Clinical Neurology News

The PREDICT score does not seem to be particularly accurate when it comes to estimating overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. This is the conclusion of an international study published in the journal npj Breast Cancer. The work was supervised by Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, an oncologist at the IRCCS San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genoa, Italy.

As the authors explain, “PREDICT is a publicly available online tool that helps to predict the individual prognosis of patients with early breast cancer and to show the impact of adjuvant treatments administered after breast cancer surgery.” The tool uses traditional clinical-pathological factors. The authors also point out that the original version of this tool was validated in several datasets of patients with breast cancer. In 2011, it was updated to include HER2 status.

The investigators noted that, although the use of PREDICT is recommended to aid decision-making in the adjuvant setting, its prognostic role in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapies – even trastuzumab-based ones – remains unclear.

Therefore, they decided to analyze PREDICT’s prognostic performance using data extracted from the ALTTO trial, the largest adjuvant study ever conducted in the field of HER2-positive early breast cancer. That trial “represented a unique opportunity to investigate the reliability and prognostic performance of PREDICT in women with HER2-positive disease,” according to the investigators. They went on to specify that ALTTO evaluated adjuvant lapatinib plus trastuzumab vs. trastuzumab alone in 8,381 patients – 2,794 of whom were included in their own analysis.

What the analysis found was that, overall, PREDICT underestimated 5-year OS by 6.7%. The observed 5-year OS was 94.7%, and the predicted 5-year OS was 88.0%.

“The underestimation was consistent across all subgroups, including those according to the type of anti-HER2 therapy. The highest absolute differences were observed for patients with hormone receptor–negative disease, nodal involvement, and large tumor size (13.0%, 15.8%, and 15.3%, respectively),” they wrote. Furthermore, they reported that “the suboptimal performance of this prognostic tool was observed irrespective of type of anti-HER2 treatment, type of chemotherapy regimen, age of the patients at the time of diagnosis, central hormone receptor status, pathological nodal status, and pathological tumor size.”

To potentially explain the reasons for the underestimation of patients’ OS, the authors questioned whether the population used to validate PREDICT accurately mirrored the real-world population of patients with HER2-positive disease treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. “Moreover, the current standard of care for early breast cancer is even superior to the treatment received by many patients in the ALTTO study. … As such, the discordance between OS estimated by PREDICT and the current real-world OS is expected to be even higher. Therefore,” the researchers concluded, “our results suggest that the current version of PREDICT should be used with caution for prognostication in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

The PREDICT score does not seem to be particularly accurate when it comes to estimating overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. This is the conclusion of an international study published in the journal npj Breast Cancer. The work was supervised by Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, an oncologist at the IRCCS San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genoa, Italy.

As the authors explain, “PREDICT is a publicly available online tool that helps to predict the individual prognosis of patients with early breast cancer and to show the impact of adjuvant treatments administered after breast cancer surgery.” The tool uses traditional clinical-pathological factors. The authors also point out that the original version of this tool was validated in several datasets of patients with breast cancer. In 2011, it was updated to include HER2 status.

The investigators noted that, although the use of PREDICT is recommended to aid decision-making in the adjuvant setting, its prognostic role in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapies – even trastuzumab-based ones – remains unclear.

Therefore, they decided to analyze PREDICT’s prognostic performance using data extracted from the ALTTO trial, the largest adjuvant study ever conducted in the field of HER2-positive early breast cancer. That trial “represented a unique opportunity to investigate the reliability and prognostic performance of PREDICT in women with HER2-positive disease,” according to the investigators. They went on to specify that ALTTO evaluated adjuvant lapatinib plus trastuzumab vs. trastuzumab alone in 8,381 patients – 2,794 of whom were included in their own analysis.

What the analysis found was that, overall, PREDICT underestimated 5-year OS by 6.7%. The observed 5-year OS was 94.7%, and the predicted 5-year OS was 88.0%.

“The underestimation was consistent across all subgroups, including those according to the type of anti-HER2 therapy. The highest absolute differences were observed for patients with hormone receptor–negative disease, nodal involvement, and large tumor size (13.0%, 15.8%, and 15.3%, respectively),” they wrote. Furthermore, they reported that “the suboptimal performance of this prognostic tool was observed irrespective of type of anti-HER2 treatment, type of chemotherapy regimen, age of the patients at the time of diagnosis, central hormone receptor status, pathological nodal status, and pathological tumor size.”

To potentially explain the reasons for the underestimation of patients’ OS, the authors questioned whether the population used to validate PREDICT accurately mirrored the real-world population of patients with HER2-positive disease treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. “Moreover, the current standard of care for early breast cancer is even superior to the treatment received by many patients in the ALTTO study. … As such, the discordance between OS estimated by PREDICT and the current real-world OS is expected to be even higher. Therefore,” the researchers concluded, “our results suggest that the current version of PREDICT should be used with caution for prognostication in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

The PREDICT score does not seem to be particularly accurate when it comes to estimating overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. This is the conclusion of an international study published in the journal npj Breast Cancer. The work was supervised by Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, an oncologist at the IRCCS San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genoa, Italy.

As the authors explain, “PREDICT is a publicly available online tool that helps to predict the individual prognosis of patients with early breast cancer and to show the impact of adjuvant treatments administered after breast cancer surgery.” The tool uses traditional clinical-pathological factors. The authors also point out that the original version of this tool was validated in several datasets of patients with breast cancer. In 2011, it was updated to include HER2 status.

The investigators noted that, although the use of PREDICT is recommended to aid decision-making in the adjuvant setting, its prognostic role in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapies – even trastuzumab-based ones – remains unclear.

Therefore, they decided to analyze PREDICT’s prognostic performance using data extracted from the ALTTO trial, the largest adjuvant study ever conducted in the field of HER2-positive early breast cancer. That trial “represented a unique opportunity to investigate the reliability and prognostic performance of PREDICT in women with HER2-positive disease,” according to the investigators. They went on to specify that ALTTO evaluated adjuvant lapatinib plus trastuzumab vs. trastuzumab alone in 8,381 patients – 2,794 of whom were included in their own analysis.

What the analysis found was that, overall, PREDICT underestimated 5-year OS by 6.7%. The observed 5-year OS was 94.7%, and the predicted 5-year OS was 88.0%.

“The underestimation was consistent across all subgroups, including those according to the type of anti-HER2 therapy. The highest absolute differences were observed for patients with hormone receptor–negative disease, nodal involvement, and large tumor size (13.0%, 15.8%, and 15.3%, respectively),” they wrote. Furthermore, they reported that “the suboptimal performance of this prognostic tool was observed irrespective of type of anti-HER2 treatment, type of chemotherapy regimen, age of the patients at the time of diagnosis, central hormone receptor status, pathological nodal status, and pathological tumor size.”

To potentially explain the reasons for the underestimation of patients’ OS, the authors questioned whether the population used to validate PREDICT accurately mirrored the real-world population of patients with HER2-positive disease treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. “Moreover, the current standard of care for early breast cancer is even superior to the treatment received by many patients in the ALTTO study. … As such, the discordance between OS estimated by PREDICT and the current real-world OS is expected to be even higher. Therefore,” the researchers concluded, “our results suggest that the current version of PREDICT should be used with caution for prognostication in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

Of all the headaches inherent in a private medical practice, few are more frustrating than patients who make appointments and then fail to keep them.

No-shows are a problem for all physicians, but especially for dermatologists. In one study, the no-show rate in dermatology offices averaged 10% – almost double the average for all medical offices.

The problem has become so pervasive that many physicians are now charging a fee for missed appointments. I have never been a fan of such fees for a variety of reasons, starting with the anger and bad will that they engender; but also, in my experience, they seldom accomplish their intended goal of changing the behavior.

That’s because fees imply some sort of conscious decision made by a patient to miss an appointment, but studies show that this is rarely the case. Some patients cite transportation issues or childcare obligations. One Canadian study found that nearly a quarter of patients who missed an appointment felt too sick to keep it. Another reason is lack of insurance coverage. Studies have shown that the no-show rate is far higher when the patient is paying out-of-pocket for the visit.

Patients who don’t show up for appointments tend to be younger and poorer, and live farther away from the office than those who attend consistently. Some patients may be unaware that they need to cancel, while others report that they don’t feel obliged to keep appointments because they feel disrespected by the system. One person posted on a medical forum, “Everyone’s time is valuable. When the doctor makes me wait, there are consequences too. Why are there two standards in the situation?”

The most common reason for missed appointments, however, according to multiple studies, is that patients simply forget that they have one. One reason for that is a lag between appointment and visit. Many dermatologists are booked well in advance; by the time the appointment arrives, some patients’ complaints will have resolved spontaneously, while other patients will have found another office willing to see them sooner.

Another big reason is the absence of a strong physician-patient relationship. Perhaps the patient sees a different doctor or physician assistant at each visit and doesn’t feel a particular bond with any of them. Some patients may perceive a lack of concern on the part of the physician. And others may suffer from poor communication; for example, patients frequently become frustrated that a chronic condition has not resolved, when it has not been clearly explained to them that such problems cannot be expected to resolve rapidly or completely.

Whatever the reasons, no-shows are an economic and medicolegal liability. It is worth the considerable effort it often takes to minimize them.

Research suggests that no-show rates can be reduced by providing more same-day or next-day appointments. One large-scale analysis of national data found that same-day appointments accounted for just 2% of no-shows, while appointments booked 15 days or more in advance accounted for nearly a third of them. Canadian studies have likewise found the risk of no-shows increases the further in advance clinics book patients.

Deal with simple forgetfulness by calling your patients the day before to remind them of their appointments. Reasonably priced phone software is available from a variety of vendors to automate this process. Or hire a teenager to do it after school each day.

Whenever possible, use cellphone numbers for reminder calls. Patients often aren’t home during the day, and many don’t listen to their messages when they come in. And patients who have moved will often have a new home phone number, but their cellphone number will be the same.

Decrease the wait for new appointments. Keep some slots open each week for new patients, who will often “shop around” for a faster appointment while they’re waiting for an appointment they already have elsewhere.

But above all, seek to maximize the strength of your physician-patient relationships. Try not to shuttle patients between different physicians or PAs, and make it clear that you are genuinely concerned about their health. Impress upon them the crucial role they play in their own care, which includes keeping all their appointments.

In our office, significant no-shows (for example, a patient with a melanoma who misses a follow-up visit) receive a phone call and a certified letter, and their records go into a special file for close follow-up by the nursing staff.

If you choose to go the missed-appointment-fee route, be sure to post notices in your office and on your website clearly delineating your policy. Emphasize that it is not a service fee, and cannot be billed to insurance.

All missed appointments should be documented in the patient’s record; it’s important clinical and medicolegal information. And habitual no-shows should be dismissed from your practice. You cannot afford them.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Of all the headaches inherent in a private medical practice, few are more frustrating than patients who make appointments and then fail to keep them.

No-shows are a problem for all physicians, but especially for dermatologists. In one study, the no-show rate in dermatology offices averaged 10% – almost double the average for all medical offices.

The problem has become so pervasive that many physicians are now charging a fee for missed appointments. I have never been a fan of such fees for a variety of reasons, starting with the anger and bad will that they engender; but also, in my experience, they seldom accomplish their intended goal of changing the behavior.

That’s because fees imply some sort of conscious decision made by a patient to miss an appointment, but studies show that this is rarely the case. Some patients cite transportation issues or childcare obligations. One Canadian study found that nearly a quarter of patients who missed an appointment felt too sick to keep it. Another reason is lack of insurance coverage. Studies have shown that the no-show rate is far higher when the patient is paying out-of-pocket for the visit.

Patients who don’t show up for appointments tend to be younger and poorer, and live farther away from the office than those who attend consistently. Some patients may be unaware that they need to cancel, while others report that they don’t feel obliged to keep appointments because they feel disrespected by the system. One person posted on a medical forum, “Everyone’s time is valuable. When the doctor makes me wait, there are consequences too. Why are there two standards in the situation?”

The most common reason for missed appointments, however, according to multiple studies, is that patients simply forget that they have one. One reason for that is a lag between appointment and visit. Many dermatologists are booked well in advance; by the time the appointment arrives, some patients’ complaints will have resolved spontaneously, while other patients will have found another office willing to see them sooner.

Another big reason is the absence of a strong physician-patient relationship. Perhaps the patient sees a different doctor or physician assistant at each visit and doesn’t feel a particular bond with any of them. Some patients may perceive a lack of concern on the part of the physician. And others may suffer from poor communication; for example, patients frequently become frustrated that a chronic condition has not resolved, when it has not been clearly explained to them that such problems cannot be expected to resolve rapidly or completely.

Whatever the reasons, no-shows are an economic and medicolegal liability. It is worth the considerable effort it often takes to minimize them.

Research suggests that no-show rates can be reduced by providing more same-day or next-day appointments. One large-scale analysis of national data found that same-day appointments accounted for just 2% of no-shows, while appointments booked 15 days or more in advance accounted for nearly a third of them. Canadian studies have likewise found the risk of no-shows increases the further in advance clinics book patients.

Deal with simple forgetfulness by calling your patients the day before to remind them of their appointments. Reasonably priced phone software is available from a variety of vendors to automate this process. Or hire a teenager to do it after school each day.

Whenever possible, use cellphone numbers for reminder calls. Patients often aren’t home during the day, and many don’t listen to their messages when they come in. And patients who have moved will often have a new home phone number, but their cellphone number will be the same.

Decrease the wait for new appointments. Keep some slots open each week for new patients, who will often “shop around” for a faster appointment while they’re waiting for an appointment they already have elsewhere.

But above all, seek to maximize the strength of your physician-patient relationships. Try not to shuttle patients between different physicians or PAs, and make it clear that you are genuinely concerned about their health. Impress upon them the crucial role they play in their own care, which includes keeping all their appointments.

In our office, significant no-shows (for example, a patient with a melanoma who misses a follow-up visit) receive a phone call and a certified letter, and their records go into a special file for close follow-up by the nursing staff.

If you choose to go the missed-appointment-fee route, be sure to post notices in your office and on your website clearly delineating your policy. Emphasize that it is not a service fee, and cannot be billed to insurance.

All missed appointments should be documented in the patient’s record; it’s important clinical and medicolegal information. And habitual no-shows should be dismissed from your practice. You cannot afford them.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Of all the headaches inherent in a private medical practice, few are more frustrating than patients who make appointments and then fail to keep them.

No-shows are a problem for all physicians, but especially for dermatologists. In one study, the no-show rate in dermatology offices averaged 10% – almost double the average for all medical offices.

The problem has become so pervasive that many physicians are now charging a fee for missed appointments. I have never been a fan of such fees for a variety of reasons, starting with the anger and bad will that they engender; but also, in my experience, they seldom accomplish their intended goal of changing the behavior.

That’s because fees imply some sort of conscious decision made by a patient to miss an appointment, but studies show that this is rarely the case. Some patients cite transportation issues or childcare obligations. One Canadian study found that nearly a quarter of patients who missed an appointment felt too sick to keep it. Another reason is lack of insurance coverage. Studies have shown that the no-show rate is far higher when the patient is paying out-of-pocket for the visit.

Patients who don’t show up for appointments tend to be younger and poorer, and live farther away from the office than those who attend consistently. Some patients may be unaware that they need to cancel, while others report that they don’t feel obliged to keep appointments because they feel disrespected by the system. One person posted on a medical forum, “Everyone’s time is valuable. When the doctor makes me wait, there are consequences too. Why are there two standards in the situation?”

The most common reason for missed appointments, however, according to multiple studies, is that patients simply forget that they have one. One reason for that is a lag between appointment and visit. Many dermatologists are booked well in advance; by the time the appointment arrives, some patients’ complaints will have resolved spontaneously, while other patients will have found another office willing to see them sooner.

Another big reason is the absence of a strong physician-patient relationship. Perhaps the patient sees a different doctor or physician assistant at each visit and doesn’t feel a particular bond with any of them. Some patients may perceive a lack of concern on the part of the physician. And others may suffer from poor communication; for example, patients frequently become frustrated that a chronic condition has not resolved, when it has not been clearly explained to them that such problems cannot be expected to resolve rapidly or completely.

Whatever the reasons, no-shows are an economic and medicolegal liability. It is worth the considerable effort it often takes to minimize them.

Research suggests that no-show rates can be reduced by providing more same-day or next-day appointments. One large-scale analysis of national data found that same-day appointments accounted for just 2% of no-shows, while appointments booked 15 days or more in advance accounted for nearly a third of them. Canadian studies have likewise found the risk of no-shows increases the further in advance clinics book patients.

Deal with simple forgetfulness by calling your patients the day before to remind them of their appointments. Reasonably priced phone software is available from a variety of vendors to automate this process. Or hire a teenager to do it after school each day.

Whenever possible, use cellphone numbers for reminder calls. Patients often aren’t home during the day, and many don’t listen to their messages when they come in. And patients who have moved will often have a new home phone number, but their cellphone number will be the same.

Decrease the wait for new appointments. Keep some slots open each week for new patients, who will often “shop around” for a faster appointment while they’re waiting for an appointment they already have elsewhere.

But above all, seek to maximize the strength of your physician-patient relationships. Try not to shuttle patients between different physicians or PAs, and make it clear that you are genuinely concerned about their health. Impress upon them the crucial role they play in their own care, which includes keeping all their appointments.

In our office, significant no-shows (for example, a patient with a melanoma who misses a follow-up visit) receive a phone call and a certified letter, and their records go into a special file for close follow-up by the nursing staff.

If you choose to go the missed-appointment-fee route, be sure to post notices in your office and on your website clearly delineating your policy. Emphasize that it is not a service fee, and cannot be billed to insurance.

All missed appointments should be documented in the patient’s record; it’s important clinical and medicolegal information. And habitual no-shows should be dismissed from your practice. You cannot afford them.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

One in eight adults (12.7%) diagnosed with COVID-19 will likely experience long-term symptoms, a large study published in The Lancet indicates.

The researchers determined that percentage by comparing long-term symptoms in people infected by SARS-CoV-2 with similar symptoms in uninfected people over the same time period.

Among the group of infected study participants in the Netherlands, 21.4% had at least one new or severely increased symptom 3-5 months after infection compared with before infection. When that group of 21.4% was compared with 8.7% of uninfected people in the same study, the researchers were able to calculate a prevalence 12.7% with long COVID.

“This finding shows that post–COVID-19 condition is an urgent problem with a mounting human toll,” the study authors wrote.

The research design was novel, two editorialists said in an accompanying commentary.

Christopher Brightling, PhD, and Rachael Evans, MBChB, PhD, of the Institute for Lung Health, University of Leicester (England), noted: “This is a major advance on prior long COVID prevalence estimates as it includes a matched uninfected group and accounts for symptoms before COVID-19 infection.”
 

Symptoms that persist

The Lancet study found that 3-5 months after COVID (compared with before COVID) and compared with the non-COVID comparison group, the symptoms that persist were chest pain, breathing difficulties, pain when breathing, muscle pain, loss of taste and/or smell, tingling extremities, lump in throat, feeling hot and cold alternately, heavy limbs, and tiredness.

The authors noted that symptoms such as brain fog were found to be relevant to long COVID after the data collection period for this paper and were not included in this research.

Researcher Aranka V. Ballering, MSc, PhD candidate, said in an interview that the researchers found fever is a symptom that is clearly present during the acute phase of the disease and it peaks the day of the COVID-19 diagnosis, but also wears off.

Loss of taste and smell, however, rapidly increases in severity when COVID-19 is diagnosed, but also persists and is still present 3-5 months after COVID.

Ms. Ballering, with the department of psychiatry at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), said she was surprised by the sex difference made evident in their research: “Women showed more severe persistent symptoms than men.”
 

Closer to a clearer definition

The authors said their findings also pinpoint symptoms that bring us closer to a better definition of long COVID, which has many different definitions globally.

“These symptoms have the highest discriminative ability to distinguish between post–COVID-19 condition and non–COVID-19–related symptoms,” they wrote.

Researchers collected data by asking participants in the northern Netherlands, who were part of the population-based Lifelines COVID-19 study, to regularly complete digital questionnaires on 23 symptoms commonly associated with long COVID. The questionnaire was sent out 24 times to the same people between March 2020 and August 2021. At that time, people had the Alpha or earlier variants.

Participants were considered COVID-19 positive if they had either a positive test or a doctor’s diagnosis of COVID-19.

Of 76,422 study participants, the 5.5% (4,231) who had COVID were matched to 8,462 controls. Researchers accounted for sex, age, and time of completing questionnaires.
 

Effect of hospitalization, vaccination unclear

Ms. Ballering said it’s unclear from this data whether vaccination or whether a person was hospitalized would change the prevalence of persistent symptoms.

Because of the period when the data were collected, “the vast majority of our study population was not fully vaccinated,” she said.

However, she pointed to recent research that shows that immunization against COVID is only partially effective against persistent somatic symptoms after COVID.

Also, only 5% of men and 2.5% of women in the study were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19, so the findings can’t easily be generalized to hospitalized patients.

The Lifelines study was an add-on study to the multidisciplinary, prospective, population-based, observational Dutch Lifelines cohort study examining 167,729 people in the Netherlands. Almost all were White, a limitation of the study, and 58% were female. Average age was 54.

The editorialists also noted additional limitations of the study were that this research “did not fully consider the impact on mental health” and was conducted in one region in the Netherlands.

Janko Nikolich-Žugich, MD, PhD, director of the Aegis Consortium for Pandemic-Free Future and head of the immunobiology department at University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview that he agreed with the editorialists that a primary benefit of this study is that it corrected for symptoms people had before COVID, something other studies have not been able to do.

However, he cautioned about generalizing the results for the United States and other countries because of the lack of diversity in the study population with regard to education level, socioeconomic factors, and race. He pointed out that access issues are also different in the Netherlands, which has universal health care.

He said brain fog as a symptom of long COVID is of high interest and will be important to include in future studies that are able to extend the study period.

The work was funded by ZonMw; the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport; Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs; University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen; and the provinces of Drenthe, Friesland, and Groningen. The study authors and Dr. Nikolich-Žugich have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Brightling has received consultancy and or grants paid to his institution from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Chiesi, Genentech, Roche, Sanofi, Regeneron, Mologic, and 4DPharma for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease research. Dr. Evans has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca on the topic of long COVID and from GlaxoSmithKline on digital health, and speaker’s fees from Boehringer Ingelheim on long COVID.

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

One in eight adults (12.7%) diagnosed with COVID-19 will likely experience long-term symptoms, a large study published in The Lancet indicates.

The researchers determined that percentage by comparing long-term symptoms in people infected by SARS-CoV-2 with similar symptoms in uninfected people over the same time period.

Among the group of infected study participants in the Netherlands, 21.4% had at least one new or severely increased symptom 3-5 months after infection compared with before infection. When that group of 21.4% was compared with 8.7% of uninfected people in the same study, the researchers were able to calculate a prevalence 12.7% with long COVID.

“This finding shows that post–COVID-19 condition is an urgent problem with a mounting human toll,” the study authors wrote.

The research design was novel, two editorialists said in an accompanying commentary.

Christopher Brightling, PhD, and Rachael Evans, MBChB, PhD, of the Institute for Lung Health, University of Leicester (England), noted: “This is a major advance on prior long COVID prevalence estimates as it includes a matched uninfected group and accounts for symptoms before COVID-19 infection.”
 

Symptoms that persist

The Lancet study found that 3-5 months after COVID (compared with before COVID) and compared with the non-COVID comparison group, the symptoms that persist were chest pain, breathing difficulties, pain when breathing, muscle pain, loss of taste and/or smell, tingling extremities, lump in throat, feeling hot and cold alternately, heavy limbs, and tiredness.

The authors noted that symptoms such as brain fog were found to be relevant to long COVID after the data collection period for this paper and were not included in this research.

Researcher Aranka V. Ballering, MSc, PhD candidate, said in an interview that the researchers found fever is a symptom that is clearly present during the acute phase of the disease and it peaks the day of the COVID-19 diagnosis, but also wears off.

Loss of taste and smell, however, rapidly increases in severity when COVID-19 is diagnosed, but also persists and is still present 3-5 months after COVID.

Ms. Ballering, with the department of psychiatry at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), said she was surprised by the sex difference made evident in their research: “Women showed more severe persistent symptoms than men.”
 

Closer to a clearer definition

The authors said their findings also pinpoint symptoms that bring us closer to a better definition of long COVID, which has many different definitions globally.

“These symptoms have the highest discriminative ability to distinguish between post–COVID-19 condition and non–COVID-19–related symptoms,” they wrote.

Researchers collected data by asking participants in the northern Netherlands, who were part of the population-based Lifelines COVID-19 study, to regularly complete digital questionnaires on 23 symptoms commonly associated with long COVID. The questionnaire was sent out 24 times to the same people between March 2020 and August 2021. At that time, people had the Alpha or earlier variants.

Participants were considered COVID-19 positive if they had either a positive test or a doctor’s diagnosis of COVID-19.

Of 76,422 study participants, the 5.5% (4,231) who had COVID were matched to 8,462 controls. Researchers accounted for sex, age, and time of completing questionnaires.
 

Effect of hospitalization, vaccination unclear

Ms. Ballering said it’s unclear from this data whether vaccination or whether a person was hospitalized would change the prevalence of persistent symptoms.

Because of the period when the data were collected, “the vast majority of our study population was not fully vaccinated,” she said.

However, she pointed to recent research that shows that immunization against COVID is only partially effective against persistent somatic symptoms after COVID.

Also, only 5% of men and 2.5% of women in the study were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19, so the findings can’t easily be generalized to hospitalized patients.

The Lifelines study was an add-on study to the multidisciplinary, prospective, population-based, observational Dutch Lifelines cohort study examining 167,729 people in the Netherlands. Almost all were White, a limitation of the study, and 58% were female. Average age was 54.

The editorialists also noted additional limitations of the study were that this research “did not fully consider the impact on mental health” and was conducted in one region in the Netherlands.

Janko Nikolich-Žugich, MD, PhD, director of the Aegis Consortium for Pandemic-Free Future and head of the immunobiology department at University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview that he agreed with the editorialists that a primary benefit of this study is that it corrected for symptoms people had before COVID, something other studies have not been able to do.

However, he cautioned about generalizing the results for the United States and other countries because of the lack of diversity in the study population with regard to education level, socioeconomic factors, and race. He pointed out that access issues are also different in the Netherlands, which has universal health care.

He said brain fog as a symptom of long COVID is of high interest and will be important to include in future studies that are able to extend the study period.

The work was funded by ZonMw; the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport; Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs; University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen; and the provinces of Drenthe, Friesland, and Groningen. The study authors and Dr. Nikolich-Žugich have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Brightling has received consultancy and or grants paid to his institution from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Chiesi, Genentech, Roche, Sanofi, Regeneron, Mologic, and 4DPharma for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease research. Dr. Evans has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca on the topic of long COVID and from GlaxoSmithKline on digital health, and speaker’s fees from Boehringer Ingelheim on long COVID.

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

One in eight adults (12.7%) diagnosed with COVID-19 will likely experience long-term symptoms, a large study published in The Lancet indicates.

The researchers determined that percentage by comparing long-term symptoms in people infected by SARS-CoV-2 with similar symptoms in uninfected people over the same time period.

Among the group of infected study participants in the Netherlands, 21.4% had at least one new or severely increased symptom 3-5 months after infection compared with before infection. When that group of 21.4% was compared with 8.7% of uninfected people in the same study, the researchers were able to calculate a prevalence 12.7% with long COVID.

“This finding shows that post–COVID-19 condition is an urgent problem with a mounting human toll,” the study authors wrote.

The research design was novel, two editorialists said in an accompanying commentary.

Christopher Brightling, PhD, and Rachael Evans, MBChB, PhD, of the Institute for Lung Health, University of Leicester (England), noted: “This is a major advance on prior long COVID prevalence estimates as it includes a matched uninfected group and accounts for symptoms before COVID-19 infection.”
 

Symptoms that persist

The Lancet study found that 3-5 months after COVID (compared with before COVID) and compared with the non-COVID comparison group, the symptoms that persist were chest pain, breathing difficulties, pain when breathing, muscle pain, loss of taste and/or smell, tingling extremities, lump in throat, feeling hot and cold alternately, heavy limbs, and tiredness.

The authors noted that symptoms such as brain fog were found to be relevant to long COVID after the data collection period for this paper and were not included in this research.

Researcher Aranka V. Ballering, MSc, PhD candidate, said in an interview that the researchers found fever is a symptom that is clearly present during the acute phase of the disease and it peaks the day of the COVID-19 diagnosis, but also wears off.

Loss of taste and smell, however, rapidly increases in severity when COVID-19 is diagnosed, but also persists and is still present 3-5 months after COVID.

Ms. Ballering, with the department of psychiatry at the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), said she was surprised by the sex difference made evident in their research: “Women showed more severe persistent symptoms than men.”
 

Closer to a clearer definition

The authors said their findings also pinpoint symptoms that bring us closer to a better definition of long COVID, which has many different definitions globally.

“These symptoms have the highest discriminative ability to distinguish between post–COVID-19 condition and non–COVID-19–related symptoms,” they wrote.

Researchers collected data by asking participants in the northern Netherlands, who were part of the population-based Lifelines COVID-19 study, to regularly complete digital questionnaires on 23 symptoms commonly associated with long COVID. The questionnaire was sent out 24 times to the same people between March 2020 and August 2021. At that time, people had the Alpha or earlier variants.

Participants were considered COVID-19 positive if they had either a positive test or a doctor’s diagnosis of COVID-19.

Of 76,422 study participants, the 5.5% (4,231) who had COVID were matched to 8,462 controls. Researchers accounted for sex, age, and time of completing questionnaires.
 

Effect of hospitalization, vaccination unclear

Ms. Ballering said it’s unclear from this data whether vaccination or whether a person was hospitalized would change the prevalence of persistent symptoms.

Because of the period when the data were collected, “the vast majority of our study population was not fully vaccinated,” she said.

However, she pointed to recent research that shows that immunization against COVID is only partially effective against persistent somatic symptoms after COVID.

Also, only 5% of men and 2.5% of women in the study were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19, so the findings can’t easily be generalized to hospitalized patients.

The Lifelines study was an add-on study to the multidisciplinary, prospective, population-based, observational Dutch Lifelines cohort study examining 167,729 people in the Netherlands. Almost all were White, a limitation of the study, and 58% were female. Average age was 54.

The editorialists also noted additional limitations of the study were that this research “did not fully consider the impact on mental health” and was conducted in one region in the Netherlands.

Janko Nikolich-Žugich, MD, PhD, director of the Aegis Consortium for Pandemic-Free Future and head of the immunobiology department at University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview that he agreed with the editorialists that a primary benefit of this study is that it corrected for symptoms people had before COVID, something other studies have not been able to do.

However, he cautioned about generalizing the results for the United States and other countries because of the lack of diversity in the study population with regard to education level, socioeconomic factors, and race. He pointed out that access issues are also different in the Netherlands, which has universal health care.

He said brain fog as a symptom of long COVID is of high interest and will be important to include in future studies that are able to extend the study period.

The work was funded by ZonMw; the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport; Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs; University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen; and the provinces of Drenthe, Friesland, and Groningen. The study authors and Dr. Nikolich-Žugich have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Brightling has received consultancy and or grants paid to his institution from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Chiesi, Genentech, Roche, Sanofi, Regeneron, Mologic, and 4DPharma for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease research. Dr. Evans has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca on the topic of long COVID and from GlaxoSmithKline on digital health, and speaker’s fees from Boehringer Ingelheim on long COVID.

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

Raising phototherapy thresholds and revising risk assessment are among the key changes in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ updated guidelines for managing hyperbilirubinemia in infants 35 weeks’ gestation and older.

“More than 80% of newborn infants will have some degree of jaundice,” Alex R. Kemper, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and coauthors wrote. Careful monitoring is needed manage high bilirubin concentrations and avoid acute bilirubin encephalopathy (ABE) and kernicterus, a disabling neurologic condition.

The current revision, published in Pediatrics, updates and replaces the 2004 AAP clinical practice guidelines for the management and prevention of hyperbilirubinemia in newborns of at least 35 weeks’ gestation.

The guideline committee reviewed evidence published since the previous guidelines were issued in 2004, and addressed similar issues of prevention, risk assessment, monitoring, and treatment.

A notable change from 2004 was the inclusion of a 2009 recommendation update for “universal predischarge bilirubin screening with measures of total serum bilirubin (TSB) or transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) linked to specific recommendations for follow-up,” the authors wrote.

In terms of prevention, recommendations include a direct antiglobulin test (DAT) for infants whose mother’s antibody screen was positive or unknown. In addition, exclusive breastfeeding is known to be associated with hyperbilirubinemia, but clinicians should support breastfeeding while monitoring for signs of hyperbilirubinemia because of suboptimal feeding, the authors noted. However, the guidelines recommend against oral supplementation with water or dextrose water to prevent hyperbilirubinemia.

For assessment and monitoring, the guidelines advise the use of total serum bilirubin (TSB) as the definitive test for hyperbilirubinemia to guide phototherapy and escalation of care, including exchange transfusion. “The presence of hyperbilirubinemia neurotoxicity risk factors lowers the threshold for treatment with phototherapy and the level at which care should be escalated,” the authors wrote. They also emphasized the need to consider glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, a genetic condition that decreases protection against oxidative stress and has been identified as a leading cause of hazardous hyperbilirubinemia worldwide.

The guidelines recommend assessing all infants for jaundice at least every 12 hours after delivery until discharge, with TSB or TcB measured as soon as possible for those with suspected jaundice. The complete guidelines include charts for TSB levels to guide escalation of care. “Blood for TSB can be obtained at the time it is collected for newborn screening tests to avoid an additional heel stick,” the authors noted.

The rate of increase in TSB or TcB, if more than one measure is available, may identify infants at higher risk of hyperbilirubinemia, according to the guidelines, and a possible delay of hospital discharge may be needed for infants if appropriate follow-up is not feasible.

In terms of treatment, new evidence that bilirubin neurotoxicity does not occur until concentrations well above those given in the 2004 guidelines justified raising the treatment thresholds, although by a narrow range. “With the increased phototherapy thresholds, appropriately following the current guidelines including bilirubin screening during the birth hospitalization and timely postdischarge follow-up is important,” the authors wrote. The new thresholds, outlined in the complete guidelines, are based on gestational age, hyperbilirubinemia neurotoxicity risk factors, and the age of the infant in hours. However, infants may be treated at lower levels, based on individual circumstances, family preferences, and shared decision-making with clinicians. Home-based phototherapy may be used in some infants, but should not be used if there is a question about the device quality, delivery time, and ability of caregivers to use the device correctly.

“Discontinuing phototherapy is an option when the TSB has decreased by at least 2 mg/dL below the hour-specific threshold at the initiation of phototherapy,” and follow-up should be based on risk of rebound hyperbilirubinemia, according to the guidelines.

“This clinical practice guideline provides indications and approaches for phototherapy and escalation of care and when treatment and monitoring can be safely discontinued,” However, clinicians should understand the rationale for the recommendations and combine them with their clinical judgment, including shared decision-making when appropriate, the authors concluded.
 

Updated evidence supports escalating care

The take-home message for pediatricians is that neonatal hyperbilirubinemia is a very common finding, and complications are rare, but the condition can result in devastating life-long results, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“Previous guidelines published in 2004 and updated in 2009 included evidence-based recommendations, but additional research was still needed to provide guidance for providers to prevent complications of hyperbilirubinemia,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in producing the guidelines.

“New data documenting additional risk factors, the importance of ongoing breastfeeding support, and addressing hyperbilirubinemia as an urgent problem” are additions to prevention methods in the latest published guidelines, she said.

“Acute encephalopathy and kernicterus can result from hyperbilirubinemia with severe and devastating neurologic effects, but are preventable by early identification and treatment,” said Dr. Haut. Therefore, “it is not surprising that the AAP utilized continuing and more recent evidence to support new recommendations. Both maternal and neonatal risk factors have long been considered in the development of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, but recent recommendations incorporate additional risk factor evaluation and urgency in time to appropriate care. Detailed thresholds for phototherapy and exchange transfusion will benefit the families of full-term infants without other risk factors and escalate care for those neonates with risk factors.”

However, potential barriers to following the guidelines persist, Dr. Haut noted.

“Frequent infant follow-up can be challenging for busy primary care offices with outpatient laboratory results often taking much longer to obtain than in a hospital setting,” she said.

Also, “taking a newborn to the emergency department or an inpatient laboratory can be frightening for families with the risk of illness exposure. Frequent monitoring of serum bilirubin levels is disturbing for parents and inconvenient immediately postpartum,” Dr. Haut explained. “Few practices utilize transcutaneous bilirubin monitoring which may be one method of added screening.”

In addition, “despite the importance of breastfeeding, ongoing support is not readily available for mothers after hospital discharge. A lactation specialist in the office setting can take the burden off providers and add opportunity for family education.”

As for additional research, “continued evaluation of the comparison of transcutaneous bilirubin monitoring and serum levels along with the use of transcutaneous monitoring in facilities outside the hospital setting may be warranted,” Dr. Haut said. “Data collection on incidence and accompanying risk factors of neonates who develop acute hyperbilirubinemia encephalopathy and kernicterus is a long-term study opportunity.”

The guidelines received no external funding. Lead author Dr. Kemper had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Raising phototherapy thresholds and revising risk assessment are among the key changes in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ updated guidelines for managing hyperbilirubinemia in infants 35 weeks’ gestation and older.

“More than 80% of newborn infants will have some degree of jaundice,” Alex R. Kemper, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and coauthors wrote. Careful monitoring is needed manage high bilirubin concentrations and avoid acute bilirubin encephalopathy (ABE) and kernicterus, a disabling neurologic condition.

The current revision, published in Pediatrics, updates and replaces the 2004 AAP clinical practice guidelines for the management and prevention of hyperbilirubinemia in newborns of at least 35 weeks’ gestation.

The guideline committee reviewed evidence published since the previous guidelines were issued in 2004, and addressed similar issues of prevention, risk assessment, monitoring, and treatment.

A notable change from 2004 was the inclusion of a 2009 recommendation update for “universal predischarge bilirubin screening with measures of total serum bilirubin (TSB) or transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) linked to specific recommendations for follow-up,” the authors wrote.

In terms of prevention, recommendations include a direct antiglobulin test (DAT) for infants whose mother’s antibody screen was positive or unknown. In addition, exclusive breastfeeding is known to be associated with hyperbilirubinemia, but clinicians should support breastfeeding while monitoring for signs of hyperbilirubinemia because of suboptimal feeding, the authors noted. However, the guidelines recommend against oral supplementation with water or dextrose water to prevent hyperbilirubinemia.

For assessment and monitoring, the guidelines advise the use of total serum bilirubin (TSB) as the definitive test for hyperbilirubinemia to guide phototherapy and escalation of care, including exchange transfusion. “The presence of hyperbilirubinemia neurotoxicity risk factors lowers the threshold for treatment with phototherapy and the level at which care should be escalated,” the authors wrote. They also emphasized the need to consider glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, a genetic condition that decreases protection against oxidative stress and has been identified as a leading cause of hazardous hyperbilirubinemia worldwide.

The guidelines recommend assessing all infants for jaundice at least every 12 hours after delivery until discharge, with TSB or TcB measured as soon as possible for those with suspected jaundice. The complete guidelines include charts for TSB levels to guide escalation of care. “Blood for TSB can be obtained at the time it is collected for newborn screening tests to avoid an additional heel stick,” the authors noted.

The rate of increase in TSB or TcB, if more than one measure is available, may identify infants at higher risk of hyperbilirubinemia, according to the guidelines, and a possible delay of hospital discharge may be needed for infants if appropriate follow-up is not feasible.

In terms of treatment, new evidence that bilirubin neurotoxicity does not occur until concentrations well above those given in the 2004 guidelines justified raising the treatment thresholds, although by a narrow range. “With the increased phototherapy thresholds, appropriately following the current guidelines including bilirubin screening during the birth hospitalization and timely postdischarge follow-up is important,” the authors wrote. The new thresholds, outlined in the complete guidelines, are based on gestational age, hyperbilirubinemia neurotoxicity risk factors, and the age of the infant in hours. However, infants may be treated at lower levels, based on individual circumstances, family preferences, and shared decision-making with clinicians. Home-based phototherapy may be used in some infants, but should not be used if there is a question about the device quality, delivery time, and ability of caregivers to use the device correctly.

“Discontinuing phototherapy is an option when the TSB has decreased by at least 2 mg/dL below the hour-specific threshold at the initiation of phototherapy,” and follow-up should be based on risk of rebound hyperbilirubinemia, according to the guidelines.

“This clinical practice guideline provides indications and approaches for phototherapy and escalation of care and when treatment and monitoring can be safely discontinued,” However, clinicians should understand the rationale for the recommendations and combine them with their clinical judgment, including shared decision-making when appropriate, the authors concluded.
 

Updated evidence supports escalating care

The take-home message for pediatricians is that neonatal hyperbilirubinemia is a very common finding, and complications are rare, but the condition can result in devastating life-long results, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“Previous guidelines published in 2004 and updated in 2009 included evidence-based recommendations, but additional research was still needed to provide guidance for providers to prevent complications of hyperbilirubinemia,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in producing the guidelines.

“New data documenting additional risk factors, the importance of ongoing breastfeeding support, and addressing hyperbilirubinemia as an urgent problem” are additions to prevention methods in the latest published guidelines, she said.

“Acute encephalopathy and kernicterus can result from hyperbilirubinemia with severe and devastating neurologic effects, but are preventable by early identification and treatment,” said Dr. Haut. Therefore, “it is not surprising that the AAP utilized continuing and more recent evidence to support new recommendations. Both maternal and neonatal risk factors have long been considered in the development of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, but recent recommendations incorporate additional risk factor evaluation and urgency in time to appropriate care. Detailed thresholds for phototherapy and exchange transfusion will benefit the families of full-term infants without other risk factors and escalate care for those neonates with risk factors.”

However, potential barriers to following the guidelines persist, Dr. Haut noted.

“Frequent infant follow-up can be challenging for busy primary care offices with outpatient laboratory results often taking much longer to obtain than in a hospital setting,” she said.

Also, “taking a newborn to the emergency department or an inpatient laboratory can be frightening for families with the risk of illness exposure. Frequent monitoring of serum bilirubin levels is disturbing for parents and inconvenient immediately postpartum,” Dr. Haut explained. “Few practices utilize transcutaneous bilirubin monitoring which may be one method of added screening.”

In addition, “despite the importance of breastfeeding, ongoing support is not readily available for mothers after hospital discharge. A lactation specialist in the office setting can take the burden off providers and add opportunity for family education.”

As for additional research, “continued evaluation of the comparison of transcutaneous bilirubin monitoring and serum levels along with the use of transcutaneous monitoring in facilities outside the hospital setting may be warranted,” Dr. Haut said. “Data collection on incidence and accompanying risk factors of neonates who develop acute hyperbilirubinemia encephalopathy and kernicterus is a long-term study opportunity.”

The guidelines received no external funding. Lead author Dr. Kemper had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Raising phototherapy thresholds and revising risk assessment are among the key changes in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ updated guidelines for managing hyperbilirubinemia in infants 35 weeks’ gestation and older.

“More than 80% of newborn infants will have some degree of jaundice,” Alex R. Kemper, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and coauthors wrote. Careful monitoring is needed manage high bilirubin concentrations and avoid acute bilirubin encephalopathy (ABE) and kernicterus, a disabling neurologic condition.

The current revision, published in Pediatrics, updates and replaces the 2004 AAP clinical practice guidelines for the management and prevention of hyperbilirubinemia in newborns of at least 35 weeks’ gestation.

The guideline committee reviewed evidence published since the previous guidelines were issued in 2004, and addressed similar issues of prevention, risk assessment, monitoring, and treatment.

A notable change from 2004 was the inclusion of a 2009 recommendation update for “universal predischarge bilirubin screening with measures of total serum bilirubin (TSB) or transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) linked to specific recommendations for follow-up,” the authors wrote.

In terms of prevention, recommendations include a direct antiglobulin test (DAT) for infants whose mother’s antibody screen was positive or unknown. In addition, exclusive breastfeeding is known to be associated with hyperbilirubinemia, but clinicians should support breastfeeding while monitoring for signs of hyperbilirubinemia because of suboptimal feeding, the authors noted. However, the guidelines recommend against oral supplementation with water or dextrose water to prevent hyperbilirubinemia.

For assessment and monitoring, the guidelines advise the use of total serum bilirubin (TSB) as the definitive test for hyperbilirubinemia to guide phototherapy and escalation of care, including exchange transfusion. “The presence of hyperbilirubinemia neurotoxicity risk factors lowers the threshold for treatment with phototherapy and the level at which care should be escalated,” the authors wrote. They also emphasized the need to consider glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, a genetic condition that decreases protection against oxidative stress and has been identified as a leading cause of hazardous hyperbilirubinemia worldwide.

The guidelines recommend assessing all infants for jaundice at least every 12 hours after delivery until discharge, with TSB or TcB measured as soon as possible for those with suspected jaundice. The complete guidelines include charts for TSB levels to guide escalation of care. “Blood for TSB can be obtained at the time it is collected for newborn screening tests to avoid an additional heel stick,” the authors noted.

The rate of increase in TSB or TcB, if more than one measure is available, may identify infants at higher risk of hyperbilirubinemia, according to the guidelines, and a possible delay of hospital discharge may be needed for infants if appropriate follow-up is not feasible.

In terms of treatment, new evidence that bilirubin neurotoxicity does not occur until concentrations well above those given in the 2004 guidelines justified raising the treatment thresholds, although by a narrow range. “With the increased phototherapy thresholds, appropriately following the current guidelines including bilirubin screening during the birth hospitalization and timely postdischarge follow-up is important,” the authors wrote. The new thresholds, outlined in the complete guidelines, are based on gestational age, hyperbilirubinemia neurotoxicity risk factors, and the age of the infant in hours. However, infants may be treated at lower levels, based on individual circumstances, family preferences, and shared decision-making with clinicians. Home-based phototherapy may be used in some infants, but should not be used if there is a question about the device quality, delivery time, and ability of caregivers to use the device correctly.

“Discontinuing phototherapy is an option when the TSB has decreased by at least 2 mg/dL below the hour-specific threshold at the initiation of phototherapy,” and follow-up should be based on risk of rebound hyperbilirubinemia, according to the guidelines.

“This clinical practice guideline provides indications and approaches for phototherapy and escalation of care and when treatment and monitoring can be safely discontinued,” However, clinicians should understand the rationale for the recommendations and combine them with their clinical judgment, including shared decision-making when appropriate, the authors concluded.
 

Updated evidence supports escalating care

The take-home message for pediatricians is that neonatal hyperbilirubinemia is a very common finding, and complications are rare, but the condition can result in devastating life-long results, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“Previous guidelines published in 2004 and updated in 2009 included evidence-based recommendations, but additional research was still needed to provide guidance for providers to prevent complications of hyperbilirubinemia,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in producing the guidelines.

“New data documenting additional risk factors, the importance of ongoing breastfeeding support, and addressing hyperbilirubinemia as an urgent problem” are additions to prevention methods in the latest published guidelines, she said.

“Acute encephalopathy and kernicterus can result from hyperbilirubinemia with severe and devastating neurologic effects, but are preventable by early identification and treatment,” said Dr. Haut. Therefore, “it is not surprising that the AAP utilized continuing and more recent evidence to support new recommendations. Both maternal and neonatal risk factors have long been considered in the development of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, but recent recommendations incorporate additional risk factor evaluation and urgency in time to appropriate care. Detailed thresholds for phototherapy and exchange transfusion will benefit the families of full-term infants without other risk factors and escalate care for those neonates with risk factors.”

However, potential barriers to following the guidelines persist, Dr. Haut noted.

“Frequent infant follow-up can be challenging for busy primary care offices with outpatient laboratory results often taking much longer to obtain than in a hospital setting,” she said.

Also, “taking a newborn to the emergency department or an inpatient laboratory can be frightening for families with the risk of illness exposure. Frequent monitoring of serum bilirubin levels is disturbing for parents and inconvenient immediately postpartum,” Dr. Haut explained. “Few practices utilize transcutaneous bilirubin monitoring which may be one method of added screening.”

In addition, “despite the importance of breastfeeding, ongoing support is not readily available for mothers after hospital discharge. A lactation specialist in the office setting can take the burden off providers and add opportunity for family education.”

As for additional research, “continued evaluation of the comparison of transcutaneous bilirubin monitoring and serum levels along with the use of transcutaneous monitoring in facilities outside the hospital setting may be warranted,” Dr. Haut said. “Data collection on incidence and accompanying risk factors of neonates who develop acute hyperbilirubinemia encephalopathy and kernicterus is a long-term study opportunity.”

The guidelines received no external funding. Lead author Dr. Kemper had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Older adults who have spent time in the intensive care unit have double the risk of developing dementia in later years, compared with older adults who have never stayed in the ICU, new research suggests.

“ICU hospitalization may be an underrecognized risk factor for dementia in older adults,” Bryan D. James, PhD, epidemiologist with Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“Health care providers caring for older patients who have experienced a hospitalization for critical illness should be prepared to assess and monitor their patients’ cognitive status as part of their long-term care plan,” Dr. James added.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Hidden risk factor?

ICU hospitalization as a result of critical illness has been linked to subsequent cognitive impairment in older patients. However, how ICU hospitalization relates to the long-term risk of developing Alzheimer’s and other age-related dementias is unknown.

“Given the high rate of ICU hospitalization in older persons, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical to explore this relationship, Dr. James said.

The Rush team assessed the impact of an ICU stay on dementia risk in 3,822 older adults (mean age, 77 years) without known dementia at baseline participating in five diverse epidemiologic cohorts.

Participants were checked annually for development of Alzheimer’s and all-type dementia using standardized cognitive assessments.

Over an average of 7.8 years, 1,991 (52%) adults had at least one ICU stay; 1,031 (27%) had an ICU stay before study enrollment; and 961 (25%) had an ICU stay during the study period.

In models adjusted for age, sex, education, and race, ICU hospitalization was associated with 63% higher risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.88) and 71% higher risk of all-type dementia (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.48-1.97).

In models further adjusted for other health factors such as vascular risk factors and disease, other chronic medical conditions and functional disabilities, the association was even stronger: ICU hospitalization was associated with roughly double the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (HR 2.10; 95% CI, 1.66-2.65) and all-type dementia (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.75-2.77).

Dr. James said in an interview that it remains unclear why an ICU stay may raise the dementia risk.

“This study was not designed to assess the causes of the higher risk of dementia in persons who had ICU hospitalizations. However, researchers have looked into a number of factors that could account for this increased risk,” he explained.

One is critical illness itself that leads to hospitalization, which could result in damage to the brain; for example, severe COVID-19 has been shown to directly harm the brain, Dr. James said.

He also noted that specific events experienced during ICU stay have been shown to increase risk for cognitive impairment, including infection and severe sepsis, acute dialysis, neurologic dysfunction and delirium, and sedation.
 

Important work

Commenting on the study, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical & scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said what’s interesting about the study is that it looks at individuals in the ICU, regardless of the cause.

“The study shows that having some type of health issue that results in some type of ICU stay is associated with an increased risk of declining cognition,” Dr. Snyder said.

“That’s really important,” she said, “especially given the increase in individuals, particularly those 60 and older, who did experience an ICU stay over the last couple of years and understanding how that might impact their long-term risk related to Alzheimer’s and other changes in memory.”

“If an individual has been in the ICU, that should be part of the conversation with their physician or health care provider,” Dr. Snyder advised.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. James and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults who have spent time in the intensive care unit have double the risk of developing dementia in later years, compared with older adults who have never stayed in the ICU, new research suggests.

“ICU hospitalization may be an underrecognized risk factor for dementia in older adults,” Bryan D. James, PhD, epidemiologist with Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“Health care providers caring for older patients who have experienced a hospitalization for critical illness should be prepared to assess and monitor their patients’ cognitive status as part of their long-term care plan,” Dr. James added.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Hidden risk factor?

ICU hospitalization as a result of critical illness has been linked to subsequent cognitive impairment in older patients. However, how ICU hospitalization relates to the long-term risk of developing Alzheimer’s and other age-related dementias is unknown.

“Given the high rate of ICU hospitalization in older persons, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical to explore this relationship, Dr. James said.

The Rush team assessed the impact of an ICU stay on dementia risk in 3,822 older adults (mean age, 77 years) without known dementia at baseline participating in five diverse epidemiologic cohorts.

Participants were checked annually for development of Alzheimer’s and all-type dementia using standardized cognitive assessments.

Over an average of 7.8 years, 1,991 (52%) adults had at least one ICU stay; 1,031 (27%) had an ICU stay before study enrollment; and 961 (25%) had an ICU stay during the study period.

In models adjusted for age, sex, education, and race, ICU hospitalization was associated with 63% higher risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.88) and 71% higher risk of all-type dementia (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.48-1.97).

In models further adjusted for other health factors such as vascular risk factors and disease, other chronic medical conditions and functional disabilities, the association was even stronger: ICU hospitalization was associated with roughly double the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (HR 2.10; 95% CI, 1.66-2.65) and all-type dementia (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.75-2.77).

Dr. James said in an interview that it remains unclear why an ICU stay may raise the dementia risk.

“This study was not designed to assess the causes of the higher risk of dementia in persons who had ICU hospitalizations. However, researchers have looked into a number of factors that could account for this increased risk,” he explained.

One is critical illness itself that leads to hospitalization, which could result in damage to the brain; for example, severe COVID-19 has been shown to directly harm the brain, Dr. James said.

He also noted that specific events experienced during ICU stay have been shown to increase risk for cognitive impairment, including infection and severe sepsis, acute dialysis, neurologic dysfunction and delirium, and sedation.
 

Important work

Commenting on the study, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical & scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said what’s interesting about the study is that it looks at individuals in the ICU, regardless of the cause.

“The study shows that having some type of health issue that results in some type of ICU stay is associated with an increased risk of declining cognition,” Dr. Snyder said.

“That’s really important,” she said, “especially given the increase in individuals, particularly those 60 and older, who did experience an ICU stay over the last couple of years and understanding how that might impact their long-term risk related to Alzheimer’s and other changes in memory.”

“If an individual has been in the ICU, that should be part of the conversation with their physician or health care provider,” Dr. Snyder advised.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. James and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults who have spent time in the intensive care unit have double the risk of developing dementia in later years, compared with older adults who have never stayed in the ICU, new research suggests.

“ICU hospitalization may be an underrecognized risk factor for dementia in older adults,” Bryan D. James, PhD, epidemiologist with Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“Health care providers caring for older patients who have experienced a hospitalization for critical illness should be prepared to assess and monitor their patients’ cognitive status as part of their long-term care plan,” Dr. James added.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Hidden risk factor?

ICU hospitalization as a result of critical illness has been linked to subsequent cognitive impairment in older patients. However, how ICU hospitalization relates to the long-term risk of developing Alzheimer’s and other age-related dementias is unknown.

“Given the high rate of ICU hospitalization in older persons, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical to explore this relationship, Dr. James said.

The Rush team assessed the impact of an ICU stay on dementia risk in 3,822 older adults (mean age, 77 years) without known dementia at baseline participating in five diverse epidemiologic cohorts.

Participants were checked annually for development of Alzheimer’s and all-type dementia using standardized cognitive assessments.

Over an average of 7.8 years, 1,991 (52%) adults had at least one ICU stay; 1,031 (27%) had an ICU stay before study enrollment; and 961 (25%) had an ICU stay during the study period.

In models adjusted for age, sex, education, and race, ICU hospitalization was associated with 63% higher risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.88) and 71% higher risk of all-type dementia (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.48-1.97).

In models further adjusted for other health factors such as vascular risk factors and disease, other chronic medical conditions and functional disabilities, the association was even stronger: ICU hospitalization was associated with roughly double the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (HR 2.10; 95% CI, 1.66-2.65) and all-type dementia (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.75-2.77).

Dr. James said in an interview that it remains unclear why an ICU stay may raise the dementia risk.

“This study was not designed to assess the causes of the higher risk of dementia in persons who had ICU hospitalizations. However, researchers have looked into a number of factors that could account for this increased risk,” he explained.

One is critical illness itself that leads to hospitalization, which could result in damage to the brain; for example, severe COVID-19 has been shown to directly harm the brain, Dr. James said.

He also noted that specific events experienced during ICU stay have been shown to increase risk for cognitive impairment, including infection and severe sepsis, acute dialysis, neurologic dysfunction and delirium, and sedation.
 

Important work

Commenting on the study, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical & scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said what’s interesting about the study is that it looks at individuals in the ICU, regardless of the cause.

“The study shows that having some type of health issue that results in some type of ICU stay is associated with an increased risk of declining cognition,” Dr. Snyder said.

“That’s really important,” she said, “especially given the increase in individuals, particularly those 60 and older, who did experience an ICU stay over the last couple of years and understanding how that might impact their long-term risk related to Alzheimer’s and other changes in memory.”

“If an individual has been in the ICU, that should be part of the conversation with their physician or health care provider,” Dr. Snyder advised.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. James and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When I began in private practice several eons ago, I employed only registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) in my office – as did, I think, most other physicians.

That is still the preferred way to go from an efficiency perspective, as well as the ability to delegate such tasks as blood collection and administering intramuscular injections. Unfortunately, the current state of medical practice – driven by payment reform, regulatory changes, technology costs, inflation, and other factors – has forced most independent practitioners to pivot from RNs and LPNs to medical assistants in a majority of situations.

Given this reality, it makes sense to understand how the use of medical assistants has changed private medical practice, and how the most effective MAs manage their roles and maximize their efficiency in the office.

A recent article by two physicians at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is one of the few published papers to address this issue. It presents the results of a cross-sectional study examining the MA’s experience and key factors that enhance or reduce efficiencies.

The authors sent an email survey to 86 MAs working in six clinics within the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan Medical Center, and received responses from 75 of them, including 61 who completed the entire survey. They then singled out 18 individuals deemed “most efficient” by their peers and conducted face-to-face interviews with them.

The surveys and interviews looked at how MAs identified personal strategies for efficiency, dealt with barriers to implementing those strategies, and navigated interoffice relationships, as well as how all of this affected overall job satisfaction.

All 61 respondents who completed the full survey agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and nearly all said that working in health care was “a calling” for them. About half agreed that their work was very stressful, and about the same percentage reported that there was inadequate MA staffing at their clinic. Others complained of limited pay and promotion opportunities.

The surveyed MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included good communication, strong teamwork, and workload sharing, as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and completing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy.

Other strategies identified as contributing to an efficient operation included preclinic huddles, reviews of patient records before the patient’s arrival, and completing routine office duties before the start of office hours.

Respondents were then asked to identify barriers to clinic efficiency, and most of them involved physicians who barked orders at them, did not complete paperwork or sign orders in a timely manner, and agreed to see late-arriving patients. Some MAs suggested that physicians refrain from “talking down” to them, and teach rather than criticize. They also faulted decisions affecting patient flow made by other staffers without soliciting the MAs’ input.

Despite these barriers, the authors found that most of the surveyed MAs agreed that their work was valued by doctors. “Proper training of managers to provide ... support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial,” they said.

“Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier,” they added.

At the same time, the authors noted that most survey subjects reported that their jobs were “stressful,” and believed that their stress went underrecognized by physicians. They argued that “it’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.”

Since this study involved only MAs in a family practice setting, further studies will be needed to determine whether these results translate to specialty offices – and whether the unique issues inherent in various specialty environments elicit different efficiency contributors and barriers.

Overall, though, “staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients,” the authors wrote. “Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

When I began in private practice several eons ago, I employed only registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) in my office – as did, I think, most other physicians.

That is still the preferred way to go from an efficiency perspective, as well as the ability to delegate such tasks as blood collection and administering intramuscular injections. Unfortunately, the current state of medical practice – driven by payment reform, regulatory changes, technology costs, inflation, and other factors – has forced most independent practitioners to pivot from RNs and LPNs to medical assistants in a majority of situations.

Given this reality, it makes sense to understand how the use of medical assistants has changed private medical practice, and how the most effective MAs manage their roles and maximize their efficiency in the office.

A recent article by two physicians at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is one of the few published papers to address this issue. It presents the results of a cross-sectional study examining the MA’s experience and key factors that enhance or reduce efficiencies.

The authors sent an email survey to 86 MAs working in six clinics within the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan Medical Center, and received responses from 75 of them, including 61 who completed the entire survey. They then singled out 18 individuals deemed “most efficient” by their peers and conducted face-to-face interviews with them.

The surveys and interviews looked at how MAs identified personal strategies for efficiency, dealt with barriers to implementing those strategies, and navigated interoffice relationships, as well as how all of this affected overall job satisfaction.

All 61 respondents who completed the full survey agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and nearly all said that working in health care was “a calling” for them. About half agreed that their work was very stressful, and about the same percentage reported that there was inadequate MA staffing at their clinic. Others complained of limited pay and promotion opportunities.

The surveyed MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included good communication, strong teamwork, and workload sharing, as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and completing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy.

Other strategies identified as contributing to an efficient operation included preclinic huddles, reviews of patient records before the patient’s arrival, and completing routine office duties before the start of office hours.

Respondents were then asked to identify barriers to clinic efficiency, and most of them involved physicians who barked orders at them, did not complete paperwork or sign orders in a timely manner, and agreed to see late-arriving patients. Some MAs suggested that physicians refrain from “talking down” to them, and teach rather than criticize. They also faulted decisions affecting patient flow made by other staffers without soliciting the MAs’ input.

Despite these barriers, the authors found that most of the surveyed MAs agreed that their work was valued by doctors. “Proper training of managers to provide ... support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial,” they said.

“Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier,” they added.

At the same time, the authors noted that most survey subjects reported that their jobs were “stressful,” and believed that their stress went underrecognized by physicians. They argued that “it’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.”

Since this study involved only MAs in a family practice setting, further studies will be needed to determine whether these results translate to specialty offices – and whether the unique issues inherent in various specialty environments elicit different efficiency contributors and barriers.

Overall, though, “staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients,” the authors wrote. “Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

When I began in private practice several eons ago, I employed only registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) in my office – as did, I think, most other physicians.

That is still the preferred way to go from an efficiency perspective, as well as the ability to delegate such tasks as blood collection and administering intramuscular injections. Unfortunately, the current state of medical practice – driven by payment reform, regulatory changes, technology costs, inflation, and other factors – has forced most independent practitioners to pivot from RNs and LPNs to medical assistants in a majority of situations.

Given this reality, it makes sense to understand how the use of medical assistants has changed private medical practice, and how the most effective MAs manage their roles and maximize their efficiency in the office.

A recent article by two physicians at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is one of the few published papers to address this issue. It presents the results of a cross-sectional study examining the MA’s experience and key factors that enhance or reduce efficiencies.

The authors sent an email survey to 86 MAs working in six clinics within the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan Medical Center, and received responses from 75 of them, including 61 who completed the entire survey. They then singled out 18 individuals deemed “most efficient” by their peers and conducted face-to-face interviews with them.

The surveys and interviews looked at how MAs identified personal strategies for efficiency, dealt with barriers to implementing those strategies, and navigated interoffice relationships, as well as how all of this affected overall job satisfaction.

All 61 respondents who completed the full survey agreed that the MA role was “very important to keep the clinic functioning” and nearly all said that working in health care was “a calling” for them. About half agreed that their work was very stressful, and about the same percentage reported that there was inadequate MA staffing at their clinic. Others complained of limited pay and promotion opportunities.

The surveyed MAs described important work values that increased their efficiency. These included good communication, strong teamwork, and workload sharing, as well as individual strategies such as multitasking, limiting patient conversations, and completing tasks in a consistent way to improve accuracy.

Other strategies identified as contributing to an efficient operation included preclinic huddles, reviews of patient records before the patient’s arrival, and completing routine office duties before the start of office hours.

Respondents were then asked to identify barriers to clinic efficiency, and most of them involved physicians who barked orders at them, did not complete paperwork or sign orders in a timely manner, and agreed to see late-arriving patients. Some MAs suggested that physicians refrain from “talking down” to them, and teach rather than criticize. They also faulted decisions affecting patient flow made by other staffers without soliciting the MAs’ input.

Despite these barriers, the authors found that most of the surveyed MAs agreed that their work was valued by doctors. “Proper training of managers to provide ... support and ensure equitable workloads may be one strategy to ensure that staff members feel the workplace is fair and collegial,” they said.

“Many described the working relationships with physicians as critical to their satisfaction at work and indicated that strong partnerships motivated them to do their best to make the physician’s day easier,” they added.

At the same time, the authors noted that most survey subjects reported that their jobs were “stressful,” and believed that their stress went underrecognized by physicians. They argued that “it’s important for physicians to be cognizant of these patterns and clinic culture, as reducing a hierarchy-based environment will be appreciated by MAs.”

Since this study involved only MAs in a family practice setting, further studies will be needed to determine whether these results translate to specialty offices – and whether the unique issues inherent in various specialty environments elicit different efficiency contributors and barriers.

Overall, though, “staff job satisfaction is linked to improved quality of care, so treating staff well contributes to high-value care for patients,” the authors wrote. “Disseminating practices that staff members themselves have identified as effective, and being attentive to how staff members are treated, may increase individual efficiency while improving staff retention and satisfaction.”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Contrary to previous research findings, the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to an increased headache burden in teens.

Investigators found factors contributing to headache for preteens and teens during the pandemic included increased screen time for online learning, depression, anxiety, female sex, and weight gain.

“The stressors and pressures of the pandemic may have eventually taken their toll,” lead author Ayşe Nur Özdağ Acarli, MD, Ermenek State Hospital, department of neurology, Karaman, Turkey, told this news organization.

“Limiting screen time and providing more psychosocial supports would help lessen the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents with headache.”

The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2022.
 

Most common neurological problem in kids

Headache is the most common neurological problem in children and adolescents. Potential factors contributing to headache in this population include lack of sleep and physical activity, mental health problems, and socioeconomic conditions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a “striking” impact on every aspect of life for young people, said Dr. Acarli.

Some studies reported an improvement in headache prevalence among adolescents during COVID-19, which was attributed to less school-related stress. However, said Dr. Acarli in her personal clinical experience, young patients suffered more frequent and severe headaches during the pandemic.

She noted previous research examining the impact of the pandemic on headache in youth was conducted only in the early days of the pandemic and examined shorter-term effects. Research examining the long-term effects of the pandemic on headache in this patient population has been “lacking,” she said.

The study included 851 participants aged 10-18 years (mean age 14.9 years and 62% female) who were seen at a neurology or pediatric outpatient clinic from August-December 2021. The study excluded subjects with neurological problems, intellectual deficits, autism spectrum disorder, and epilepsy.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires providing data on demographics, exposure to COVID-19, and electronics, as well as information on depressive symptoms as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and anxiety symptoms using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and COVID-related anxiety.

“We used two distinct scales for anxiety: one for generalized anxiety and the other for COVID-related anxiety,” said Dr. Acarli.

Of the total study population, 756 (89%) reported headaches. This headache prevalence in children and adolescents is like that found in other studies.

Dr. Acarli noted several differences in the headache group versus the non-headache group. The female/male ratio was 2:1 versus 1:1, the mean age was 15.0 versus 14.4, and depression and generalized anxiety scores were significantly higher. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 history in those with and without headache.

Researchers categorized those with headache into four groups: worsening headaches (27%), improved headaches (3%), new onset headaches (10%), and stable headaches (61%).

Compared with the other groups, the worsened headache group included significantly more females and older individuals with more severe and frequent headaches. This group also had more participants reporting at least 15 headache attacks a month and using painkillers at least once a month.

The study showed headache severity was significantly increased with age, headache duration, depression, generalized anxiety (all P < .001), and COVID-19 anxiety (P < .01). Headache frequency, measured as attacks per month, was significantly increased with age, depression, and generalized anxiety (all P < .001).

Worsening headache outcomes during the pandemic were associated with longer exposure to computer screens (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.3; P < .01), lack of suitable conditions for online learning (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.8; P < .001), depression (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .001); and COVID-19 anxiety (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.0; P < .01). Other contributing factors included school exams, living in a city, female sex, and weight gain.

There may be a link between COVID-related headaches and anxiety or depression, but it’s unclear what’s causing what. “We don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg,” said Dr. Acarli.
 

Headache triggers

Commenting for this news organization, Raquel Gil-Gouveia, MD, PhD, head of the neurology department, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal, who co-chaired the session where the research was presented, said the information collected for the study was “extensive.”

Some results were expected, including the fact that patients with headaches were more anxious and depressed, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.

“Anxiety and depression are frequent comorbidities of headache and can act as a triggering factor for headache attacks but can also be a consequence of intense or chronic pain,” she said.

She agreed the new results differ from those of studies carried out during the first pandemic lockdown, which showed an improvement in headache, but noted online learning was not fully implemented at that time, “so it was much like being on vacation.”

In addition to isolation, anxiety, and prolonged screen exposure, the lack of peer contact and fewer sports and leisure activities may also have contributed to worsening headaches during the COVID lockdown, but these were not explored in this study, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.

The study was supported by the Global Migraine and Pain Society. The investigators and Dr. Gil-Gouveia report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to previous research findings, the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to an increased headache burden in teens.

Investigators found factors contributing to headache for preteens and teens during the pandemic included increased screen time for online learning, depression, anxiety, female sex, and weight gain.

“The stressors and pressures of the pandemic may have eventually taken their toll,” lead author Ayşe Nur Özdağ Acarli, MD, Ermenek State Hospital, department of neurology, Karaman, Turkey, told this news organization.

“Limiting screen time and providing more psychosocial supports would help lessen the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents with headache.”

The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2022.
 

Most common neurological problem in kids

Headache is the most common neurological problem in children and adolescents. Potential factors contributing to headache in this population include lack of sleep and physical activity, mental health problems, and socioeconomic conditions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a “striking” impact on every aspect of life for young people, said Dr. Acarli.

Some studies reported an improvement in headache prevalence among adolescents during COVID-19, which was attributed to less school-related stress. However, said Dr. Acarli in her personal clinical experience, young patients suffered more frequent and severe headaches during the pandemic.

She noted previous research examining the impact of the pandemic on headache in youth was conducted only in the early days of the pandemic and examined shorter-term effects. Research examining the long-term effects of the pandemic on headache in this patient population has been “lacking,” she said.

The study included 851 participants aged 10-18 years (mean age 14.9 years and 62% female) who were seen at a neurology or pediatric outpatient clinic from August-December 2021. The study excluded subjects with neurological problems, intellectual deficits, autism spectrum disorder, and epilepsy.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires providing data on demographics, exposure to COVID-19, and electronics, as well as information on depressive symptoms as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and anxiety symptoms using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and COVID-related anxiety.

“We used two distinct scales for anxiety: one for generalized anxiety and the other for COVID-related anxiety,” said Dr. Acarli.

Of the total study population, 756 (89%) reported headaches. This headache prevalence in children and adolescents is like that found in other studies.

Dr. Acarli noted several differences in the headache group versus the non-headache group. The female/male ratio was 2:1 versus 1:1, the mean age was 15.0 versus 14.4, and depression and generalized anxiety scores were significantly higher. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 history in those with and without headache.

Researchers categorized those with headache into four groups: worsening headaches (27%), improved headaches (3%), new onset headaches (10%), and stable headaches (61%).

Compared with the other groups, the worsened headache group included significantly more females and older individuals with more severe and frequent headaches. This group also had more participants reporting at least 15 headache attacks a month and using painkillers at least once a month.

The study showed headache severity was significantly increased with age, headache duration, depression, generalized anxiety (all P < .001), and COVID-19 anxiety (P < .01). Headache frequency, measured as attacks per month, was significantly increased with age, depression, and generalized anxiety (all P < .001).

Worsening headache outcomes during the pandemic were associated with longer exposure to computer screens (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.3; P < .01), lack of suitable conditions for online learning (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.8; P < .001), depression (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .001); and COVID-19 anxiety (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.0; P < .01). Other contributing factors included school exams, living in a city, female sex, and weight gain.

There may be a link between COVID-related headaches and anxiety or depression, but it’s unclear what’s causing what. “We don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg,” said Dr. Acarli.
 

Headache triggers

Commenting for this news organization, Raquel Gil-Gouveia, MD, PhD, head of the neurology department, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal, who co-chaired the session where the research was presented, said the information collected for the study was “extensive.”

Some results were expected, including the fact that patients with headaches were more anxious and depressed, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.

“Anxiety and depression are frequent comorbidities of headache and can act as a triggering factor for headache attacks but can also be a consequence of intense or chronic pain,” she said.

She agreed the new results differ from those of studies carried out during the first pandemic lockdown, which showed an improvement in headache, but noted online learning was not fully implemented at that time, “so it was much like being on vacation.”

In addition to isolation, anxiety, and prolonged screen exposure, the lack of peer contact and fewer sports and leisure activities may also have contributed to worsening headaches during the COVID lockdown, but these were not explored in this study, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.

The study was supported by the Global Migraine and Pain Society. The investigators and Dr. Gil-Gouveia report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to previous research findings, the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to an increased headache burden in teens.

Investigators found factors contributing to headache for preteens and teens during the pandemic included increased screen time for online learning, depression, anxiety, female sex, and weight gain.

“The stressors and pressures of the pandemic may have eventually taken their toll,” lead author Ayşe Nur Özdağ Acarli, MD, Ermenek State Hospital, department of neurology, Karaman, Turkey, told this news organization.

“Limiting screen time and providing more psychosocial supports would help lessen the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on adolescents with headache.”

The findings were presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) 2022.
 

Most common neurological problem in kids

Headache is the most common neurological problem in children and adolescents. Potential factors contributing to headache in this population include lack of sleep and physical activity, mental health problems, and socioeconomic conditions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a “striking” impact on every aspect of life for young people, said Dr. Acarli.

Some studies reported an improvement in headache prevalence among adolescents during COVID-19, which was attributed to less school-related stress. However, said Dr. Acarli in her personal clinical experience, young patients suffered more frequent and severe headaches during the pandemic.

She noted previous research examining the impact of the pandemic on headache in youth was conducted only in the early days of the pandemic and examined shorter-term effects. Research examining the long-term effects of the pandemic on headache in this patient population has been “lacking,” she said.

The study included 851 participants aged 10-18 years (mean age 14.9 years and 62% female) who were seen at a neurology or pediatric outpatient clinic from August-December 2021. The study excluded subjects with neurological problems, intellectual deficits, autism spectrum disorder, and epilepsy.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires providing data on demographics, exposure to COVID-19, and electronics, as well as information on depressive symptoms as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and anxiety symptoms using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and COVID-related anxiety.

“We used two distinct scales for anxiety: one for generalized anxiety and the other for COVID-related anxiety,” said Dr. Acarli.

Of the total study population, 756 (89%) reported headaches. This headache prevalence in children and adolescents is like that found in other studies.

Dr. Acarli noted several differences in the headache group versus the non-headache group. The female/male ratio was 2:1 versus 1:1, the mean age was 15.0 versus 14.4, and depression and generalized anxiety scores were significantly higher. There was no significant difference in COVID-19 history in those with and without headache.

Researchers categorized those with headache into four groups: worsening headaches (27%), improved headaches (3%), new onset headaches (10%), and stable headaches (61%).

Compared with the other groups, the worsened headache group included significantly more females and older individuals with more severe and frequent headaches. This group also had more participants reporting at least 15 headache attacks a month and using painkillers at least once a month.

The study showed headache severity was significantly increased with age, headache duration, depression, generalized anxiety (all P < .001), and COVID-19 anxiety (P < .01). Headache frequency, measured as attacks per month, was significantly increased with age, depression, and generalized anxiety (all P < .001).

Worsening headache outcomes during the pandemic were associated with longer exposure to computer screens (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.3; P < .01), lack of suitable conditions for online learning (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.8-3.8; P < .001), depression (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .001); and COVID-19 anxiety (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3-8.0; P < .01). Other contributing factors included school exams, living in a city, female sex, and weight gain.

There may be a link between COVID-related headaches and anxiety or depression, but it’s unclear what’s causing what. “We don’t know which is the chicken and which is the egg,” said Dr. Acarli.
 

Headache triggers

Commenting for this news organization, Raquel Gil-Gouveia, MD, PhD, head of the neurology department, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal, who co-chaired the session where the research was presented, said the information collected for the study was “extensive.”

Some results were expected, including the fact that patients with headaches were more anxious and depressed, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.

“Anxiety and depression are frequent comorbidities of headache and can act as a triggering factor for headache attacks but can also be a consequence of intense or chronic pain,” she said.

She agreed the new results differ from those of studies carried out during the first pandemic lockdown, which showed an improvement in headache, but noted online learning was not fully implemented at that time, “so it was much like being on vacation.”

In addition to isolation, anxiety, and prolonged screen exposure, the lack of peer contact and fewer sports and leisure activities may also have contributed to worsening headaches during the COVID lockdown, but these were not explored in this study, said Dr. Gil-Gouveia.

The study was supported by the Global Migraine and Pain Society. The investigators and Dr. Gil-Gouveia report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent series of columns on practice merger options generated a multitude of questions regarding merger, employment, and buyout agreements. The most common question was, “Do I really need to go to the trouble and expense of negotiating them?” If you have more than one physician in your group, you absolutely do need written contracts for a variety of reasons, but mostly to avoid conflicts later on. The proverbial “handshake agreement” is worthless in a major business dispute; everyone loses in such situations except the lawyers and accountants.

Mergers and buy-ins were covered at some length in my two previous columns. If the arrangement is to be one of employer and employees rather than a merger of equal partners, you will need an employment agreement to cover duties, requirements, expectations, and benefits. They define how each practitioner/employee will be paid, along with paid time off, health insurance, expense allowances, and malpractice coverage, among other basics. The more that is spelled out in the employment agreement, the fewer disagreements you are likely to have down the road.

Many employment contracts include a “termination without cause” clause, which benefits both the practice and the practitioners. It allows a practice to terminate a new associate if it feels a mistake has been made, even if he or she has done nothing wrong. On the other hand, the newcomer has the option to terminate if a better offer arises, their spouse hates the area, or for any other reason.

Buyouts should be addressed in advance as well. Several recent correspondents told me they didn’t see the necessity of writing a buyout agreement, because they plan to eventually sell their practice, rendering any buyout conditions moot. But what happens if an associate dies, becomes permanently disabled, or abruptly decides to leave the practice? If you haven’t prepared for such eventualities, you could find yourself receiving a demand from your ex-partner (or surviving spouse) for immediate payment of that partner’s portion of the practice’s value. And your valuation of the practice is likely to be severely at odds with the other party’s. Meanwhile, remaining partners must cover all the practice’s expenses and deal with an increased patient load.

A buyout agreement avoids these problems by planning for such eventualities in advance. You must agree on how a buyout amount will be valued. As I’ve said in previous columns, I strongly advise using a formula, not a fixed amount. If a buyout is based on 15- or 20-year-old reimbursements, the buyout will have no relationship to what the partners are currently being paid. Likewise, any buyout calculated at “appraised value” is a problem, because the buyout amount remains a mystery until an appraisal is performed. If the appraised value ends up being too high, the remaining owners may refuse to pay it. Have an actuary create a formula, so that a buyout figure can be calculated at any time. This area, especially, is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

To avoid surprises, any buyout should require ample notice (6-12 months is common) to allow time to rearrange finances and recruit a new provider. Vesting schedules, similar to those used in retirement plans, are also popular. If a partner leaves before a prescribed time period has elapsed – say, 20 years – the buyout is proportionally reduced.

Buyouts can also be useful when dealing with noncompete agreements, which are notoriously difficult (and expensive) to enforce. One solution is a buyout penalty; a departing partner can compete with his or her former practice, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it, and compensates the targeted practice.

Buyouts are also a potential solution to some buy-in issues. A new associate entering an established practice may not be able to contribute assets equal to existing partners’ stakes and may lack the cash necessary to make up the difference. One alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end in buyout value. Those partners contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts than those contributing less.

As I’ve said many times, these are not negotiations to undertake on your own. Enlist the aid of a consultant or attorney (or both) with ample medical practice experience.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

A recent series of columns on practice merger options generated a multitude of questions regarding merger, employment, and buyout agreements. The most common question was, “Do I really need to go to the trouble and expense of negotiating them?” If you have more than one physician in your group, you absolutely do need written contracts for a variety of reasons, but mostly to avoid conflicts later on. The proverbial “handshake agreement” is worthless in a major business dispute; everyone loses in such situations except the lawyers and accountants.

Mergers and buy-ins were covered at some length in my two previous columns. If the arrangement is to be one of employer and employees rather than a merger of equal partners, you will need an employment agreement to cover duties, requirements, expectations, and benefits. They define how each practitioner/employee will be paid, along with paid time off, health insurance, expense allowances, and malpractice coverage, among other basics. The more that is spelled out in the employment agreement, the fewer disagreements you are likely to have down the road.

Many employment contracts include a “termination without cause” clause, which benefits both the practice and the practitioners. It allows a practice to terminate a new associate if it feels a mistake has been made, even if he or she has done nothing wrong. On the other hand, the newcomer has the option to terminate if a better offer arises, their spouse hates the area, or for any other reason.

Buyouts should be addressed in advance as well. Several recent correspondents told me they didn’t see the necessity of writing a buyout agreement, because they plan to eventually sell their practice, rendering any buyout conditions moot. But what happens if an associate dies, becomes permanently disabled, or abruptly decides to leave the practice? If you haven’t prepared for such eventualities, you could find yourself receiving a demand from your ex-partner (or surviving spouse) for immediate payment of that partner’s portion of the practice’s value. And your valuation of the practice is likely to be severely at odds with the other party’s. Meanwhile, remaining partners must cover all the practice’s expenses and deal with an increased patient load.

A buyout agreement avoids these problems by planning for such eventualities in advance. You must agree on how a buyout amount will be valued. As I’ve said in previous columns, I strongly advise using a formula, not a fixed amount. If a buyout is based on 15- or 20-year-old reimbursements, the buyout will have no relationship to what the partners are currently being paid. Likewise, any buyout calculated at “appraised value” is a problem, because the buyout amount remains a mystery until an appraisal is performed. If the appraised value ends up being too high, the remaining owners may refuse to pay it. Have an actuary create a formula, so that a buyout figure can be calculated at any time. This area, especially, is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

To avoid surprises, any buyout should require ample notice (6-12 months is common) to allow time to rearrange finances and recruit a new provider. Vesting schedules, similar to those used in retirement plans, are also popular. If a partner leaves before a prescribed time period has elapsed – say, 20 years – the buyout is proportionally reduced.

Buyouts can also be useful when dealing with noncompete agreements, which are notoriously difficult (and expensive) to enforce. One solution is a buyout penalty; a departing partner can compete with his or her former practice, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it, and compensates the targeted practice.

Buyouts are also a potential solution to some buy-in issues. A new associate entering an established practice may not be able to contribute assets equal to existing partners’ stakes and may lack the cash necessary to make up the difference. One alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end in buyout value. Those partners contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts than those contributing less.

As I’ve said many times, these are not negotiations to undertake on your own. Enlist the aid of a consultant or attorney (or both) with ample medical practice experience.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

A recent series of columns on practice merger options generated a multitude of questions regarding merger, employment, and buyout agreements. The most common question was, “Do I really need to go to the trouble and expense of negotiating them?” If you have more than one physician in your group, you absolutely do need written contracts for a variety of reasons, but mostly to avoid conflicts later on. The proverbial “handshake agreement” is worthless in a major business dispute; everyone loses in such situations except the lawyers and accountants.

Mergers and buy-ins were covered at some length in my two previous columns. If the arrangement is to be one of employer and employees rather than a merger of equal partners, you will need an employment agreement to cover duties, requirements, expectations, and benefits. They define how each practitioner/employee will be paid, along with paid time off, health insurance, expense allowances, and malpractice coverage, among other basics. The more that is spelled out in the employment agreement, the fewer disagreements you are likely to have down the road.

Many employment contracts include a “termination without cause” clause, which benefits both the practice and the practitioners. It allows a practice to terminate a new associate if it feels a mistake has been made, even if he or she has done nothing wrong. On the other hand, the newcomer has the option to terminate if a better offer arises, their spouse hates the area, or for any other reason.

Buyouts should be addressed in advance as well. Several recent correspondents told me they didn’t see the necessity of writing a buyout agreement, because they plan to eventually sell their practice, rendering any buyout conditions moot. But what happens if an associate dies, becomes permanently disabled, or abruptly decides to leave the practice? If you haven’t prepared for such eventualities, you could find yourself receiving a demand from your ex-partner (or surviving spouse) for immediate payment of that partner’s portion of the practice’s value. And your valuation of the practice is likely to be severely at odds with the other party’s. Meanwhile, remaining partners must cover all the practice’s expenses and deal with an increased patient load.

A buyout agreement avoids these problems by planning for such eventualities in advance. You must agree on how a buyout amount will be valued. As I’ve said in previous columns, I strongly advise using a formula, not a fixed amount. If a buyout is based on 15- or 20-year-old reimbursements, the buyout will have no relationship to what the partners are currently being paid. Likewise, any buyout calculated at “appraised value” is a problem, because the buyout amount remains a mystery until an appraisal is performed. If the appraised value ends up being too high, the remaining owners may refuse to pay it. Have an actuary create a formula, so that a buyout figure can be calculated at any time. This area, especially, is where you need experienced, competent legal advice.

To avoid surprises, any buyout should require ample notice (6-12 months is common) to allow time to rearrange finances and recruit a new provider. Vesting schedules, similar to those used in retirement plans, are also popular. If a partner leaves before a prescribed time period has elapsed – say, 20 years – the buyout is proportionally reduced.

Buyouts can also be useful when dealing with noncompete agreements, which are notoriously difficult (and expensive) to enforce. One solution is a buyout penalty; a departing partner can compete with his or her former practice, but at the cost of a substantially reduced buyout. This permits competition, but discourages it, and compensates the targeted practice.

Buyouts are also a potential solution to some buy-in issues. A new associate entering an established practice may not be able to contribute assets equal to existing partners’ stakes and may lack the cash necessary to make up the difference. One alternative is to agree that any inequalities will be compensated at the other end in buyout value. Those partners contributing more assets will receive larger buyouts than those contributing less.

As I’ve said many times, these are not negotiations to undertake on your own. Enlist the aid of a consultant or attorney (or both) with ample medical practice experience.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Sleep time may be a modifiable risk factor for cancer, according to a recent study from Japan.

The findings reveal that sleeping 10-plus hours may increase a woman’s risk of getting cancer and both men and women’s risk of dying from cancer. 

The researchers say their findings may help refine sleep recommendations in Japan, which currently advise working, middle-aged adults to sleep “as long as they can.”

Based on the new findings, a sleep duration of 6-8 hours for men and 6-9 hours for women “may be the safest” regarding cancer incidence and mortality risk among Japanese adults, the authors conclude.

The findings were published online in the International Journal of Cancer. 

The literature on sleep time and cancer risk is mixed. A trio of meta-analyses conducted between 2016 and 2019 found that long sleep duration, but not short, was associated with a slightly elevated risk of all cancer mortality in Asians.

A separate meta-analysis conducted in 2018 found that both short and long sleep durations were not related to cancer incidence. But in the stratified analysis, shorter sleep time was associated with 36% increased cancer risk among Asians.

To investigate further, the researchers pooled data from six population-based cohorts that included 271,694 adults – 126,930 men and 144,764 women – with 40,751 total incident cancer cases and 18,323 total cancer deaths during a follow-up lasting about 5.9 million person-years.

In the multivariable analysis, longer sleep duration was not associated with total cancer incidence in men. In women, however, sleeping 10 or more hours vs. 7 was associated with a 19% increased risk of cancer.

In addition, sleeping 10 or more hours was associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.44) and men (HR, 1.18).

Sleeping for 5 hours or fewer, compared with 7, was not associated with cancer incidence and mortality. However, among postmenopausal women, shorter sleep durations did increase the risk of dying from cancer (HR, 1.15).

The authors highlight several strengths of the analysis, including a large sample size as well as stratification of the results by body mass index and menopause status, which has rarely been done in previous studies.

Limitations include self-reported sleep durations and lack of data on sleep quality. The researchers note that the mechanism by which sleep time may influence cancer incidence and mortality is unclear but likely to be complex and cancer site specific.

It’s also possible that reverse causation could explain associations between sleep duration and cancer occurrence and mortality – with pain from cancer, for instance, impairing sleep duration and quality. However, the sensitivity analysis found no evidence of reverse causality or other confounding factors.

Based on these findings, the researchers say sleep duration “may be an important variable to include in cancer incidence and mortality risk prediction models.”

The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Sleep time may be a modifiable risk factor for cancer, according to a recent study from Japan.

The findings reveal that sleeping 10-plus hours may increase a woman’s risk of getting cancer and both men and women’s risk of dying from cancer. 

The researchers say their findings may help refine sleep recommendations in Japan, which currently advise working, middle-aged adults to sleep “as long as they can.”

Based on the new findings, a sleep duration of 6-8 hours for men and 6-9 hours for women “may be the safest” regarding cancer incidence and mortality risk among Japanese adults, the authors conclude.

The findings were published online in the International Journal of Cancer. 

The literature on sleep time and cancer risk is mixed. A trio of meta-analyses conducted between 2016 and 2019 found that long sleep duration, but not short, was associated with a slightly elevated risk of all cancer mortality in Asians.

A separate meta-analysis conducted in 2018 found that both short and long sleep durations were not related to cancer incidence. But in the stratified analysis, shorter sleep time was associated with 36% increased cancer risk among Asians.

To investigate further, the researchers pooled data from six population-based cohorts that included 271,694 adults – 126,930 men and 144,764 women – with 40,751 total incident cancer cases and 18,323 total cancer deaths during a follow-up lasting about 5.9 million person-years.

In the multivariable analysis, longer sleep duration was not associated with total cancer incidence in men. In women, however, sleeping 10 or more hours vs. 7 was associated with a 19% increased risk of cancer.

In addition, sleeping 10 or more hours was associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.44) and men (HR, 1.18).

Sleeping for 5 hours or fewer, compared with 7, was not associated with cancer incidence and mortality. However, among postmenopausal women, shorter sleep durations did increase the risk of dying from cancer (HR, 1.15).

The authors highlight several strengths of the analysis, including a large sample size as well as stratification of the results by body mass index and menopause status, which has rarely been done in previous studies.

Limitations include self-reported sleep durations and lack of data on sleep quality. The researchers note that the mechanism by which sleep time may influence cancer incidence and mortality is unclear but likely to be complex and cancer site specific.

It’s also possible that reverse causation could explain associations between sleep duration and cancer occurrence and mortality – with pain from cancer, for instance, impairing sleep duration and quality. However, the sensitivity analysis found no evidence of reverse causality or other confounding factors.

Based on these findings, the researchers say sleep duration “may be an important variable to include in cancer incidence and mortality risk prediction models.”

The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Sleep time may be a modifiable risk factor for cancer, according to a recent study from Japan.

The findings reveal that sleeping 10-plus hours may increase a woman’s risk of getting cancer and both men and women’s risk of dying from cancer. 

The researchers say their findings may help refine sleep recommendations in Japan, which currently advise working, middle-aged adults to sleep “as long as they can.”

Based on the new findings, a sleep duration of 6-8 hours for men and 6-9 hours for women “may be the safest” regarding cancer incidence and mortality risk among Japanese adults, the authors conclude.

The findings were published online in the International Journal of Cancer. 

The literature on sleep time and cancer risk is mixed. A trio of meta-analyses conducted between 2016 and 2019 found that long sleep duration, but not short, was associated with a slightly elevated risk of all cancer mortality in Asians.

A separate meta-analysis conducted in 2018 found that both short and long sleep durations were not related to cancer incidence. But in the stratified analysis, shorter sleep time was associated with 36% increased cancer risk among Asians.

To investigate further, the researchers pooled data from six population-based cohorts that included 271,694 adults – 126,930 men and 144,764 women – with 40,751 total incident cancer cases and 18,323 total cancer deaths during a follow-up lasting about 5.9 million person-years.

In the multivariable analysis, longer sleep duration was not associated with total cancer incidence in men. In women, however, sleeping 10 or more hours vs. 7 was associated with a 19% increased risk of cancer.

In addition, sleeping 10 or more hours was associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.44) and men (HR, 1.18).

Sleeping for 5 hours or fewer, compared with 7, was not associated with cancer incidence and mortality. However, among postmenopausal women, shorter sleep durations did increase the risk of dying from cancer (HR, 1.15).

The authors highlight several strengths of the analysis, including a large sample size as well as stratification of the results by body mass index and menopause status, which has rarely been done in previous studies.

Limitations include self-reported sleep durations and lack of data on sleep quality. The researchers note that the mechanism by which sleep time may influence cancer incidence and mortality is unclear but likely to be complex and cancer site specific.

It’s also possible that reverse causation could explain associations between sleep duration and cancer occurrence and mortality – with pain from cancer, for instance, impairing sleep duration and quality. However, the sensitivity analysis found no evidence of reverse causality or other confounding factors.

Based on these findings, the researchers say sleep duration “may be an important variable to include in cancer incidence and mortality risk prediction models.”

The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Controversy regarding the purported link between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine H₂ receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and risk for dementia continues.

Adding to the “no link” column comes new evidence from a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) .

Among almost 19,000 people, no association was found between the use of these agents and a greater likelihood of incident dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, or cognitive decline in people older than 65 years.

“We found that baseline PPI or H2RA use in older adults was not associated with dementia, with mild cognitive impairment, or declines in cognitive scores over time,” said lead author Raaj Shishir Mehta, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“While deprescribing efforts are important, especially when medications are not indicated, these data provide reassurance about the cognitive impacts of long-term use of PPIs in older adults,” he added.
 

Growing use, growing concern

As PPI use has increased worldwide, so too have concerns over the adverse effects from their long-term use, Dr. Mehta said.

“One particular area of concern, especially among older adults, is the link between long-term PPI use and risk for dementia,” he said.

Igniting the controversy was a February 2016 study published in JAMA Neurology that showed a positive association between PPI use and dementia in residents of Germany aged 75 years and older. Researchers linked PPI use to a 44% increased risk of dementia over 5 years.

The 2016 study was based on claims data, which can introduce “inaccuracy or bias in defining dementia cases,” Dr. Mehta said. He noted that it and other previous studies also were limited by an inability to account for concomitant medications or comorbidities.

To overcome these limitations in their study, Dr. Mehta and colleagues analyzed medication data collected during in-person visits and asked experts to confirm dementia outcomes. The research data come from ASPREE, a large aspirin study of 18,846 people older than 65 years in the United States and Australia. Participants were enrolled from 2010 to 2014. A total of 566 people developed incident dementia during follow-up.

The researchers had data on alcohol consumption and other lifestyle factors, as well as information on comorbidities, hospitalizations, and overall well-being.

“Perhaps the biggest strength of our study is our rigorous neurocognitive assessments,” Dr. Mehta said.

They assessed cognition at baseline and at years 1, 3, 5, and 7 using a battery of tests. An expert panel of neurologists, neuropsychologists, and geriatricians adjudicated cases of dementia, in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. If the diagnosis was unclear, they referred people for additional workup, including neuroimaging.

Cox proportional hazards, regression, and/or mixed effects modeling were used to relate medication use with cognitive scores.

All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, alcohol use, family history of dementia, medications, and other medical comorbidities.

At baseline, PPI users were more likely to be White, have fewer years of education, and have higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. This group also was more likely to be taking five or more medications.
 

Key points

During 80,976 person-years of follow-up, there were 566 incident cases of dementia, including 235 probable cases of Alzheimer’s disease and 331 other dementias.

Baseline PPI use, in comparison with nonuse, was not associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.05).

“Similarly, when we look specifically at Alzheimer’s disease or mixed types of dementia, we find no association between baseline PPI use and dementia,” Dr. Mehta said.

When they excluded people already taking PPIs at baseline, they found no association between starting PPIs and developing dementia over time.

Secondary aims of the study included looking for a link between PPI use and mild cognitive impairment or significant changes in cognition over time. In both cases, no association emerged. PPI use at baseline also was not associated with cognitive impairment/no dementia (also known as mild cognitive impairment) or with changes in overall cognitive test scores over time.

To determine whether any association could be a class effect of acid suppression medication, they assessed use of H2RA medications and development of incident dementia. Again, the researchers found no link.

A diverse multinational population from urban and rural areas was a strength of the study, as was the “very rigorous cognitive testing with expert adjudication of our endpoints,” Dr. Mehta said. In addition, fewer than 5% of patients were lost to follow-up.

In terms of limitations, this was an observational study “so residual confounding is always possible,” he added. “But I’ll emphasize that we are among the largest studies to date with wealth of covariates.”
 

Why the different findings?

The study was “really well done,” session moderator Paul Moayyedi, MD, said during the Q&A session at DDW 2022.

Dr. Moayyedi, a professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., asked Dr. Mehta why he “found absolutely no signal, whereas the German study did.”

“It’s a good question,” Dr. Mehta responded. “If you look across the board, there have been conflicting results.”

The disparity could be related to how researchers conducting claims data studies classify dementia, he noted.

“If you look at the nitty-gritty details over 5 years, almost 40% of participants [in those studies] end up with a diagnosis of dementia, which is quite high,” Dr. Mehta said. “That raises questions about whether the diagnosis of dementia is truly accurate.”

Dr. Mehta and Dr. Moayyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Controversy regarding the purported link between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine H₂ receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and risk for dementia continues.

Adding to the “no link” column comes new evidence from a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) .

Among almost 19,000 people, no association was found between the use of these agents and a greater likelihood of incident dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, or cognitive decline in people older than 65 years.

“We found that baseline PPI or H2RA use in older adults was not associated with dementia, with mild cognitive impairment, or declines in cognitive scores over time,” said lead author Raaj Shishir Mehta, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“While deprescribing efforts are important, especially when medications are not indicated, these data provide reassurance about the cognitive impacts of long-term use of PPIs in older adults,” he added.
 

Growing use, growing concern

As PPI use has increased worldwide, so too have concerns over the adverse effects from their long-term use, Dr. Mehta said.

“One particular area of concern, especially among older adults, is the link between long-term PPI use and risk for dementia,” he said.

Igniting the controversy was a February 2016 study published in JAMA Neurology that showed a positive association between PPI use and dementia in residents of Germany aged 75 years and older. Researchers linked PPI use to a 44% increased risk of dementia over 5 years.

The 2016 study was based on claims data, which can introduce “inaccuracy or bias in defining dementia cases,” Dr. Mehta said. He noted that it and other previous studies also were limited by an inability to account for concomitant medications or comorbidities.

To overcome these limitations in their study, Dr. Mehta and colleagues analyzed medication data collected during in-person visits and asked experts to confirm dementia outcomes. The research data come from ASPREE, a large aspirin study of 18,846 people older than 65 years in the United States and Australia. Participants were enrolled from 2010 to 2014. A total of 566 people developed incident dementia during follow-up.

The researchers had data on alcohol consumption and other lifestyle factors, as well as information on comorbidities, hospitalizations, and overall well-being.

“Perhaps the biggest strength of our study is our rigorous neurocognitive assessments,” Dr. Mehta said.

They assessed cognition at baseline and at years 1, 3, 5, and 7 using a battery of tests. An expert panel of neurologists, neuropsychologists, and geriatricians adjudicated cases of dementia, in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. If the diagnosis was unclear, they referred people for additional workup, including neuroimaging.

Cox proportional hazards, regression, and/or mixed effects modeling were used to relate medication use with cognitive scores.

All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, alcohol use, family history of dementia, medications, and other medical comorbidities.

At baseline, PPI users were more likely to be White, have fewer years of education, and have higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. This group also was more likely to be taking five or more medications.
 

Key points

During 80,976 person-years of follow-up, there were 566 incident cases of dementia, including 235 probable cases of Alzheimer’s disease and 331 other dementias.

Baseline PPI use, in comparison with nonuse, was not associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.05).

“Similarly, when we look specifically at Alzheimer’s disease or mixed types of dementia, we find no association between baseline PPI use and dementia,” Dr. Mehta said.

When they excluded people already taking PPIs at baseline, they found no association between starting PPIs and developing dementia over time.

Secondary aims of the study included looking for a link between PPI use and mild cognitive impairment or significant changes in cognition over time. In both cases, no association emerged. PPI use at baseline also was not associated with cognitive impairment/no dementia (also known as mild cognitive impairment) or with changes in overall cognitive test scores over time.

To determine whether any association could be a class effect of acid suppression medication, they assessed use of H2RA medications and development of incident dementia. Again, the researchers found no link.

A diverse multinational population from urban and rural areas was a strength of the study, as was the “very rigorous cognitive testing with expert adjudication of our endpoints,” Dr. Mehta said. In addition, fewer than 5% of patients were lost to follow-up.

In terms of limitations, this was an observational study “so residual confounding is always possible,” he added. “But I’ll emphasize that we are among the largest studies to date with wealth of covariates.”
 

Why the different findings?

The study was “really well done,” session moderator Paul Moayyedi, MD, said during the Q&A session at DDW 2022.

Dr. Moayyedi, a professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., asked Dr. Mehta why he “found absolutely no signal, whereas the German study did.”

“It’s a good question,” Dr. Mehta responded. “If you look across the board, there have been conflicting results.”

The disparity could be related to how researchers conducting claims data studies classify dementia, he noted.

“If you look at the nitty-gritty details over 5 years, almost 40% of participants [in those studies] end up with a diagnosis of dementia, which is quite high,” Dr. Mehta said. “That raises questions about whether the diagnosis of dementia is truly accurate.”

Dr. Mehta and Dr. Moayyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Controversy regarding the purported link between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine H₂ receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and risk for dementia continues.

Adding to the “no link” column comes new evidence from a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) .

Among almost 19,000 people, no association was found between the use of these agents and a greater likelihood of incident dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, or cognitive decline in people older than 65 years.

“We found that baseline PPI or H2RA use in older adults was not associated with dementia, with mild cognitive impairment, or declines in cognitive scores over time,” said lead author Raaj Shishir Mehta, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“While deprescribing efforts are important, especially when medications are not indicated, these data provide reassurance about the cognitive impacts of long-term use of PPIs in older adults,” he added.
 

Growing use, growing concern

As PPI use has increased worldwide, so too have concerns over the adverse effects from their long-term use, Dr. Mehta said.

“One particular area of concern, especially among older adults, is the link between long-term PPI use and risk for dementia,” he said.

Igniting the controversy was a February 2016 study published in JAMA Neurology that showed a positive association between PPI use and dementia in residents of Germany aged 75 years and older. Researchers linked PPI use to a 44% increased risk of dementia over 5 years.

The 2016 study was based on claims data, which can introduce “inaccuracy or bias in defining dementia cases,” Dr. Mehta said. He noted that it and other previous studies also were limited by an inability to account for concomitant medications or comorbidities.

To overcome these limitations in their study, Dr. Mehta and colleagues analyzed medication data collected during in-person visits and asked experts to confirm dementia outcomes. The research data come from ASPREE, a large aspirin study of 18,846 people older than 65 years in the United States and Australia. Participants were enrolled from 2010 to 2014. A total of 566 people developed incident dementia during follow-up.

The researchers had data on alcohol consumption and other lifestyle factors, as well as information on comorbidities, hospitalizations, and overall well-being.

“Perhaps the biggest strength of our study is our rigorous neurocognitive assessments,” Dr. Mehta said.

They assessed cognition at baseline and at years 1, 3, 5, and 7 using a battery of tests. An expert panel of neurologists, neuropsychologists, and geriatricians adjudicated cases of dementia, in accordance with DSM-IV criteria. If the diagnosis was unclear, they referred people for additional workup, including neuroimaging.

Cox proportional hazards, regression, and/or mixed effects modeling were used to relate medication use with cognitive scores.

All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, alcohol use, family history of dementia, medications, and other medical comorbidities.

At baseline, PPI users were more likely to be White, have fewer years of education, and have higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. This group also was more likely to be taking five or more medications.
 

Key points

During 80,976 person-years of follow-up, there were 566 incident cases of dementia, including 235 probable cases of Alzheimer’s disease and 331 other dementias.

Baseline PPI use, in comparison with nonuse, was not associated with incident dementia (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.05).

“Similarly, when we look specifically at Alzheimer’s disease or mixed types of dementia, we find no association between baseline PPI use and dementia,” Dr. Mehta said.

When they excluded people already taking PPIs at baseline, they found no association between starting PPIs and developing dementia over time.

Secondary aims of the study included looking for a link between PPI use and mild cognitive impairment or significant changes in cognition over time. In both cases, no association emerged. PPI use at baseline also was not associated with cognitive impairment/no dementia (also known as mild cognitive impairment) or with changes in overall cognitive test scores over time.

To determine whether any association could be a class effect of acid suppression medication, they assessed use of H2RA medications and development of incident dementia. Again, the researchers found no link.

A diverse multinational population from urban and rural areas was a strength of the study, as was the “very rigorous cognitive testing with expert adjudication of our endpoints,” Dr. Mehta said. In addition, fewer than 5% of patients were lost to follow-up.

In terms of limitations, this was an observational study “so residual confounding is always possible,” he added. “But I’ll emphasize that we are among the largest studies to date with wealth of covariates.”
 

Why the different findings?

The study was “really well done,” session moderator Paul Moayyedi, MD, said during the Q&A session at DDW 2022.

Dr. Moayyedi, a professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., asked Dr. Mehta why he “found absolutely no signal, whereas the German study did.”

“It’s a good question,” Dr. Mehta responded. “If you look across the board, there have been conflicting results.”

The disparity could be related to how researchers conducting claims data studies classify dementia, he noted.

“If you look at the nitty-gritty details over 5 years, almost 40% of participants [in those studies] end up with a diagnosis of dementia, which is quite high,” Dr. Mehta said. “That raises questions about whether the diagnosis of dementia is truly accurate.”

Dr. Mehta and Dr. Moayyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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