MDedge Neurology

Google the word “dopamine” and you will learn that its nicknames are the “happy hormone” and the “pleasure molecule” and that it is among the most important chemicals in our brains. With The Guardian branding it “the Kim Kardashian of neurotransmitters,” dopamine has become a true pop-science darling – people across the globe have attempted to boost their mood with dopamine fasts and dopamine dressing.

A century ago, however, newly discovered dopamine was seen as an uninspiring chemical, nothing more than a precursor of noradrenaline. It took several stubborn and hardworking scientists to change that view.
 

Levodopa: An indifferent precursor

When Casimir Funk, PhD, a Polish biochemist and the discoverer of vitamins, first synthesized the dopamine precursor levodopa in 1911, he had no idea how important the molecule would prove to be in pharmacology and neurobiology. Nor did Markus Guggenheim, PhD, a Swiss biochemist, who isolated levodopa in 1913 from the seeds of a broad bean, Vicia faba. Dr. Guggenheim administered 1 g of levodopa to a rabbit, with no apparent negative consequences. He then prepared a larger dose (2.5 g) and tested it on himself. “Ten minutes after taking it, I felt very nauseous, I had to vomit twice,” he wrote in his paper. In the body, levodopa is converted into dopamine, which may act as an emetic – an effect Dr. Guggenheim didn’t understand. He simply abandoned his human study, erroneously concluding, on the basis of his animal research, that levodopa is “pharmacologically fairly indifferent.”

Around the same time, several scientists across Europe successfully synthesized dopamine, but those discoveries were shelved without much fanfare. For the next 3 decades, dopamine and levodopa were pushed into academic obscurity. Just before World War II, a group of German scientists showed that levodopa is metabolized to dopamine in the body, while another German researcher, Hermann Blaschko, MD, discovered that dopamine is an intermediary in the synthesis of noradrenaline. Even these findings, however, were not immediately accepted.

The dopamine story picked up pace in the post-war years with the observation that the hormone was present in various tissues and body fluids, although nowhere as abundantly as in the central nervous system. Intrigued, Dr. Blaschko, who (after escaping Nazi Germany, changing his name to Hugh, and starting work at Oxford [England] University) hypothesized that dopamine couldn’t be an unremarkable precursor of noradrenaline – it had to have some physiologic functions of its own. He asked his postdoctoral fellow, Oheh Hornykiewicz, MD, to test a few ideas. Dr. Hornykiewicz soon confirmed that dopamine lowered blood pressure in guinea pigs, proving that dopamine indeed had physiologic activity that was independent of other catecholamines.
 

Reserpine and rabbit ears

While Dr. Blaschko and Dr. Hornykiewicz were puzzling over dopamine’s physiologic role in the body, across the ocean at the National Heart Institute in Maryland, pharmacologist Bernard Brodie, PhD and colleagues were laying the groundwork for the discovery of dopamine’s starring role in the brain.

Spoiler alert: Dr. Brodie’s work showed that a new psychiatric drug known as reserpine was capable of fully depleting the brain’s stores of serotonin and – of greatest significance, as it turned out – mimicking the neuromuscular symptoms typical of Parkinson’s disease. The connection to dopamine would be made by new lab colleague Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize.

Derived from Rauwolfia serpentina (a plant that for centuries has been used in India for the treatment of mental illness, insomnia, and snake bites), reserpine was introduced in the West as a treatment for schizophrenia.

It worked marvels. In 1954, the press lauded the “dramatic” and seemingly “incredible”: results in treating “hopelessly insane patients.” Reserpine had a downside, however. Reports soon changed in tone regarding the drug’s severe side effects, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and, far more disturbingly, symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease, from muscular rigidity to tremors.

Dr. Brodie observed that, when reserpine was injected, animals became completely immobile. Serotonin nearly vanished from their brains, but bizarrely, drugs that spur serotonin production did not reverse the rabbits’ immobility.

Dr. Carlsson realized that other catecholamines must be involved in reserpine’s side effects, and he began to search for the culprits. He moved back to his native Sweden and ordered a spectrophotofluorimeter. In one of his experiments, Carlsson injected a pair of rabbits with reserpine, which caused the animals to become catatonic with flattened ears. After the researchers injected the animals with levodopa, within 15 minutes, the rabbits were hopping around, ears proudly vertical. “We were just as excited as the rabbits,” Dr. Carlsson later recalled in a 2016 interview. Dr. Carlsson realized that, because there was no noradrenaline in the rabbits’ brains, dopamine depletion must have been directly responsible for producing reserpine’s motor inhibitory effects.
 

Skeptics are silenced

In 1960, however, the medical community was not yet ready to accept that dopamine was anything but a boring intermediate between levodopa and noradrenaline. At a prestigious London symposium, Dr. Carlsson and his two colleagues presented their hypothesis that dopamine may be a neurotransmitter, thus implicating it in Parkinson’s disease. They were met with harsh criticism. Some of the experts said levodopa was nothing more than a poison. Dr. Carlsson later recalled facing “a profound and nearly unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view.”

That would soon change. Dr. Hornykiewicz, the biochemist who had earlier discovered dopamine’s BP-lowering effects, tested Dr. Carlsson’s ideas using the postmortem brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. It appeared Dr. Carlsson was right: Unlike in healthy brains, the striatum of patients with Parkinson’s disease contained almost no dopamine whatsoever. Beginning in 1961, in collaboration with neurologist Walther Birkmayer, MD, Hornykiewicz injected levodopa into 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and observed a “miraculous” (albeit temporary) amelioration of rigidity, motionlessness, and speechlessness.

By the late 1960s, levodopa and dopamine were making headlines. A 1969 New York Times article described similar stunning improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with levodopa. A patient who had arrived at a hospital unable to speak, with hands clenched and rigid expression, was suddenly able to stride into his doctor’s office and even jog around. “I might say I’m a human being,” he told reporters. Although the treatment was expensive – equivalent to $210 in 2022 – physicians were deluged with requests for “dopa.” To this day, levodopa remains a gold standard in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
 

Still misunderstood

The history of dopamine, however, is not only about Parkinson’s disease but extends to the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction. When in the1940s a French military surgeon started giving a new antihistamine drug, promethazine, to prevent shock in soldiers undergoing surgery, he noticed a bizarre side effect: the soldiers would become euphoric yet oddly calm at the same time.

After the drug was modified by adding a chlorine atom and renamed chlorpromazine, it fast became a go-to treatment for psychosis. At the time, no one made the connection to dopamine. Contemporary doctors believed that it calmed people by lowering body temperature (common treatments for mental illness back in the day included swaddling patients in cold, wet sheets). Yet just like reserpine, chlorpromazine produced range of nasty side effects that closely mimicked Parkinson’s disease. This led a Dutch pharmacologist, Jacques van Rossum, to hypothesize that dopamine receptor blockade could explain chlorpromazine’s antipsychotic effects – an idea that remains widely accepted today.

In the 1970s, dopamine was linked with addiction through research on rodents, and this novel idea caught people’s imagination over the coming decades. A story on dopamine titled, “How We Get Addicted,” made the cover of Time in 1997.

Yet as the dopamine/addiction connection became widespread, it also became oversimplified. According to a 2015 article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a wave of low-quality research followed – nonreplicated, insufficient – which led the authors to conclude that we are “addicted to the dopamine theory of addiction.” Just about every pleasure under the sun was being attributed to dopamine, from eating delicious foods and playing computer games to sex, music, and hot showers. As recent science shows, however, dopamine is not simply about pleasure – it’s about reward prediction, response to stress, memory, learning, and even the functioning of the immune system. Since its first synthesis in the early 20th century, dopamine has often been misunderstood and oversimplified – and it seems the story is repeating itself now.

In one of his final interviews, Dr. Carlsson, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 95, warned about playing around with dopamine and, in particular, prescribing drugs that have an inhibitory action on this neurotransmitter. “Dopamine is involved in everything that happens in our brains – all its important functions,” he said.

We should be careful how we handle such a delicate and still little-known system.

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

Google the word “dopamine” and you will learn that its nicknames are the “happy hormone” and the “pleasure molecule” and that it is among the most important chemicals in our brains. With The Guardian branding it “the Kim Kardashian of neurotransmitters,” dopamine has become a true pop-science darling – people across the globe have attempted to boost their mood with dopamine fasts and dopamine dressing.

A century ago, however, newly discovered dopamine was seen as an uninspiring chemical, nothing more than a precursor of noradrenaline. It took several stubborn and hardworking scientists to change that view.
 

Levodopa: An indifferent precursor

When Casimir Funk, PhD, a Polish biochemist and the discoverer of vitamins, first synthesized the dopamine precursor levodopa in 1911, he had no idea how important the molecule would prove to be in pharmacology and neurobiology. Nor did Markus Guggenheim, PhD, a Swiss biochemist, who isolated levodopa in 1913 from the seeds of a broad bean, Vicia faba. Dr. Guggenheim administered 1 g of levodopa to a rabbit, with no apparent negative consequences. He then prepared a larger dose (2.5 g) and tested it on himself. “Ten minutes after taking it, I felt very nauseous, I had to vomit twice,” he wrote in his paper. In the body, levodopa is converted into dopamine, which may act as an emetic – an effect Dr. Guggenheim didn’t understand. He simply abandoned his human study, erroneously concluding, on the basis of his animal research, that levodopa is “pharmacologically fairly indifferent.”

Around the same time, several scientists across Europe successfully synthesized dopamine, but those discoveries were shelved without much fanfare. For the next 3 decades, dopamine and levodopa were pushed into academic obscurity. Just before World War II, a group of German scientists showed that levodopa is metabolized to dopamine in the body, while another German researcher, Hermann Blaschko, MD, discovered that dopamine is an intermediary in the synthesis of noradrenaline. Even these findings, however, were not immediately accepted.

The dopamine story picked up pace in the post-war years with the observation that the hormone was present in various tissues and body fluids, although nowhere as abundantly as in the central nervous system. Intrigued, Dr. Blaschko, who (after escaping Nazi Germany, changing his name to Hugh, and starting work at Oxford [England] University) hypothesized that dopamine couldn’t be an unremarkable precursor of noradrenaline – it had to have some physiologic functions of its own. He asked his postdoctoral fellow, Oheh Hornykiewicz, MD, to test a few ideas. Dr. Hornykiewicz soon confirmed that dopamine lowered blood pressure in guinea pigs, proving that dopamine indeed had physiologic activity that was independent of other catecholamines.
 

Reserpine and rabbit ears

While Dr. Blaschko and Dr. Hornykiewicz were puzzling over dopamine’s physiologic role in the body, across the ocean at the National Heart Institute in Maryland, pharmacologist Bernard Brodie, PhD and colleagues were laying the groundwork for the discovery of dopamine’s starring role in the brain.

Spoiler alert: Dr. Brodie’s work showed that a new psychiatric drug known as reserpine was capable of fully depleting the brain’s stores of serotonin and – of greatest significance, as it turned out – mimicking the neuromuscular symptoms typical of Parkinson’s disease. The connection to dopamine would be made by new lab colleague Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize.

Derived from Rauwolfia serpentina (a plant that for centuries has been used in India for the treatment of mental illness, insomnia, and snake bites), reserpine was introduced in the West as a treatment for schizophrenia.

It worked marvels. In 1954, the press lauded the “dramatic” and seemingly “incredible”: results in treating “hopelessly insane patients.” Reserpine had a downside, however. Reports soon changed in tone regarding the drug’s severe side effects, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and, far more disturbingly, symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease, from muscular rigidity to tremors.

Dr. Brodie observed that, when reserpine was injected, animals became completely immobile. Serotonin nearly vanished from their brains, but bizarrely, drugs that spur serotonin production did not reverse the rabbits’ immobility.

Dr. Carlsson realized that other catecholamines must be involved in reserpine’s side effects, and he began to search for the culprits. He moved back to his native Sweden and ordered a spectrophotofluorimeter. In one of his experiments, Carlsson injected a pair of rabbits with reserpine, which caused the animals to become catatonic with flattened ears. After the researchers injected the animals with levodopa, within 15 minutes, the rabbits were hopping around, ears proudly vertical. “We were just as excited as the rabbits,” Dr. Carlsson later recalled in a 2016 interview. Dr. Carlsson realized that, because there was no noradrenaline in the rabbits’ brains, dopamine depletion must have been directly responsible for producing reserpine’s motor inhibitory effects.
 

Skeptics are silenced

In 1960, however, the medical community was not yet ready to accept that dopamine was anything but a boring intermediate between levodopa and noradrenaline. At a prestigious London symposium, Dr. Carlsson and his two colleagues presented their hypothesis that dopamine may be a neurotransmitter, thus implicating it in Parkinson’s disease. They were met with harsh criticism. Some of the experts said levodopa was nothing more than a poison. Dr. Carlsson later recalled facing “a profound and nearly unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view.”

That would soon change. Dr. Hornykiewicz, the biochemist who had earlier discovered dopamine’s BP-lowering effects, tested Dr. Carlsson’s ideas using the postmortem brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. It appeared Dr. Carlsson was right: Unlike in healthy brains, the striatum of patients with Parkinson’s disease contained almost no dopamine whatsoever. Beginning in 1961, in collaboration with neurologist Walther Birkmayer, MD, Hornykiewicz injected levodopa into 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and observed a “miraculous” (albeit temporary) amelioration of rigidity, motionlessness, and speechlessness.

By the late 1960s, levodopa and dopamine were making headlines. A 1969 New York Times article described similar stunning improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with levodopa. A patient who had arrived at a hospital unable to speak, with hands clenched and rigid expression, was suddenly able to stride into his doctor’s office and even jog around. “I might say I’m a human being,” he told reporters. Although the treatment was expensive – equivalent to $210 in 2022 – physicians were deluged with requests for “dopa.” To this day, levodopa remains a gold standard in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
 

Still misunderstood

The history of dopamine, however, is not only about Parkinson’s disease but extends to the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction. When in the1940s a French military surgeon started giving a new antihistamine drug, promethazine, to prevent shock in soldiers undergoing surgery, he noticed a bizarre side effect: the soldiers would become euphoric yet oddly calm at the same time.

After the drug was modified by adding a chlorine atom and renamed chlorpromazine, it fast became a go-to treatment for psychosis. At the time, no one made the connection to dopamine. Contemporary doctors believed that it calmed people by lowering body temperature (common treatments for mental illness back in the day included swaddling patients in cold, wet sheets). Yet just like reserpine, chlorpromazine produced range of nasty side effects that closely mimicked Parkinson’s disease. This led a Dutch pharmacologist, Jacques van Rossum, to hypothesize that dopamine receptor blockade could explain chlorpromazine’s antipsychotic effects – an idea that remains widely accepted today.

In the 1970s, dopamine was linked with addiction through research on rodents, and this novel idea caught people’s imagination over the coming decades. A story on dopamine titled, “How We Get Addicted,” made the cover of Time in 1997.

Yet as the dopamine/addiction connection became widespread, it also became oversimplified. According to a 2015 article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a wave of low-quality research followed – nonreplicated, insufficient – which led the authors to conclude that we are “addicted to the dopamine theory of addiction.” Just about every pleasure under the sun was being attributed to dopamine, from eating delicious foods and playing computer games to sex, music, and hot showers. As recent science shows, however, dopamine is not simply about pleasure – it’s about reward prediction, response to stress, memory, learning, and even the functioning of the immune system. Since its first synthesis in the early 20th century, dopamine has often been misunderstood and oversimplified – and it seems the story is repeating itself now.

In one of his final interviews, Dr. Carlsson, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 95, warned about playing around with dopamine and, in particular, prescribing drugs that have an inhibitory action on this neurotransmitter. “Dopamine is involved in everything that happens in our brains – all its important functions,” he said.

We should be careful how we handle such a delicate and still little-known system.

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

Google the word “dopamine” and you will learn that its nicknames are the “happy hormone” and the “pleasure molecule” and that it is among the most important chemicals in our brains. With The Guardian branding it “the Kim Kardashian of neurotransmitters,” dopamine has become a true pop-science darling – people across the globe have attempted to boost their mood with dopamine fasts and dopamine dressing.

A century ago, however, newly discovered dopamine was seen as an uninspiring chemical, nothing more than a precursor of noradrenaline. It took several stubborn and hardworking scientists to change that view.
 

Levodopa: An indifferent precursor

When Casimir Funk, PhD, a Polish biochemist and the discoverer of vitamins, first synthesized the dopamine precursor levodopa in 1911, he had no idea how important the molecule would prove to be in pharmacology and neurobiology. Nor did Markus Guggenheim, PhD, a Swiss biochemist, who isolated levodopa in 1913 from the seeds of a broad bean, Vicia faba. Dr. Guggenheim administered 1 g of levodopa to a rabbit, with no apparent negative consequences. He then prepared a larger dose (2.5 g) and tested it on himself. “Ten minutes after taking it, I felt very nauseous, I had to vomit twice,” he wrote in his paper. In the body, levodopa is converted into dopamine, which may act as an emetic – an effect Dr. Guggenheim didn’t understand. He simply abandoned his human study, erroneously concluding, on the basis of his animal research, that levodopa is “pharmacologically fairly indifferent.”

Around the same time, several scientists across Europe successfully synthesized dopamine, but those discoveries were shelved without much fanfare. For the next 3 decades, dopamine and levodopa were pushed into academic obscurity. Just before World War II, a group of German scientists showed that levodopa is metabolized to dopamine in the body, while another German researcher, Hermann Blaschko, MD, discovered that dopamine is an intermediary in the synthesis of noradrenaline. Even these findings, however, were not immediately accepted.

The dopamine story picked up pace in the post-war years with the observation that the hormone was present in various tissues and body fluids, although nowhere as abundantly as in the central nervous system. Intrigued, Dr. Blaschko, who (after escaping Nazi Germany, changing his name to Hugh, and starting work at Oxford [England] University) hypothesized that dopamine couldn’t be an unremarkable precursor of noradrenaline – it had to have some physiologic functions of its own. He asked his postdoctoral fellow, Oheh Hornykiewicz, MD, to test a few ideas. Dr. Hornykiewicz soon confirmed that dopamine lowered blood pressure in guinea pigs, proving that dopamine indeed had physiologic activity that was independent of other catecholamines.
 

Reserpine and rabbit ears

While Dr. Blaschko and Dr. Hornykiewicz were puzzling over dopamine’s physiologic role in the body, across the ocean at the National Heart Institute in Maryland, pharmacologist Bernard Brodie, PhD and colleagues were laying the groundwork for the discovery of dopamine’s starring role in the brain.

Spoiler alert: Dr. Brodie’s work showed that a new psychiatric drug known as reserpine was capable of fully depleting the brain’s stores of serotonin and – of greatest significance, as it turned out – mimicking the neuromuscular symptoms typical of Parkinson’s disease. The connection to dopamine would be made by new lab colleague Arvid Carlsson, MD, PhD, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize.

Derived from Rauwolfia serpentina (a plant that for centuries has been used in India for the treatment of mental illness, insomnia, and snake bites), reserpine was introduced in the West as a treatment for schizophrenia.

It worked marvels. In 1954, the press lauded the “dramatic” and seemingly “incredible”: results in treating “hopelessly insane patients.” Reserpine had a downside, however. Reports soon changed in tone regarding the drug’s severe side effects, including headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and, far more disturbingly, symptoms mimicking Parkinson’s disease, from muscular rigidity to tremors.

Dr. Brodie observed that, when reserpine was injected, animals became completely immobile. Serotonin nearly vanished from their brains, but bizarrely, drugs that spur serotonin production did not reverse the rabbits’ immobility.

Dr. Carlsson realized that other catecholamines must be involved in reserpine’s side effects, and he began to search for the culprits. He moved back to his native Sweden and ordered a spectrophotofluorimeter. In one of his experiments, Carlsson injected a pair of rabbits with reserpine, which caused the animals to become catatonic with flattened ears. After the researchers injected the animals with levodopa, within 15 minutes, the rabbits were hopping around, ears proudly vertical. “We were just as excited as the rabbits,” Dr. Carlsson later recalled in a 2016 interview. Dr. Carlsson realized that, because there was no noradrenaline in the rabbits’ brains, dopamine depletion must have been directly responsible for producing reserpine’s motor inhibitory effects.
 

Skeptics are silenced

In 1960, however, the medical community was not yet ready to accept that dopamine was anything but a boring intermediate between levodopa and noradrenaline. At a prestigious London symposium, Dr. Carlsson and his two colleagues presented their hypothesis that dopamine may be a neurotransmitter, thus implicating it in Parkinson’s disease. They were met with harsh criticism. Some of the experts said levodopa was nothing more than a poison. Dr. Carlsson later recalled facing “a profound and nearly unanimous skepticism regarding our points of view.”

That would soon change. Dr. Hornykiewicz, the biochemist who had earlier discovered dopamine’s BP-lowering effects, tested Dr. Carlsson’s ideas using the postmortem brains of Parkinson’s disease patients. It appeared Dr. Carlsson was right: Unlike in healthy brains, the striatum of patients with Parkinson’s disease contained almost no dopamine whatsoever. Beginning in 1961, in collaboration with neurologist Walther Birkmayer, MD, Hornykiewicz injected levodopa into 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and observed a “miraculous” (albeit temporary) amelioration of rigidity, motionlessness, and speechlessness.

By the late 1960s, levodopa and dopamine were making headlines. A 1969 New York Times article described similar stunning improvements in patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with levodopa. A patient who had arrived at a hospital unable to speak, with hands clenched and rigid expression, was suddenly able to stride into his doctor’s office and even jog around. “I might say I’m a human being,” he told reporters. Although the treatment was expensive – equivalent to $210 in 2022 – physicians were deluged with requests for “dopa.” To this day, levodopa remains a gold standard in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
 

Still misunderstood

The history of dopamine, however, is not only about Parkinson’s disease but extends to the treatment of schizophrenia and addiction. When in the1940s a French military surgeon started giving a new antihistamine drug, promethazine, to prevent shock in soldiers undergoing surgery, he noticed a bizarre side effect: the soldiers would become euphoric yet oddly calm at the same time.

After the drug was modified by adding a chlorine atom and renamed chlorpromazine, it fast became a go-to treatment for psychosis. At the time, no one made the connection to dopamine. Contemporary doctors believed that it calmed people by lowering body temperature (common treatments for mental illness back in the day included swaddling patients in cold, wet sheets). Yet just like reserpine, chlorpromazine produced range of nasty side effects that closely mimicked Parkinson’s disease. This led a Dutch pharmacologist, Jacques van Rossum, to hypothesize that dopamine receptor blockade could explain chlorpromazine’s antipsychotic effects – an idea that remains widely accepted today.

In the 1970s, dopamine was linked with addiction through research on rodents, and this novel idea caught people’s imagination over the coming decades. A story on dopamine titled, “How We Get Addicted,” made the cover of Time in 1997.

Yet as the dopamine/addiction connection became widespread, it also became oversimplified. According to a 2015 article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a wave of low-quality research followed – nonreplicated, insufficient – which led the authors to conclude that we are “addicted to the dopamine theory of addiction.” Just about every pleasure under the sun was being attributed to dopamine, from eating delicious foods and playing computer games to sex, music, and hot showers. As recent science shows, however, dopamine is not simply about pleasure – it’s about reward prediction, response to stress, memory, learning, and even the functioning of the immune system. Since its first synthesis in the early 20th century, dopamine has often been misunderstood and oversimplified – and it seems the story is repeating itself now.

In one of his final interviews, Dr. Carlsson, who passed away in 2018 at the age of 95, warned about playing around with dopamine and, in particular, prescribing drugs that have an inhibitory action on this neurotransmitter. “Dopamine is involved in everything that happens in our brains – all its important functions,” he said.

We should be careful how we handle such a delicate and still little-known system.

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

Resistance training can help improve several symptoms of Parkinson’s disease – but is not superior to other physical activities, new research suggests.

A meta-analysis, which included 18 randomized controlled trials and more than 1,000 patients with Parkinson’s disease, showed that those who underwent resistance training had significantly greater improvement in motor impairment, muscle strength, and mobility/balance than their peers who underwent passive or placebo interventions.

However, there was no significant difference between patients who participated in resistance training and those who participated in other active physical interventions, including yoga.

Overall, the results highlight the importance that these patients should participate in some type of physical exercise, said the study’s lead author, Romina Gollan, MSc, an assistant researcher in the division of medical psychology, University of Cologne, Germany. “Patients should definitely be doing exercises, including resistance training, if they want to. But the type of exercise is of secondary interest,” she said.

The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
 

Positive but inconsistent

Previous reviews have suggested resistance training has positive effects on motor function in Parkinson’s disease. However, results from the included studies were inconsistent; and few reviews have examined nonmotor outcomes of resistance training in this population, the investigators noted.

After carrying out a literature search of studies that examined the effects of resistance training in Parkinson’s disease, the researchers included 18 randomized controlled trials in their current review. Among the 1,134 total participants, the mean age was 66 years, the mean Hoehn & Yahr stage was 2.3 (range 0-4), and the mean duration of Parkinson’s disease was 7.5 years.

The investigation was grouped into two meta-analysis groups: one examining resistance training versus a passive or placebo intervention and the other assessing resistance training versus active physical interventions, such as yoga.

During resistance training, participants use their full strength to do a repetition, working muscles to overcome a certain threshold, said Ms. Gollan. In contrast, a placebo intervention is “very low intensity” and involves a much lower threshold, she added.

Passive interventions include such things as stretching where the stimulus “is not high enough for muscles to adapt” and build strength, Ms. Gollan noted.

A passive intervention might also include “treatment as usual” or normal daily routines.
 

Patient preference important

The meta-analysis comparing resistance training groups with passive control groups showed significant large effects on muscle strength (standard mean difference, –0.84; 95% confidence interval, –1.29 to –0.39; P = .0003), motor impairment (SMD, –0.81; 95% CI, –1.34 to –0.27; P = .003), and mobility and balance (SMD, –1.80; 95% CI, –3.13 to –0.49; P  = .007).

The review also showed significant but small effects on quality of life.

However, the meta-analysis that assessed resistance training versus other physical interventions showed no significant between-group differences.

Ms. Gollan noted that although there were some assessments of cognition and depression, the data were too limited to determine the impact of resistance training on these outcomes.

“We need more studies, especially randomized controlled trials, to investigate the effects of resistance training on nonmotor outcomes like depression and cognition,” she said.

Co-investigator Ann-Kristin Folkerts, PhD, who heads the University of Cologne medical psychology working group, noted that although exercise in general is beneficial for patients with Parkinson’s disease, the choice of activity should take patient preferences into consideration.

It is important that patients choose an exercise they enjoy “because otherwise they probably wouldn’t adhere to the treatment,” Dr. Folkerts said. “It’s important to have fun.”

Specific goals or objectives, such as improving quality of life or balance, should also be considered, she added.
 

Oversimplification?

Commenting on the research, Alice Nieuwboer, PhD, professor in the department of rehabilitation sciences and head of the neurorehabilitation research group at the University of Leuven, Belgium, disagreed that exercise type is of secondary importance in Parkinson’s disease.

“In my view, it’s of primary interest, especially at the mid- to later stages,” said Dr. Nieuwboer, who was not involved with the research.

She noted it is difficult to carry out meta-analyses of resistance training versus other interventions because studies comparing different exercise types “are rather scarce.”

“Another issue is that the dose may differ, so you’re comparing apples with pears,” said Dr. Nieuwboer.

She did agree that all patients should exercise, because it is “better than no exercise,” and they should be “free to choose a mode that interests them.”

However, she stressed that exercise requires significant effort on the part of patients with Parkinson’s disease, requires “sustained motivation,” and has to become habit-forming. This makes “exercise targeting” very important, with the target changing over the disease course, Dr. Nieuwboer said.

For example, for a patient at an early stage of the disease who can still move quite well, both resistance training and endurance training can improve fitness and health; but at a mid-stage, it is perhaps better for patients to work on balance and walking quality “to preempt the risk of falls and developing freezing,” she noted.

Later on, as movement becomes very difficult, “the exercise menu is even more restricted,” said Dr. Nieuwboer.

The bottom line is that a message saying “any movement counts” is an oversimplification, she added.

The study was funded by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The investigators and Dr. Nieuwboer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Resistance training can help improve several symptoms of Parkinson’s disease – but is not superior to other physical activities, new research suggests.

A meta-analysis, which included 18 randomized controlled trials and more than 1,000 patients with Parkinson’s disease, showed that those who underwent resistance training had significantly greater improvement in motor impairment, muscle strength, and mobility/balance than their peers who underwent passive or placebo interventions.

However, there was no significant difference between patients who participated in resistance training and those who participated in other active physical interventions, including yoga.

Overall, the results highlight the importance that these patients should participate in some type of physical exercise, said the study’s lead author, Romina Gollan, MSc, an assistant researcher in the division of medical psychology, University of Cologne, Germany. “Patients should definitely be doing exercises, including resistance training, if they want to. But the type of exercise is of secondary interest,” she said.

The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
 

Positive but inconsistent

Previous reviews have suggested resistance training has positive effects on motor function in Parkinson’s disease. However, results from the included studies were inconsistent; and few reviews have examined nonmotor outcomes of resistance training in this population, the investigators noted.

After carrying out a literature search of studies that examined the effects of resistance training in Parkinson’s disease, the researchers included 18 randomized controlled trials in their current review. Among the 1,134 total participants, the mean age was 66 years, the mean Hoehn & Yahr stage was 2.3 (range 0-4), and the mean duration of Parkinson’s disease was 7.5 years.

The investigation was grouped into two meta-analysis groups: one examining resistance training versus a passive or placebo intervention and the other assessing resistance training versus active physical interventions, such as yoga.

During resistance training, participants use their full strength to do a repetition, working muscles to overcome a certain threshold, said Ms. Gollan. In contrast, a placebo intervention is “very low intensity” and involves a much lower threshold, she added.

Passive interventions include such things as stretching where the stimulus “is not high enough for muscles to adapt” and build strength, Ms. Gollan noted.

A passive intervention might also include “treatment as usual” or normal daily routines.
 

Patient preference important

The meta-analysis comparing resistance training groups with passive control groups showed significant large effects on muscle strength (standard mean difference, –0.84; 95% confidence interval, –1.29 to –0.39; P = .0003), motor impairment (SMD, –0.81; 95% CI, –1.34 to –0.27; P = .003), and mobility and balance (SMD, –1.80; 95% CI, –3.13 to –0.49; P  = .007).

The review also showed significant but small effects on quality of life.

However, the meta-analysis that assessed resistance training versus other physical interventions showed no significant between-group differences.

Ms. Gollan noted that although there were some assessments of cognition and depression, the data were too limited to determine the impact of resistance training on these outcomes.

“We need more studies, especially randomized controlled trials, to investigate the effects of resistance training on nonmotor outcomes like depression and cognition,” she said.

Co-investigator Ann-Kristin Folkerts, PhD, who heads the University of Cologne medical psychology working group, noted that although exercise in general is beneficial for patients with Parkinson’s disease, the choice of activity should take patient preferences into consideration.

It is important that patients choose an exercise they enjoy “because otherwise they probably wouldn’t adhere to the treatment,” Dr. Folkerts said. “It’s important to have fun.”

Specific goals or objectives, such as improving quality of life or balance, should also be considered, she added.
 

Oversimplification?

Commenting on the research, Alice Nieuwboer, PhD, professor in the department of rehabilitation sciences and head of the neurorehabilitation research group at the University of Leuven, Belgium, disagreed that exercise type is of secondary importance in Parkinson’s disease.

“In my view, it’s of primary interest, especially at the mid- to later stages,” said Dr. Nieuwboer, who was not involved with the research.

She noted it is difficult to carry out meta-analyses of resistance training versus other interventions because studies comparing different exercise types “are rather scarce.”

“Another issue is that the dose may differ, so you’re comparing apples with pears,” said Dr. Nieuwboer.

She did agree that all patients should exercise, because it is “better than no exercise,” and they should be “free to choose a mode that interests them.”

However, she stressed that exercise requires significant effort on the part of patients with Parkinson’s disease, requires “sustained motivation,” and has to become habit-forming. This makes “exercise targeting” very important, with the target changing over the disease course, Dr. Nieuwboer said.

For example, for a patient at an early stage of the disease who can still move quite well, both resistance training and endurance training can improve fitness and health; but at a mid-stage, it is perhaps better for patients to work on balance and walking quality “to preempt the risk of falls and developing freezing,” she noted.

Later on, as movement becomes very difficult, “the exercise menu is even more restricted,” said Dr. Nieuwboer.

The bottom line is that a message saying “any movement counts” is an oversimplification, she added.

The study was funded by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The investigators and Dr. Nieuwboer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Resistance training can help improve several symptoms of Parkinson’s disease – but is not superior to other physical activities, new research suggests.

A meta-analysis, which included 18 randomized controlled trials and more than 1,000 patients with Parkinson’s disease, showed that those who underwent resistance training had significantly greater improvement in motor impairment, muscle strength, and mobility/balance than their peers who underwent passive or placebo interventions.

However, there was no significant difference between patients who participated in resistance training and those who participated in other active physical interventions, including yoga.

Overall, the results highlight the importance that these patients should participate in some type of physical exercise, said the study’s lead author, Romina Gollan, MSc, an assistant researcher in the division of medical psychology, University of Cologne, Germany. “Patients should definitely be doing exercises, including resistance training, if they want to. But the type of exercise is of secondary interest,” she said.

The findings were presented at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
 

Positive but inconsistent

Previous reviews have suggested resistance training has positive effects on motor function in Parkinson’s disease. However, results from the included studies were inconsistent; and few reviews have examined nonmotor outcomes of resistance training in this population, the investigators noted.

After carrying out a literature search of studies that examined the effects of resistance training in Parkinson’s disease, the researchers included 18 randomized controlled trials in their current review. Among the 1,134 total participants, the mean age was 66 years, the mean Hoehn & Yahr stage was 2.3 (range 0-4), and the mean duration of Parkinson’s disease was 7.5 years.

The investigation was grouped into two meta-analysis groups: one examining resistance training versus a passive or placebo intervention and the other assessing resistance training versus active physical interventions, such as yoga.

During resistance training, participants use their full strength to do a repetition, working muscles to overcome a certain threshold, said Ms. Gollan. In contrast, a placebo intervention is “very low intensity” and involves a much lower threshold, she added.

Passive interventions include such things as stretching where the stimulus “is not high enough for muscles to adapt” and build strength, Ms. Gollan noted.

A passive intervention might also include “treatment as usual” or normal daily routines.
 

Patient preference important

The meta-analysis comparing resistance training groups with passive control groups showed significant large effects on muscle strength (standard mean difference, –0.84; 95% confidence interval, –1.29 to –0.39; P = .0003), motor impairment (SMD, –0.81; 95% CI, –1.34 to –0.27; P = .003), and mobility and balance (SMD, –1.80; 95% CI, –3.13 to –0.49; P  = .007).

The review also showed significant but small effects on quality of life.

However, the meta-analysis that assessed resistance training versus other physical interventions showed no significant between-group differences.

Ms. Gollan noted that although there were some assessments of cognition and depression, the data were too limited to determine the impact of resistance training on these outcomes.

“We need more studies, especially randomized controlled trials, to investigate the effects of resistance training on nonmotor outcomes like depression and cognition,” she said.

Co-investigator Ann-Kristin Folkerts, PhD, who heads the University of Cologne medical psychology working group, noted that although exercise in general is beneficial for patients with Parkinson’s disease, the choice of activity should take patient preferences into consideration.

It is important that patients choose an exercise they enjoy “because otherwise they probably wouldn’t adhere to the treatment,” Dr. Folkerts said. “It’s important to have fun.”

Specific goals or objectives, such as improving quality of life or balance, should also be considered, she added.
 

Oversimplification?

Commenting on the research, Alice Nieuwboer, PhD, professor in the department of rehabilitation sciences and head of the neurorehabilitation research group at the University of Leuven, Belgium, disagreed that exercise type is of secondary importance in Parkinson’s disease.

“In my view, it’s of primary interest, especially at the mid- to later stages,” said Dr. Nieuwboer, who was not involved with the research.

She noted it is difficult to carry out meta-analyses of resistance training versus other interventions because studies comparing different exercise types “are rather scarce.”

“Another issue is that the dose may differ, so you’re comparing apples with pears,” said Dr. Nieuwboer.

She did agree that all patients should exercise, because it is “better than no exercise,” and they should be “free to choose a mode that interests them.”

However, she stressed that exercise requires significant effort on the part of patients with Parkinson’s disease, requires “sustained motivation,” and has to become habit-forming. This makes “exercise targeting” very important, with the target changing over the disease course, Dr. Nieuwboer said.

For example, for a patient at an early stage of the disease who can still move quite well, both resistance training and endurance training can improve fitness and health; but at a mid-stage, it is perhaps better for patients to work on balance and walking quality “to preempt the risk of falls and developing freezing,” she noted.

Later on, as movement becomes very difficult, “the exercise menu is even more restricted,” said Dr. Nieuwboer.

The bottom line is that a message saying “any movement counts” is an oversimplification, she added.

The study was funded by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. The investigators and Dr. Nieuwboer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most patients with chronic urticaria (CU) used treatment during pregnancy, especially with second-generation antihistamines, which appear to be safe regardless of the trimester. In addition, the rates of preterm births and medical problems of newborns in patients with CU are similar to those of the normal population and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy.

Those are the key findings from an analysis of new data from PREG-CU, an international, multicenter study of the Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCARE) network. Results from the first PREG-CU analysis published in 2021 found that CU improved in about half of patients with CU during pregnancy. “However, two in five patients reported acute exacerbations of CU especially at the beginning and end of pregnancy,” investigators led by Emek Kocatürk, MD, of the department of dermatology and UCARE at Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, wrote in the new study, recently published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“In addition, 1 in 10 pregnant CU patients required urticaria emergency care and 1 of 6 had angioedema during pregnancy,” they said. Risk factors for worsening CU during pregnancy, they added, were “mild disease and no angioedema before pregnancy, not taking treatment before pregnancy, chronic inducible urticaria, CU worsening during a previous pregnancy, stress as a driver of exacerbations, and treatment during pregnancy.”
 

Analysis involved 288 pregnant women

To optimize treatment of CU during pregnancy and to better understand how treatment affects pregnancy outcomes, the researchers analyzed 288 pregnancies in 288 women with CU from 13 countries and 21 centers worldwide. Their mean age at pregnancy was 32.1 years, and their mean duration of CU was 84.9 months. Prior to pregnancy, 35.7% of patients rated the severity of their CU symptoms as mild, 34.2% rated it as moderate, and 29.7% rated it as severe.

The researchers found that during pregnancy, 60% of patients used urticaria medication, including standard-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (35.1%), first-generation H1-antihistamines (7.6%), high-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (5.6%), and omalizumab (5.6%). The preterm birth rate was 10.2%, which was similar between patients who did and did not receive treatment during pregnancy (11.6% vs. 8.7%, respectively; P = .59).

On multivariate logistic regression, two predictors for preterm birth emerged: giving birth to twins (a 13.3-fold increased risk; P = .016) and emergency referrals for CU (a 4.3-fold increased risk; P =.016). The cesarean delivery rate was 51.3%, and more than 90% of newborns were healthy at birth. There was no link between any patient or disease characteristics or treatments and medical problems at birth.

In other findings, 78.8% of women with CU breastfed their babies. Of the 58 patients who did not breastfeed, 20.7% indicated severe urticaria/angioedema and/or taking medications as the main reason for not breastfeeding.

“Most CU patients use treatment during pregnancy and such treatments, especially second generation H1 antihistamines, seem to be safe during pregnancy regardless of the trimester,” the researchers concluded. “Outcomes of pregnancy in patients with CU were similar compared to the general population and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy. Notably, emergency referral for CU was an independent risk factor for preterm birth,” and the high cesarean delivery rate was “probably linked to comorbidities associated with the disease,” they added. “Overall, these findings suggest that patients should continue their treatments using an individualized dose to provide optimal symptom control.”


 

International guidelines

The authors noted that international guidelines for the management of urticaria published in 2022 suggest that modern second-generation H1-antihistamines should be used for pregnant patients, preferably loratadine with a possible extrapolation to desloratadine, cetirizine, or levocetirizine.

“Similarly, in this population, we found that cetirizine and loratadine were the most commonly used antihistamines, followed by levocetirizine and fexofenadine,” Dr. Kocatürk and colleagues wrote.

“Guidelines also suggest that the use of first-generation H1-antihistamines should be avoided given their sedative effects; but if these are to be given, it would be wise to know that use of first-generation H1-antihistamines immediately before parturition could cause respiratory depression and other adverse effects in the neonate,” they added, noting that chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine are the first-generation H1-antihistamines with the greatest evidence of safety in pregnancy.

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its retrospective design and the fact that there were no data on low birth weight, small for gestational age, or miscarriage rates. In addition, disease activity or severity during pregnancy and after birth were not monitored.

Asked to comment on these results, Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, who directs the center for eczema and itch in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that despite a higher prevalence of CU among females compared with males, very little is known about how the condition is managed during pregnancy. “This retrospective study shows that most patients continue to utilize CU treatment during pregnancy (primarily second-generation antihistamines), with similar birth outcomes as the general population,” he said. “Interestingly, cesarean rates were higher among mothers with CU, and emergency CU referral was a risk factor for preterm birth. While additional prospective studies are needed, these results suggest that CU patients should be carefully managed, particularly during pregnancy, when treatment should be optimized.”

Dr. Kocatürk reported having received personal fees from Novartis, Ibrahim Etem-Menarini, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Many coauthors reported having numerous financial disclosures. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Most patients with chronic urticaria (CU) used treatment during pregnancy, especially with second-generation antihistamines, which appear to be safe regardless of the trimester. In addition, the rates of preterm births and medical problems of newborns in patients with CU are similar to those of the normal population and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy.

Those are the key findings from an analysis of new data from PREG-CU, an international, multicenter study of the Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCARE) network. Results from the first PREG-CU analysis published in 2021 found that CU improved in about half of patients with CU during pregnancy. “However, two in five patients reported acute exacerbations of CU especially at the beginning and end of pregnancy,” investigators led by Emek Kocatürk, MD, of the department of dermatology and UCARE at Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, wrote in the new study, recently published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“In addition, 1 in 10 pregnant CU patients required urticaria emergency care and 1 of 6 had angioedema during pregnancy,” they said. Risk factors for worsening CU during pregnancy, they added, were “mild disease and no angioedema before pregnancy, not taking treatment before pregnancy, chronic inducible urticaria, CU worsening during a previous pregnancy, stress as a driver of exacerbations, and treatment during pregnancy.”
 

Analysis involved 288 pregnant women

To optimize treatment of CU during pregnancy and to better understand how treatment affects pregnancy outcomes, the researchers analyzed 288 pregnancies in 288 women with CU from 13 countries and 21 centers worldwide. Their mean age at pregnancy was 32.1 years, and their mean duration of CU was 84.9 months. Prior to pregnancy, 35.7% of patients rated the severity of their CU symptoms as mild, 34.2% rated it as moderate, and 29.7% rated it as severe.

The researchers found that during pregnancy, 60% of patients used urticaria medication, including standard-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (35.1%), first-generation H1-antihistamines (7.6%), high-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (5.6%), and omalizumab (5.6%). The preterm birth rate was 10.2%, which was similar between patients who did and did not receive treatment during pregnancy (11.6% vs. 8.7%, respectively; P = .59).

On multivariate logistic regression, two predictors for preterm birth emerged: giving birth to twins (a 13.3-fold increased risk; P = .016) and emergency referrals for CU (a 4.3-fold increased risk; P =.016). The cesarean delivery rate was 51.3%, and more than 90% of newborns were healthy at birth. There was no link between any patient or disease characteristics or treatments and medical problems at birth.

In other findings, 78.8% of women with CU breastfed their babies. Of the 58 patients who did not breastfeed, 20.7% indicated severe urticaria/angioedema and/or taking medications as the main reason for not breastfeeding.

“Most CU patients use treatment during pregnancy and such treatments, especially second generation H1 antihistamines, seem to be safe during pregnancy regardless of the trimester,” the researchers concluded. “Outcomes of pregnancy in patients with CU were similar compared to the general population and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy. Notably, emergency referral for CU was an independent risk factor for preterm birth,” and the high cesarean delivery rate was “probably linked to comorbidities associated with the disease,” they added. “Overall, these findings suggest that patients should continue their treatments using an individualized dose to provide optimal symptom control.”


 

International guidelines

The authors noted that international guidelines for the management of urticaria published in 2022 suggest that modern second-generation H1-antihistamines should be used for pregnant patients, preferably loratadine with a possible extrapolation to desloratadine, cetirizine, or levocetirizine.

“Similarly, in this population, we found that cetirizine and loratadine were the most commonly used antihistamines, followed by levocetirizine and fexofenadine,” Dr. Kocatürk and colleagues wrote.

“Guidelines also suggest that the use of first-generation H1-antihistamines should be avoided given their sedative effects; but if these are to be given, it would be wise to know that use of first-generation H1-antihistamines immediately before parturition could cause respiratory depression and other adverse effects in the neonate,” they added, noting that chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine are the first-generation H1-antihistamines with the greatest evidence of safety in pregnancy.

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its retrospective design and the fact that there were no data on low birth weight, small for gestational age, or miscarriage rates. In addition, disease activity or severity during pregnancy and after birth were not monitored.

Asked to comment on these results, Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, who directs the center for eczema and itch in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that despite a higher prevalence of CU among females compared with males, very little is known about how the condition is managed during pregnancy. “This retrospective study shows that most patients continue to utilize CU treatment during pregnancy (primarily second-generation antihistamines), with similar birth outcomes as the general population,” he said. “Interestingly, cesarean rates were higher among mothers with CU, and emergency CU referral was a risk factor for preterm birth. While additional prospective studies are needed, these results suggest that CU patients should be carefully managed, particularly during pregnancy, when treatment should be optimized.”

Dr. Kocatürk reported having received personal fees from Novartis, Ibrahim Etem-Menarini, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Many coauthors reported having numerous financial disclosures. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Most patients with chronic urticaria (CU) used treatment during pregnancy, especially with second-generation antihistamines, which appear to be safe regardless of the trimester. In addition, the rates of preterm births and medical problems of newborns in patients with CU are similar to those of the normal population and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy.

Those are the key findings from an analysis of new data from PREG-CU, an international, multicenter study of the Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCARE) network. Results from the first PREG-CU analysis published in 2021 found that CU improved in about half of patients with CU during pregnancy. “However, two in five patients reported acute exacerbations of CU especially at the beginning and end of pregnancy,” investigators led by Emek Kocatürk, MD, of the department of dermatology and UCARE at Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, wrote in the new study, recently published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“In addition, 1 in 10 pregnant CU patients required urticaria emergency care and 1 of 6 had angioedema during pregnancy,” they said. Risk factors for worsening CU during pregnancy, they added, were “mild disease and no angioedema before pregnancy, not taking treatment before pregnancy, chronic inducible urticaria, CU worsening during a previous pregnancy, stress as a driver of exacerbations, and treatment during pregnancy.”
 

Analysis involved 288 pregnant women

To optimize treatment of CU during pregnancy and to better understand how treatment affects pregnancy outcomes, the researchers analyzed 288 pregnancies in 288 women with CU from 13 countries and 21 centers worldwide. Their mean age at pregnancy was 32.1 years, and their mean duration of CU was 84.9 months. Prior to pregnancy, 35.7% of patients rated the severity of their CU symptoms as mild, 34.2% rated it as moderate, and 29.7% rated it as severe.

The researchers found that during pregnancy, 60% of patients used urticaria medication, including standard-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (35.1%), first-generation H1-antihistamines (7.6%), high-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (5.6%), and omalizumab (5.6%). The preterm birth rate was 10.2%, which was similar between patients who did and did not receive treatment during pregnancy (11.6% vs. 8.7%, respectively; P = .59).

On multivariate logistic regression, two predictors for preterm birth emerged: giving birth to twins (a 13.3-fold increased risk; P = .016) and emergency referrals for CU (a 4.3-fold increased risk; P =.016). The cesarean delivery rate was 51.3%, and more than 90% of newborns were healthy at birth. There was no link between any patient or disease characteristics or treatments and medical problems at birth.

In other findings, 78.8% of women with CU breastfed their babies. Of the 58 patients who did not breastfeed, 20.7% indicated severe urticaria/angioedema and/or taking medications as the main reason for not breastfeeding.

“Most CU patients use treatment during pregnancy and such treatments, especially second generation H1 antihistamines, seem to be safe during pregnancy regardless of the trimester,” the researchers concluded. “Outcomes of pregnancy in patients with CU were similar compared to the general population and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy. Notably, emergency referral for CU was an independent risk factor for preterm birth,” and the high cesarean delivery rate was “probably linked to comorbidities associated with the disease,” they added. “Overall, these findings suggest that patients should continue their treatments using an individualized dose to provide optimal symptom control.”


 

International guidelines

The authors noted that international guidelines for the management of urticaria published in 2022 suggest that modern second-generation H1-antihistamines should be used for pregnant patients, preferably loratadine with a possible extrapolation to desloratadine, cetirizine, or levocetirizine.

“Similarly, in this population, we found that cetirizine and loratadine were the most commonly used antihistamines, followed by levocetirizine and fexofenadine,” Dr. Kocatürk and colleagues wrote.

“Guidelines also suggest that the use of first-generation H1-antihistamines should be avoided given their sedative effects; but if these are to be given, it would be wise to know that use of first-generation H1-antihistamines immediately before parturition could cause respiratory depression and other adverse effects in the neonate,” they added, noting that chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine are the first-generation H1-antihistamines with the greatest evidence of safety in pregnancy.

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its retrospective design and the fact that there were no data on low birth weight, small for gestational age, or miscarriage rates. In addition, disease activity or severity during pregnancy and after birth were not monitored.

Asked to comment on these results, Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, who directs the center for eczema and itch in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that despite a higher prevalence of CU among females compared with males, very little is known about how the condition is managed during pregnancy. “This retrospective study shows that most patients continue to utilize CU treatment during pregnancy (primarily second-generation antihistamines), with similar birth outcomes as the general population,” he said. “Interestingly, cesarean rates were higher among mothers with CU, and emergency CU referral was a risk factor for preterm birth. While additional prospective studies are needed, these results suggest that CU patients should be carefully managed, particularly during pregnancy, when treatment should be optimized.”

Dr. Kocatürk reported having received personal fees from Novartis, Ibrahim Etem-Menarini, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Many coauthors reported having numerous financial disclosures. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Exposure to air pollution not only raises stroke risk, but it is also tied to poor post-stroke outcomes, including death. Results of a UK biobank study show high levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk of transition from health to a first stroke and subsequent progression to cardiovascular (CV) events and death.

“These results indicate that understanding and reducing the effects of air pollutants on different transition stages in stroke will be beneficial in managing people’s health and preventing the occurrence and progression of stroke,” study investigator Hualiang Lin, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China, said in a news release.

The study was published online  in the journal Neurology.
 

A way to stop stroke progression?

The researchers assessed air pollution exposure in 318,752 people (mean age, 56) from the UK biobank database. None had a history of stroke or heart disease at the start of the study. Annual concentrations of air pollution near where people lived were estimated through land-use regressions.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 5,967 people had a stroke, 2,985 developed post-stroke CVD, and 1,020 died.

After adjusting for confounding factors, every 5 µg/m³ increase in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) was associated with a 24% increase in transition from healthy to first stroke (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40) and a 30% increase in transition from being healthy to dying (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

PM_2.5 is less than 2.5 microns in diameter and includes fly ash from coal combustion. The World Health Organization recommends that annual PM_2.5 exposure should not exceed 5 µg/m³.

Those who had a stroke during the study had an average exposure of 10.03 µg/m³ of PM_2.5, compared with 9.97 µg/m³ for those who did not have a stroke.

The air pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide were also associated with an increased risk of stroke and death, but the associations were weaker.

“More research is needed, but it’s possible that decreasing exposure to heavy levels of air pollution could play a role in reducing the progression of stroke,” Dr. Lin said.

“People can reduce their exposure by staying indoors on heavy pollution days, reducing their outdoor exercise, wearing masks to filter out particulate matter, and using air purifiers,” Dr. Lin added.

Public policy implications

Reached for comment, Steffen E. Petersen, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, said the study “elegantly confirms the increased risk of stroke due to air pollution in the UK Biobank population study but interestingly suggests that the impact of air pollution may continue to adversely impact cardiovascular health even after the stroke occurred.”

“This is further evidence to inform policymakers to tackle air pollution and get levels below the recommended levels,” Dr. Petersen said.

“On a personal level, everyone, including stroke patients, may wish to consider personal measures to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as avoiding walking along polluted streets and rather take a less polluted route away from the main roads,” Dr. Petersen added.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Lin and Dr. Petersen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to air pollution not only raises stroke risk, but it is also tied to poor post-stroke outcomes, including death. Results of a UK biobank study show high levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk of transition from health to a first stroke and subsequent progression to cardiovascular (CV) events and death.

“These results indicate that understanding and reducing the effects of air pollutants on different transition stages in stroke will be beneficial in managing people’s health and preventing the occurrence and progression of stroke,” study investigator Hualiang Lin, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China, said in a news release.

The study was published online  in the journal Neurology.
 

A way to stop stroke progression?

The researchers assessed air pollution exposure in 318,752 people (mean age, 56) from the UK biobank database. None had a history of stroke or heart disease at the start of the study. Annual concentrations of air pollution near where people lived were estimated through land-use regressions.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 5,967 people had a stroke, 2,985 developed post-stroke CVD, and 1,020 died.

After adjusting for confounding factors, every 5 µg/m³ increase in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) was associated with a 24% increase in transition from healthy to first stroke (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40) and a 30% increase in transition from being healthy to dying (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

PM_2.5 is less than 2.5 microns in diameter and includes fly ash from coal combustion. The World Health Organization recommends that annual PM_2.5 exposure should not exceed 5 µg/m³.

Those who had a stroke during the study had an average exposure of 10.03 µg/m³ of PM_2.5, compared with 9.97 µg/m³ for those who did not have a stroke.

The air pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide were also associated with an increased risk of stroke and death, but the associations were weaker.

“More research is needed, but it’s possible that decreasing exposure to heavy levels of air pollution could play a role in reducing the progression of stroke,” Dr. Lin said.

“People can reduce their exposure by staying indoors on heavy pollution days, reducing their outdoor exercise, wearing masks to filter out particulate matter, and using air purifiers,” Dr. Lin added.

Public policy implications

Reached for comment, Steffen E. Petersen, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, said the study “elegantly confirms the increased risk of stroke due to air pollution in the UK Biobank population study but interestingly suggests that the impact of air pollution may continue to adversely impact cardiovascular health even after the stroke occurred.”

“This is further evidence to inform policymakers to tackle air pollution and get levels below the recommended levels,” Dr. Petersen said.

“On a personal level, everyone, including stroke patients, may wish to consider personal measures to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as avoiding walking along polluted streets and rather take a less polluted route away from the main roads,” Dr. Petersen added.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Lin and Dr. Petersen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to air pollution not only raises stroke risk, but it is also tied to poor post-stroke outcomes, including death. Results of a UK biobank study show high levels of air pollution were associated with an increased risk of transition from health to a first stroke and subsequent progression to cardiovascular (CV) events and death.

“These results indicate that understanding and reducing the effects of air pollutants on different transition stages in stroke will be beneficial in managing people’s health and preventing the occurrence and progression of stroke,” study investigator Hualiang Lin, PhD, of Sun Yat-sen University School of Public Health, Guangzhou, China, said in a news release.

The study was published online  in the journal Neurology.
 

A way to stop stroke progression?

The researchers assessed air pollution exposure in 318,752 people (mean age, 56) from the UK biobank database. None had a history of stroke or heart disease at the start of the study. Annual concentrations of air pollution near where people lived were estimated through land-use regressions.

During an average follow-up of 12 years, 5,967 people had a stroke, 2,985 developed post-stroke CVD, and 1,020 died.

After adjusting for confounding factors, every 5 µg/m³ increase in exposure to fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) was associated with a 24% increase in transition from healthy to first stroke (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.40) and a 30% increase in transition from being healthy to dying (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.40).

PM_2.5 is less than 2.5 microns in diameter and includes fly ash from coal combustion. The World Health Organization recommends that annual PM_2.5 exposure should not exceed 5 µg/m³.

Those who had a stroke during the study had an average exposure of 10.03 µg/m³ of PM_2.5, compared with 9.97 µg/m³ for those who did not have a stroke.

The air pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide were also associated with an increased risk of stroke and death, but the associations were weaker.

“More research is needed, but it’s possible that decreasing exposure to heavy levels of air pollution could play a role in reducing the progression of stroke,” Dr. Lin said.

“People can reduce their exposure by staying indoors on heavy pollution days, reducing their outdoor exercise, wearing masks to filter out particulate matter, and using air purifiers,” Dr. Lin added.

Public policy implications

Reached for comment, Steffen E. Petersen, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, said the study “elegantly confirms the increased risk of stroke due to air pollution in the UK Biobank population study but interestingly suggests that the impact of air pollution may continue to adversely impact cardiovascular health even after the stroke occurred.”

“This is further evidence to inform policymakers to tackle air pollution and get levels below the recommended levels,” Dr. Petersen said.

“On a personal level, everyone, including stroke patients, may wish to consider personal measures to reduce exposure to air pollution, such as avoiding walking along polluted streets and rather take a less polluted route away from the main roads,” Dr. Petersen added.

The study had no targeted funding. Dr. Lin and Dr. Petersen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A weighted blanket of approximately 12% body weight used at bedtime prompted the release of higher concentrations of melatonin, as measured in the saliva, compared with a lighter blanket of only about 2.4% of body weight.

This suggests that weighted blankets may help promote sleep in patients suffering from insomnia, according to the results from the small, in-laboratory crossover study.

“Melatonin is produced by the pineal gland and plays an essential role in sleep timing,” lead author Elisa Meth, PhD student, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues observe.

“Using a weighted blanket increased melatonin concentration in saliva by about 30%,” Ms. Meth added in a statement.

“Future studies should investigate whether the stimulatory effect on melatonin secretion remains when using a weighted blanket over more extended periods,” the researchers observe, and caution that “it is also unclear whether the observed increase in melatonin is therapeutically relevant.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Weighted blankets are commercially available at least in some countries in Scandinavia and Germany, as examples, and in general, they are sold for therapeutic purposes. And at least one study found that weighted blankets were an effective and safe intervention for insomnia in patients with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and led to improvements in daytime symptoms and levels of activity.
 

Study done in healthy volunteers

The study involved a total of 26 healthy volunteers, 15 men and 11 women, none of whom had any sleep issues. “The day before the first testing session, the participants visited the laboratory for an adaptation night,” the authors observe. There were two experimental test nights, one in which the weighted blanket was used and the second during which the lighter blanket was used.

On the test nights, lights were dimmed between 9 PM and 11 PM and participants used a weighted blanket covering the extremities, abdomen, and chest 1 hour before and during 8 hours of sleep. As the authors explain, the filling of the weighted blanket consisted of honed glass pearls, combined with polyester wadding, which corresponded to 12.2% of participants’ body weight.

“Saliva was collected every 20 minutes between 22:00 and 23:00,” Ms. Meth and colleagues note. Participants’ subjective sleepiness was also assessed every 20 minutes using the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale both before the hour that lights were turned off and the next morning.

“Sleep duration in each experimental night was recorded with the OURA ring,” investigators explain.

The OURA ring is a commercial multisensor wearable device that measures physiological variables indicative of sleep. Investigators focused on total sleep duration as the primary outcome measure.

On average, salivary melatonin concentrations rose by about 5.8 pg/mL between 10 PM and 11 PM (P < .001), but the average increase in salivary melatonin concentrations was greater under weighted blanket conditions at 6.6 pg/mL, compared with 5.0 pg/mL during the lighter blanket session (P = .011).

Oxytocin in turn rose by about 315 pg/mL initially, but this rise was only transient, and over time, no significant difference in oxytocin levels was observed between the two blanket conditions. There were also no differences in cortisol levels or the activity of the sympathetic nervous system between the weighted and light blanket sessions.

Importantly, as well, no significant differences were seen in the level of sleepiness between participants when either blanket was used nor was there a significant difference in total sleep duration.

“Our study cannot identify the underlying mechanism for the observed stimulatory effects of the weighted blanket on melatonin,” the investigators caution.

However, one explanation could be that the pressure exerted by the weighted blanket activates cutaneous sensory afferent nerves, carrying information to the brain. The region where the sensory information is delivered stimulates oxytocinergic neurons that can promote calm and well-being and decrease fear, stress, and pain. In addition, these neurons also connect to the pineal gland to influence the release of melatonin, the authors explain.
 

Melatonin often viewed in the wrong context

Senior author Christian Benedict, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology, Uppsala University, Sweden, explained that some people think of melatonin in the wrong context.

In point of fact, “it’s not a sleep-promoting hormone. It prepares your body and brain for the biological night ... [and] sleep coincides with the biological night, but it’s not like you take melatonin and you have a very nice uninterrupted slumber – this is not true,” he told this news organization.

He also noted that certain groups respond to melatonin better than others. For example, children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may have some benefit from melatonin supplements, as may the elderly who can no longer produce sufficient amounts of melatonin and for whom supplements may help promote the timing of sleep.

However, the bottom line is that, even in those who do respond to melatonin supplements, they likely do so through a placebo effect that meta-analyses have shown plays a powerful role in promoting sleep. 

Dr. Benedict also stressed that just because the body makes melatonin, itself, does not mean that melatonin supplements are necessarily “safe.”

“We know melatonin has some impact on puberty – it may delay the onset of puberty – and we know that it can also impair blood glucose, so when people are eating and have a lot of melatonin on board, the melatonin will tell the pancreas to turn off insulin production, which can give rise to hyperglycemia,” he said.

However, Dr. Benedict cautioned that weighted blankets don’t come cheap. A quick Google search brings up examples that cost upwards of $350. “MDs can say try one if you can afford these blankets, but perhaps people can use several less costly blankets,” he said. “But I definitely think if there are cheap options, why not?” he concluded.

Dr. Benedict has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A weighted blanket of approximately 12% body weight used at bedtime prompted the release of higher concentrations of melatonin, as measured in the saliva, compared with a lighter blanket of only about 2.4% of body weight.

This suggests that weighted blankets may help promote sleep in patients suffering from insomnia, according to the results from the small, in-laboratory crossover study.

“Melatonin is produced by the pineal gland and plays an essential role in sleep timing,” lead author Elisa Meth, PhD student, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues observe.

“Using a weighted blanket increased melatonin concentration in saliva by about 30%,” Ms. Meth added in a statement.

“Future studies should investigate whether the stimulatory effect on melatonin secretion remains when using a weighted blanket over more extended periods,” the researchers observe, and caution that “it is also unclear whether the observed increase in melatonin is therapeutically relevant.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Weighted blankets are commercially available at least in some countries in Scandinavia and Germany, as examples, and in general, they are sold for therapeutic purposes. And at least one study found that weighted blankets were an effective and safe intervention for insomnia in patients with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and led to improvements in daytime symptoms and levels of activity.
 

Study done in healthy volunteers

The study involved a total of 26 healthy volunteers, 15 men and 11 women, none of whom had any sleep issues. “The day before the first testing session, the participants visited the laboratory for an adaptation night,” the authors observe. There were two experimental test nights, one in which the weighted blanket was used and the second during which the lighter blanket was used.

On the test nights, lights were dimmed between 9 PM and 11 PM and participants used a weighted blanket covering the extremities, abdomen, and chest 1 hour before and during 8 hours of sleep. As the authors explain, the filling of the weighted blanket consisted of honed glass pearls, combined with polyester wadding, which corresponded to 12.2% of participants’ body weight.

“Saliva was collected every 20 minutes between 22:00 and 23:00,” Ms. Meth and colleagues note. Participants’ subjective sleepiness was also assessed every 20 minutes using the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale both before the hour that lights were turned off and the next morning.

“Sleep duration in each experimental night was recorded with the OURA ring,” investigators explain.

The OURA ring is a commercial multisensor wearable device that measures physiological variables indicative of sleep. Investigators focused on total sleep duration as the primary outcome measure.

On average, salivary melatonin concentrations rose by about 5.8 pg/mL between 10 PM and 11 PM (P < .001), but the average increase in salivary melatonin concentrations was greater under weighted blanket conditions at 6.6 pg/mL, compared with 5.0 pg/mL during the lighter blanket session (P = .011).

Oxytocin in turn rose by about 315 pg/mL initially, but this rise was only transient, and over time, no significant difference in oxytocin levels was observed between the two blanket conditions. There were also no differences in cortisol levels or the activity of the sympathetic nervous system between the weighted and light blanket sessions.

Importantly, as well, no significant differences were seen in the level of sleepiness between participants when either blanket was used nor was there a significant difference in total sleep duration.

“Our study cannot identify the underlying mechanism for the observed stimulatory effects of the weighted blanket on melatonin,” the investigators caution.

However, one explanation could be that the pressure exerted by the weighted blanket activates cutaneous sensory afferent nerves, carrying information to the brain. The region where the sensory information is delivered stimulates oxytocinergic neurons that can promote calm and well-being and decrease fear, stress, and pain. In addition, these neurons also connect to the pineal gland to influence the release of melatonin, the authors explain.
 

Melatonin often viewed in the wrong context

Senior author Christian Benedict, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology, Uppsala University, Sweden, explained that some people think of melatonin in the wrong context.

In point of fact, “it’s not a sleep-promoting hormone. It prepares your body and brain for the biological night ... [and] sleep coincides with the biological night, but it’s not like you take melatonin and you have a very nice uninterrupted slumber – this is not true,” he told this news organization.

He also noted that certain groups respond to melatonin better than others. For example, children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may have some benefit from melatonin supplements, as may the elderly who can no longer produce sufficient amounts of melatonin and for whom supplements may help promote the timing of sleep.

However, the bottom line is that, even in those who do respond to melatonin supplements, they likely do so through a placebo effect that meta-analyses have shown plays a powerful role in promoting sleep. 

Dr. Benedict also stressed that just because the body makes melatonin, itself, does not mean that melatonin supplements are necessarily “safe.”

“We know melatonin has some impact on puberty – it may delay the onset of puberty – and we know that it can also impair blood glucose, so when people are eating and have a lot of melatonin on board, the melatonin will tell the pancreas to turn off insulin production, which can give rise to hyperglycemia,” he said.

However, Dr. Benedict cautioned that weighted blankets don’t come cheap. A quick Google search brings up examples that cost upwards of $350. “MDs can say try one if you can afford these blankets, but perhaps people can use several less costly blankets,” he said. “But I definitely think if there are cheap options, why not?” he concluded.

Dr. Benedict has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A weighted blanket of approximately 12% body weight used at bedtime prompted the release of higher concentrations of melatonin, as measured in the saliva, compared with a lighter blanket of only about 2.4% of body weight.

This suggests that weighted blankets may help promote sleep in patients suffering from insomnia, according to the results from the small, in-laboratory crossover study.

“Melatonin is produced by the pineal gland and plays an essential role in sleep timing,” lead author Elisa Meth, PhD student, Uppsala University, Sweden, and colleagues observe.

“Using a weighted blanket increased melatonin concentration in saliva by about 30%,” Ms. Meth added in a statement.

“Future studies should investigate whether the stimulatory effect on melatonin secretion remains when using a weighted blanket over more extended periods,” the researchers observe, and caution that “it is also unclear whether the observed increase in melatonin is therapeutically relevant.”

The study was published online in the Journal of Sleep Research.

Weighted blankets are commercially available at least in some countries in Scandinavia and Germany, as examples, and in general, they are sold for therapeutic purposes. And at least one study found that weighted blankets were an effective and safe intervention for insomnia in patients with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and led to improvements in daytime symptoms and levels of activity.
 

Study done in healthy volunteers

The study involved a total of 26 healthy volunteers, 15 men and 11 women, none of whom had any sleep issues. “The day before the first testing session, the participants visited the laboratory for an adaptation night,” the authors observe. There were two experimental test nights, one in which the weighted blanket was used and the second during which the lighter blanket was used.

On the test nights, lights were dimmed between 9 PM and 11 PM and participants used a weighted blanket covering the extremities, abdomen, and chest 1 hour before and during 8 hours of sleep. As the authors explain, the filling of the weighted blanket consisted of honed glass pearls, combined with polyester wadding, which corresponded to 12.2% of participants’ body weight.

“Saliva was collected every 20 minutes between 22:00 and 23:00,” Ms. Meth and colleagues note. Participants’ subjective sleepiness was also assessed every 20 minutes using the Karolinska Sleepiness Scale both before the hour that lights were turned off and the next morning.

“Sleep duration in each experimental night was recorded with the OURA ring,” investigators explain.

The OURA ring is a commercial multisensor wearable device that measures physiological variables indicative of sleep. Investigators focused on total sleep duration as the primary outcome measure.

On average, salivary melatonin concentrations rose by about 5.8 pg/mL between 10 PM and 11 PM (P < .001), but the average increase in salivary melatonin concentrations was greater under weighted blanket conditions at 6.6 pg/mL, compared with 5.0 pg/mL during the lighter blanket session (P = .011).

Oxytocin in turn rose by about 315 pg/mL initially, but this rise was only transient, and over time, no significant difference in oxytocin levels was observed between the two blanket conditions. There were also no differences in cortisol levels or the activity of the sympathetic nervous system between the weighted and light blanket sessions.

Importantly, as well, no significant differences were seen in the level of sleepiness between participants when either blanket was used nor was there a significant difference in total sleep duration.

“Our study cannot identify the underlying mechanism for the observed stimulatory effects of the weighted blanket on melatonin,” the investigators caution.

However, one explanation could be that the pressure exerted by the weighted blanket activates cutaneous sensory afferent nerves, carrying information to the brain. The region where the sensory information is delivered stimulates oxytocinergic neurons that can promote calm and well-being and decrease fear, stress, and pain. In addition, these neurons also connect to the pineal gland to influence the release of melatonin, the authors explain.
 

Melatonin often viewed in the wrong context

Senior author Christian Benedict, PhD, associate professor of pharmacology, Uppsala University, Sweden, explained that some people think of melatonin in the wrong context.

In point of fact, “it’s not a sleep-promoting hormone. It prepares your body and brain for the biological night ... [and] sleep coincides with the biological night, but it’s not like you take melatonin and you have a very nice uninterrupted slumber – this is not true,” he told this news organization.

He also noted that certain groups respond to melatonin better than others. For example, children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may have some benefit from melatonin supplements, as may the elderly who can no longer produce sufficient amounts of melatonin and for whom supplements may help promote the timing of sleep.

However, the bottom line is that, even in those who do respond to melatonin supplements, they likely do so through a placebo effect that meta-analyses have shown plays a powerful role in promoting sleep. 

Dr. Benedict also stressed that just because the body makes melatonin, itself, does not mean that melatonin supplements are necessarily “safe.”

“We know melatonin has some impact on puberty – it may delay the onset of puberty – and we know that it can also impair blood glucose, so when people are eating and have a lot of melatonin on board, the melatonin will tell the pancreas to turn off insulin production, which can give rise to hyperglycemia,” he said.

However, Dr. Benedict cautioned that weighted blankets don’t come cheap. A quick Google search brings up examples that cost upwards of $350. “MDs can say try one if you can afford these blankets, but perhaps people can use several less costly blankets,” he said. “But I definitely think if there are cheap options, why not?” he concluded.

Dr. Benedict has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

What could you do with $18 billion?

I could pay off my mortgage roughly 60,000 times, or take my wife on a never-ending world cruise so we don’t need a mortgage, or at least hire someone to clean my pool regularly so I don’t have to.

A recent report from the OIG found that, in the last 3 years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spent $18 billion on drugs for which there’s no proof of significant clinical benefit.

That’s a lot of money on things that may or may not be placebos, some of which are WAY overdue on Food and Drug Administration–mandated efficacy studies. A few have even been on the market so long that they’ve become equally unproven generics.

Now, if you put this in the big picture, that immense amount of money is still only 2% of their total spending in health care. Hell, probably at least 2% of my personal spending is on pointless things, too. So, realistically, you could say 98% of CMS spending is on worthwhile care, which is as it should be.

But the bottom line is that $18 billion is still a lot of money if it’s being spent on fruitless treatments. I’m sure it could be better used in many other programs (refunding it to taxpayers comes out to maybe $55 for each of us, which probably isn’t worth the effort).

As pointed out in the movie “Dave,” shoving that kind of money in even a low-yield savings account would generate at least $180 million in interest each year.

That’s a lot of money, too, that could be used for something. Of course, no one in the government thinks that way. That’s why we all loved the movie.

The problem is that the phrase “no proof of significant clinical benefit” doesn’t mean something doesn’t work. It just means we aren’t sure. Some of those people on one of these drugs may be getting benefit – or not. After all, the placebo effect is remarkably strong. But if they are helping someone, who wants to be the one to tell them “we’re not going to pay for this anymore?”

Another issue is this: Let’s say the drugs only work for 10% of the people who take them ($1.8 billion worth), and for the other 90% it’s iffy ($16.2 billion worth), but the latter want to stay on them anyway, just to be sure. Do we cut them? Or just say that $18 billion is too much money when only 10% are being helped, and cut them all off? I’m sure we could use the money elsewhere (see “Dave” above), so let them find a way to work it out with the manufacturer. The greatest good for the greatest number and all that jazz.

I don’t know, either. Health care dollars are finite, and human suffering is infinite. It’s a balancing act that can’t be won. There are no easy answers.

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

What could you do with $18 billion?

I could pay off my mortgage roughly 60,000 times, or take my wife on a never-ending world cruise so we don’t need a mortgage, or at least hire someone to clean my pool regularly so I don’t have to.

A recent report from the OIG found that, in the last 3 years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spent $18 billion on drugs for which there’s no proof of significant clinical benefit.

That’s a lot of money on things that may or may not be placebos, some of which are WAY overdue on Food and Drug Administration–mandated efficacy studies. A few have even been on the market so long that they’ve become equally unproven generics.

Now, if you put this in the big picture, that immense amount of money is still only 2% of their total spending in health care. Hell, probably at least 2% of my personal spending is on pointless things, too. So, realistically, you could say 98% of CMS spending is on worthwhile care, which is as it should be.

But the bottom line is that $18 billion is still a lot of money if it’s being spent on fruitless treatments. I’m sure it could be better used in many other programs (refunding it to taxpayers comes out to maybe $55 for each of us, which probably isn’t worth the effort).

As pointed out in the movie “Dave,” shoving that kind of money in even a low-yield savings account would generate at least $180 million in interest each year.

That’s a lot of money, too, that could be used for something. Of course, no one in the government thinks that way. That’s why we all loved the movie.

The problem is that the phrase “no proof of significant clinical benefit” doesn’t mean something doesn’t work. It just means we aren’t sure. Some of those people on one of these drugs may be getting benefit – or not. After all, the placebo effect is remarkably strong. But if they are helping someone, who wants to be the one to tell them “we’re not going to pay for this anymore?”

Another issue is this: Let’s say the drugs only work for 10% of the people who take them ($1.8 billion worth), and for the other 90% it’s iffy ($16.2 billion worth), but the latter want to stay on them anyway, just to be sure. Do we cut them? Or just say that $18 billion is too much money when only 10% are being helped, and cut them all off? I’m sure we could use the money elsewhere (see “Dave” above), so let them find a way to work it out with the manufacturer. The greatest good for the greatest number and all that jazz.

I don’t know, either. Health care dollars are finite, and human suffering is infinite. It’s a balancing act that can’t be won. There are no easy answers.

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

What could you do with $18 billion?

I could pay off my mortgage roughly 60,000 times, or take my wife on a never-ending world cruise so we don’t need a mortgage, or at least hire someone to clean my pool regularly so I don’t have to.

A recent report from the OIG found that, in the last 3 years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services spent $18 billion on drugs for which there’s no proof of significant clinical benefit.

That’s a lot of money on things that may or may not be placebos, some of which are WAY overdue on Food and Drug Administration–mandated efficacy studies. A few have even been on the market so long that they’ve become equally unproven generics.

Now, if you put this in the big picture, that immense amount of money is still only 2% of their total spending in health care. Hell, probably at least 2% of my personal spending is on pointless things, too. So, realistically, you could say 98% of CMS spending is on worthwhile care, which is as it should be.

But the bottom line is that $18 billion is still a lot of money if it’s being spent on fruitless treatments. I’m sure it could be better used in many other programs (refunding it to taxpayers comes out to maybe $55 for each of us, which probably isn’t worth the effort).

As pointed out in the movie “Dave,” shoving that kind of money in even a low-yield savings account would generate at least $180 million in interest each year.

That’s a lot of money, too, that could be used for something. Of course, no one in the government thinks that way. That’s why we all loved the movie.

The problem is that the phrase “no proof of significant clinical benefit” doesn’t mean something doesn’t work. It just means we aren’t sure. Some of those people on one of these drugs may be getting benefit – or not. After all, the placebo effect is remarkably strong. But if they are helping someone, who wants to be the one to tell them “we’re not going to pay for this anymore?”

Another issue is this: Let’s say the drugs only work for 10% of the people who take them ($1.8 billion worth), and for the other 90% it’s iffy ($16.2 billion worth), but the latter want to stay on them anyway, just to be sure. Do we cut them? Or just say that $18 billion is too much money when only 10% are being helped, and cut them all off? I’m sure we could use the money elsewhere (see “Dave” above), so let them find a way to work it out with the manufacturer. The greatest good for the greatest number and all that jazz.

I don’t know, either. Health care dollars are finite, and human suffering is infinite. It’s a balancing act that can’t be won. There are no easy answers.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Revised ICD-10-CM codes for neurocognitive disorders are now in effect, the American Psychiatric Association has announced

The coding changes for major and mild neurocognitive disorders represent “the most consequential” coding changes for DSM-5 disorders since the Oct. 1, 2015, changeover from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM,” Michael First, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University, in New York, wrote in a statement published in Psychiatric News.

The updated codes for neurocognitive disorders are “much more specific and indicate all the different types of behavioral problems that could occur with dementia,” First, who served as editor of the DSM-5-TR, added in an interview.

This year, coding changes that affect psychiatry are largely confined to major and mild neurocognitive disorders, but they represent “a big switch-over,” Dr. First said.
 

What’s new

The first three characters that make up the ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder depend on the type of etiologic medical condition and are unchanged:

• F01 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by vascular disease
• F02 for major neurocognitive disorder caused by other medical conditions in which the specific etiologic medical condition is indicated by also listing the ICD-10-CM code for the medical condition
• F03 for major neurocognitive disorder when the medical etiology is unknown

However, DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for major neurocognitive disorder include severity specifiers (mild, moderate, severe), but there is no provision for indicating this “clinically important” information in the current ICD-10-CM code for major neurocognitive disorder, Dr. First explained.

The 2022 coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder include the provision of a fourth character code to indicate the severity of the major neurocognitive disorder – “A” indicates mild (difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living, such as housework and managing money); “B,” moderate (difficulties with basic activities of daily living, such as feeding and dressing); and “C,” severe (fully dependent) impairment.

The coding changes for major neurocognitive disorder also now include fifth and sixth characters to indicate the presence of an accompanying behavioral or psychological disturbance, such as agitation, psychotic disturbance, mood symptoms, and anxiety.

The update, which went into effect Oct. 1, also adds to ICD-10-CM two new mental disorder codes, F06.71 and F06.70 for mild neurocognitive disorder caused by a medical condition with or without a behavioral disturbance, respectively.

The coding changes affecting psychiatry are outlined in the APA’s 2022 DSM-5-TR Update: Supplement to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and DSM-5-TR Neurocognitive Disorders Supplement.
 

Annual event

Every Oct. 1, ICD-10-CM codes for all of medicine are updated, with new codes being added and others revised or deleted. Only a small fraction of the 68,000 codes is affected. Last year, 159 new codes were added, 25 codes were deleted, and 27 existing codes were revised.

All HIPAA-compliant health care entities are required to use the most up-to-date ICD-10-CM codes.

“I think there’s a grace period where you can still use the old codes, but there will be a point where if you use the old code, it’ll get rejected because it won’t be considered a valid code,” said Dr. First.

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

Incentive bonuses have long been part and parcel of many physicians’ compensation packages. They allow doctors in some specialties to boost their compensation by tens of thousands of dollars.

Often tied to metrics that doctors must hit, incentive bonuses aren’t without controversy. Some physicians welcome them. Others feel burdened by them or think that metrics distract from best patient care.

A recent Medscape poll asked what physicians think about incentive bonuses and whether or not tying metrics to salary is an outdated practice that interferes with the integrity of a physician’s job or contributes to excellence in patient care and increased productivity.

Here is what 406 physicians who answered the poll, which ran from Aug. 17 to Sept. 1, had to say about incentive bonuses:

More than half the physicians polled (58%) received an incentive bonus in 2021. Of those who received a bonus, 44% received up to $25,000. Almost 30% received $25,001-$50,000 in incentive bonus money. Only 14% received more than $100,000.

When we asked physicians which metrics they prefer their bonus to be based on, a large majority (64%) agreed quality of care was most relevant. Other metrics that respondents think appropriate included professionalism (40%), patient outcomes (40%), patient satisfaction (34%), patient volume (26%), market expansion (7%), and other (3%).
 

The problem with bonuses

Once thought to improve quality and consistency of care, incentive bonuses may be falling out of favor. Developing, administrating, and tracking them may be cumbersome for the institutions that advocate for them. For instance, determining who gave quality care and how to measure that care can be difficult.

What’s more, some top health care employers, Mayo Clinic and Kaiser Permanente, have switched from the incentive bonus model to straight salaries. Data show that the number of tests patients have and the number of treatments they try decreases when doctors receive straight salaries. 

In fact, 74% of the polled physicians think that bonuses can result in consequences like unnecessary tests and higher patient costs. Three-fourths of respondents don’t think incentives improve patient care either.

Physicians have long thought incentive bonuses can also have unintended consequences. For example, tying a physician’s monetary reward to metrics such as patient outcomes, like adherence to treatment protocols, may mean that noncompliant patients can jeopardize your metrics and prevent physicians from getting bonuses.

A Merritt Hawkins’ 2019 Review of Physician and Advanced Practitioner Recruiting Incentives found that 56% of bonuses are based in whole or in part on metrics like a patient’s adherence.

Additionally, tying monetary rewards to patient volume encourages some physicians to overbook patients, work more and longer hours, and risk burnout to meet their bonus criteria.

When we asked how hard it was to meet metrics in the Medscape poll, 45% of respondents who receive incentive bonuses said it was somewhat or very difficult. Only 9% consider it very easy. And 71% of physicians say their bonus is at risk because of not meeting their metrics.

Not surprisingly, large pay-for-performance bonuses are only offered to certain specialists and physician specialties in high demand. An orthopedist, for example, can earn up to an average of $126,000 in incentive bonuses, while a pediatrician brings in an average of $28,000, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2022.

Yet physicians are still torn

Despite these negatives, physicians are split about whether bonuses are good for doctors. The poll shows 51% said no, and 49% said yes. Further, physicians were split 50-50 on whether the bonus makes physicians more productive. Interestingly though, 76% think the bonus compensation method should be phased out in favor of straight salaries.

But many physicians may welcome the “lump sum” nature of receiving large bonuses at certain times of the year to help pay off student loan debt or other expenses, or are just comfortable having a bonus.
 

Financially speaking

If you have the choice, you may fare better by taking a higher salary and eliminating a bonus. Receiving your pay throughout the year may be preferable to receiving large lump sums only at certain times. Another thing to remember about your incentive bonus is that they are sometimes taxed more heavily based on “supplemental income.” The IRS considers bonuses supplemental to your income, so they may have a higher withholding rate, which can feel penalizing. You may have noticed the extra withholding in your last bonus check.

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

Incentive bonuses have long been part and parcel of many physicians’ compensation packages. They allow doctors in some specialties to boost their compensation by tens of thousands of dollars.

Often tied to metrics that doctors must hit, incentive bonuses aren’t without controversy. Some physicians welcome them. Others feel burdened by them or think that metrics distract from best patient care.

A recent Medscape poll asked what physicians think about incentive bonuses and whether or not tying metrics to salary is an outdated practice that interferes with the integrity of a physician’s job or contributes to excellence in patient care and increased productivity.

Here is what 406 physicians who answered the poll, which ran from Aug. 17 to Sept. 1, had to say about incentive bonuses:

More than half the physicians polled (58%) received an incentive bonus in 2021. Of those who received a bonus, 44% received up to $25,000. Almost 30% received $25,001-$50,000 in incentive bonus money. Only 14% received more than $100,000.

When we asked physicians which metrics they prefer their bonus to be based on, a large majority (64%) agreed quality of care was most relevant. Other metrics that respondents think appropriate included professionalism (40%), patient outcomes (40%), patient satisfaction (34%), patient volume (26%), market expansion (7%), and other (3%).
 

The problem with bonuses

Once thought to improve quality and consistency of care, incentive bonuses may be falling out of favor. Developing, administrating, and tracking them may be cumbersome for the institutions that advocate for them. For instance, determining who gave quality care and how to measure that care can be difficult.

What’s more, some top health care employers, Mayo Clinic and Kaiser Permanente, have switched from the incentive bonus model to straight salaries. Data show that the number of tests patients have and the number of treatments they try decreases when doctors receive straight salaries. 

In fact, 74% of the polled physicians think that bonuses can result in consequences like unnecessary tests and higher patient costs. Three-fourths of respondents don’t think incentives improve patient care either.

Physicians have long thought incentive bonuses can also have unintended consequences. For example, tying a physician’s monetary reward to metrics such as patient outcomes, like adherence to treatment protocols, may mean that noncompliant patients can jeopardize your metrics and prevent physicians from getting bonuses.

A Merritt Hawkins’ 2019 Review of Physician and Advanced Practitioner Recruiting Incentives found that 56% of bonuses are based in whole or in part on metrics like a patient’s adherence.

Additionally, tying monetary rewards to patient volume encourages some physicians to overbook patients, work more and longer hours, and risk burnout to meet their bonus criteria.

When we asked how hard it was to meet metrics in the Medscape poll, 45% of respondents who receive incentive bonuses said it was somewhat or very difficult. Only 9% consider it very easy. And 71% of physicians say their bonus is at risk because of not meeting their metrics.

Not surprisingly, large pay-for-performance bonuses are only offered to certain specialists and physician specialties in high demand. An orthopedist, for example, can earn up to an average of $126,000 in incentive bonuses, while a pediatrician brings in an average of $28,000, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2022.

Yet physicians are still torn

Despite these negatives, physicians are split about whether bonuses are good for doctors. The poll shows 51% said no, and 49% said yes. Further, physicians were split 50-50 on whether the bonus makes physicians more productive. Interestingly though, 76% think the bonus compensation method should be phased out in favor of straight salaries.

But many physicians may welcome the “lump sum” nature of receiving large bonuses at certain times of the year to help pay off student loan debt or other expenses, or are just comfortable having a bonus.
 

Financially speaking

If you have the choice, you may fare better by taking a higher salary and eliminating a bonus. Receiving your pay throughout the year may be preferable to receiving large lump sums only at certain times. Another thing to remember about your incentive bonus is that they are sometimes taxed more heavily based on “supplemental income.” The IRS considers bonuses supplemental to your income, so they may have a higher withholding rate, which can feel penalizing. You may have noticed the extra withholding in your last bonus check.

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

Incentive bonuses have long been part and parcel of many physicians’ compensation packages. They allow doctors in some specialties to boost their compensation by tens of thousands of dollars.

Often tied to metrics that doctors must hit, incentive bonuses aren’t without controversy. Some physicians welcome them. Others feel burdened by them or think that metrics distract from best patient care.

A recent Medscape poll asked what physicians think about incentive bonuses and whether or not tying metrics to salary is an outdated practice that interferes with the integrity of a physician’s job or contributes to excellence in patient care and increased productivity.

Here is what 406 physicians who answered the poll, which ran from Aug. 17 to Sept. 1, had to say about incentive bonuses:

More than half the physicians polled (58%) received an incentive bonus in 2021. Of those who received a bonus, 44% received up to $25,000. Almost 30% received $25,001-$50,000 in incentive bonus money. Only 14% received more than $100,000.

When we asked physicians which metrics they prefer their bonus to be based on, a large majority (64%) agreed quality of care was most relevant. Other metrics that respondents think appropriate included professionalism (40%), patient outcomes (40%), patient satisfaction (34%), patient volume (26%), market expansion (7%), and other (3%).
 

The problem with bonuses

Once thought to improve quality and consistency of care, incentive bonuses may be falling out of favor. Developing, administrating, and tracking them may be cumbersome for the institutions that advocate for them. For instance, determining who gave quality care and how to measure that care can be difficult.

What’s more, some top health care employers, Mayo Clinic and Kaiser Permanente, have switched from the incentive bonus model to straight salaries. Data show that the number of tests patients have and the number of treatments they try decreases when doctors receive straight salaries. 

In fact, 74% of the polled physicians think that bonuses can result in consequences like unnecessary tests and higher patient costs. Three-fourths of respondents don’t think incentives improve patient care either.

Physicians have long thought incentive bonuses can also have unintended consequences. For example, tying a physician’s monetary reward to metrics such as patient outcomes, like adherence to treatment protocols, may mean that noncompliant patients can jeopardize your metrics and prevent physicians from getting bonuses.

A Merritt Hawkins’ 2019 Review of Physician and Advanced Practitioner Recruiting Incentives found that 56% of bonuses are based in whole or in part on metrics like a patient’s adherence.

Additionally, tying monetary rewards to patient volume encourages some physicians to overbook patients, work more and longer hours, and risk burnout to meet their bonus criteria.

When we asked how hard it was to meet metrics in the Medscape poll, 45% of respondents who receive incentive bonuses said it was somewhat or very difficult. Only 9% consider it very easy. And 71% of physicians say their bonus is at risk because of not meeting their metrics.

Not surprisingly, large pay-for-performance bonuses are only offered to certain specialists and physician specialties in high demand. An orthopedist, for example, can earn up to an average of $126,000 in incentive bonuses, while a pediatrician brings in an average of $28,000, according to the Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2022.

Yet physicians are still torn

Despite these negatives, physicians are split about whether bonuses are good for doctors. The poll shows 51% said no, and 49% said yes. Further, physicians were split 50-50 on whether the bonus makes physicians more productive. Interestingly though, 76% think the bonus compensation method should be phased out in favor of straight salaries.

But many physicians may welcome the “lump sum” nature of receiving large bonuses at certain times of the year to help pay off student loan debt or other expenses, or are just comfortable having a bonus.
 

Financially speaking

If you have the choice, you may fare better by taking a higher salary and eliminating a bonus. Receiving your pay throughout the year may be preferable to receiving large lump sums only at certain times. Another thing to remember about your incentive bonus is that they are sometimes taxed more heavily based on “supplemental income.” The IRS considers bonuses supplemental to your income, so they may have a higher withholding rate, which can feel penalizing. You may have noticed the extra withholding in your last bonus check.

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

As the United States enters a third fall with COVID-19, the virus for many is seemingly gone – or at least out of mind. But for those keeping watch, it is far from forgotten as deaths and infections continue to mount at a lower but steady pace.

What does that mean for the upcoming months? Experts predict different scenarios, some more dire than others – with one more encouraging.

In the United States, more than 300 people still die every day from COVID and more than 44,000 new daily cases are reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But progress is undeniable. The stark daily death tolls of 2020 have plummeted. Vaccines and treatments have dramatically reduced severe illness, and mask requirements have mostly turned to personal preference.

Epidemiologists and other medical experts laud the progress, but as they look at the maps and the numbers, they see several scenarios ahead that signal a coming wave of disease, among them more-resistant variants coupled with waning immunity, the potential for a “twindemic” with a flu/COVID onslaught, and underuse of lifesaving vaccines and treatments.
 

Variants loom/waning immunity

Omicron variant BA.5 still makes up about 80% of infections in the United States, followed by BA4.6, according to the CDC, but other subvariants are emerging and showing signs of resistance to current antiviral treatments.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego, said about COVID this fall: “There will be another wave, magnitude unknown.”

He said subvariants XBB and BQ.1.1 “have extreme levels of immune evasion and both could pose a challenge,” explaining that XBB is more likely to cause trouble than BQ.1.1 because it is even more resistant to natural or vaccine-induced immunity.

Dr. Topol pointed to new research on those variants in a preprint posted on bioRxiv. The authors’ conclusion: “These results suggest that current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not provide sufficiently broad protection against infection.” 

Another variant to watch, some experts say, is Omicron subvariant BA.2.75.2, which has shown resistance to antiviral treatments. It is also growing at a rather alarming rate, says Michael Sweat, PhD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Global Health in Charleston. That subvariant currently makes up under 2% of U.S. cases but has spread to at least 55 countries and 43 U.S. states after first appearing at the end of last year globally and in mid-June in the United States.

A non–peer-reviewed preprint study from Sweden found that the variant in blood samples was neutralized on average “at titers approximately 6.5 times lower than BA.5, making BA.2.75.2 the most [neutralization-resistant] variant evaluated to date.”

Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said in an interview the U.S. waves often follow Europe’s, and Europe has seen a recent spike in cases and hospitalizations not related to Omicron subvariants, but to weather changes, waning immunity, and changes in behavior.

The World Health Organization reported on Oct. 5 that, while cases were down in every other region of the world, Europe’s numbers stand out, with an 8% increase in cases from the week before. 

Dr. Jetelina cited events such as Oktoberfest in Germany, which ended in the first week of October after drawing nearly 6 million people over 2 weeks, as a potential contributor, and people heading indoors as weather patterns change in Europe.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview he is less worried about the documented variants we know about than he is about the potential for a new immune-escape variety yet to emerge.

“Right now we know the Chinese are gearing up to open up the country, and because they have low immunity and little infection, we expect in China there will be a lot of spread of Omicron,” he said. “It’s possible because of the number of infections we could see a new variant.”

Dr. Mokdad said waning immunity could also leave populations vulnerable to variants.

“Even if you get infected, after about 5 months, you’re susceptible again. Remember, most of the infections from Omicron happened in January or February 2022, and we had two waves after that,” he said.

The new bivalent vaccines tweaked to target some Omicron variants will help, Dr. Mokdad said, but he noted, “people are very reluctant to take it.”

Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., worries that in the United States we have less ability this year to track variants as funding has receded for testing kits and testing sites. Most people are testing at home – which doesn’t show up in the numbers – and the United States is relying more on other countries’ data to spot trends.

“I think we’re just going to have less visibility into the circulation of this virus,” she said in an interview.
 

‘Twindemic’: COVID and flu

Dr. Jetelina noted Australia and New Zealand just wrapped up a flu season that saw flu numbers returning to normal after a sharp drop in the last 2 years, and North America typically follows suit.

“We do expect flu will be here in the United States and probably at levels that we saw prepandemic. We’re all holding our breath to see how our health systems hold up with COVID-19 and flu. We haven’t really experienced that yet,” she said.

There is some disagreement, however, about the possibility of a so-called “twindemic” of influenza and COVID.

Richard Webby, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, said in an interview he thinks the possibility of both viruses spiking at the same time is unlikely.

“That’s not to say we won’t get flu and COVID activity in the same winter,” he explained, “but I think both roaring at the same time is unlikely.”

As an indicator, he said, at the beginning of the flu season last year in the Northern Hemisphere, flu activity started to pick up, but when the Omicron variant came along, “flu just wasn’t able to compete in that same environment and flu numbers dropped right off.” Previous literature suggests that when one virus is spiking it’s hard for another respiratory virus to take hold.
 

Vaccine, treatment underuse

Another threat is vaccines, boosters, and treatments sitting on shelves.

Dr. Sweat referred to frustration with vaccine uptake that seems to be “frozen in amber.”

As of Oct. 4, only 5.3% of people in the United States who were eligible had received the updated booster launched in early September.

Dr. Nuzzo said boosters for people at least 65 years old will be key to severity of COVID this season.

“I think that’s probably the biggest factor going into the fall and winter,” she said.

Only 38% of people at least 50 years old and 45% of those at least 65 years old had gotten a second booster as of early October.

“If we do nothing else, we have to increase booster uptake in that group,” Dr. Nuzzo said.

She said the treatment nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is greatly underused, often because providers aren’t prescribing it because they don’t think it helps, are worried about drug interactions, or are worried about its “rebound” effect.

Dr. Nuzzo urged greater use of the drug and education on how to manage drug interactions.

“We have very strong data that it does help keep people out of hospital. Sure, there may be a rebound, but that pales in comparison to the risk of being hospitalized,” she said.
 

Calm COVID season?

Not all predictions are dire. There is another little-talked-about scenario, Dr. Sweat said – that we could be in for a calm COVID season, and those who seem to be only mildly concerned about COVID may find those thoughts justified in the numbers.

Omicron blew through with such strength, he noted, that it may have left wide immunity in its wake. Because variants seem to be staying in the Omicron family, that may signal optimism.

“If the next variant is a descendant of the Omicron lineage, I would suspect that all these people who just got infected will have some protection, not perfect, but quite a bit of protection,” Dr. Sweat said.

Dr. Topol, Dr. Nuzzo, Dr. Sweat, Dr. Webby, Dr. Mokdad, and Dr. Jetelina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the United States enters a third fall with COVID-19, the virus for many is seemingly gone – or at least out of mind. But for those keeping watch, it is far from forgotten as deaths and infections continue to mount at a lower but steady pace.

What does that mean for the upcoming months? Experts predict different scenarios, some more dire than others – with one more encouraging.

In the United States, more than 300 people still die every day from COVID and more than 44,000 new daily cases are reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But progress is undeniable. The stark daily death tolls of 2020 have plummeted. Vaccines and treatments have dramatically reduced severe illness, and mask requirements have mostly turned to personal preference.

Epidemiologists and other medical experts laud the progress, but as they look at the maps and the numbers, they see several scenarios ahead that signal a coming wave of disease, among them more-resistant variants coupled with waning immunity, the potential for a “twindemic” with a flu/COVID onslaught, and underuse of lifesaving vaccines and treatments.
 

Variants loom/waning immunity

Omicron variant BA.5 still makes up about 80% of infections in the United States, followed by BA4.6, according to the CDC, but other subvariants are emerging and showing signs of resistance to current antiviral treatments.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego, said about COVID this fall: “There will be another wave, magnitude unknown.”

He said subvariants XBB and BQ.1.1 “have extreme levels of immune evasion and both could pose a challenge,” explaining that XBB is more likely to cause trouble than BQ.1.1 because it is even more resistant to natural or vaccine-induced immunity.

Dr. Topol pointed to new research on those variants in a preprint posted on bioRxiv. The authors’ conclusion: “These results suggest that current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not provide sufficiently broad protection against infection.” 

Another variant to watch, some experts say, is Omicron subvariant BA.2.75.2, which has shown resistance to antiviral treatments. It is also growing at a rather alarming rate, says Michael Sweat, PhD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Global Health in Charleston. That subvariant currently makes up under 2% of U.S. cases but has spread to at least 55 countries and 43 U.S. states after first appearing at the end of last year globally and in mid-June in the United States.

A non–peer-reviewed preprint study from Sweden found that the variant in blood samples was neutralized on average “at titers approximately 6.5 times lower than BA.5, making BA.2.75.2 the most [neutralization-resistant] variant evaluated to date.”

Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said in an interview the U.S. waves often follow Europe’s, and Europe has seen a recent spike in cases and hospitalizations not related to Omicron subvariants, but to weather changes, waning immunity, and changes in behavior.

The World Health Organization reported on Oct. 5 that, while cases were down in every other region of the world, Europe’s numbers stand out, with an 8% increase in cases from the week before. 

Dr. Jetelina cited events such as Oktoberfest in Germany, which ended in the first week of October after drawing nearly 6 million people over 2 weeks, as a potential contributor, and people heading indoors as weather patterns change in Europe.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview he is less worried about the documented variants we know about than he is about the potential for a new immune-escape variety yet to emerge.

“Right now we know the Chinese are gearing up to open up the country, and because they have low immunity and little infection, we expect in China there will be a lot of spread of Omicron,” he said. “It’s possible because of the number of infections we could see a new variant.”

Dr. Mokdad said waning immunity could also leave populations vulnerable to variants.

“Even if you get infected, after about 5 months, you’re susceptible again. Remember, most of the infections from Omicron happened in January or February 2022, and we had two waves after that,” he said.

The new bivalent vaccines tweaked to target some Omicron variants will help, Dr. Mokdad said, but he noted, “people are very reluctant to take it.”

Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., worries that in the United States we have less ability this year to track variants as funding has receded for testing kits and testing sites. Most people are testing at home – which doesn’t show up in the numbers – and the United States is relying more on other countries’ data to spot trends.

“I think we’re just going to have less visibility into the circulation of this virus,” she said in an interview.
 

‘Twindemic’: COVID and flu

Dr. Jetelina noted Australia and New Zealand just wrapped up a flu season that saw flu numbers returning to normal after a sharp drop in the last 2 years, and North America typically follows suit.

“We do expect flu will be here in the United States and probably at levels that we saw prepandemic. We’re all holding our breath to see how our health systems hold up with COVID-19 and flu. We haven’t really experienced that yet,” she said.

There is some disagreement, however, about the possibility of a so-called “twindemic” of influenza and COVID.

Richard Webby, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, said in an interview he thinks the possibility of both viruses spiking at the same time is unlikely.

“That’s not to say we won’t get flu and COVID activity in the same winter,” he explained, “but I think both roaring at the same time is unlikely.”

As an indicator, he said, at the beginning of the flu season last year in the Northern Hemisphere, flu activity started to pick up, but when the Omicron variant came along, “flu just wasn’t able to compete in that same environment and flu numbers dropped right off.” Previous literature suggests that when one virus is spiking it’s hard for another respiratory virus to take hold.
 

Vaccine, treatment underuse

Another threat is vaccines, boosters, and treatments sitting on shelves.

Dr. Sweat referred to frustration with vaccine uptake that seems to be “frozen in amber.”

As of Oct. 4, only 5.3% of people in the United States who were eligible had received the updated booster launched in early September.

Dr. Nuzzo said boosters for people at least 65 years old will be key to severity of COVID this season.

“I think that’s probably the biggest factor going into the fall and winter,” she said.

Only 38% of people at least 50 years old and 45% of those at least 65 years old had gotten a second booster as of early October.

“If we do nothing else, we have to increase booster uptake in that group,” Dr. Nuzzo said.

She said the treatment nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is greatly underused, often because providers aren’t prescribing it because they don’t think it helps, are worried about drug interactions, or are worried about its “rebound” effect.

Dr. Nuzzo urged greater use of the drug and education on how to manage drug interactions.

“We have very strong data that it does help keep people out of hospital. Sure, there may be a rebound, but that pales in comparison to the risk of being hospitalized,” she said.
 

Calm COVID season?

Not all predictions are dire. There is another little-talked-about scenario, Dr. Sweat said – that we could be in for a calm COVID season, and those who seem to be only mildly concerned about COVID may find those thoughts justified in the numbers.

Omicron blew through with such strength, he noted, that it may have left wide immunity in its wake. Because variants seem to be staying in the Omicron family, that may signal optimism.

“If the next variant is a descendant of the Omicron lineage, I would suspect that all these people who just got infected will have some protection, not perfect, but quite a bit of protection,” Dr. Sweat said.

Dr. Topol, Dr. Nuzzo, Dr. Sweat, Dr. Webby, Dr. Mokdad, and Dr. Jetelina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the United States enters a third fall with COVID-19, the virus for many is seemingly gone – or at least out of mind. But for those keeping watch, it is far from forgotten as deaths and infections continue to mount at a lower but steady pace.

What does that mean for the upcoming months? Experts predict different scenarios, some more dire than others – with one more encouraging.

In the United States, more than 300 people still die every day from COVID and more than 44,000 new daily cases are reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But progress is undeniable. The stark daily death tolls of 2020 have plummeted. Vaccines and treatments have dramatically reduced severe illness, and mask requirements have mostly turned to personal preference.

Epidemiologists and other medical experts laud the progress, but as they look at the maps and the numbers, they see several scenarios ahead that signal a coming wave of disease, among them more-resistant variants coupled with waning immunity, the potential for a “twindemic” with a flu/COVID onslaught, and underuse of lifesaving vaccines and treatments.
 

Variants loom/waning immunity

Omicron variant BA.5 still makes up about 80% of infections in the United States, followed by BA4.6, according to the CDC, but other subvariants are emerging and showing signs of resistance to current antiviral treatments.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego, said about COVID this fall: “There will be another wave, magnitude unknown.”

He said subvariants XBB and BQ.1.1 “have extreme levels of immune evasion and both could pose a challenge,” explaining that XBB is more likely to cause trouble than BQ.1.1 because it is even more resistant to natural or vaccine-induced immunity.

Dr. Topol pointed to new research on those variants in a preprint posted on bioRxiv. The authors’ conclusion: “These results suggest that current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not provide sufficiently broad protection against infection.” 

Another variant to watch, some experts say, is Omicron subvariant BA.2.75.2, which has shown resistance to antiviral treatments. It is also growing at a rather alarming rate, says Michael Sweat, PhD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Global Health in Charleston. That subvariant currently makes up under 2% of U.S. cases but has spread to at least 55 countries and 43 U.S. states after first appearing at the end of last year globally and in mid-June in the United States.

A non–peer-reviewed preprint study from Sweden found that the variant in blood samples was neutralized on average “at titers approximately 6.5 times lower than BA.5, making BA.2.75.2 the most [neutralization-resistant] variant evaluated to date.”

Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said in an interview the U.S. waves often follow Europe’s, and Europe has seen a recent spike in cases and hospitalizations not related to Omicron subvariants, but to weather changes, waning immunity, and changes in behavior.

The World Health Organization reported on Oct. 5 that, while cases were down in every other region of the world, Europe’s numbers stand out, with an 8% increase in cases from the week before. 

Dr. Jetelina cited events such as Oktoberfest in Germany, which ended in the first week of October after drawing nearly 6 million people over 2 weeks, as a potential contributor, and people heading indoors as weather patterns change in Europe.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview he is less worried about the documented variants we know about than he is about the potential for a new immune-escape variety yet to emerge.

“Right now we know the Chinese are gearing up to open up the country, and because they have low immunity and little infection, we expect in China there will be a lot of spread of Omicron,” he said. “It’s possible because of the number of infections we could see a new variant.”

Dr. Mokdad said waning immunity could also leave populations vulnerable to variants.

“Even if you get infected, after about 5 months, you’re susceptible again. Remember, most of the infections from Omicron happened in January or February 2022, and we had two waves after that,” he said.

The new bivalent vaccines tweaked to target some Omicron variants will help, Dr. Mokdad said, but he noted, “people are very reluctant to take it.”

Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., worries that in the United States we have less ability this year to track variants as funding has receded for testing kits and testing sites. Most people are testing at home – which doesn’t show up in the numbers – and the United States is relying more on other countries’ data to spot trends.

“I think we’re just going to have less visibility into the circulation of this virus,” she said in an interview.
 

‘Twindemic’: COVID and flu

Dr. Jetelina noted Australia and New Zealand just wrapped up a flu season that saw flu numbers returning to normal after a sharp drop in the last 2 years, and North America typically follows suit.

“We do expect flu will be here in the United States and probably at levels that we saw prepandemic. We’re all holding our breath to see how our health systems hold up with COVID-19 and flu. We haven’t really experienced that yet,” she said.

There is some disagreement, however, about the possibility of a so-called “twindemic” of influenza and COVID.

Richard Webby, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, said in an interview he thinks the possibility of both viruses spiking at the same time is unlikely.

“That’s not to say we won’t get flu and COVID activity in the same winter,” he explained, “but I think both roaring at the same time is unlikely.”

As an indicator, he said, at the beginning of the flu season last year in the Northern Hemisphere, flu activity started to pick up, but when the Omicron variant came along, “flu just wasn’t able to compete in that same environment and flu numbers dropped right off.” Previous literature suggests that when one virus is spiking it’s hard for another respiratory virus to take hold.
 

Vaccine, treatment underuse

Another threat is vaccines, boosters, and treatments sitting on shelves.

Dr. Sweat referred to frustration with vaccine uptake that seems to be “frozen in amber.”

As of Oct. 4, only 5.3% of people in the United States who were eligible had received the updated booster launched in early September.

Dr. Nuzzo said boosters for people at least 65 years old will be key to severity of COVID this season.

“I think that’s probably the biggest factor going into the fall and winter,” she said.

Only 38% of people at least 50 years old and 45% of those at least 65 years old had gotten a second booster as of early October.

“If we do nothing else, we have to increase booster uptake in that group,” Dr. Nuzzo said.

She said the treatment nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is greatly underused, often because providers aren’t prescribing it because they don’t think it helps, are worried about drug interactions, or are worried about its “rebound” effect.

Dr. Nuzzo urged greater use of the drug and education on how to manage drug interactions.

“We have very strong data that it does help keep people out of hospital. Sure, there may be a rebound, but that pales in comparison to the risk of being hospitalized,” she said.
 

Calm COVID season?

Not all predictions are dire. There is another little-talked-about scenario, Dr. Sweat said – that we could be in for a calm COVID season, and those who seem to be only mildly concerned about COVID may find those thoughts justified in the numbers.

Omicron blew through with such strength, he noted, that it may have left wide immunity in its wake. Because variants seem to be staying in the Omicron family, that may signal optimism.

“If the next variant is a descendant of the Omicron lineage, I would suspect that all these people who just got infected will have some protection, not perfect, but quite a bit of protection,” Dr. Sweat said.

Dr. Topol, Dr. Nuzzo, Dr. Sweat, Dr. Webby, Dr. Mokdad, and Dr. Jetelina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Tixagevimab copackaged with cilgavimab (Evusheld) is a safe and effective preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in patients undergoing B-cell-depleting therapies who have poor immune response to COVID-19 vaccination and are at high risk for serious COVID-19 illness, a small, single-site study suggests.

Evusheld, the only COVID-19 PrEP option available, has Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of immunocompromised patients who may not respond sufficiently to COVID-19 vaccination and patients who’ve had a severe adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination.

“We report the largest real-world experience of Evusheld in this population, and our findings are encouraging,” lead study author Cassandra Calabrese, DO, rheumatologist and infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“Of 412 patients who received Evusheld, 12 [2.9%] developed breakthrough COVID-19, with 11 having mild courses and 1 who required hospitalization but recovered,” she added.

“Our data suggest that Evusheld PrEP, in combination with aggressive outpatient treatment of COVID-19, is likely effective in lowering risk of severe COVID in this vulnerable group.

“Practitioners who care for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases should triage high-risk patients for Evusheld as well as rapid diagnosis and aggressive outpatient therapy if infected,” Dr. Calabrese advised.

For the study, Dr. Calabrese and colleagues at Cleveland Clinic searched the health care system pharmacy records for patients with immune‐mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) or inborn errors of humoral immunity (IEI) who met the criteria to receive Evusheld. The researchers included patients on B-cell-depleting therapies or with humoral IEI who had received at least one dose of Evusheld and were later diagnosed with COVID-19, and they excluded those treated with B-cell-depleting therapies for cancer.
 

EVUSHELD was well tolerated

After extracting data on COVID-19 infection, vaccination status, and outcomes, they found that, between Jan. 18 and May 28, 2022, 412 patients with IMIDs or humoral IEI received Evusheld. No deaths occurred among these patients and, overall, they tolerated the medication well.

All 12 patients who experienced breakthrough COVID-19 infection were treated with B-cell-depleting therapies. Among the 12 patients:

• Six patients developed infection 13-84 (median 19) days after receiving 150 mg/150 mg tixagevimab/cilgavimab.
• Six patients developed infection 19-72 (median of 38.5) days after either a single dose of 300 mg/300 mg or a second dose of 150 mg/150 mg.
• Eleven patients had mild illness and recovered at home; one patient was hospitalized and treated with high-flow oxygen. All cases had been vaccinated against COVID-19 (five received two vaccinations, six received three, and one received four).
• One possible serious adverse event involved a patient with COVID-19 and immune-mediated thrombocytopenia (ITP) who was hospitalized soon after receiving Evusheld with ITP flare that resolved with intravenous immunoglobulin.

Dr. Calabrese acknowledged limitations to the study, including few patients, lack of a comparator group, and the study period falling during the Omicron wave.

“Also, nine of the breakthrough cases received additional COVID-19 therapy (oral antiviral or monoclonal antibody), which falls within standard of care for this high-risk group but prevents ascribing effectiveness to individual components of the regimen,” she added.

“Evusheld is authorized for PrEP against COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe COVID due to suboptimal vaccine responses. This includes patients receiving B-cell-depleting drugs like rituximab, and patients with inborn errors of humoral immunity,” Dr. Calabrese explained.

“It is well known that this group of patients is at very high risk for severe COVID and death, even when fully vaccinated, and it has become clear that more strategies are needed to protect this vulnerable group, including use of Evusheld as well as aggressive treatment if infected,” she added.  
 

Evusheld not always easy to obtain

Although the medication has been available in the United States since January 2022, Dr. Calabrese said, patients may not receive it because of barriers including lack of both awareness and access.

Davey Smith, MD, professor of medicine and head of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California San Diego, in La Jolla, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the results, but added that the study was conducted in too few patients to draw any strong conclusions or affect patient care.

“This small study that showed that breakthrough infections occurred but were generally mild, provides a small glimpse of real-world use of tixagevimab/cilgavimab as PrEP for immunocompromised persons,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved in the study.

“In the setting of Omicron and vaccination, I would expect the same outcomes reported even without the treatment,” he added.

Dr. Smith recommends larger related randomized, controlled trials to provide clinicians with sufficient data to guide them in their patient care.

Graham Snyder, MD, associate professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Pittsburgh and medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted that the study “adds to a quickly growing literature on the real-world benefits of tixagevimab/cilgavimab to protect vulnerable individuals with weakened immune systems from the complications of COVID-19.

“This study provides a modest addition to our understanding of the role and benefit of Evusheld,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “By characterizing only patients who have received Evusheld without an untreated comparison group, we can’t draw any inference about the extent of benefit the agent provided to these patients.

“Substantial data already show that this agent is effective in preventing complications of COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised individuals,” added Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study.

“ ‘Immunocompromised’ represents a very diverse set of clinical conditions,” he said. “The research agenda should therefore focus on a more refined description of the effect in specific populations and a continued understanding of the effect of Evusheld in the context of updated vaccination strategies and changing virus ecology.”

Dr. Calabrese and her colleagues wrote that larger, controlled trials are underway.

 

FDA: Evusheld may not neutralize certain SARS-CoV-2 variants

“The biggest unanswered question is how Evusheld will hold up against new variants,” Dr. Calabrese said.

In an Oct. 3, 2022, update, the Food and Drug Administration released a statement about the risk of developing COVID-19 from SARS-CoV-2 variants that are not neutralized by Evusheld. The statement mentions an updated fact sheet that describes reduced protection from Evusheld against the Omicron subvariant BA.4.6, which accounted for nearly 13% of all new COVID-19 cases in the United States in the week ending Oct. 1.

There was no outside funding for the study. Dr. Smith reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Snyder said he is an unpaid adviser to an AstraZeneca observational study that’s assessing the real-world effectiveness of Evusheld.

Tixagevimab copackaged with cilgavimab (Evusheld) is a safe and effective preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in patients undergoing B-cell-depleting therapies who have poor immune response to COVID-19 vaccination and are at high risk for serious COVID-19 illness, a small, single-site study suggests.

Evusheld, the only COVID-19 PrEP option available, has Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of immunocompromised patients who may not respond sufficiently to COVID-19 vaccination and patients who’ve had a severe adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination.

“We report the largest real-world experience of Evusheld in this population, and our findings are encouraging,” lead study author Cassandra Calabrese, DO, rheumatologist and infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“Of 412 patients who received Evusheld, 12 [2.9%] developed breakthrough COVID-19, with 11 having mild courses and 1 who required hospitalization but recovered,” she added.

“Our data suggest that Evusheld PrEP, in combination with aggressive outpatient treatment of COVID-19, is likely effective in lowering risk of severe COVID in this vulnerable group.

“Practitioners who care for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases should triage high-risk patients for Evusheld as well as rapid diagnosis and aggressive outpatient therapy if infected,” Dr. Calabrese advised.

For the study, Dr. Calabrese and colleagues at Cleveland Clinic searched the health care system pharmacy records for patients with immune‐mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) or inborn errors of humoral immunity (IEI) who met the criteria to receive Evusheld. The researchers included patients on B-cell-depleting therapies or with humoral IEI who had received at least one dose of Evusheld and were later diagnosed with COVID-19, and they excluded those treated with B-cell-depleting therapies for cancer.
 

EVUSHELD was well tolerated

After extracting data on COVID-19 infection, vaccination status, and outcomes, they found that, between Jan. 18 and May 28, 2022, 412 patients with IMIDs or humoral IEI received Evusheld. No deaths occurred among these patients and, overall, they tolerated the medication well.

All 12 patients who experienced breakthrough COVID-19 infection were treated with B-cell-depleting therapies. Among the 12 patients:

• Six patients developed infection 13-84 (median 19) days after receiving 150 mg/150 mg tixagevimab/cilgavimab.
• Six patients developed infection 19-72 (median of 38.5) days after either a single dose of 300 mg/300 mg or a second dose of 150 mg/150 mg.
• Eleven patients had mild illness and recovered at home; one patient was hospitalized and treated with high-flow oxygen. All cases had been vaccinated against COVID-19 (five received two vaccinations, six received three, and one received four).
• One possible serious adverse event involved a patient with COVID-19 and immune-mediated thrombocytopenia (ITP) who was hospitalized soon after receiving Evusheld with ITP flare that resolved with intravenous immunoglobulin.

Dr. Calabrese acknowledged limitations to the study, including few patients, lack of a comparator group, and the study period falling during the Omicron wave.

“Also, nine of the breakthrough cases received additional COVID-19 therapy (oral antiviral or monoclonal antibody), which falls within standard of care for this high-risk group but prevents ascribing effectiveness to individual components of the regimen,” she added.

“Evusheld is authorized for PrEP against COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe COVID due to suboptimal vaccine responses. This includes patients receiving B-cell-depleting drugs like rituximab, and patients with inborn errors of humoral immunity,” Dr. Calabrese explained.

“It is well known that this group of patients is at very high risk for severe COVID and death, even when fully vaccinated, and it has become clear that more strategies are needed to protect this vulnerable group, including use of Evusheld as well as aggressive treatment if infected,” she added.  
 

Evusheld not always easy to obtain

Although the medication has been available in the United States since January 2022, Dr. Calabrese said, patients may not receive it because of barriers including lack of both awareness and access.

Davey Smith, MD, professor of medicine and head of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California San Diego, in La Jolla, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the results, but added that the study was conducted in too few patients to draw any strong conclusions or affect patient care.

“This small study that showed that breakthrough infections occurred but were generally mild, provides a small glimpse of real-world use of tixagevimab/cilgavimab as PrEP for immunocompromised persons,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved in the study.

“In the setting of Omicron and vaccination, I would expect the same outcomes reported even without the treatment,” he added.

Dr. Smith recommends larger related randomized, controlled trials to provide clinicians with sufficient data to guide them in their patient care.

Graham Snyder, MD, associate professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Pittsburgh and medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted that the study “adds to a quickly growing literature on the real-world benefits of tixagevimab/cilgavimab to protect vulnerable individuals with weakened immune systems from the complications of COVID-19.

“This study provides a modest addition to our understanding of the role and benefit of Evusheld,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “By characterizing only patients who have received Evusheld without an untreated comparison group, we can’t draw any inference about the extent of benefit the agent provided to these patients.

“Substantial data already show that this agent is effective in preventing complications of COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised individuals,” added Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study.

“ ‘Immunocompromised’ represents a very diverse set of clinical conditions,” he said. “The research agenda should therefore focus on a more refined description of the effect in specific populations and a continued understanding of the effect of Evusheld in the context of updated vaccination strategies and changing virus ecology.”

Dr. Calabrese and her colleagues wrote that larger, controlled trials are underway.

 

FDA: Evusheld may not neutralize certain SARS-CoV-2 variants

“The biggest unanswered question is how Evusheld will hold up against new variants,” Dr. Calabrese said.

In an Oct. 3, 2022, update, the Food and Drug Administration released a statement about the risk of developing COVID-19 from SARS-CoV-2 variants that are not neutralized by Evusheld. The statement mentions an updated fact sheet that describes reduced protection from Evusheld against the Omicron subvariant BA.4.6, which accounted for nearly 13% of all new COVID-19 cases in the United States in the week ending Oct. 1.

There was no outside funding for the study. Dr. Smith reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Snyder said he is an unpaid adviser to an AstraZeneca observational study that’s assessing the real-world effectiveness of Evusheld.

Tixagevimab copackaged with cilgavimab (Evusheld) is a safe and effective preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in patients undergoing B-cell-depleting therapies who have poor immune response to COVID-19 vaccination and are at high risk for serious COVID-19 illness, a small, single-site study suggests.

Evusheld, the only COVID-19 PrEP option available, has Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of immunocompromised patients who may not respond sufficiently to COVID-19 vaccination and patients who’ve had a severe adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccination.

“We report the largest real-world experience of Evusheld in this population, and our findings are encouraging,” lead study author Cassandra Calabrese, DO, rheumatologist and infectious disease specialist at Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“Of 412 patients who received Evusheld, 12 [2.9%] developed breakthrough COVID-19, with 11 having mild courses and 1 who required hospitalization but recovered,” she added.

“Our data suggest that Evusheld PrEP, in combination with aggressive outpatient treatment of COVID-19, is likely effective in lowering risk of severe COVID in this vulnerable group.

“Practitioners who care for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases should triage high-risk patients for Evusheld as well as rapid diagnosis and aggressive outpatient therapy if infected,” Dr. Calabrese advised.

For the study, Dr. Calabrese and colleagues at Cleveland Clinic searched the health care system pharmacy records for patients with immune‐mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) or inborn errors of humoral immunity (IEI) who met the criteria to receive Evusheld. The researchers included patients on B-cell-depleting therapies or with humoral IEI who had received at least one dose of Evusheld and were later diagnosed with COVID-19, and they excluded those treated with B-cell-depleting therapies for cancer.
 

EVUSHELD was well tolerated

After extracting data on COVID-19 infection, vaccination status, and outcomes, they found that, between Jan. 18 and May 28, 2022, 412 patients with IMIDs or humoral IEI received Evusheld. No deaths occurred among these patients and, overall, they tolerated the medication well.

All 12 patients who experienced breakthrough COVID-19 infection were treated with B-cell-depleting therapies. Among the 12 patients:

• Six patients developed infection 13-84 (median 19) days after receiving 150 mg/150 mg tixagevimab/cilgavimab.
• Six patients developed infection 19-72 (median of 38.5) days after either a single dose of 300 mg/300 mg or a second dose of 150 mg/150 mg.
• Eleven patients had mild illness and recovered at home; one patient was hospitalized and treated with high-flow oxygen. All cases had been vaccinated against COVID-19 (five received two vaccinations, six received three, and one received four).
• One possible serious adverse event involved a patient with COVID-19 and immune-mediated thrombocytopenia (ITP) who was hospitalized soon after receiving Evusheld with ITP flare that resolved with intravenous immunoglobulin.

Dr. Calabrese acknowledged limitations to the study, including few patients, lack of a comparator group, and the study period falling during the Omicron wave.

“Also, nine of the breakthrough cases received additional COVID-19 therapy (oral antiviral or monoclonal antibody), which falls within standard of care for this high-risk group but prevents ascribing effectiveness to individual components of the regimen,” she added.

“Evusheld is authorized for PrEP against COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe COVID due to suboptimal vaccine responses. This includes patients receiving B-cell-depleting drugs like rituximab, and patients with inborn errors of humoral immunity,” Dr. Calabrese explained.

“It is well known that this group of patients is at very high risk for severe COVID and death, even when fully vaccinated, and it has become clear that more strategies are needed to protect this vulnerable group, including use of Evusheld as well as aggressive treatment if infected,” she added.  
 

Evusheld not always easy to obtain

Although the medication has been available in the United States since January 2022, Dr. Calabrese said, patients may not receive it because of barriers including lack of both awareness and access.

Davey Smith, MD, professor of medicine and head of infectious diseases and global public health at the University of California San Diego, in La Jolla, said in an interview that he was not surprised by the results, but added that the study was conducted in too few patients to draw any strong conclusions or affect patient care.

“This small study that showed that breakthrough infections occurred but were generally mild, provides a small glimpse of real-world use of tixagevimab/cilgavimab as PrEP for immunocompromised persons,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved in the study.

“In the setting of Omicron and vaccination, I would expect the same outcomes reported even without the treatment,” he added.

Dr. Smith recommends larger related randomized, controlled trials to provide clinicians with sufficient data to guide them in their patient care.

Graham Snyder, MD, associate professor in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Pittsburgh and medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted that the study “adds to a quickly growing literature on the real-world benefits of tixagevimab/cilgavimab to protect vulnerable individuals with weakened immune systems from the complications of COVID-19.

“This study provides a modest addition to our understanding of the role and benefit of Evusheld,” Dr. Snyder said in an interview. “By characterizing only patients who have received Evusheld without an untreated comparison group, we can’t draw any inference about the extent of benefit the agent provided to these patients.

“Substantial data already show that this agent is effective in preventing complications of COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised individuals,” added Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study.

“ ‘Immunocompromised’ represents a very diverse set of clinical conditions,” he said. “The research agenda should therefore focus on a more refined description of the effect in specific populations and a continued understanding of the effect of Evusheld in the context of updated vaccination strategies and changing virus ecology.”

Dr. Calabrese and her colleagues wrote that larger, controlled trials are underway.

 

FDA: Evusheld may not neutralize certain SARS-CoV-2 variants

“The biggest unanswered question is how Evusheld will hold up against new variants,” Dr. Calabrese said.

In an Oct. 3, 2022, update, the Food and Drug Administration released a statement about the risk of developing COVID-19 from SARS-CoV-2 variants that are not neutralized by Evusheld. The statement mentions an updated fact sheet that describes reduced protection from Evusheld against the Omicron subvariant BA.4.6, which accounted for nearly 13% of all new COVID-19 cases in the United States in the week ending Oct. 1.

There was no outside funding for the study. Dr. Smith reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Snyder said he is an unpaid adviser to an AstraZeneca observational study that’s assessing the real-world effectiveness of Evusheld.