visit, when we initially see these individuals that have fallen, they’ll schedule a home visit for us. Then a week or two later, when we schedule the home visit, many of them cancel because they think, Oh, that was a one-off and it’s not going to happen again. Part of the problem is the patients, because many of them believe that they just slipped and fell and it’s not going to happen again, or they’re not prone to it.

The second issue was when patients did go to a primary care physician, we have found that some primary care physicians believe that falling and injuring themselves is just part of the normal aging process. A percentage of them don’t go over assessment for fall risk or even initiate fall prevention treatments or programs. 

I try to take that time to tell them that this is very common in their age group, and believe it or not, a fall from standing is the way people really injure themselves, and there may be ways to prevent subsequent falls and injuries. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Do you find that their medications are a contributor in some sense? Say they’re antihypertensive, have issues of orthostasis, or a new medication was added in the last week. 

Dr. Shenvi: It’s all of the above. Sometimes it’s one thing, like they just started tamsulosin for their kidney stone, they stood up, they felt lightheaded, and they fell. Usually, it’s multifactorial with some changes in their gait, vision, balance, reflex time, and strength, plus the medications or the need for assistive devices. Maybe they can’t take care of their home as well as they used to and there are things on the floor. It’s really all of the above.
 

‘Harder to Unlearn Something Than to Learn It’

Dr. Glatter: Would either of you like to add any additional points to the discussion or add a few pearls? 

Dr. Shenvi: This just highlights the challenge of how it’s harder to unlearn something than to learn it, where one study that maybe wasn’t quite looking at what we needed to, or practice and prescribing patterns have changed, so it’s no longer really relevant. 

The things that we learned from that, or the fears that we instilled in our minds of, Uh oh, they could go home and have delayed bleeding, are much harder to unlearn, and it takes more studies to unlearn that idea than it did to actually put it into place. 

I’m glad that your team has done this much larger, prospective study and hopefully will reduce the concern about this entity. 

Dr. Shih: I appreciate that segue. It is amazing that, for paramedics and medical students, the first thing out of their mouth is, “Are they on an anticoagulant?”

In terms of the risk of developing an intracranial hemorrhage, I think it’s much less than the weight we’ve put on it before. However, I believe if they have a bleed, the bleeds are worse. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s still an important factor, but it doesn’t come with the Oh my gosh, they’re on an anticoagulant that everybody thinks about.
 

No. 1 Cause of Traumatic Injury Is a Fall from Standing

Dr. Glatter: These are obviously ground-level falls in most patients and not motor vehicle crashes. That’s an important part in the population that you looked at that should be mentioned clearly. 

Dr. Shih: It’s astonishing. I’ve been a program director for over 20 years, and geriatrics is not well taught in the curriculum. It’s astonishing for many of our trainees and emergency physicians in general that the number-one cause for traumatic injury is a fall from standing.

Certainly, we get patients coming in the trauma center like a 95-year-old person who’s on a ladder putting up his Christmas lights. I’m like, oh my God. 

For the vast majority, it’s closer to 90%, but in our study, for the patients we looked at, it was 80% that fall from standing. That’s the mechanism that causes these bleeds and these major injuries. 

Dr. Shenvi: That’s reflective of what we see, so it’s good that that’s what you looked at also. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Well, thank you both. This has been a very informative discussion. I appreciate your time, and our readers will certainly benefit from your knowledge and expertise. Thank you again.

Dr. Glatter, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, is a medical adviser for this news organization. He disclosed having no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Shih is professor of emergency medicine at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. His current grant funding and area of research interest involves geriatric emergency department patients with head injury and fall-related injury. He disclosed receiving a research grant from The Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Grant for Safety of Health Care Services). Dr. Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disclosed ties with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AstraZeneca, and CurvaFix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on August 2, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Today, we’ll be discussing the results of a new study published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, looking at the incidence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage among older patients taking preinjury anticoagulants who present to the emergency department (ED) with blunt head trauma.

Joining me today is the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Shih, professor of emergency medicine at Florida Atlantic University. Also joining me is Dr. Christina Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill, with fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine. 

Welcome to both of you.

Richard D. Shih, MD: Thanks, Rob. 

Christina L. Shenvi, MD, PhD, MBA: Thanks. Pleasure to be here. 
 

ICH Study Methodology

Dr. Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you. Rich, this is a great study and targeted toward a population we see daily in the emergency department. I want you to describe your methodology, patient selection, and how you went about organizing your study to look at this important finding of delayed intracranial hemorrhage, especially in those on anticoagulants.

Dr. Shih: This all started for our research team when we first read the 2012 Annals of Emergency Medicine paper. The first author was Vincenzo Menditto, and he looked at a group of patients that had minor head injury, were anticoagulated, and had negative initial head CTs. 

There were about 100 patients, of which about 10 of them did not consent, but they hospitalized all these patients. These were anticoagulated, negative-first head CTs. They hospitalized the patients and then did a routine second CT at about 24 hours. They also followed them for a week, and it turned out a little over 7% of them had delayed head CT. 

We were wondering how many delayed intracranial hemorrhages we had missed because current practice for us was that, if patients had a good physical exam, their head CT was normal, and everything looked good, we would send them home.

Because of that, a number of people across the country wanted to verify those findings from the Menditto study. We tried to design a good study to answer that question. We happen to have a very large geriatric population in Florida, and our ED census is very high for age over 65, at nearly 60%. 

There are two Level I trauma centers in Palm Beach County. We included a second multicenter hospital, and we prospectively enrolled patients. We know the current state of practice is not to routinely do second CTs, so we followed these patients over time and followed their medical records to try to identify delayed bleeding. That’s how we set up our methodology.
 

Is It Safe to Discharge Patients With Trauma After 24 Hours?

Dr. Glatter: For the bulk of these patients with negative head CTs, it’s been my practice that when they’re stable and they look fine and there’s no other apparent, distracting painful trauma, injuries and so forth, they’re safe to discharge. 

The secondary outcome in your study is interesting: the need for neurosurgical intervention in terms of those with delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

Dr. Shih: I do believe that it’s certainly not the problem that Menditto described, which is 7%. There are two other prospective studies that have looked at this issue with delayed bleeding on anticoagulants. Both of these also showed a relatively low rate of delayed bleeding, which is between like 0.2% and 1.0%. In our study, it was 0.4%. 

The difference in the studies is that Menditto and colleagues routinely did 24-hour head CTs. They admitted everybody. For these other studies, routine head CT was not part of it. My bet is that there is a rate of delayed bleeding somewhere in between that seen in the Menditto study and that in all the other studies.

However, talking about significant intracranial hemorrhage, ones that perhaps need neurosurgery, I believe most of them are not significant. There’s some number that do occur, but the vast majority of those probably don’t need neurosurgery. We had 14 delayed bleeds out of 6000 patients with head trauma. One of them ended up requiring neurosurgery, so the answer is not zero, but I don’t think it’s 7% either. 

Dr. Glatter: Dr. Shenvi, I want to bring you into the conversation to talk about your experience at UNC, and how you run things in terms of older patients with blunt head trauma on preinjury anticoagulants.

Dr. Shenvi: Thanks, Rob. I remember when this paper came out showing this 7% rate of delayed bleeding and the question was, “Should we be admitting all these people?” Partly just from an overwhelming need for capacity that that would bring, it just wasn’t practical to say, “We’re going to admit every patient with a negative head CT to the hospital and rescan them.” That would be hundreds or thousands of patients each year in any given facility. 

The other thing is that delayed bleeds don’t always happen just in the first 24 hours. It’s not even a matter of bringing patients into observation for 24 hours, watching them, and rescanning them if they have symptoms. It can occur several days out. That never, in almost any institution that I know of, became standard practice. 

The way that it did change my care was to give good return precautions to patients, to make sure they have somebody with them to say, “Hey, sometimes you can have bleeding several days out after a fall, even though your CT scan here today looks perfect,” and to alert them that if they start having severe headaches, vomiting, or other symptoms of intracranial hemorrhage, that they should come back. 

I don’t think it ever became standard practice, and for good reason, because that was one study. The subsequent studies that Richard mentioned, pretty quickly on the heels of that initial one, showed a much lower rate of delayed ICH with the caveats that the methodology was different. 
 

Shift in Anticoagulants

Dr. Shenvi: One other big change from that original study, and now to Richard’s study, is the shift in anticoagulants. Back in the initial study you mentioned, it was all warfarin. We know from other studies looking at warfarin vs the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that DOACs have lower rates of ICH after a head injury, lower rates of need for neurosurgical intervention, and lower rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility after an intracranial hemorrhage.

Across the board, we know that the DOACs tend to do better. It’s difficult to compare newer studies because it’s a different medication. It did inform my practice to have an awareness of delayed intracranial hemorrhage so that I warn patients more proactively. 

Dr. Glatter: I haven’t seen a patient on warfarin in years. I don’t know if either of you have, but it’s all DOACs now unless there’s some other reason. That shift is quite apparent.

Dr. Shih: The problem with looking at delayed bleeding for DOACs vs warfarin is the numbers were so low. I think we had 13 people, and seven were in the no-anticoagulant group. The numbers are even lower, so it’s hard to say. 

I just wanted to comment on something that Dr. Shenvi said, and I pretty much agree with everything that she said. Anticoagulants and warfarin, and that Menditto study, have a carryover effect. People group DOACs with warfarin similarly. When a patient is brought in, the first thing they talk about with head trauma is, “Oh, they’re on an anticoagulant” or “They’re not on an anticoagulant.” It’s so ingrained.

I believe that, in emergency medicine, we’re pressed for space and time and we’re not as affected by that 24-hour observation. Maybe many of our surgeons will automatically admit those patients. 

I haven’t seen a guideline from the United States, but there are two international guidelines. One is from Austria from 2019, and one is from Scandinavia. Both recommended 24-hour observation if you’re on an anticoagulant.

There is a bit of controversy left over with that. Hopefully, as more and more of information, like in our study, comes out, people will be a little bit more clear about it. I don’t think there’s a need to routinely admit them. 

I do want to mention that the Menditto study had such a massive impact on everybody. They pointed out one subgroup (and it’s such a small number of patients). They had seven cases of delayed bleeding; four or five of them were within that 24 hours, and a couple were diagnosed later over the next couple days.

Of those seven people, four of them had international normalized ratios (INRs) greater than 3. Of those four patients, I’ve heard people talk about this and recommend, “Okay, that’s the subgroup I would admit.” There’s a toss-up with what to do with DOAC because it’s very hard to tell whether there’s an issue, whether there are problems with their dosing, and whatever. 

We actually recently looked at that. We have a much larger sample than four: close to 300 patients who were on warfarin. We looked at patients who had INRs below 3 and above 3, and we didn’t show a difference. We still don’t believe that warfarin is a big issue with delayed bleeding.
 

Should We Be Asking: ‘Are They on Blood Thinners?’

Dr. Shenvi: One of the interesting trends related to warfarin and the DOACs vs no anticoagulant is that as you mentioned, Dr Shih, the first question out of people’s mouths or the first piece of information emergency medical services gives you when they come in with a patient who’s had a head injury is, “Are they on blood thinners or not?”

Yet, the paradigm is shifting to say it’s not actually the blood thinners themselves that are giving older patients the higher risk for bleeding; it’s age and other comorbidities.

Certainly, if you’re on an anticoagulant and you start to bleed, your prognosis is much worse because the bleeding doesn’t stop. In terms of who has a bleeding event, there’s much less impact of anticoagulation than we used to think. That, in part, may be due to the change from warfarin to other medications.

Some of the experts I’ve talked to who have done the research on this have said, “Well, actually, warfarin was more of a marker for being much older and more frail, because it was primarily prescribed to older patients who have significant heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and so on.” It was more a marker for somebody who is at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. There are many changes that have happened in the past 10 years with medications and also our understanding. 
 

Challenges in Patient Follow-up

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. One thing, Rich, I want to ask you about is in terms of your proxy outcome assessment. When you use that at 14 and 60 days with telephone follow-up and then chart review at 60 and 90 days (because, obviously, everyone can’t get another head CT or it’s difficult to follow patients up), did you find that worked out well in your prospective cohort study, in terms of using that as a proxy, so to speak? 

Dr. Shih: I would say to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the patients to come back to follow up all of them, and there was obviously a large number of patients in our study. 

The next best thing was that we had dedicated research assistants calling all of the patients at 14 days and 60 days. I’ve certainly read research studies where, when they call them, they get 80%-90% follow-up, but we did not achieve that.

I don’t know if people are more inundated with spam phone calls now, or the older people are just afraid of picking up their phone sometimes with all the scams and so forth. I totally understand, but in all honesty, we only had about a 30%-35% follow-up using that follow-up pathway. 

Then the proxy pathway was to look at their charts at 60 and 90 days. Also, we looked at the Florida death registry, which is pretty good, and then finally, we had both Level I trauma centers in the county that we were in participating. It’s standard practice that if you have an intracranial hemorrhage at a non–Level I trauma center, you would be transferred to a Level I trauma center. That’s the protocol. I know that’s not followed 100% of the time, but that’s part of the proxy follow-up. You could criticize the study for not having closer to 90% actual contact, but that’s the best we could do. 

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s admirable. Using that paradigm of what you described certainly allows the reader to understand the difficulty in assessing patients that don’t get follow-up head CT, and hardly anyone does that, as we know.

To your point of having both Level I trauma centers in the county, that makes it pretty secure. If we’re going to do a study encompassing a similar type of regional aspect, it would be similar.

Dr. Shenvi: I think your proxies, to your credit, were as good as you can get. You can never get a 100% follow-up, but you really looked at all the different avenues by which patients might present, either in the death registry or a Level I center. Well done on that aspect.

 

Determining When to Admit Patients for Observation

Dr. Glatter: In terms of admissions: You admit a patient, then you hear back that this patient should not have been admitted because they had a negative head CT, but you put them in anyway in the sense of delayed bleeding happening or not happening.

It’s interesting. Maybe the insurers will start looking at this in some capacity, based on your study, that because it’s so infrequent that you see delayed bleeding, that admitting someone for any reason whatsoever would be declined. Do you see that being an issue? In other words, [do you see] this leading to a pattern in terms of the payers?

Dr. Shih: Certainly, you could interpret it that way, and that would be unfortunate. The [incidence of] delayed bleeding is definitely not zero. That’s the first thing. 

The second thing is that when you’re dealing with an older population, having some sense that they’re not doing well is an important contributor to trying to fully assess what’s going on — whether or not they have a bleed or whether they’re at risk for falling again and then hitting their head and causing a second bleed, and making sure they can do the activities of daily life. There really should be some room for a physician to say, “They just got here, and we don’t know him that well. There’s something that bothers me about this person” and have the ability to watch them for at least another 24 hours. That’s how I feel. 

Dr. Shenvi: In my location, it would be difficult to try to admit somebody purely for observation for delayed bleeding. I think we would get a lot of pushback on that. The reasons I might admit a patient after a fall with a negative head CT, though, are all the things that, Rob, you alluded to earlier — which are, what made them fall in the first place and were they unable to get up? 

I had this happen just this week. A patient who fell couldn’t get off the ground for 12 hours, and so now she’s dehydrated and delirious with slight rhabdomyolysis. Then you’re admitting them either for the sequelae of the fall that are not related to the intracranial hemorrhage, or the fact that they are so debilitated and deconditioned that they cannot take care of themselves. They need physical therapy. Often, we will have physical and occupational therapists come see them in the ED during business hours and help make an assessment of whether they are safe to go home or whether they fall again. That can give more evidence for the need for admission.

Dr. Glatter: To bring artificial intelligence into this discussion, algorithms that are out there that say, “Push a button and the patient’s safe for discharge.” Well, this argues for a clinical gestalt and a human being to make an assessment because you can use these predictive models, which are coming and they’re going to be here soon, and they already are in some sense. Again, we have to use clinical human judgment. 

Dr. Shih: I agree. 
 

Advice for Primary Care Physicians

Dr. Glatter: What return precautions do you discuss with patients who’ve had blunt head trauma that maybe had a head CT, or even didn’t? What are the main things we’re looking for?

Dr. Shenvi: What I usually tell people is if you start to have a worse headache, nausea or vomiting, any weakness in one area of your body, or vision changes, and if there’s a family member or friend there, I’ll say, “If you notice that they’re acting differently or seem confused, come back.”

Dr. Shih: I agree with what she said, and I’m also going to add one thing. The most important part is they are trying to prevent a subsequent fall. We know that when they’ve fallen and they present to the ED, they’re at even higher risk for falling and reinjuring themselves, and that’s a population that’s already at risk.

One of the secondary studies that we published out of this project was looking at follow-up with their primary care physicians, and there were two things that we wanted to address. The first was, how often did they do it? Then, when they did do it, did their primary care physicians try to address and prevent subsequent falls?

Both the answers are actually bad. Amazingly, just over like 60% followed up. 

In some of our subsequent research, because we’re in the midst of a randomized, controlled trial where we do a home visit, when we initially see these individuals that have fallen, they’ll schedule a home visit for us. Then a week or two later, when we schedule the home visit, many of them cancel because they think, Oh, that was a one-off and it’s not going to happen again. Part of the problem is the patients, because many of them believe that they just slipped and fell and it’s not going to happen again, or they’re not prone to it.

The second issue was when patients did go to a primary care physician, we have found that some primary care physicians believe that falling and injuring themselves is just part of the normal aging process. A percentage of them don’t go over assessment for fall risk or even initiate fall prevention treatments or programs. 

I try to take that time to tell them that this is very common in their age group, and believe it or not, a fall from standing is the way people really injure themselves, and there may be ways to prevent subsequent falls and injuries. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Do you find that their medications are a contributor in some sense? Say they’re antihypertensive, have issues of orthostasis, or a new medication was added in the last week. 

Dr. Shenvi: It’s all of the above. Sometimes it’s one thing, like they just started tamsulosin for their kidney stone, they stood up, they felt lightheaded, and they fell. Usually, it’s multifactorial with some changes in their gait, vision, balance, reflex time, and strength, plus the medications or the need for assistive devices. Maybe they can’t take care of their home as well as they used to and there are things on the floor. It’s really all of the above.
 

‘Harder to Unlearn Something Than to Learn It’

Dr. Glatter: Would either of you like to add any additional points to the discussion or add a few pearls? 

Dr. Shenvi: This just highlights the challenge of how it’s harder to unlearn something than to learn it, where one study that maybe wasn’t quite looking at what we needed to, or practice and prescribing patterns have changed, so it’s no longer really relevant. 

The things that we learned from that, or the fears that we instilled in our minds of, Uh oh, they could go home and have delayed bleeding, are much harder to unlearn, and it takes more studies to unlearn that idea than it did to actually put it into place. 

I’m glad that your team has done this much larger, prospective study and hopefully will reduce the concern about this entity. 

Dr. Shih: I appreciate that segue. It is amazing that, for paramedics and medical students, the first thing out of their mouth is, “Are they on an anticoagulant?”

In terms of the risk of developing an intracranial hemorrhage, I think it’s much less than the weight we’ve put on it before. However, I believe if they have a bleed, the bleeds are worse. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s still an important factor, but it doesn’t come with the Oh my gosh, they’re on an anticoagulant that everybody thinks about.
 

No. 1 Cause of Traumatic Injury Is a Fall from Standing

Dr. Glatter: These are obviously ground-level falls in most patients and not motor vehicle crashes. That’s an important part in the population that you looked at that should be mentioned clearly. 

Dr. Shih: It’s astonishing. I’ve been a program director for over 20 years, and geriatrics is not well taught in the curriculum. It’s astonishing for many of our trainees and emergency physicians in general that the number-one cause for traumatic injury is a fall from standing.

Certainly, we get patients coming in the trauma center like a 95-year-old person who’s on a ladder putting up his Christmas lights. I’m like, oh my God. 

For the vast majority, it’s closer to 90%, but in our study, for the patients we looked at, it was 80% that fall from standing. That’s the mechanism that causes these bleeds and these major injuries. 

Dr. Shenvi: That’s reflective of what we see, so it’s good that that’s what you looked at also. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Well, thank you both. This has been a very informative discussion. I appreciate your time, and our readers will certainly benefit from your knowledge and expertise. Thank you again.

Dr. Glatter, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, is a medical adviser for this news organization. He disclosed having no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Shih is professor of emergency medicine at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. His current grant funding and area of research interest involves geriatric emergency department patients with head injury and fall-related injury. He disclosed receiving a research grant from The Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Grant for Safety of Health Care Services). Dr. Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disclosed ties with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AstraZeneca, and CurvaFix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on August 2, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Today, we’ll be discussing the results of a new study published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, looking at the incidence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage among older patients taking preinjury anticoagulants who present to the emergency department (ED) with blunt head trauma.

Joining me today is the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Shih, professor of emergency medicine at Florida Atlantic University. Also joining me is Dr. Christina Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill, with fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine. 

Welcome to both of you.

Richard D. Shih, MD: Thanks, Rob. 

Christina L. Shenvi, MD, PhD, MBA: Thanks. Pleasure to be here. 
 

ICH Study Methodology

Dr. Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you. Rich, this is a great study and targeted toward a population we see daily in the emergency department. I want you to describe your methodology, patient selection, and how you went about organizing your study to look at this important finding of delayed intracranial hemorrhage, especially in those on anticoagulants.

Dr. Shih: This all started for our research team when we first read the 2012 Annals of Emergency Medicine paper. The first author was Vincenzo Menditto, and he looked at a group of patients that had minor head injury, were anticoagulated, and had negative initial head CTs. 

There were about 100 patients, of which about 10 of them did not consent, but they hospitalized all these patients. These were anticoagulated, negative-first head CTs. They hospitalized the patients and then did a routine second CT at about 24 hours. They also followed them for a week, and it turned out a little over 7% of them had delayed head CT. 

We were wondering how many delayed intracranial hemorrhages we had missed because current practice for us was that, if patients had a good physical exam, their head CT was normal, and everything looked good, we would send them home.

Because of that, a number of people across the country wanted to verify those findings from the Menditto study. We tried to design a good study to answer that question. We happen to have a very large geriatric population in Florida, and our ED census is very high for age over 65, at nearly 60%. 

There are two Level I trauma centers in Palm Beach County. We included a second multicenter hospital, and we prospectively enrolled patients. We know the current state of practice is not to routinely do second CTs, so we followed these patients over time and followed their medical records to try to identify delayed bleeding. That’s how we set up our methodology.
 

Is It Safe to Discharge Patients With Trauma After 24 Hours?

Dr. Glatter: For the bulk of these patients with negative head CTs, it’s been my practice that when they’re stable and they look fine and there’s no other apparent, distracting painful trauma, injuries and so forth, they’re safe to discharge. 

The secondary outcome in your study is interesting: the need for neurosurgical intervention in terms of those with delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

Dr. Shih: I do believe that it’s certainly not the problem that Menditto described, which is 7%. There are two other prospective studies that have looked at this issue with delayed bleeding on anticoagulants. Both of these also showed a relatively low rate of delayed bleeding, which is between like 0.2% and 1.0%. In our study, it was 0.4%. 

The difference in the studies is that Menditto and colleagues routinely did 24-hour head CTs. They admitted everybody. For these other studies, routine head CT was not part of it. My bet is that there is a rate of delayed bleeding somewhere in between that seen in the Menditto study and that in all the other studies.

However, talking about significant intracranial hemorrhage, ones that perhaps need neurosurgery, I believe most of them are not significant. There’s some number that do occur, but the vast majority of those probably don’t need neurosurgery. We had 14 delayed bleeds out of 6000 patients with head trauma. One of them ended up requiring neurosurgery, so the answer is not zero, but I don’t think it’s 7% either. 

Dr. Glatter: Dr. Shenvi, I want to bring you into the conversation to talk about your experience at UNC, and how you run things in terms of older patients with blunt head trauma on preinjury anticoagulants.

Dr. Shenvi: Thanks, Rob. I remember when this paper came out showing this 7% rate of delayed bleeding and the question was, “Should we be admitting all these people?” Partly just from an overwhelming need for capacity that that would bring, it just wasn’t practical to say, “We’re going to admit every patient with a negative head CT to the hospital and rescan them.” That would be hundreds or thousands of patients each year in any given facility. 

The other thing is that delayed bleeds don’t always happen just in the first 24 hours. It’s not even a matter of bringing patients into observation for 24 hours, watching them, and rescanning them if they have symptoms. It can occur several days out. That never, in almost any institution that I know of, became standard practice. 

The way that it did change my care was to give good return precautions to patients, to make sure they have somebody with them to say, “Hey, sometimes you can have bleeding several days out after a fall, even though your CT scan here today looks perfect,” and to alert them that if they start having severe headaches, vomiting, or other symptoms of intracranial hemorrhage, that they should come back. 

I don’t think it ever became standard practice, and for good reason, because that was one study. The subsequent studies that Richard mentioned, pretty quickly on the heels of that initial one, showed a much lower rate of delayed ICH with the caveats that the methodology was different. 
 

Shift in Anticoagulants

Dr. Shenvi: One other big change from that original study, and now to Richard’s study, is the shift in anticoagulants. Back in the initial study you mentioned, it was all warfarin. We know from other studies looking at warfarin vs the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that DOACs have lower rates of ICH after a head injury, lower rates of need for neurosurgical intervention, and lower rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility after an intracranial hemorrhage.

Across the board, we know that the DOACs tend to do better. It’s difficult to compare newer studies because it’s a different medication. It did inform my practice to have an awareness of delayed intracranial hemorrhage so that I warn patients more proactively. 

Dr. Glatter: I haven’t seen a patient on warfarin in years. I don’t know if either of you have, but it’s all DOACs now unless there’s some other reason. That shift is quite apparent.

Dr. Shih: The problem with looking at delayed bleeding for DOACs vs warfarin is the numbers were so low. I think we had 13 people, and seven were in the no-anticoagulant group. The numbers are even lower, so it’s hard to say. 

I just wanted to comment on something that Dr. Shenvi said, and I pretty much agree with everything that she said. Anticoagulants and warfarin, and that Menditto study, have a carryover effect. People group DOACs with warfarin similarly. When a patient is brought in, the first thing they talk about with head trauma is, “Oh, they’re on an anticoagulant” or “They’re not on an anticoagulant.” It’s so ingrained.

I believe that, in emergency medicine, we’re pressed for space and time and we’re not as affected by that 24-hour observation. Maybe many of our surgeons will automatically admit those patients. 

I haven’t seen a guideline from the United States, but there are two international guidelines. One is from Austria from 2019, and one is from Scandinavia. Both recommended 24-hour observation if you’re on an anticoagulant.

There is a bit of controversy left over with that. Hopefully, as more and more of information, like in our study, comes out, people will be a little bit more clear about it. I don’t think there’s a need to routinely admit them. 

I do want to mention that the Menditto study had such a massive impact on everybody. They pointed out one subgroup (and it’s such a small number of patients). They had seven cases of delayed bleeding; four or five of them were within that 24 hours, and a couple were diagnosed later over the next couple days.

Of those seven people, four of them had international normalized ratios (INRs) greater than 3. Of those four patients, I’ve heard people talk about this and recommend, “Okay, that’s the subgroup I would admit.” There’s a toss-up with what to do with DOAC because it’s very hard to tell whether there’s an issue, whether there are problems with their dosing, and whatever. 

We actually recently looked at that. We have a much larger sample than four: close to 300 patients who were on warfarin. We looked at patients who had INRs below 3 and above 3, and we didn’t show a difference. We still don’t believe that warfarin is a big issue with delayed bleeding.
 

Should We Be Asking: ‘Are They on Blood Thinners?’

Dr. Shenvi: One of the interesting trends related to warfarin and the DOACs vs no anticoagulant is that as you mentioned, Dr Shih, the first question out of people’s mouths or the first piece of information emergency medical services gives you when they come in with a patient who’s had a head injury is, “Are they on blood thinners or not?”

Yet, the paradigm is shifting to say it’s not actually the blood thinners themselves that are giving older patients the higher risk for bleeding; it’s age and other comorbidities.

Certainly, if you’re on an anticoagulant and you start to bleed, your prognosis is much worse because the bleeding doesn’t stop. In terms of who has a bleeding event, there’s much less impact of anticoagulation than we used to think. That, in part, may be due to the change from warfarin to other medications.

Some of the experts I’ve talked to who have done the research on this have said, “Well, actually, warfarin was more of a marker for being much older and more frail, because it was primarily prescribed to older patients who have significant heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and so on.” It was more a marker for somebody who is at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. There are many changes that have happened in the past 10 years with medications and also our understanding. 
 

Challenges in Patient Follow-up

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. One thing, Rich, I want to ask you about is in terms of your proxy outcome assessment. When you use that at 14 and 60 days with telephone follow-up and then chart review at 60 and 90 days (because, obviously, everyone can’t get another head CT or it’s difficult to follow patients up), did you find that worked out well in your prospective cohort study, in terms of using that as a proxy, so to speak? 

Dr. Shih: I would say to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the patients to come back to follow up all of them, and there was obviously a large number of patients in our study. 

The next best thing was that we had dedicated research assistants calling all of the patients at 14 days and 60 days. I’ve certainly read research studies where, when they call them, they get 80%-90% follow-up, but we did not achieve that.

I don’t know if people are more inundated with spam phone calls now, or the older people are just afraid of picking up their phone sometimes with all the scams and so forth. I totally understand, but in all honesty, we only had about a 30%-35% follow-up using that follow-up pathway. 

Then the proxy pathway was to look at their charts at 60 and 90 days. Also, we looked at the Florida death registry, which is pretty good, and then finally, we had both Level I trauma centers in the county that we were in participating. It’s standard practice that if you have an intracranial hemorrhage at a non–Level I trauma center, you would be transferred to a Level I trauma center. That’s the protocol. I know that’s not followed 100% of the time, but that’s part of the proxy follow-up. You could criticize the study for not having closer to 90% actual contact, but that’s the best we could do. 

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s admirable. Using that paradigm of what you described certainly allows the reader to understand the difficulty in assessing patients that don’t get follow-up head CT, and hardly anyone does that, as we know.

To your point of having both Level I trauma centers in the county, that makes it pretty secure. If we’re going to do a study encompassing a similar type of regional aspect, it would be similar.

Dr. Shenvi: I think your proxies, to your credit, were as good as you can get. You can never get a 100% follow-up, but you really looked at all the different avenues by which patients might present, either in the death registry or a Level I center. Well done on that aspect.

 

Determining When to Admit Patients for Observation

Dr. Glatter: In terms of admissions: You admit a patient, then you hear back that this patient should not have been admitted because they had a negative head CT, but you put them in anyway in the sense of delayed bleeding happening or not happening.

It’s interesting. Maybe the insurers will start looking at this in some capacity, based on your study, that because it’s so infrequent that you see delayed bleeding, that admitting someone for any reason whatsoever would be declined. Do you see that being an issue? In other words, [do you see] this leading to a pattern in terms of the payers?

Dr. Shih: Certainly, you could interpret it that way, and that would be unfortunate. The [incidence of] delayed bleeding is definitely not zero. That’s the first thing. 

The second thing is that when you’re dealing with an older population, having some sense that they’re not doing well is an important contributor to trying to fully assess what’s going on — whether or not they have a bleed or whether they’re at risk for falling again and then hitting their head and causing a second bleed, and making sure they can do the activities of daily life. There really should be some room for a physician to say, “They just got here, and we don’t know him that well. There’s something that bothers me about this person” and have the ability to watch them for at least another 24 hours. That’s how I feel. 

Dr. Shenvi: In my location, it would be difficult to try to admit somebody purely for observation for delayed bleeding. I think we would get a lot of pushback on that. The reasons I might admit a patient after a fall with a negative head CT, though, are all the things that, Rob, you alluded to earlier — which are, what made them fall in the first place and were they unable to get up? 

I had this happen just this week. A patient who fell couldn’t get off the ground for 12 hours, and so now she’s dehydrated and delirious with slight rhabdomyolysis. Then you’re admitting them either for the sequelae of the fall that are not related to the intracranial hemorrhage, or the fact that they are so debilitated and deconditioned that they cannot take care of themselves. They need physical therapy. Often, we will have physical and occupational therapists come see them in the ED during business hours and help make an assessment of whether they are safe to go home or whether they fall again. That can give more evidence for the need for admission.

Dr. Glatter: To bring artificial intelligence into this discussion, algorithms that are out there that say, “Push a button and the patient’s safe for discharge.” Well, this argues for a clinical gestalt and a human being to make an assessment because you can use these predictive models, which are coming and they’re going to be here soon, and they already are in some sense. Again, we have to use clinical human judgment. 

Dr. Shih: I agree. 
 

Advice for Primary Care Physicians

Dr. Glatter: What return precautions do you discuss with patients who’ve had blunt head trauma that maybe had a head CT, or even didn’t? What are the main things we’re looking for?

Dr. Shenvi: What I usually tell people is if you start to have a worse headache, nausea or vomiting, any weakness in one area of your body, or vision changes, and if there’s a family member or friend there, I’ll say, “If you notice that they’re acting differently or seem confused, come back.”

Dr. Shih: I agree with what she said, and I’m also going to add one thing. The most important part is they are trying to prevent a subsequent fall. We know that when they’ve fallen and they present to the ED, they’re at even higher risk for falling and reinjuring themselves, and that’s a population that’s already at risk.

One of the secondary studies that we published out of this project was looking at follow-up with their primary care physicians, and there were two things that we wanted to address. The first was, how often did they do it? Then, when they did do it, did their primary care physicians try to address and prevent subsequent falls?

Both the answers are actually bad. Amazingly, just over like 60% followed up. 

In some of our subsequent research, because we’re in the midst of a randomized, controlled trial where we do a home visit, when we initially see these individuals that have fallen, they’ll schedule a home visit for us. Then a week or two later, when we schedule the home visit, many of them cancel because they think, Oh, that was a one-off and it’s not going to happen again. Part of the problem is the patients, because many of them believe that they just slipped and fell and it’s not going to happen again, or they’re not prone to it.

The second issue was when patients did go to a primary care physician, we have found that some primary care physicians believe that falling and injuring themselves is just part of the normal aging process. A percentage of them don’t go over assessment for fall risk or even initiate fall prevention treatments or programs. 

I try to take that time to tell them that this is very common in their age group, and believe it or not, a fall from standing is the way people really injure themselves, and there may be ways to prevent subsequent falls and injuries. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Do you find that their medications are a contributor in some sense? Say they’re antihypertensive, have issues of orthostasis, or a new medication was added in the last week. 

Dr. Shenvi: It’s all of the above. Sometimes it’s one thing, like they just started tamsulosin for their kidney stone, they stood up, they felt lightheaded, and they fell. Usually, it’s multifactorial with some changes in their gait, vision, balance, reflex time, and strength, plus the medications or the need for assistive devices. Maybe they can’t take care of their home as well as they used to and there are things on the floor. It’s really all of the above.
 

‘Harder to Unlearn Something Than to Learn It’

Dr. Glatter: Would either of you like to add any additional points to the discussion or add a few pearls? 

Dr. Shenvi: This just highlights the challenge of how it’s harder to unlearn something than to learn it, where one study that maybe wasn’t quite looking at what we needed to, or practice and prescribing patterns have changed, so it’s no longer really relevant. 

The things that we learned from that, or the fears that we instilled in our minds of, Uh oh, they could go home and have delayed bleeding, are much harder to unlearn, and it takes more studies to unlearn that idea than it did to actually put it into place. 

I’m glad that your team has done this much larger, prospective study and hopefully will reduce the concern about this entity. 

Dr. Shih: I appreciate that segue. It is amazing that, for paramedics and medical students, the first thing out of their mouth is, “Are they on an anticoagulant?”

In terms of the risk of developing an intracranial hemorrhage, I think it’s much less than the weight we’ve put on it before. However, I believe if they have a bleed, the bleeds are worse. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s still an important factor, but it doesn’t come with the Oh my gosh, they’re on an anticoagulant that everybody thinks about.
 

No. 1 Cause of Traumatic Injury Is a Fall from Standing

Dr. Glatter: These are obviously ground-level falls in most patients and not motor vehicle crashes. That’s an important part in the population that you looked at that should be mentioned clearly. 

Dr. Shih: It’s astonishing. I’ve been a program director for over 20 years, and geriatrics is not well taught in the curriculum. It’s astonishing for many of our trainees and emergency physicians in general that the number-one cause for traumatic injury is a fall from standing.

Certainly, we get patients coming in the trauma center like a 95-year-old person who’s on a ladder putting up his Christmas lights. I’m like, oh my God. 

For the vast majority, it’s closer to 90%, but in our study, for the patients we looked at, it was 80% that fall from standing. That’s the mechanism that causes these bleeds and these major injuries. 

Dr. Shenvi: That’s reflective of what we see, so it’s good that that’s what you looked at also. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Well, thank you both. This has been a very informative discussion. I appreciate your time, and our readers will certainly benefit from your knowledge and expertise. Thank you again.

Dr. Glatter, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, is a medical adviser for this news organization. He disclosed having no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Shih is professor of emergency medicine at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. His current grant funding and area of research interest involves geriatric emergency department patients with head injury and fall-related injury. He disclosed receiving a research grant from The Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Grant for Safety of Health Care Services). Dr. Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disclosed ties with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AstraZeneca, and CurvaFix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The field of psychiatry is experiencing a transformative shift toward precision medicine, a paradigm that tailors treatment to the unique characteristics of individual patients. This approach echoes advances in fields like oncology and cardiology, where precision tools have already revolutionized patient care.

But what exactly is precision psychiatry? How does it differ from traditional psychiatry? What will it look like in clinical practice? And are we there yet?
 

Beyond One-Size-Fits-All

The prevailing “one-size-fits-all” approach in psychiatry, which relies heavily on subjective symptom reporting, often proves ineffective due to the broad heterogeneity of diagnostic categories. This can lead to a “trial-and-error” cycle in treatment, which is time-consuming, costly, and frustrating for both doctors and patients.

In contrast, precision psychiatry has the potential to identify subtypes of psychiatric disorders and tailor treatments using measurable, objective data.

“The data supporting the use of precision psychiatry are very promising, particularly for treatment-resistant depression,” Leanne Williams, PhD, professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, Stanford, and director of the Stanford Center for Precision Mental Health and Wellness, Palo Alto, California, said in an interview with this news organization.

Using functional MRI (fMRI), Dr. Williams and her team have mapped and measured patients’ brain circuitry to identify eight “biotypes” of depression that reflect combinations of dysfunction in six different circuits of the brain.

They are using these biotypes to guide treatment decisions in the clinic, matching individual patients to more targeted and effective therapies.

“We’re offering functional MRI to directly assess brain function along with other measures, so precision psychiatry is happening, and it’s really wanted by patients and their families. And the data suggest that we can double the rate of good outcomes,” said Dr. Williams.

“Neuroimaging techniques, particularly fMRI, have revolutionized our ability to map and quantify circuit abnormalities. Neural circuit measurements potentially offer the most direct window into the neural bases of psychiatric symptoms and, crucially, their modulation by treatment,” Teddy Akiki, MD, clinical scholar, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, California, who works with Dr. Williams, told this news organization.

Blood-based biomarkers can complement brain imaging by providing additional information to better target treatment, help predict side effects, and guide dosage adjustments.
 

Precision Tools

A team led by Alexander B. Niculescu, III, MD, PhD, has found that a panel of blood-based biomarkers can distinguish between depression and bipolar disorder, predict a person’s future risk for these disorders, and inform more tailored medication choices.

Dr. Niculescu is currently a professor of psychiatry and medical neuroscience at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. He will head west in September to direct the newly created Center for Precision Psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine–Phoenix.

MindX Sciences, the start-up company Dr. Niculescu cofounded, has been providing blood biomarker reports to “early adopting” doctors and patients.

“We are in the process of collecting and writing up the outcome data on the first 100 cases. The feedback we have received so far from the doctors and patients who have used it, as well as biopharma companies who have used it, has been very positive,” Dr. Niculescu told this news organization.

Another benefit of precision psychiatry lies in its potential to significantly accelerate drug development.

“By identifying specific neural circuits involved in subtypes of psychiatric conditions, we can repurpose or develop drugs that target these circuits more precisely. This approach allows for smaller, more focused trials with potentially higher success rates, which could speed up the typically slow and costly process of psychiatric drug development,” said Dr. Akiki.

Dr. Niculescu agreed. With precision psychiatry tools, “psychiatric drug development will become faster, cheaper, and more successful with the use of biomarkers and other precision tools,” he said.
 

The Future Is Already Here

The implementation and widespread adoption of precision psychiatry have several challenges.

It requires sophisticated technology and expertise, which may not be readily available in all clinical settings. Moreover, while evidence supports its use in conditions like major depression, there are fewer data on its efficacy in other psychiatric disorders, like schizophrenia.

Dr. Williams said future research should focus on expanding the evidence base for precision psychiatry across a broader range of psychiatric conditions.

Efforts to make precision tools more accessible and scalable, such as developing portable imaging technologies or more readily available biomarker tests, are also critical.

Integrating these precision tools into routine psychiatric practice will also require training and education for clinicians, as well as cost-effective solutions to make these approaches widely available.

“Mental health clinicians throughout the country are starting to employ semi-objective and objective measures in their practices, particularly self-report symptom questionnaires and pharmacogenomic assessment,” Laura Hack, MD, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, told this news organization.

“For precision psychiatry measures to be widely implemented, it is essential to demonstrate their reliability, clinical validity, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness. Additionally, there is a need to develop clinical guidelines for their use, ensure that measurement tools are accessible, and educate all relevant stakeholders,” said Dr. Hack.

Right now, functional neuroimaging is used “only on a very limited basis in current clinical psychiatric practice,” Dr. Hack noted.

“We are developing standardized systems that will require less specialized expertise in functional neuroimaging and can be readily integrated into routine clinical care,” Dr. Akiki added.

Quoting William Gibson, “The future [of precision psychiatry] is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed,” said Dr. Niculescu.

Dr. Williams has disclosed relationships with One Mind PsyberGuide, Laureate Institute for Brain Research, and Et Cere Inc. Dr. Niculescu is a cofounder of MindX Sciences and is listed as inventor on a patent application filed by Indiana University. Dr. Akiki and Dr. Hack had no relevant disclosures.
 

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

The field of psychiatry is experiencing a transformative shift toward precision medicine, a paradigm that tailors treatment to the unique characteristics of individual patients. This approach echoes advances in fields like oncology and cardiology, where precision tools have already revolutionized patient care.

But what exactly is precision psychiatry? How does it differ from traditional psychiatry? What will it look like in clinical practice? And are we there yet?
 

Beyond One-Size-Fits-All

The prevailing “one-size-fits-all” approach in psychiatry, which relies heavily on subjective symptom reporting, often proves ineffective due to the broad heterogeneity of diagnostic categories. This can lead to a “trial-and-error” cycle in treatment, which is time-consuming, costly, and frustrating for both doctors and patients.

In contrast, precision psychiatry has the potential to identify subtypes of psychiatric disorders and tailor treatments using measurable, objective data.

“The data supporting the use of precision psychiatry are very promising, particularly for treatment-resistant depression,” Leanne Williams, PhD, professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, Stanford, and director of the Stanford Center for Precision Mental Health and Wellness, Palo Alto, California, said in an interview with this news organization.

Using functional MRI (fMRI), Dr. Williams and her team have mapped and measured patients’ brain circuitry to identify eight “biotypes” of depression that reflect combinations of dysfunction in six different circuits of the brain.

They are using these biotypes to guide treatment decisions in the clinic, matching individual patients to more targeted and effective therapies.

“We’re offering functional MRI to directly assess brain function along with other measures, so precision psychiatry is happening, and it’s really wanted by patients and their families. And the data suggest that we can double the rate of good outcomes,” said Dr. Williams.

“Neuroimaging techniques, particularly fMRI, have revolutionized our ability to map and quantify circuit abnormalities. Neural circuit measurements potentially offer the most direct window into the neural bases of psychiatric symptoms and, crucially, their modulation by treatment,” Teddy Akiki, MD, clinical scholar, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, California, who works with Dr. Williams, told this news organization.

Blood-based biomarkers can complement brain imaging by providing additional information to better target treatment, help predict side effects, and guide dosage adjustments.
 

Precision Tools

A team led by Alexander B. Niculescu, III, MD, PhD, has found that a panel of blood-based biomarkers can distinguish between depression and bipolar disorder, predict a person’s future risk for these disorders, and inform more tailored medication choices.

Dr. Niculescu is currently a professor of psychiatry and medical neuroscience at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. He will head west in September to direct the newly created Center for Precision Psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine–Phoenix.

MindX Sciences, the start-up company Dr. Niculescu cofounded, has been providing blood biomarker reports to “early adopting” doctors and patients.

“We are in the process of collecting and writing up the outcome data on the first 100 cases. The feedback we have received so far from the doctors and patients who have used it, as well as biopharma companies who have used it, has been very positive,” Dr. Niculescu told this news organization.

Another benefit of precision psychiatry lies in its potential to significantly accelerate drug development.

“By identifying specific neural circuits involved in subtypes of psychiatric conditions, we can repurpose or develop drugs that target these circuits more precisely. This approach allows for smaller, more focused trials with potentially higher success rates, which could speed up the typically slow and costly process of psychiatric drug development,” said Dr. Akiki.

Dr. Niculescu agreed. With precision psychiatry tools, “psychiatric drug development will become faster, cheaper, and more successful with the use of biomarkers and other precision tools,” he said.
 

The Future Is Already Here

The implementation and widespread adoption of precision psychiatry have several challenges.

It requires sophisticated technology and expertise, which may not be readily available in all clinical settings. Moreover, while evidence supports its use in conditions like major depression, there are fewer data on its efficacy in other psychiatric disorders, like schizophrenia.

Dr. Williams said future research should focus on expanding the evidence base for precision psychiatry across a broader range of psychiatric conditions.

Efforts to make precision tools more accessible and scalable, such as developing portable imaging technologies or more readily available biomarker tests, are also critical.

Integrating these precision tools into routine psychiatric practice will also require training and education for clinicians, as well as cost-effective solutions to make these approaches widely available.

“Mental health clinicians throughout the country are starting to employ semi-objective and objective measures in their practices, particularly self-report symptom questionnaires and pharmacogenomic assessment,” Laura Hack, MD, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, told this news organization.

“For precision psychiatry measures to be widely implemented, it is essential to demonstrate their reliability, clinical validity, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness. Additionally, there is a need to develop clinical guidelines for their use, ensure that measurement tools are accessible, and educate all relevant stakeholders,” said Dr. Hack.

Right now, functional neuroimaging is used “only on a very limited basis in current clinical psychiatric practice,” Dr. Hack noted.

“We are developing standardized systems that will require less specialized expertise in functional neuroimaging and can be readily integrated into routine clinical care,” Dr. Akiki added.

Quoting William Gibson, “The future [of precision psychiatry] is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed,” said Dr. Niculescu.

Dr. Williams has disclosed relationships with One Mind PsyberGuide, Laureate Institute for Brain Research, and Et Cere Inc. Dr. Niculescu is a cofounder of MindX Sciences and is listed as inventor on a patent application filed by Indiana University. Dr. Akiki and Dr. Hack had no relevant disclosures.
 

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

The field of psychiatry is experiencing a transformative shift toward precision medicine, a paradigm that tailors treatment to the unique characteristics of individual patients. This approach echoes advances in fields like oncology and cardiology, where precision tools have already revolutionized patient care.

But what exactly is precision psychiatry? How does it differ from traditional psychiatry? What will it look like in clinical practice? And are we there yet?
 

Beyond One-Size-Fits-All

The prevailing “one-size-fits-all” approach in psychiatry, which relies heavily on subjective symptom reporting, often proves ineffective due to the broad heterogeneity of diagnostic categories. This can lead to a “trial-and-error” cycle in treatment, which is time-consuming, costly, and frustrating for both doctors and patients.

In contrast, precision psychiatry has the potential to identify subtypes of psychiatric disorders and tailor treatments using measurable, objective data.

“The data supporting the use of precision psychiatry are very promising, particularly for treatment-resistant depression,” Leanne Williams, PhD, professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, Stanford, and director of the Stanford Center for Precision Mental Health and Wellness, Palo Alto, California, said in an interview with this news organization.

Using functional MRI (fMRI), Dr. Williams and her team have mapped and measured patients’ brain circuitry to identify eight “biotypes” of depression that reflect combinations of dysfunction in six different circuits of the brain.

They are using these biotypes to guide treatment decisions in the clinic, matching individual patients to more targeted and effective therapies.

“We’re offering functional MRI to directly assess brain function along with other measures, so precision psychiatry is happening, and it’s really wanted by patients and their families. And the data suggest that we can double the rate of good outcomes,” said Dr. Williams.

“Neuroimaging techniques, particularly fMRI, have revolutionized our ability to map and quantify circuit abnormalities. Neural circuit measurements potentially offer the most direct window into the neural bases of psychiatric symptoms and, crucially, their modulation by treatment,” Teddy Akiki, MD, clinical scholar, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, California, who works with Dr. Williams, told this news organization.

Blood-based biomarkers can complement brain imaging by providing additional information to better target treatment, help predict side effects, and guide dosage adjustments.
 

Precision Tools

A team led by Alexander B. Niculescu, III, MD, PhD, has found that a panel of blood-based biomarkers can distinguish between depression and bipolar disorder, predict a person’s future risk for these disorders, and inform more tailored medication choices.

Dr. Niculescu is currently a professor of psychiatry and medical neuroscience at the Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis. He will head west in September to direct the newly created Center for Precision Psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine–Phoenix.

MindX Sciences, the start-up company Dr. Niculescu cofounded, has been providing blood biomarker reports to “early adopting” doctors and patients.

“We are in the process of collecting and writing up the outcome data on the first 100 cases. The feedback we have received so far from the doctors and patients who have used it, as well as biopharma companies who have used it, has been very positive,” Dr. Niculescu told this news organization.

Another benefit of precision psychiatry lies in its potential to significantly accelerate drug development.

“By identifying specific neural circuits involved in subtypes of psychiatric conditions, we can repurpose or develop drugs that target these circuits more precisely. This approach allows for smaller, more focused trials with potentially higher success rates, which could speed up the typically slow and costly process of psychiatric drug development,” said Dr. Akiki.

Dr. Niculescu agreed. With precision psychiatry tools, “psychiatric drug development will become faster, cheaper, and more successful with the use of biomarkers and other precision tools,” he said.
 

The Future Is Already Here

The implementation and widespread adoption of precision psychiatry have several challenges.

It requires sophisticated technology and expertise, which may not be readily available in all clinical settings. Moreover, while evidence supports its use in conditions like major depression, there are fewer data on its efficacy in other psychiatric disorders, like schizophrenia.

Dr. Williams said future research should focus on expanding the evidence base for precision psychiatry across a broader range of psychiatric conditions.

Efforts to make precision tools more accessible and scalable, such as developing portable imaging technologies or more readily available biomarker tests, are also critical.

Integrating these precision tools into routine psychiatric practice will also require training and education for clinicians, as well as cost-effective solutions to make these approaches widely available.

“Mental health clinicians throughout the country are starting to employ semi-objective and objective measures in their practices, particularly self-report symptom questionnaires and pharmacogenomic assessment,” Laura Hack, MD, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, told this news organization.

“For precision psychiatry measures to be widely implemented, it is essential to demonstrate their reliability, clinical validity, clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness. Additionally, there is a need to develop clinical guidelines for their use, ensure that measurement tools are accessible, and educate all relevant stakeholders,” said Dr. Hack.

Right now, functional neuroimaging is used “only on a very limited basis in current clinical psychiatric practice,” Dr. Hack noted.

“We are developing standardized systems that will require less specialized expertise in functional neuroimaging and can be readily integrated into routine clinical care,” Dr. Akiki added.

Quoting William Gibson, “The future [of precision psychiatry] is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed,” said Dr. Niculescu.

Dr. Williams has disclosed relationships with One Mind PsyberGuide, Laureate Institute for Brain Research, and Et Cere Inc. Dr. Niculescu is a cofounder of MindX Sciences and is listed as inventor on a patent application filed by Indiana University. Dr. Akiki and Dr. Hack had no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Youth with conduct disorder (CD) have extensive brain structure differences, new research showed.

In findings that illuminate the differences in areas of the brain critical for emotional processing and decision-making, investigators found lower cortical surface area and reduced volume in the limbic and striatal regions of the brain, as well as lower thalamus volume, in youth with CD.

“We know very little about this disorder even though it can carry a high burden for families and societies,” co–lead author Yidian Gao, PhD, of the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, said in a press release. 

“The sample included in our study is 10-20 times larger than previous studies and contains data on children from North America, Europe, and Asia. It provides the most compelling evidence to date that CD is associated with widespread structural brain differences,” he added.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

An Understudied Disorder

In the largest study of its kind, researchers at the Universities of Bath and Birmingham, both in England, collaborated with research teams across Europe, North America, and Asia, as part of the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis–Antisocial Behavior Working Group to learn more about one of the “least researched psychiatric disorders,” they wrote. 

The investigators used MRI to examine the brain structure of 1185 children with a clinical diagnosis of CD and 1253 typically developing children from 17-21 across 15 international study cohorts.

After adjusting for total intracranial volume investigators found that youth with CD (29% women; mean age, 13.7 years) had lower total surface area and lower regional surface area in 26 of the 34 cortical regions, spanning all four lobes of the brain, compared with their typically developing counterparts (35.6% women; mean age, 13.5 years).

Youth with CD also showed greater cortical thickness in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex (P = .0001) and lower cortical thickness in the banks of the superior temporal sulcus vs those without CD (P = .0010).

In addition, the CD group also had lower volume in the thalamus (P = .0009), amygdala (P = .0014), hippocampus (P = .0031), and nucleus accumbens (P = .0052). 

Most findings remained significant after adjusting for intelligence quotient, psychiatric comorbidities, and psychotropic medication use. Of note, group difference in cortical thickness, 22 of 27 differences in surface area. In addition, three of four subcortical differences remained robust after adjusting for co-occurring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, the most frequent comorbidity.

When the investigators divided individuals with CD into two subgroups — those with high vs low levels of callous-unemotional traits — they found limited overall differences. However, those with high callous-unemotional traits had lower surface area in the superior temporal and superior frontal gyri vs those with low callous-unemotional traits and the typically developing group.

Investigators also found that individuals with childhood-onset CD had greater cortical thickness in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex compared with those with adolescent-onset CD. 

Study limitations include comparison of different cohorts with differing protocols that could affect the validity of the findings. In addition, subgroup samples were small and had lower statistical power.

“Our finding of robust brain alterations in conduct disorder — similar to those in more widely recognized and widely treated disorders such as ADHD — emphasize the need for a greater focus on conduct disorder in research, treatment, and public policy,” the authors noted.

Seven study authors reported conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

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

Youth with conduct disorder (CD) have extensive brain structure differences, new research showed.

In findings that illuminate the differences in areas of the brain critical for emotional processing and decision-making, investigators found lower cortical surface area and reduced volume in the limbic and striatal regions of the brain, as well as lower thalamus volume, in youth with CD.

“We know very little about this disorder even though it can carry a high burden for families and societies,” co–lead author Yidian Gao, PhD, of the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, said in a press release. 

“The sample included in our study is 10-20 times larger than previous studies and contains data on children from North America, Europe, and Asia. It provides the most compelling evidence to date that CD is associated with widespread structural brain differences,” he added.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

An Understudied Disorder

In the largest study of its kind, researchers at the Universities of Bath and Birmingham, both in England, collaborated with research teams across Europe, North America, and Asia, as part of the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis–Antisocial Behavior Working Group to learn more about one of the “least researched psychiatric disorders,” they wrote. 

The investigators used MRI to examine the brain structure of 1185 children with a clinical diagnosis of CD and 1253 typically developing children from 17-21 across 15 international study cohorts.

After adjusting for total intracranial volume investigators found that youth with CD (29% women; mean age, 13.7 years) had lower total surface area and lower regional surface area in 26 of the 34 cortical regions, spanning all four lobes of the brain, compared with their typically developing counterparts (35.6% women; mean age, 13.5 years).

Youth with CD also showed greater cortical thickness in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex (P = .0001) and lower cortical thickness in the banks of the superior temporal sulcus vs those without CD (P = .0010).

In addition, the CD group also had lower volume in the thalamus (P = .0009), amygdala (P = .0014), hippocampus (P = .0031), and nucleus accumbens (P = .0052). 

Most findings remained significant after adjusting for intelligence quotient, psychiatric comorbidities, and psychotropic medication use. Of note, group difference in cortical thickness, 22 of 27 differences in surface area. In addition, three of four subcortical differences remained robust after adjusting for co-occurring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, the most frequent comorbidity.

When the investigators divided individuals with CD into two subgroups — those with high vs low levels of callous-unemotional traits — they found limited overall differences. However, those with high callous-unemotional traits had lower surface area in the superior temporal and superior frontal gyri vs those with low callous-unemotional traits and the typically developing group.

Investigators also found that individuals with childhood-onset CD had greater cortical thickness in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex compared with those with adolescent-onset CD. 

Study limitations include comparison of different cohorts with differing protocols that could affect the validity of the findings. In addition, subgroup samples were small and had lower statistical power.

“Our finding of robust brain alterations in conduct disorder — similar to those in more widely recognized and widely treated disorders such as ADHD — emphasize the need for a greater focus on conduct disorder in research, treatment, and public policy,” the authors noted.

Seven study authors reported conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

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

Youth with conduct disorder (CD) have extensive brain structure differences, new research showed.

In findings that illuminate the differences in areas of the brain critical for emotional processing and decision-making, investigators found lower cortical surface area and reduced volume in the limbic and striatal regions of the brain, as well as lower thalamus volume, in youth with CD.

“We know very little about this disorder even though it can carry a high burden for families and societies,” co–lead author Yidian Gao, PhD, of the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, said in a press release. 

“The sample included in our study is 10-20 times larger than previous studies and contains data on children from North America, Europe, and Asia. It provides the most compelling evidence to date that CD is associated with widespread structural brain differences,” he added.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

An Understudied Disorder

In the largest study of its kind, researchers at the Universities of Bath and Birmingham, both in England, collaborated with research teams across Europe, North America, and Asia, as part of the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis–Antisocial Behavior Working Group to learn more about one of the “least researched psychiatric disorders,” they wrote. 

The investigators used MRI to examine the brain structure of 1185 children with a clinical diagnosis of CD and 1253 typically developing children from 17-21 across 15 international study cohorts.

After adjusting for total intracranial volume investigators found that youth with CD (29% women; mean age, 13.7 years) had lower total surface area and lower regional surface area in 26 of the 34 cortical regions, spanning all four lobes of the brain, compared with their typically developing counterparts (35.6% women; mean age, 13.5 years).

Youth with CD also showed greater cortical thickness in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex (P = .0001) and lower cortical thickness in the banks of the superior temporal sulcus vs those without CD (P = .0010).

In addition, the CD group also had lower volume in the thalamus (P = .0009), amygdala (P = .0014), hippocampus (P = .0031), and nucleus accumbens (P = .0052). 

Most findings remained significant after adjusting for intelligence quotient, psychiatric comorbidities, and psychotropic medication use. Of note, group difference in cortical thickness, 22 of 27 differences in surface area. In addition, three of four subcortical differences remained robust after adjusting for co-occurring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, the most frequent comorbidity.

When the investigators divided individuals with CD into two subgroups — those with high vs low levels of callous-unemotional traits — they found limited overall differences. However, those with high callous-unemotional traits had lower surface area in the superior temporal and superior frontal gyri vs those with low callous-unemotional traits and the typically developing group.

Investigators also found that individuals with childhood-onset CD had greater cortical thickness in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex compared with those with adolescent-onset CD. 

Study limitations include comparison of different cohorts with differing protocols that could affect the validity of the findings. In addition, subgroup samples were small and had lower statistical power.

“Our finding of robust brain alterations in conduct disorder — similar to those in more widely recognized and widely treated disorders such as ADHD — emphasize the need for a greater focus on conduct disorder in research, treatment, and public policy,” the authors noted.

Seven study authors reported conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

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

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, researchers and medical companies have explored low-field MRI systems (those with a magnetic field strength of less than 1 T) — searching for a feasible alternative to the loud, expensive machines requiring special rooms with shielding to block their powerful magnetic field.

Most low-field scanners in development are for brain scans only. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared the first portable MRI system — Hyperfine’s Swoop, designed for use at a patient’s bedside — for head and brain scans. But the technology has not been applied to whole-body MRI — until now.

In a new study published in Science, researchers from Hong Kong described a whole-body, ultra low–field MRI.

“This is a big breakthrough,” said Kevin Sheth, MD, director of the Yale Center for Brain & Mind Health, who was not involved in the study. “It is one of the first, if not the first, demonstrations of low-field MRI imaging for the entire body.”

The device uses a 0.05 T magnet — one sixtieth the magnetic field strength of the standard 3 T MRI model common in hospitals today, said lead author Ed Wu, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering at The University of Hong Kong.

Because the field strength is so low, no protective shielding is needed. Patients and bystanders can safely use smart phones . And the scanner is safe for patients with implanted devices, like a cochlear implant or pacemaker, or any metal on their body or clothes. No hearing protection is required, either, because the machine is so quiet.

If all goes well, the technology could be commercially available in as little as a few years, Dr. Wu said.

But first, funding and FDA approval would be needed. “A company is going to have to come along and say, ‘This looks fantastic. We’re going to commercialize this, and we’re going to go through this certification process,’ ” said Andrew Webb, PhD, professor of radiology and the founding director of the C.J. Gorter MRI Center at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. (Dr. Webb was not involved in the study.)
 

Improving Access to MRI

One hope for this technology is to bring MRI to more people worldwide. Africa has less than one MRI scanner per million residents, whereas the United States has about 40.

While a new 3 T machine can cost about $1 million, the low-field version is much cheaper — only about $22,000 in materials cost per scanner, according to Dr. Wu.

A low magnetic field means less electricity, too — the machine can be plugged into a standard wall outlet. And because a fully shielded room isn’t needed, that could save another $100,000 in materials, Dr. Webb said.

Its ease of use could improve accessibility in countries with limited training, Dr. Webb pointed out.

“To be a technician is 2-3 years training for a regular MRI machine, a lot of it to do safety, a lot of it to do very subtle planning,” said Webb. “These [low-field] systems are much simpler.”
 

Challenges and the Future

The prototype weighs about 1.5 tons or 3000 lb. (A 3 T MRI can weigh between 6 and 13 tons or 12,000 and 26,000 lb.) That might sound like a lot, but it’s comparable to a mobile CT scanner, which is designed to be moved from room to room. Plus, “its weight can be substantially reduced if further optimized,” Dr. Wu said.

One challenge with low-field MRIs is image quality, which tends to be not as clear and detailed as those from high-power machines. To address this, the research team used deep learning (artificial intelligence) to enhance the image quality. “Computing power and large-scale data underpin our success, which tackles the physics and math problems that are traditionally considered intractable in existing MRI methodology,” Dr. Wu said.

Dr. Webb said he was impressed by the image quality shown in the study. They “look much higher quality than you would expect from such a low-field system,” he said. Still, only healthy volunteers were scanned. The true test will be using it to view subtle pathologies, Dr. Webb said.

That’s what Dr. Wu and his team are working on now — taking scans to diagnose various medical conditions. His group’s brain-only version of the low-field MRI has been used for diagnosis, he noted.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A 59-year-old man presents with abdominal pain. He has a history of small bowel obstruction and diverticulitis. His medical history includes chronic kidney disease (CKD; baseline creatinine, 1.8 mg/dL), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression. He had a colectomy 6 years ago for colon cancer.

He takes the following medications: Semaglutide (1 mg weekly), amlodipine (5 mg once daily), and escitalopram (10 mg once daily). On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg, his pulse is 90, and his temperature is 37.2 degrees C. He has normal bowel sounds but guarding in the right lower quadrant.

What imaging would you recommend?

A) CT without contrast

B) CT with contrast

C) MRI

D) Abdominal ultrasound

This patient has several potential causes for his abdominal pain that imaging may clarify. I think a contrast CT scan would be the most likely to provide helpful information. It is likely that if it were ordered, there may be hesitation by the radiologist to perform the scan with contrast because of the patient’s CKD.

Concern for contrast-induced kidney injury has limited diagnostic testing for many years. How strong is the evidence for contrast-induced kidney injury, and should we avoid testing that requires contrast in patients with CKD? McDonald and colleagues performed a meta-analysis with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria, involving 25,950 patients.¹ They found no increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients who received contrast medium compared with those who did not receive contrast; relative risk of AKI for those receiving contrast was 0.79 (confidence interval: 0.62-1.02). Importantly, there was no difference in AKI in patients with diabetes or CKD.

Ehmann et al. looked at renal outcomes in patients who received IV contrast when they presented to an emergency department with AKI.² They found that in patients with AKI, receiving contrast was not associated with persistent AKI at hospital discharge. Hinson and colleagues looked at patients arriving at the emergency department and needing imaging.³ They did a retrospective, cohort analysis of 17,934 patients who had CT with contrast, CT with no contrast, or no CT. Contrast administration was not associated with increased incidence of AKI (odds ratio, 0.96, CI: 0.85-1.08).

Aycock et al. did a meta-analysis of AKI after CT scanning, including 28 studies involving 107,335 patients.⁴ They found that compared with noncontrast CT, CT scanning with contrast was not associated with AKI (OR, 0.94, CI: 0.83-1.07). Elias and Aronson looked at the risk of AKI after contrast in patients receiving CT scans compared with those who received ventilation/perfusion scans to evaluate for pulmonary embolism.⁵ There were 44 AKI events (4.5%) in patients exposed to contrast media and 33 events (3.4%) in patients not exposed to contrast media (risk difference: 1.1%, 95% CI: -0.6% to 2.9%; OR, 1.39, CI: 0.86-2.26; P = .18).

Despite multiple studies showing no increased risk, there is still a concern that contrast can cause AKI.⁶ Animal models have shown iodinated contrast can have a deleterious effect on mitochondria and membrane function.⁶ Criticisms of the retrospective nature of many of the studies I have shared, and the lack of randomized, controlled trials are that there may be bias in these studies, as the highest-risk patients are the ones most likely not to receive contrast. In a joint guideline from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation, this statement was made: “The risk of acute kidney injury developing in patients with reduced kidney function following exposure to intravenous iodinated contrast media has been overstated.”⁷ Their recommendation was to give contrast if needed in patients with glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) greater than 30.



Myth: Contrast-induced renal injury is a concern.

Clinical impact: For CT scanning, it is OK to give contrast when needed. A conservative cutoff for contrast use would be a GFR less than 30.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. McDonald JS et al. Radiology. 2013:267:119-128.

2. Ehmann MR et al. Intensive Care Med. 2023:49(2):205-215.

3. Hinson JS et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(5):577-586.

4. Aycock RD et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):44-53.

5. Elias A, Aronson D. Thromb Haemost. 2021 Jun;121(6):800-807.

6. Weisbord SD, du Cheryon D. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(1):107-109.

7. Davenport MS et al. Radiology. 2020;294(3):660-668.

A 59-year-old man presents with abdominal pain. He has a history of small bowel obstruction and diverticulitis. His medical history includes chronic kidney disease (CKD; baseline creatinine, 1.8 mg/dL), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression. He had a colectomy 6 years ago for colon cancer.

He takes the following medications: Semaglutide (1 mg weekly), amlodipine (5 mg once daily), and escitalopram (10 mg once daily). On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg, his pulse is 90, and his temperature is 37.2 degrees C. He has normal bowel sounds but guarding in the right lower quadrant.

What imaging would you recommend?

A) CT without contrast

B) CT with contrast

C) MRI

D) Abdominal ultrasound

This patient has several potential causes for his abdominal pain that imaging may clarify. I think a contrast CT scan would be the most likely to provide helpful information. It is likely that if it were ordered, there may be hesitation by the radiologist to perform the scan with contrast because of the patient’s CKD.

Concern for contrast-induced kidney injury has limited diagnostic testing for many years. How strong is the evidence for contrast-induced kidney injury, and should we avoid testing that requires contrast in patients with CKD? McDonald and colleagues performed a meta-analysis with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria, involving 25,950 patients.¹ They found no increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients who received contrast medium compared with those who did not receive contrast; relative risk of AKI for those receiving contrast was 0.79 (confidence interval: 0.62-1.02). Importantly, there was no difference in AKI in patients with diabetes or CKD.

Ehmann et al. looked at renal outcomes in patients who received IV contrast when they presented to an emergency department with AKI.² They found that in patients with AKI, receiving contrast was not associated with persistent AKI at hospital discharge. Hinson and colleagues looked at patients arriving at the emergency department and needing imaging.³ They did a retrospective, cohort analysis of 17,934 patients who had CT with contrast, CT with no contrast, or no CT. Contrast administration was not associated with increased incidence of AKI (odds ratio, 0.96, CI: 0.85-1.08).

Aycock et al. did a meta-analysis of AKI after CT scanning, including 28 studies involving 107,335 patients.⁴ They found that compared with noncontrast CT, CT scanning with contrast was not associated with AKI (OR, 0.94, CI: 0.83-1.07). Elias and Aronson looked at the risk of AKI after contrast in patients receiving CT scans compared with those who received ventilation/perfusion scans to evaluate for pulmonary embolism.⁵ There were 44 AKI events (4.5%) in patients exposed to contrast media and 33 events (3.4%) in patients not exposed to contrast media (risk difference: 1.1%, 95% CI: -0.6% to 2.9%; OR, 1.39, CI: 0.86-2.26; P = .18).

Despite multiple studies showing no increased risk, there is still a concern that contrast can cause AKI.⁶ Animal models have shown iodinated contrast can have a deleterious effect on mitochondria and membrane function.⁶ Criticisms of the retrospective nature of many of the studies I have shared, and the lack of randomized, controlled trials are that there may be bias in these studies, as the highest-risk patients are the ones most likely not to receive contrast. In a joint guideline from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation, this statement was made: “The risk of acute kidney injury developing in patients with reduced kidney function following exposure to intravenous iodinated contrast media has been overstated.”⁷ Their recommendation was to give contrast if needed in patients with glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) greater than 30.



Myth: Contrast-induced renal injury is a concern.

Clinical impact: For CT scanning, it is OK to give contrast when needed. A conservative cutoff for contrast use would be a GFR less than 30.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. McDonald JS et al. Radiology. 2013:267:119-128.

2. Ehmann MR et al. Intensive Care Med. 2023:49(2):205-215.

3. Hinson JS et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(5):577-586.

4. Aycock RD et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):44-53.

5. Elias A, Aronson D. Thromb Haemost. 2021 Jun;121(6):800-807.

6. Weisbord SD, du Cheryon D. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(1):107-109.

7. Davenport MS et al. Radiology. 2020;294(3):660-668.

A 59-year-old man presents with abdominal pain. He has a history of small bowel obstruction and diverticulitis. His medical history includes chronic kidney disease (CKD; baseline creatinine, 1.8 mg/dL), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression. He had a colectomy 6 years ago for colon cancer.

He takes the following medications: Semaglutide (1 mg weekly), amlodipine (5 mg once daily), and escitalopram (10 mg once daily). On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg, his pulse is 90, and his temperature is 37.2 degrees C. He has normal bowel sounds but guarding in the right lower quadrant.

What imaging would you recommend?

A) CT without contrast

B) CT with contrast

C) MRI

D) Abdominal ultrasound

This patient has several potential causes for his abdominal pain that imaging may clarify. I think a contrast CT scan would be the most likely to provide helpful information. It is likely that if it were ordered, there may be hesitation by the radiologist to perform the scan with contrast because of the patient’s CKD.

Concern for contrast-induced kidney injury has limited diagnostic testing for many years. How strong is the evidence for contrast-induced kidney injury, and should we avoid testing that requires contrast in patients with CKD? McDonald and colleagues performed a meta-analysis with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria, involving 25,950 patients.¹ They found no increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients who received contrast medium compared with those who did not receive contrast; relative risk of AKI for those receiving contrast was 0.79 (confidence interval: 0.62-1.02). Importantly, there was no difference in AKI in patients with diabetes or CKD.

Ehmann et al. looked at renal outcomes in patients who received IV contrast when they presented to an emergency department with AKI.² They found that in patients with AKI, receiving contrast was not associated with persistent AKI at hospital discharge. Hinson and colleagues looked at patients arriving at the emergency department and needing imaging.³ They did a retrospective, cohort analysis of 17,934 patients who had CT with contrast, CT with no contrast, or no CT. Contrast administration was not associated with increased incidence of AKI (odds ratio, 0.96, CI: 0.85-1.08).

Aycock et al. did a meta-analysis of AKI after CT scanning, including 28 studies involving 107,335 patients.⁴ They found that compared with noncontrast CT, CT scanning with contrast was not associated with AKI (OR, 0.94, CI: 0.83-1.07). Elias and Aronson looked at the risk of AKI after contrast in patients receiving CT scans compared with those who received ventilation/perfusion scans to evaluate for pulmonary embolism.⁵ There were 44 AKI events (4.5%) in patients exposed to contrast media and 33 events (3.4%) in patients not exposed to contrast media (risk difference: 1.1%, 95% CI: -0.6% to 2.9%; OR, 1.39, CI: 0.86-2.26; P = .18).

Despite multiple studies showing no increased risk, there is still a concern that contrast can cause AKI.⁶ Animal models have shown iodinated contrast can have a deleterious effect on mitochondria and membrane function.⁶ Criticisms of the retrospective nature of many of the studies I have shared, and the lack of randomized, controlled trials are that there may be bias in these studies, as the highest-risk patients are the ones most likely not to receive contrast. In a joint guideline from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation, this statement was made: “The risk of acute kidney injury developing in patients with reduced kidney function following exposure to intravenous iodinated contrast media has been overstated.”⁷ Their recommendation was to give contrast if needed in patients with glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) greater than 30.



Myth: Contrast-induced renal injury is a concern.

Clinical impact: For CT scanning, it is OK to give contrast when needed. A conservative cutoff for contrast use would be a GFR less than 30.
 

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. McDonald JS et al. Radiology. 2013:267:119-128.

2. Ehmann MR et al. Intensive Care Med. 2023:49(2):205-215.

3. Hinson JS et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(5):577-586.

4. Aycock RD et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):44-53.

5. Elias A, Aronson D. Thromb Haemost. 2021 Jun;121(6):800-807.

6. Weisbord SD, du Cheryon D. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(1):107-109.

7. Davenport MS et al. Radiology. 2020;294(3):660-668.

TOPLINE:

People with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) may score lower on cognitive tests than people without the condition, a research showed. They also may have worse integrity of brain tissue as evident on an MRI.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Women’s Study; individuals were 18-30 years old at the beginning of the study and were followed over 30 years.
• A little over 900 women were included in the study, of which 66 had PCOS, which was defined as having elevated androgen levels or self-reported hirsutism and irregular menstrual cycles more than 32 days apart.
• Study participants completed tests measuring verbal learning and memory, processing speed and executive function, attention and cognitive control, and semantics and attention.
• Researchers analyzed brain white matter integrity for 291 of the individuals, including 25 with PCOS, who underwent MRI.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with PCOS had worse memory, attention, and verbal ability scores than those without the disorder.
• MRI scans showed that those with PCOS had lower white matter integrity, an indicator of cognitive deficits, including poorer decision-making abilities.
• Those in the PCOS group were more likely to be White and have diabetes than those in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This report of midlife cognition in PCOS raises a new concern about another potential comorbidity for individuals with this common disorder; given that up to 10% of women may be affected by PCOS, these results have important implications for public health at large,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Heather G. Huddleston, MD, director of the PCOS Clinic at the UCSF Health, San Francisco, California, is the lead author of the study published in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

PCOS was determined on the basis of serum androgen levels and self-reporting of hirsutism and oligomenorrhea, so some cases may have been misclassified without the official diagnosis of a clinician.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any relevant financial conflicts. The study was funded by a grant from the University of California, San Francisco, California.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) may score lower on cognitive tests than people without the condition, a research showed. They also may have worse integrity of brain tissue as evident on an MRI.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Women’s Study; individuals were 18-30 years old at the beginning of the study and were followed over 30 years.
• A little over 900 women were included in the study, of which 66 had PCOS, which was defined as having elevated androgen levels or self-reported hirsutism and irregular menstrual cycles more than 32 days apart.
• Study participants completed tests measuring verbal learning and memory, processing speed and executive function, attention and cognitive control, and semantics and attention.
• Researchers analyzed brain white matter integrity for 291 of the individuals, including 25 with PCOS, who underwent MRI.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with PCOS had worse memory, attention, and verbal ability scores than those without the disorder.
• MRI scans showed that those with PCOS had lower white matter integrity, an indicator of cognitive deficits, including poorer decision-making abilities.
• Those in the PCOS group were more likely to be White and have diabetes than those in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This report of midlife cognition in PCOS raises a new concern about another potential comorbidity for individuals with this common disorder; given that up to 10% of women may be affected by PCOS, these results have important implications for public health at large,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Heather G. Huddleston, MD, director of the PCOS Clinic at the UCSF Health, San Francisco, California, is the lead author of the study published in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

PCOS was determined on the basis of serum androgen levels and self-reporting of hirsutism and oligomenorrhea, so some cases may have been misclassified without the official diagnosis of a clinician.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any relevant financial conflicts. The study was funded by a grant from the University of California, San Francisco, California.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) may score lower on cognitive tests than people without the condition, a research showed. They also may have worse integrity of brain tissue as evident on an MRI.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used data from the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Women’s Study; individuals were 18-30 years old at the beginning of the study and were followed over 30 years.
• A little over 900 women were included in the study, of which 66 had PCOS, which was defined as having elevated androgen levels or self-reported hirsutism and irregular menstrual cycles more than 32 days apart.
• Study participants completed tests measuring verbal learning and memory, processing speed and executive function, attention and cognitive control, and semantics and attention.
• Researchers analyzed brain white matter integrity for 291 of the individuals, including 25 with PCOS, who underwent MRI.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with PCOS had worse memory, attention, and verbal ability scores than those without the disorder.
• MRI scans showed that those with PCOS had lower white matter integrity, an indicator of cognitive deficits, including poorer decision-making abilities.
• Those in the PCOS group were more likely to be White and have diabetes than those in the control group.

IN PRACTICE:

“This report of midlife cognition in PCOS raises a new concern about another potential comorbidity for individuals with this common disorder; given that up to 10% of women may be affected by PCOS, these results have important implications for public health at large,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Heather G. Huddleston, MD, director of the PCOS Clinic at the UCSF Health, San Francisco, California, is the lead author of the study published in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

PCOS was determined on the basis of serum androgen levels and self-reporting of hirsutism and oligomenorrhea, so some cases may have been misclassified without the official diagnosis of a clinician.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any relevant financial conflicts. The study was funded by a grant from the University of California, San Francisco, California.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than a million European children undergo a CT scan each year. Ionizing radiation at moderate (> 100 mGy) to high (> 1 Gy) doses is a recognized risk factor for malignant hematopathies. The risk associated with exposure to low doses (< 100 mGy), typically delivered during a CT scan in children or adolescents, is unknown.

Previous studies assessed the risk for malignant hematopathies related to ionizing radiation from CT scans in young patients. Some showed an increased risk for leukemia with repeated scans, but confounding factors resulted in a lack of statistical power or biases in some cases. The EPI-CT study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to evaluate the cancer risk among children and adolescents after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation during CT scans.
 

A European Cohort

A recent article presents an assessment of observed malignant hematopathies following CT scan. The authors followed a multinational European cohort of 948,174 patients who had a CT scan before age 22 years. Ionizing radiation doses to the bone marrow were evaluated based on the scanned body region, patient characteristics, scan year, and the technical parameters of the machine. The analysis involved 876,771 patients who underwent 1,331,896 scans (an average of 1.52 per patient) and were followed for at least 2 years after the first scan.

In total, 790 malignant hematopathies were diagnosed, including 578 lymphoid hematopathies and 203 myeloid hematopathies and acute leukemias. The average follow-up period was 7.8 years. At the time of diagnosis, 51% of patients were under the age of 20 years, and 88.5% were under the age of 30 years. There was an association between cumulative dose and the observed malignant hematopathy, with an observed rate of 1.96 per 100 mGy (790 cases).

This rate corresponds to a 16% increased rate per scan (for a dose observed per scan of 8 mGy). A higher rate for any type of malignant hematopathy was observed for doses > 10 mGy, with an observed rate of 2.66 for doses > 50 mGy, compared with doses < 5 mGy.

The rate of malignant hematopathy increased with older age at the time of radiation exposure, particularly for lymphoid observations. The rate in the 5- to 9-year age group and the > 10-year age group was, respectively, two times and three to four times higher than that in the < 5-year age group. The rate decreased over time, with the highest observed rate between 2 and 5 years after ionizing radiation exposure and the lowest after 10 years.
 

CT Scans Must Be Warranted

This study, which involved nearly a million patients, has higher statistical power than previous studies, despite missing or approximate data (including that related to actually delivered doses). An association was shown between cumulative dose to the bone marrow and the risk of developing malignant hematopathy, both lymphoid and myeloid, with an increased risk even at low doses (10-15 mGy).

The results suggest that for every 10,000 children examined today (with a dose per scan of 8 mGy), 1-2 could develop a radiation-related malignant hematopathy in the next 12 years (1.4 cases). This study confirms the higher risk for cancer at low radiation doses and emphasizes the importance of justifying each pediatric CT scan and optimizing delivered doses. It is important to recall that an MRI or ultrasound can sometimes be an adequate substitute for a CT scan.

This article was translated from   JIM , which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

More than a million European children undergo a CT scan each year. Ionizing radiation at moderate (> 100 mGy) to high (> 1 Gy) doses is a recognized risk factor for malignant hematopathies. The risk associated with exposure to low doses (< 100 mGy), typically delivered during a CT scan in children or adolescents, is unknown.

Previous studies assessed the risk for malignant hematopathies related to ionizing radiation from CT scans in young patients. Some showed an increased risk for leukemia with repeated scans, but confounding factors resulted in a lack of statistical power or biases in some cases. The EPI-CT study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to evaluate the cancer risk among children and adolescents after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation during CT scans.
 

A European Cohort

A recent article presents an assessment of observed malignant hematopathies following CT scan. The authors followed a multinational European cohort of 948,174 patients who had a CT scan before age 22 years. Ionizing radiation doses to the bone marrow were evaluated based on the scanned body region, patient characteristics, scan year, and the technical parameters of the machine. The analysis involved 876,771 patients who underwent 1,331,896 scans (an average of 1.52 per patient) and were followed for at least 2 years after the first scan.

In total, 790 malignant hematopathies were diagnosed, including 578 lymphoid hematopathies and 203 myeloid hematopathies and acute leukemias. The average follow-up period was 7.8 years. At the time of diagnosis, 51% of patients were under the age of 20 years, and 88.5% were under the age of 30 years. There was an association between cumulative dose and the observed malignant hematopathy, with an observed rate of 1.96 per 100 mGy (790 cases).

This rate corresponds to a 16% increased rate per scan (for a dose observed per scan of 8 mGy). A higher rate for any type of malignant hematopathy was observed for doses > 10 mGy, with an observed rate of 2.66 for doses > 50 mGy, compared with doses < 5 mGy.

The rate of malignant hematopathy increased with older age at the time of radiation exposure, particularly for lymphoid observations. The rate in the 5- to 9-year age group and the > 10-year age group was, respectively, two times and three to four times higher than that in the < 5-year age group. The rate decreased over time, with the highest observed rate between 2 and 5 years after ionizing radiation exposure and the lowest after 10 years.
 

CT Scans Must Be Warranted

This study, which involved nearly a million patients, has higher statistical power than previous studies, despite missing or approximate data (including that related to actually delivered doses). An association was shown between cumulative dose to the bone marrow and the risk of developing malignant hematopathy, both lymphoid and myeloid, with an increased risk even at low doses (10-15 mGy).

The results suggest that for every 10,000 children examined today (with a dose per scan of 8 mGy), 1-2 could develop a radiation-related malignant hematopathy in the next 12 years (1.4 cases). This study confirms the higher risk for cancer at low radiation doses and emphasizes the importance of justifying each pediatric CT scan and optimizing delivered doses. It is important to recall that an MRI or ultrasound can sometimes be an adequate substitute for a CT scan.

This article was translated from   JIM , which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

More than a million European children undergo a CT scan each year. Ionizing radiation at moderate (> 100 mGy) to high (> 1 Gy) doses is a recognized risk factor for malignant hematopathies. The risk associated with exposure to low doses (< 100 mGy), typically delivered during a CT scan in children or adolescents, is unknown.

Previous studies assessed the risk for malignant hematopathies related to ionizing radiation from CT scans in young patients. Some showed an increased risk for leukemia with repeated scans, but confounding factors resulted in a lack of statistical power or biases in some cases. The EPI-CT study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to evaluate the cancer risk among children and adolescents after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation during CT scans.
 

A European Cohort

A recent article presents an assessment of observed malignant hematopathies following CT scan. The authors followed a multinational European cohort of 948,174 patients who had a CT scan before age 22 years. Ionizing radiation doses to the bone marrow were evaluated based on the scanned body region, patient characteristics, scan year, and the technical parameters of the machine. The analysis involved 876,771 patients who underwent 1,331,896 scans (an average of 1.52 per patient) and were followed for at least 2 years after the first scan.

In total, 790 malignant hematopathies were diagnosed, including 578 lymphoid hematopathies and 203 myeloid hematopathies and acute leukemias. The average follow-up period was 7.8 years. At the time of diagnosis, 51% of patients were under the age of 20 years, and 88.5% were under the age of 30 years. There was an association between cumulative dose and the observed malignant hematopathy, with an observed rate of 1.96 per 100 mGy (790 cases).

This rate corresponds to a 16% increased rate per scan (for a dose observed per scan of 8 mGy). A higher rate for any type of malignant hematopathy was observed for doses > 10 mGy, with an observed rate of 2.66 for doses > 50 mGy, compared with doses < 5 mGy.

The rate of malignant hematopathy increased with older age at the time of radiation exposure, particularly for lymphoid observations. The rate in the 5- to 9-year age group and the > 10-year age group was, respectively, two times and three to four times higher than that in the < 5-year age group. The rate decreased over time, with the highest observed rate between 2 and 5 years after ionizing radiation exposure and the lowest after 10 years.
 

CT Scans Must Be Warranted

This study, which involved nearly a million patients, has higher statistical power than previous studies, despite missing or approximate data (including that related to actually delivered doses). An association was shown between cumulative dose to the bone marrow and the risk of developing malignant hematopathy, both lymphoid and myeloid, with an increased risk even at low doses (10-15 mGy).

The results suggest that for every 10,000 children examined today (with a dose per scan of 8 mGy), 1-2 could develop a radiation-related malignant hematopathy in the next 12 years (1.4 cases). This study confirms the higher risk for cancer at low radiation doses and emphasizes the importance of justifying each pediatric CT scan and optimizing delivered doses. It is important to recall that an MRI or ultrasound can sometimes be an adequate substitute for a CT scan.

This article was translated from   JIM , which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.

There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.

A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.

“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”

Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.

The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.

“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”

AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.

These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.

“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.

Big Battles Ahead

There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.

The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.

AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.

But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.

Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.

And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.

Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.

A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.

Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.

Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.

In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.

As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes

Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.

In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.

“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”

In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.

In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.

“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.

But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.

The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.

In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.

More Patients Shopping?

It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.

But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.

The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.

“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.

Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.

This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.

“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.

This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.

“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are associated with poorer cardiovascular and neurocognitive health among midlife women, particularly those who are APOEε4 carriers, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 274 women (mean age, 59 years) participating in the MsBrain study of menopause and brain health.
• As part of the study, the women completed the PTSD Checklist–Civilian Version and underwent physical and neuropsychological testing, as well as carotid artery ultrasonography and brain MRI.
• Outcomes of interest were associations of PTSD symptoms with carotid intima media thickness (IMT), brain white matter hyperintensity volume (WMHV), and cognition, assessed in linear regression models.
• Interactions by APOEε4 were assessed; covariates included age, race/ethnicity, education, and CVD risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher PTSD symptoms were associated with greater carotid IMT (P = .03); associations of PTSD symptoms with neurocognitive outcomes varied significantly by APOEε4 status.
• Among APOEε4 carriers, PTSD symptoms were associated with greater whole-brain WMHV (P = .009), periventricular WMHV (P = .02), deep WMHV (P = .01), and frontal WMHV (P = .04) in multivariable models.
• APOEε4 carriers with PTSD symptoms also had poorer cognition, specifically attention and working memory (P = .02), semantic fluency (P = .01), perceptual speed (P = .002) and processing speed (P = .002), in multivariable models.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study sheds important insight on the implications of PTSD symptoms to women’s cardiovascular and neurocognitive health. Our findings indicate that the APOEε4 genotype may identify a group of women with PTSD symptoms at particular risk for poor neurocognitive health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rebecca Thurston, PhD, of the department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

No diagnostic clinical interviews were conducted, and PTSD treatment was not assessed. All participants identified as cisgender, and most were non-Hispanic Black or White. The study was observational and cross-sectional, precluding assertions about directionality or causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the University of Pittsburgh Small Molecule Biomarker Core. Dr. Thurston reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Hello Therapeutics, Vira Health, and Happify Health outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are associated with poorer cardiovascular and neurocognitive health among midlife women, particularly those who are APOEε4 carriers, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 274 women (mean age, 59 years) participating in the MsBrain study of menopause and brain health.
• As part of the study, the women completed the PTSD Checklist–Civilian Version and underwent physical and neuropsychological testing, as well as carotid artery ultrasonography and brain MRI.
• Outcomes of interest were associations of PTSD symptoms with carotid intima media thickness (IMT), brain white matter hyperintensity volume (WMHV), and cognition, assessed in linear regression models.
• Interactions by APOEε4 were assessed; covariates included age, race/ethnicity, education, and CVD risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher PTSD symptoms were associated with greater carotid IMT (P = .03); associations of PTSD symptoms with neurocognitive outcomes varied significantly by APOEε4 status.
• Among APOEε4 carriers, PTSD symptoms were associated with greater whole-brain WMHV (P = .009), periventricular WMHV (P = .02), deep WMHV (P = .01), and frontal WMHV (P = .04) in multivariable models.
• APOEε4 carriers with PTSD symptoms also had poorer cognition, specifically attention and working memory (P = .02), semantic fluency (P = .01), perceptual speed (P = .002) and processing speed (P = .002), in multivariable models.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study sheds important insight on the implications of PTSD symptoms to women’s cardiovascular and neurocognitive health. Our findings indicate that the APOEε4 genotype may identify a group of women with PTSD symptoms at particular risk for poor neurocognitive health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rebecca Thurston, PhD, of the department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

No diagnostic clinical interviews were conducted, and PTSD treatment was not assessed. All participants identified as cisgender, and most were non-Hispanic Black or White. The study was observational and cross-sectional, precluding assertions about directionality or causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the University of Pittsburgh Small Molecule Biomarker Core. Dr. Thurston reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Hello Therapeutics, Vira Health, and Happify Health outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are associated with poorer cardiovascular and neurocognitive health among midlife women, particularly those who are APOEε4 carriers, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of 274 women (mean age, 59 years) participating in the MsBrain study of menopause and brain health.
• As part of the study, the women completed the PTSD Checklist–Civilian Version and underwent physical and neuropsychological testing, as well as carotid artery ultrasonography and brain MRI.
• Outcomes of interest were associations of PTSD symptoms with carotid intima media thickness (IMT), brain white matter hyperintensity volume (WMHV), and cognition, assessed in linear regression models.
• Interactions by APOEε4 were assessed; covariates included age, race/ethnicity, education, and CVD risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher PTSD symptoms were associated with greater carotid IMT (P = .03); associations of PTSD symptoms with neurocognitive outcomes varied significantly by APOEε4 status.
• Among APOEε4 carriers, PTSD symptoms were associated with greater whole-brain WMHV (P = .009), periventricular WMHV (P = .02), deep WMHV (P = .01), and frontal WMHV (P = .04) in multivariable models.
• APOEε4 carriers with PTSD symptoms also had poorer cognition, specifically attention and working memory (P = .02), semantic fluency (P = .01), perceptual speed (P = .002) and processing speed (P = .002), in multivariable models.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study sheds important insight on the implications of PTSD symptoms to women’s cardiovascular and neurocognitive health. Our findings indicate that the APOEε4 genotype may identify a group of women with PTSD symptoms at particular risk for poor neurocognitive health,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rebecca Thurston, PhD, of the department of psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, was published online  in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

No diagnostic clinical interviews were conducted, and PTSD treatment was not assessed. All participants identified as cisgender, and most were non-Hispanic Black or White. The study was observational and cross-sectional, precluding assertions about directionality or causality.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, and the University of Pittsburgh Small Molecule Biomarker Core. Dr. Thurston reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Hello Therapeutics, Vira Health, and Happify Health outside the submitted work.

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