MDedge Neurology

Four common motor abnormalities in schizophrenia patients were associated with at least one poor functional outcome, based on data from 156 individuals.

Approximately half of adults with schizophrenia suffer from motor abnormalities that may impair their ability to work and decrease their quality of life, wrote Niluja Nadesalingam, MD, of the University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. “Although previous reports show strong associations between single movement abnormalities and global as well as social functioning, we still struggle to understand the contribution of various motor domains,” they said.

The impact of these abnormalities on social and global functioning and on functional capacity remains unclear, but the researchers proposed that motor abnormalities would be associated with worse functional outcomes in schizophrenia patients.

In a study published in Comprehensive Psychiatry, the researchers identified patients with diagnosed schizophrenia spectrum disorders who were treated on an inpatient or outpatient basis at a single center. They collected data on five motor abnormalities: parkinsonism, catatonia, dyskinesia, neurological soft signs (NSS), and psychomotor slowing (PS). They assessed functional outcomes using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), and the UCSD Performance-Based Skills Assessment (UPSA-B). The average age of the participants was 37.9 years and 88 of the 156 were male. The average duration of illness was 12.5 years.

Overall, patients with catatonia and parkinsonism scored significantly lower on GAF and SOFAS scale compared to those without catatonia and parkinsonism (P < .035 and P < .027, respectively).

No significant differences in functional outcomes appeared between patients with and without dyskinesia.

However, significant negative correlations were identified for parkinsonism and PS with GAF, SOFAS, and UPSA-B (P < .036 for all). “Our study further found that parkinsonism and psychomotor slowing also impair the functional capacity of patients,” which may be influenced by factors including deficits in social interaction and cognitive impairment, the researchers said.

Overall, the study findings demonstrate that motor abnormalities in patients with schizophrenia are strongly associated with poor functional outcomes, and the stronger the motor impairment, the worse the global and social functioning, the researchers said.

As for potential pathways, “motor abnormalities are readily observable signs, allowing laypersons to perceive subjects with schizophrenia as somebody with severe mental illness. Thus, motor abnormalities might lead to stigmatization of patients suffering from schizophrenia,” they wrote in their discussion.

The researchers emphasized the need to explore alternative treatment options that might improve motor abnormalities, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, given the potential of antipsychotic medications to introduce additional motor abnormalities.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for missed confounding variables, the small number of patients with dyskinesia, and the inability to deduce the course of illness because most of the patients were in psychotic episodes, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that specific motor abnormalities are associated with poor global and social functioning, and with reduced functional capacity, in adults with schizophrenia, the researchers said. “Future studies need to test whether amelioration of motor abnormalities may improve community functioning,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Bangerter Rhyner Foundation, and the Adrian and Simone Frutiger Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nadesalingam had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Four common motor abnormalities in schizophrenia patients were associated with at least one poor functional outcome, based on data from 156 individuals.

Approximately half of adults with schizophrenia suffer from motor abnormalities that may impair their ability to work and decrease their quality of life, wrote Niluja Nadesalingam, MD, of the University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. “Although previous reports show strong associations between single movement abnormalities and global as well as social functioning, we still struggle to understand the contribution of various motor domains,” they said.

The impact of these abnormalities on social and global functioning and on functional capacity remains unclear, but the researchers proposed that motor abnormalities would be associated with worse functional outcomes in schizophrenia patients.

In a study published in Comprehensive Psychiatry, the researchers identified patients with diagnosed schizophrenia spectrum disorders who were treated on an inpatient or outpatient basis at a single center. They collected data on five motor abnormalities: parkinsonism, catatonia, dyskinesia, neurological soft signs (NSS), and psychomotor slowing (PS). They assessed functional outcomes using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), and the UCSD Performance-Based Skills Assessment (UPSA-B). The average age of the participants was 37.9 years and 88 of the 156 were male. The average duration of illness was 12.5 years.

Overall, patients with catatonia and parkinsonism scored significantly lower on GAF and SOFAS scale compared to those without catatonia and parkinsonism (P < .035 and P < .027, respectively).

No significant differences in functional outcomes appeared between patients with and without dyskinesia.

However, significant negative correlations were identified for parkinsonism and PS with GAF, SOFAS, and UPSA-B (P < .036 for all). “Our study further found that parkinsonism and psychomotor slowing also impair the functional capacity of patients,” which may be influenced by factors including deficits in social interaction and cognitive impairment, the researchers said.

Overall, the study findings demonstrate that motor abnormalities in patients with schizophrenia are strongly associated with poor functional outcomes, and the stronger the motor impairment, the worse the global and social functioning, the researchers said.

As for potential pathways, “motor abnormalities are readily observable signs, allowing laypersons to perceive subjects with schizophrenia as somebody with severe mental illness. Thus, motor abnormalities might lead to stigmatization of patients suffering from schizophrenia,” they wrote in their discussion.

The researchers emphasized the need to explore alternative treatment options that might improve motor abnormalities, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, given the potential of antipsychotic medications to introduce additional motor abnormalities.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for missed confounding variables, the small number of patients with dyskinesia, and the inability to deduce the course of illness because most of the patients were in psychotic episodes, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that specific motor abnormalities are associated with poor global and social functioning, and with reduced functional capacity, in adults with schizophrenia, the researchers said. “Future studies need to test whether amelioration of motor abnormalities may improve community functioning,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Bangerter Rhyner Foundation, and the Adrian and Simone Frutiger Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nadesalingam had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Four common motor abnormalities in schizophrenia patients were associated with at least one poor functional outcome, based on data from 156 individuals.

Approximately half of adults with schizophrenia suffer from motor abnormalities that may impair their ability to work and decrease their quality of life, wrote Niluja Nadesalingam, MD, of the University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. “Although previous reports show strong associations between single movement abnormalities and global as well as social functioning, we still struggle to understand the contribution of various motor domains,” they said.

The impact of these abnormalities on social and global functioning and on functional capacity remains unclear, but the researchers proposed that motor abnormalities would be associated with worse functional outcomes in schizophrenia patients.

In a study published in Comprehensive Psychiatry, the researchers identified patients with diagnosed schizophrenia spectrum disorders who were treated on an inpatient or outpatient basis at a single center. They collected data on five motor abnormalities: parkinsonism, catatonia, dyskinesia, neurological soft signs (NSS), and psychomotor slowing (PS). They assessed functional outcomes using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS), and the UCSD Performance-Based Skills Assessment (UPSA-B). The average age of the participants was 37.9 years and 88 of the 156 were male. The average duration of illness was 12.5 years.

Overall, patients with catatonia and parkinsonism scored significantly lower on GAF and SOFAS scale compared to those without catatonia and parkinsonism (P < .035 and P < .027, respectively).

No significant differences in functional outcomes appeared between patients with and without dyskinesia.

However, significant negative correlations were identified for parkinsonism and PS with GAF, SOFAS, and UPSA-B (P < .036 for all). “Our study further found that parkinsonism and psychomotor slowing also impair the functional capacity of patients,” which may be influenced by factors including deficits in social interaction and cognitive impairment, the researchers said.

Overall, the study findings demonstrate that motor abnormalities in patients with schizophrenia are strongly associated with poor functional outcomes, and the stronger the motor impairment, the worse the global and social functioning, the researchers said.

As for potential pathways, “motor abnormalities are readily observable signs, allowing laypersons to perceive subjects with schizophrenia as somebody with severe mental illness. Thus, motor abnormalities might lead to stigmatization of patients suffering from schizophrenia,” they wrote in their discussion.

The researchers emphasized the need to explore alternative treatment options that might improve motor abnormalities, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation, given the potential of antipsychotic medications to introduce additional motor abnormalities.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for missed confounding variables, the small number of patients with dyskinesia, and the inability to deduce the course of illness because most of the patients were in psychotic episodes, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that specific motor abnormalities are associated with poor global and social functioning, and with reduced functional capacity, in adults with schizophrenia, the researchers said. “Future studies need to test whether amelioration of motor abnormalities may improve community functioning,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Bangerter Rhyner Foundation, and the Adrian and Simone Frutiger Foundation. Lead author Dr. Nadesalingam had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Moderate to severe sleep disturbances and severe fatigue affect up to 40% of patients with long COVID, or post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Such disturbances are especially common among Black people, new research shows.

The “high” prevalence of moderate to severe sleep disturbances is “alarming,” study investigator Cinthya Pena Orbea, MD, sleep specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

Dr. Pena and colleagues analyzed data on 962 patients with PASC seen at the Cleveland Clinic ReCOVer Clinic between February 2021 and April 2022.

More than two-thirds of patients (67.2%) reported at least moderate fatigue, while 21.8% reported severe fatigue, Dr. Pena reported.

In addition, 41.3% reported at least moderate sleep disturbances, while 8% of patients reported severe sleep disturbances, including insomnia, “which may impair quality of life,” Dr. Pena said.

Obesity, mood disorders, and Black race emerged as contributors to problems with sleep and fatigue after COVID.

Notably, after adjusting for demographics, Black race conferred threefold higher odds of moderate to severe sleep disturbances.

“We don’t know why this is, and one of our next steps is to better understand race-specific determinants of sleep disturbances after COVID and create targeted interventions,” Dr. Pena said.

How long after COVID the fatigue and sleep problems last “remains uncertain,” Dr. Pena acknowledged. However, in her clinical experience with therapy, patients’ sleep and fatigue may improve after 6 or 8 months.

Ruth Benca, MD, PhD, cochair of the Alliance for Sleep, is not surprised by the Cleveland Clinic findings.

“Sleep disturbances and fatigue are part of the sequelae of COVID,” Dr. Benca, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“We know that people who have had COVID have more trouble sleeping afterwards. There is the COVID insomnia created in all of us just out of our worries, fears, isolation, and stress. And then there’s an actual impact of having the infection itself on worsening sleep,” said Dr. Benca, with Wake Forest University and Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, both in Winston-Salem, N.C.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Benca is a consultant for Idorsia Pharmaceuticals.

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

Moderate to severe sleep disturbances and severe fatigue affect up to 40% of patients with long COVID, or post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Such disturbances are especially common among Black people, new research shows.

The “high” prevalence of moderate to severe sleep disturbances is “alarming,” study investigator Cinthya Pena Orbea, MD, sleep specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

Dr. Pena and colleagues analyzed data on 962 patients with PASC seen at the Cleveland Clinic ReCOVer Clinic between February 2021 and April 2022.

More than two-thirds of patients (67.2%) reported at least moderate fatigue, while 21.8% reported severe fatigue, Dr. Pena reported.

In addition, 41.3% reported at least moderate sleep disturbances, while 8% of patients reported severe sleep disturbances, including insomnia, “which may impair quality of life,” Dr. Pena said.

Obesity, mood disorders, and Black race emerged as contributors to problems with sleep and fatigue after COVID.

Notably, after adjusting for demographics, Black race conferred threefold higher odds of moderate to severe sleep disturbances.

“We don’t know why this is, and one of our next steps is to better understand race-specific determinants of sleep disturbances after COVID and create targeted interventions,” Dr. Pena said.

How long after COVID the fatigue and sleep problems last “remains uncertain,” Dr. Pena acknowledged. However, in her clinical experience with therapy, patients’ sleep and fatigue may improve after 6 or 8 months.

Ruth Benca, MD, PhD, cochair of the Alliance for Sleep, is not surprised by the Cleveland Clinic findings.

“Sleep disturbances and fatigue are part of the sequelae of COVID,” Dr. Benca, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“We know that people who have had COVID have more trouble sleeping afterwards. There is the COVID insomnia created in all of us just out of our worries, fears, isolation, and stress. And then there’s an actual impact of having the infection itself on worsening sleep,” said Dr. Benca, with Wake Forest University and Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, both in Winston-Salem, N.C.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Benca is a consultant for Idorsia Pharmaceuticals.

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

Moderate to severe sleep disturbances and severe fatigue affect up to 40% of patients with long COVID, or post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC). Such disturbances are especially common among Black people, new research shows.

The “high” prevalence of moderate to severe sleep disturbances is “alarming,” study investigator Cinthya Pena Orbea, MD, sleep specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

Dr. Pena and colleagues analyzed data on 962 patients with PASC seen at the Cleveland Clinic ReCOVer Clinic between February 2021 and April 2022.

More than two-thirds of patients (67.2%) reported at least moderate fatigue, while 21.8% reported severe fatigue, Dr. Pena reported.

In addition, 41.3% reported at least moderate sleep disturbances, while 8% of patients reported severe sleep disturbances, including insomnia, “which may impair quality of life,” Dr. Pena said.

Obesity, mood disorders, and Black race emerged as contributors to problems with sleep and fatigue after COVID.

Notably, after adjusting for demographics, Black race conferred threefold higher odds of moderate to severe sleep disturbances.

“We don’t know why this is, and one of our next steps is to better understand race-specific determinants of sleep disturbances after COVID and create targeted interventions,” Dr. Pena said.

How long after COVID the fatigue and sleep problems last “remains uncertain,” Dr. Pena acknowledged. However, in her clinical experience with therapy, patients’ sleep and fatigue may improve after 6 or 8 months.

Ruth Benca, MD, PhD, cochair of the Alliance for Sleep, is not surprised by the Cleveland Clinic findings.

“Sleep disturbances and fatigue are part of the sequelae of COVID,” Dr. Benca, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“We know that people who have had COVID have more trouble sleeping afterwards. There is the COVID insomnia created in all of us just out of our worries, fears, isolation, and stress. And then there’s an actual impact of having the infection itself on worsening sleep,” said Dr. Benca, with Wake Forest University and Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist, both in Winston-Salem, N.C.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Benca is a consultant for Idorsia Pharmaceuticals.

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

Actions taken against a physician’s license for substance use are more common than those for psychological impairment or actions related to physical health, according to a recent report. Despite a sharp uptick in 2011, substance use–specific license actions taken against physicians dropped in frequency between 2004 and 2020.

More than three fourths (76.3%) of license actions taken against physicians were related to substance use, according to a recent study published in JAMA. Psychological impairment was the reason associated with more than 1 in 10 (11.5%) actions taken against physicians’ licenses, while physical impairment was the reason behind approximately 12% of such actions, per the study.

Researchers analyzed 5032 actions taken against the licenses of U.S. physicians. The actions were reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank and were related to substance use, psychological impairment, and physical impairment. The National Practitioner Data Bank is a web-based repository of reports with information on medical malpractice payments and certain adverse actions related to healthcare practitioners, providers, and suppliers. It is provided by the Department of Health & Human Services.

“While there has been increased attention [on] the mental health of physicians, we wanted to understand the extent to which changes in attitudes and practices were reflected in actions taken by hospitals or licensing boards, which are reported in the National Practitioner Data Bank,” Lisa Rotenstein, MD, a primary care physician at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and lead author of the study, told this news organization.

Dr. Rotenstein, who is an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, studies issues of mental health among physicians and trainees. Dr. Rotenstein was the lead author of a 2016 study that found that more than a quarter (27.2%) of medical students have depressive symptoms. She was also lead author of a 2018 study published in JAMA on the prevalence of burnout among attending physicians.
 

Actions against physicians trending downward

2011 marked the peak in actions taken against physicians’ licenses for substance use, per the study, but actions related to substance use have otherwise maintained a steady decline over the past 17 years. Researchers found that physicians with license actions as a result of substance use or psychological impairment were more likely to receive indefinite penalties, while also having emergency action taken against their license to practice.

In addition, physicians who had actions taken against their licenses because of substance use or psychological impairment were more likely to accrue a greater number of actions over the course of their careers, according to the study.

About 47% of physicians reported experiencing burnout per Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Depression Report 2022: Stress, Anxiety, and Anger report. Burnout among emergency physicians spiked from 43% in 2020 to 60% in 2021, according to the report.

More than one quarter (26%) of physicians reported drinking alcohol to cope with burnout in 2020, according to Medscape’s 2021 Physician Burnout and Suicide Report. Per the 2021 report, 48% of physicians chose exercise to deal with burnout, while 35% indulged in eating junk food.

Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston-based primary care physician, wrote in The Los Angeles Times in 2016 that the rate of substance abuse among physicians starts at 10% and can go as high as 15%; by comparison, rates of substance use among the general population are 8%-10%. “What appears to account for the difference is physician distress, and in the case of drug abuse, plentiful access,” he added.

Dr. Grinspoon wrote a 2016 book called “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” which chronicles his experience in recovery and relapse as a physician who was dependent on opioid painkillers.

The findings from the recent study in JAMA “suggest we have made some progress in addressing issues related to substance use in ways that don’t result in license actions or even in meeting physicians’ need for support related to substance use,” said Dr. Rotenstein.

Still, she insists that there’s “substantial opportunity to improve mental health and support offerings for physicians and to reduce stigma related to seeking and receiving mental health support, ideally averting the need for license actions.”

According to Dr. Rotenstein, the cases listed in the National Practitioner Data Bank represent the most severe cases; these reports have risen to a high level of attention or concern and are the result of adverse action reports submitted by healthcare institutions and state licensing boards.

“There are many, many more physicians whose cases are not represented here but who struggle with depression, anxiety, substance use, and more,” said Dr. Rotenstein.

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

Actions taken against a physician’s license for substance use are more common than those for psychological impairment or actions related to physical health, according to a recent report. Despite a sharp uptick in 2011, substance use–specific license actions taken against physicians dropped in frequency between 2004 and 2020.

More than three fourths (76.3%) of license actions taken against physicians were related to substance use, according to a recent study published in JAMA. Psychological impairment was the reason associated with more than 1 in 10 (11.5%) actions taken against physicians’ licenses, while physical impairment was the reason behind approximately 12% of such actions, per the study.

Researchers analyzed 5032 actions taken against the licenses of U.S. physicians. The actions were reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank and were related to substance use, psychological impairment, and physical impairment. The National Practitioner Data Bank is a web-based repository of reports with information on medical malpractice payments and certain adverse actions related to healthcare practitioners, providers, and suppliers. It is provided by the Department of Health & Human Services.

“While there has been increased attention [on] the mental health of physicians, we wanted to understand the extent to which changes in attitudes and practices were reflected in actions taken by hospitals or licensing boards, which are reported in the National Practitioner Data Bank,” Lisa Rotenstein, MD, a primary care physician at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and lead author of the study, told this news organization.

Dr. Rotenstein, who is an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, studies issues of mental health among physicians and trainees. Dr. Rotenstein was the lead author of a 2016 study that found that more than a quarter (27.2%) of medical students have depressive symptoms. She was also lead author of a 2018 study published in JAMA on the prevalence of burnout among attending physicians.
 

Actions against physicians trending downward

2011 marked the peak in actions taken against physicians’ licenses for substance use, per the study, but actions related to substance use have otherwise maintained a steady decline over the past 17 years. Researchers found that physicians with license actions as a result of substance use or psychological impairment were more likely to receive indefinite penalties, while also having emergency action taken against their license to practice.

In addition, physicians who had actions taken against their licenses because of substance use or psychological impairment were more likely to accrue a greater number of actions over the course of their careers, according to the study.

About 47% of physicians reported experiencing burnout per Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Depression Report 2022: Stress, Anxiety, and Anger report. Burnout among emergency physicians spiked from 43% in 2020 to 60% in 2021, according to the report.

More than one quarter (26%) of physicians reported drinking alcohol to cope with burnout in 2020, according to Medscape’s 2021 Physician Burnout and Suicide Report. Per the 2021 report, 48% of physicians chose exercise to deal with burnout, while 35% indulged in eating junk food.

Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston-based primary care physician, wrote in The Los Angeles Times in 2016 that the rate of substance abuse among physicians starts at 10% and can go as high as 15%; by comparison, rates of substance use among the general population are 8%-10%. “What appears to account for the difference is physician distress, and in the case of drug abuse, plentiful access,” he added.

Dr. Grinspoon wrote a 2016 book called “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” which chronicles his experience in recovery and relapse as a physician who was dependent on opioid painkillers.

The findings from the recent study in JAMA “suggest we have made some progress in addressing issues related to substance use in ways that don’t result in license actions or even in meeting physicians’ need for support related to substance use,” said Dr. Rotenstein.

Still, she insists that there’s “substantial opportunity to improve mental health and support offerings for physicians and to reduce stigma related to seeking and receiving mental health support, ideally averting the need for license actions.”

According to Dr. Rotenstein, the cases listed in the National Practitioner Data Bank represent the most severe cases; these reports have risen to a high level of attention or concern and are the result of adverse action reports submitted by healthcare institutions and state licensing boards.

“There are many, many more physicians whose cases are not represented here but who struggle with depression, anxiety, substance use, and more,” said Dr. Rotenstein.

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

Actions taken against a physician’s license for substance use are more common than those for psychological impairment or actions related to physical health, according to a recent report. Despite a sharp uptick in 2011, substance use–specific license actions taken against physicians dropped in frequency between 2004 and 2020.

More than three fourths (76.3%) of license actions taken against physicians were related to substance use, according to a recent study published in JAMA. Psychological impairment was the reason associated with more than 1 in 10 (11.5%) actions taken against physicians’ licenses, while physical impairment was the reason behind approximately 12% of such actions, per the study.

Researchers analyzed 5032 actions taken against the licenses of U.S. physicians. The actions were reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank and were related to substance use, psychological impairment, and physical impairment. The National Practitioner Data Bank is a web-based repository of reports with information on medical malpractice payments and certain adverse actions related to healthcare practitioners, providers, and suppliers. It is provided by the Department of Health & Human Services.

“While there has been increased attention [on] the mental health of physicians, we wanted to understand the extent to which changes in attitudes and practices were reflected in actions taken by hospitals or licensing boards, which are reported in the National Practitioner Data Bank,” Lisa Rotenstein, MD, a primary care physician at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and lead author of the study, told this news organization.

Dr. Rotenstein, who is an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, studies issues of mental health among physicians and trainees. Dr. Rotenstein was the lead author of a 2016 study that found that more than a quarter (27.2%) of medical students have depressive symptoms. She was also lead author of a 2018 study published in JAMA on the prevalence of burnout among attending physicians.
 

Actions against physicians trending downward

2011 marked the peak in actions taken against physicians’ licenses for substance use, per the study, but actions related to substance use have otherwise maintained a steady decline over the past 17 years. Researchers found that physicians with license actions as a result of substance use or psychological impairment were more likely to receive indefinite penalties, while also having emergency action taken against their license to practice.

In addition, physicians who had actions taken against their licenses because of substance use or psychological impairment were more likely to accrue a greater number of actions over the course of their careers, according to the study.

About 47% of physicians reported experiencing burnout per Medscape’s Physician Burnout and Depression Report 2022: Stress, Anxiety, and Anger report. Burnout among emergency physicians spiked from 43% in 2020 to 60% in 2021, according to the report.

More than one quarter (26%) of physicians reported drinking alcohol to cope with burnout in 2020, according to Medscape’s 2021 Physician Burnout and Suicide Report. Per the 2021 report, 48% of physicians chose exercise to deal with burnout, while 35% indulged in eating junk food.

Peter Grinspoon, MD, a Boston-based primary care physician, wrote in The Los Angeles Times in 2016 that the rate of substance abuse among physicians starts at 10% and can go as high as 15%; by comparison, rates of substance use among the general population are 8%-10%. “What appears to account for the difference is physician distress, and in the case of drug abuse, plentiful access,” he added.

Dr. Grinspoon wrote a 2016 book called “Free Refills: A Doctor Confronts His Addiction,” which chronicles his experience in recovery and relapse as a physician who was dependent on opioid painkillers.

The findings from the recent study in JAMA “suggest we have made some progress in addressing issues related to substance use in ways that don’t result in license actions or even in meeting physicians’ need for support related to substance use,” said Dr. Rotenstein.

Still, she insists that there’s “substantial opportunity to improve mental health and support offerings for physicians and to reduce stigma related to seeking and receiving mental health support, ideally averting the need for license actions.”

According to Dr. Rotenstein, the cases listed in the National Practitioner Data Bank represent the most severe cases; these reports have risen to a high level of attention or concern and are the result of adverse action reports submitted by healthcare institutions and state licensing boards.

“There are many, many more physicians whose cases are not represented here but who struggle with depression, anxiety, substance use, and more,” said Dr. Rotenstein.

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

Deaf babies and toddlers with developmental delays may benefit significantly from receiving cochlear implants over hearing aids.

A new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, pushes against the notion that children with low nonverbal cognition and adaptive functioning skills won’t improve if given cochlear implants. Some insurers cover hearing aids for children with developmental disorders but not the implants, which can cost between $60,000 and $100,000 per ear.

“We were surprised [by] the large magnitude of the improvements, not only in quality of life, but also in cognition, ability to function in daily living situations, and speech and language,” lead author John S. Oghalai, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization. “Remember, these are children with substantial developmental delays. Any improvements are incredibly important and meaningful.”

All children with severe hearing loss should be referred for cochlear implant evaluation, “regardless of the presence of other disabilities,” Dr. Oghalai said. “The younger this referral happens, the better the outcomes will be.”

Dr. Oghalai and his colleagues reviewed data from 204 children approximately 1-3 years old with hearing aids receiving treatment in Texas and California. Of these, 138 received a cochlear implant and had normal cognitive skills and social competence (referred to as adaptive behavior). Another 37 received a cochlear implant and also met criteria for early developmental impairment (EDI), defined by measures of nonverbal cognitive scores and adaptive functioning.

A third group of 29 children with EDI continued with hearing aids without a cochlear implant.

The children were evaluated annually for 1-5 years, with the average follow-up of 2 years. At baseline, no significant differences were noted between the children with EDI who received implants and those who did not on cognition, language, auditory skills, or measures of parental or child stress.

Overall, children who received implants scored higher on cognitive and social measures than those who continued using hearing aids.

Compared with children with EDI who received implants, children without EDI who received implants had significantly higher developmental scores by the study’s end (P ≤ .001), whereas children with EDI who did not receive implants had significantly lower scores (P ≤ .04).

Children who received implants, and their parents, also experienced less stress than those who did not receive the devices, according to the researchers.

Dr. Oghalai and colleagues also measured developmental trajectories for each cohort. Children without delays who received implants had the best outcomes, but those with EDI who received implants had better outcomes than those with EDI and hearing aids.
 

Findings ‘overdue’

“This study is overdue,” Howard Francis, MD, chair of the department of head and neck surgery & communication sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

Dr. Francis called the new research “reasonably powered and designed,” and said it “documents benefits in the cognitive, language, and patient-child relationship domains” in children who received cochlear implants “compared to children with similar levels of developmental delay whose hearing loss was treated using hearing aids.”  

However, “larger studies will be needed to account for potential effects of older age at intervention in the hearing aid group,” he said. Socioeconomic effects are a topic for future research as well, Dr. Francis added.

The researchers initially wanted to perform a controlled clinical trial. However, by the time they secured funding, health insurance policy had changed to cover cochlear implants for children without EDI because of demonstrated benefits shown in studies.

They also were unable to determine the reasons for families’ decisions to choose implants or hearing aids and were unable to assess the impact of insurance on the choice of implantation. But they did find that families with insurers who would cover implants often did choose the devices. Children were also followed for an average of 2 years, so long-term outcomes are unknown.  

Despite these limitations, the results support the value of cochlear implantation in children with disabilities and developmental delays, and it should be discussed with parents, the researchers concluded.

“Cochlear implants are just a tool; they do not provide speech and language,” Dr. Oghalai said. “Any child with severe hearing loss requires significant therapy and education via sign language, auditory-verbal therapy, or both. Making the decision about what type of therapy to do is personal, and it depends upon the family and the options that are available to them in their community.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The researchers and Dr. Francis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deaf babies and toddlers with developmental delays may benefit significantly from receiving cochlear implants over hearing aids.

A new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, pushes against the notion that children with low nonverbal cognition and adaptive functioning skills won’t improve if given cochlear implants. Some insurers cover hearing aids for children with developmental disorders but not the implants, which can cost between $60,000 and $100,000 per ear.

“We were surprised [by] the large magnitude of the improvements, not only in quality of life, but also in cognition, ability to function in daily living situations, and speech and language,” lead author John S. Oghalai, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization. “Remember, these are children with substantial developmental delays. Any improvements are incredibly important and meaningful.”

All children with severe hearing loss should be referred for cochlear implant evaluation, “regardless of the presence of other disabilities,” Dr. Oghalai said. “The younger this referral happens, the better the outcomes will be.”

Dr. Oghalai and his colleagues reviewed data from 204 children approximately 1-3 years old with hearing aids receiving treatment in Texas and California. Of these, 138 received a cochlear implant and had normal cognitive skills and social competence (referred to as adaptive behavior). Another 37 received a cochlear implant and also met criteria for early developmental impairment (EDI), defined by measures of nonverbal cognitive scores and adaptive functioning.

A third group of 29 children with EDI continued with hearing aids without a cochlear implant.

The children were evaluated annually for 1-5 years, with the average follow-up of 2 years. At baseline, no significant differences were noted between the children with EDI who received implants and those who did not on cognition, language, auditory skills, or measures of parental or child stress.

Overall, children who received implants scored higher on cognitive and social measures than those who continued using hearing aids.

Compared with children with EDI who received implants, children without EDI who received implants had significantly higher developmental scores by the study’s end (P ≤ .001), whereas children with EDI who did not receive implants had significantly lower scores (P ≤ .04).

Children who received implants, and their parents, also experienced less stress than those who did not receive the devices, according to the researchers.

Dr. Oghalai and colleagues also measured developmental trajectories for each cohort. Children without delays who received implants had the best outcomes, but those with EDI who received implants had better outcomes than those with EDI and hearing aids.
 

Findings ‘overdue’

“This study is overdue,” Howard Francis, MD, chair of the department of head and neck surgery & communication sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

Dr. Francis called the new research “reasonably powered and designed,” and said it “documents benefits in the cognitive, language, and patient-child relationship domains” in children who received cochlear implants “compared to children with similar levels of developmental delay whose hearing loss was treated using hearing aids.”  

However, “larger studies will be needed to account for potential effects of older age at intervention in the hearing aid group,” he said. Socioeconomic effects are a topic for future research as well, Dr. Francis added.

The researchers initially wanted to perform a controlled clinical trial. However, by the time they secured funding, health insurance policy had changed to cover cochlear implants for children without EDI because of demonstrated benefits shown in studies.

They also were unable to determine the reasons for families’ decisions to choose implants or hearing aids and were unable to assess the impact of insurance on the choice of implantation. But they did find that families with insurers who would cover implants often did choose the devices. Children were also followed for an average of 2 years, so long-term outcomes are unknown.  

Despite these limitations, the results support the value of cochlear implantation in children with disabilities and developmental delays, and it should be discussed with parents, the researchers concluded.

“Cochlear implants are just a tool; they do not provide speech and language,” Dr. Oghalai said. “Any child with severe hearing loss requires significant therapy and education via sign language, auditory-verbal therapy, or both. Making the decision about what type of therapy to do is personal, and it depends upon the family and the options that are available to them in their community.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The researchers and Dr. Francis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deaf babies and toddlers with developmental delays may benefit significantly from receiving cochlear implants over hearing aids.

A new study, published in the journal Pediatrics, pushes against the notion that children with low nonverbal cognition and adaptive functioning skills won’t improve if given cochlear implants. Some insurers cover hearing aids for children with developmental disorders but not the implants, which can cost between $60,000 and $100,000 per ear.

“We were surprised [by] the large magnitude of the improvements, not only in quality of life, but also in cognition, ability to function in daily living situations, and speech and language,” lead author John S. Oghalai, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, told this news organization. “Remember, these are children with substantial developmental delays. Any improvements are incredibly important and meaningful.”

All children with severe hearing loss should be referred for cochlear implant evaluation, “regardless of the presence of other disabilities,” Dr. Oghalai said. “The younger this referral happens, the better the outcomes will be.”

Dr. Oghalai and his colleagues reviewed data from 204 children approximately 1-3 years old with hearing aids receiving treatment in Texas and California. Of these, 138 received a cochlear implant and had normal cognitive skills and social competence (referred to as adaptive behavior). Another 37 received a cochlear implant and also met criteria for early developmental impairment (EDI), defined by measures of nonverbal cognitive scores and adaptive functioning.

A third group of 29 children with EDI continued with hearing aids without a cochlear implant.

The children were evaluated annually for 1-5 years, with the average follow-up of 2 years. At baseline, no significant differences were noted between the children with EDI who received implants and those who did not on cognition, language, auditory skills, or measures of parental or child stress.

Overall, children who received implants scored higher on cognitive and social measures than those who continued using hearing aids.

Compared with children with EDI who received implants, children without EDI who received implants had significantly higher developmental scores by the study’s end (P ≤ .001), whereas children with EDI who did not receive implants had significantly lower scores (P ≤ .04).

Children who received implants, and their parents, also experienced less stress than those who did not receive the devices, according to the researchers.

Dr. Oghalai and colleagues also measured developmental trajectories for each cohort. Children without delays who received implants had the best outcomes, but those with EDI who received implants had better outcomes than those with EDI and hearing aids.
 

Findings ‘overdue’

“This study is overdue,” Howard Francis, MD, chair of the department of head and neck surgery & communication sciences at Duke University, Durham, N.C., told this news organization.

Dr. Francis called the new research “reasonably powered and designed,” and said it “documents benefits in the cognitive, language, and patient-child relationship domains” in children who received cochlear implants “compared to children with similar levels of developmental delay whose hearing loss was treated using hearing aids.”  

However, “larger studies will be needed to account for potential effects of older age at intervention in the hearing aid group,” he said. Socioeconomic effects are a topic for future research as well, Dr. Francis added.

The researchers initially wanted to perform a controlled clinical trial. However, by the time they secured funding, health insurance policy had changed to cover cochlear implants for children without EDI because of demonstrated benefits shown in studies.

They also were unable to determine the reasons for families’ decisions to choose implants or hearing aids and were unable to assess the impact of insurance on the choice of implantation. But they did find that families with insurers who would cover implants often did choose the devices. Children were also followed for an average of 2 years, so long-term outcomes are unknown.  

Despite these limitations, the results support the value of cochlear implantation in children with disabilities and developmental delays, and it should be discussed with parents, the researchers concluded.

“Cochlear implants are just a tool; they do not provide speech and language,” Dr. Oghalai said. “Any child with severe hearing loss requires significant therapy and education via sign language, auditory-verbal therapy, or both. Making the decision about what type of therapy to do is personal, and it depends upon the family and the options that are available to them in their community.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The researchers and Dr. Francis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Spending more time doing light-intensity activities and less time being sedentary was associated with a reduced risk for first stroke in a population-based study of middle aged and older adults.

The study also found relatively short periods of moderate to vigorous exercise were associated with reduced stroke risk.

“Our results suggest there are a number of ways to reduce stroke risk simply by moving about,” said lead author Steven P. Hooker, PhD, San Diego State University. “This could be with short periods of moderate to vigorous activity each day, longer periods of light activity, or just sedentary for shorter periods of time. All these things can make a difference.”

Dr. Hooker explained that, while it has been found previously that moderate to vigorous exercise reduces stroke risk, this study gives more information on light-intensity activities and sedentary behavior and the risk of stroke.

“Our results suggest that you don’t have to be a chronic exerciser to reduce stroke risk. Replacing sedentary time with light-intensity activity will be beneficial. Just go for a short walk, get up from your desk and move around the house at regular intervals. That can help to reduce stroke risk,” Dr. Hooker said.  

“Our message is basically to sit less and move more,” he added.  

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study involved 7,607 U.S. individuals without a history of stroke, with oversampling from the southeastern “Stroke Belt,” who were participating in the REGARDS cohort study.

The participants wore an accelerometer to measure physical activity and sedentary behavior for 7 consecutive days. The mean age of the individuals was 63 years; 54% were female, 32% were Black.

Over a mean follow-up of 7.4 years, 286 incident stroke cases occurred.

Results showed that increased levels of physical activity were associated with reduced risk of stroke.

For moderate to vigorous activity, compared with participants in the lowest tertile, those in the highest tertile of total daily time in moderate to vigorous activity had a 43% lower risk of stroke.

In the current study, the amount of moderate to vigorous activity associated with a significant reduction in stroke risk was approximately 25 minutes per day (3 hours per week).

Dr. Hooker noted that moderate to vigorous activity included things such as brisk walking, jogging, bike riding, swimming, or playing tennis or soccer. “Doing such activities for just 25 minutes per day reduced risk of stroke by 43%. This is very doable. Just commuting to work by bicycle would cover you here,” he said.

In terms of light-intensity activity, individuals who did 4-5 hours of light activities each day had a 26% reduced risk for first stroke, compared with those doing less than 3 hours of such light activities.

Dr. Hooker explained that examples of light activity included household chores, such as vacuuming, washing dishes, or going for a gentle stroll. “These activities do not require heaving breathing, increased heart rate or breaking into a sweat. They are activities of daily living and relatively easy to engage in.”

But he pointed out that the 4-5 hours of light activity every day linked to a reduction in stroke risk may be more difficult to achieve than the 25 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity, saying: “You have to have some intentionality here.”
 

Long bouts of sedentary time are harmful

The study also showed that sedentary time was associated with a higher risk for stroke.

The authors noted that time spent in sedentary behavior is of interest because most adults spend most of their awake time being physically inactive.

They report that participants in the highest tertile of sedentary time (more than 13 hours/day) exhibited a 44% increase in risk of stroke, compared with those in the lowest tertile (less than 11 hours/day), and the association remained significant when adjusted for several covariates, including moderate to vigorous activity.

“Even when controlling for the amount of other physical activity, sedentary behavior is still highly associated with risk of stroke. So even if you are active, long bouts of sedentary behavior are harmful,” Dr. Hooker commented.

They also found that longer bouts of sedentary time (more than 17 minutes at a time) were associated with a 54% higher risk of stroke than shorter bouts (less than 8 minutes).

“This suggests that breaking up periods of sedentary behavior into shorter bouts would be beneficial,” Dr. Hooker said.

“If you are going to spend the evening on the couch watching television, try to stand up and walk around every few minutes. Same for if you are sitting at a computer all day – try having a standing workstation, or at least take regular breaks to walk around,” he added.

This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Additional funding was provided by an unrestricted grant from the Coca-Cola Company. The authors report no disclosures.

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

Spending more time doing light-intensity activities and less time being sedentary was associated with a reduced risk for first stroke in a population-based study of middle aged and older adults.

The study also found relatively short periods of moderate to vigorous exercise were associated with reduced stroke risk.

“Our results suggest there are a number of ways to reduce stroke risk simply by moving about,” said lead author Steven P. Hooker, PhD, San Diego State University. “This could be with short periods of moderate to vigorous activity each day, longer periods of light activity, or just sedentary for shorter periods of time. All these things can make a difference.”

Dr. Hooker explained that, while it has been found previously that moderate to vigorous exercise reduces stroke risk, this study gives more information on light-intensity activities and sedentary behavior and the risk of stroke.

“Our results suggest that you don’t have to be a chronic exerciser to reduce stroke risk. Replacing sedentary time with light-intensity activity will be beneficial. Just go for a short walk, get up from your desk and move around the house at regular intervals. That can help to reduce stroke risk,” Dr. Hooker said.  

“Our message is basically to sit less and move more,” he added.  

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study involved 7,607 U.S. individuals without a history of stroke, with oversampling from the southeastern “Stroke Belt,” who were participating in the REGARDS cohort study.

The participants wore an accelerometer to measure physical activity and sedentary behavior for 7 consecutive days. The mean age of the individuals was 63 years; 54% were female, 32% were Black.

Over a mean follow-up of 7.4 years, 286 incident stroke cases occurred.

Results showed that increased levels of physical activity were associated with reduced risk of stroke.

For moderate to vigorous activity, compared with participants in the lowest tertile, those in the highest tertile of total daily time in moderate to vigorous activity had a 43% lower risk of stroke.

In the current study, the amount of moderate to vigorous activity associated with a significant reduction in stroke risk was approximately 25 minutes per day (3 hours per week).

Dr. Hooker noted that moderate to vigorous activity included things such as brisk walking, jogging, bike riding, swimming, or playing tennis or soccer. “Doing such activities for just 25 minutes per day reduced risk of stroke by 43%. This is very doable. Just commuting to work by bicycle would cover you here,” he said.

In terms of light-intensity activity, individuals who did 4-5 hours of light activities each day had a 26% reduced risk for first stroke, compared with those doing less than 3 hours of such light activities.

Dr. Hooker explained that examples of light activity included household chores, such as vacuuming, washing dishes, or going for a gentle stroll. “These activities do not require heaving breathing, increased heart rate or breaking into a sweat. They are activities of daily living and relatively easy to engage in.”

But he pointed out that the 4-5 hours of light activity every day linked to a reduction in stroke risk may be more difficult to achieve than the 25 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity, saying: “You have to have some intentionality here.”
 

Long bouts of sedentary time are harmful

The study also showed that sedentary time was associated with a higher risk for stroke.

The authors noted that time spent in sedentary behavior is of interest because most adults spend most of their awake time being physically inactive.

They report that participants in the highest tertile of sedentary time (more than 13 hours/day) exhibited a 44% increase in risk of stroke, compared with those in the lowest tertile (less than 11 hours/day), and the association remained significant when adjusted for several covariates, including moderate to vigorous activity.

“Even when controlling for the amount of other physical activity, sedentary behavior is still highly associated with risk of stroke. So even if you are active, long bouts of sedentary behavior are harmful,” Dr. Hooker commented.

They also found that longer bouts of sedentary time (more than 17 minutes at a time) were associated with a 54% higher risk of stroke than shorter bouts (less than 8 minutes).

“This suggests that breaking up periods of sedentary behavior into shorter bouts would be beneficial,” Dr. Hooker said.

“If you are going to spend the evening on the couch watching television, try to stand up and walk around every few minutes. Same for if you are sitting at a computer all day – try having a standing workstation, or at least take regular breaks to walk around,” he added.

This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Additional funding was provided by an unrestricted grant from the Coca-Cola Company. The authors report no disclosures.

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

Spending more time doing light-intensity activities and less time being sedentary was associated with a reduced risk for first stroke in a population-based study of middle aged and older adults.

The study also found relatively short periods of moderate to vigorous exercise were associated with reduced stroke risk.

“Our results suggest there are a number of ways to reduce stroke risk simply by moving about,” said lead author Steven P. Hooker, PhD, San Diego State University. “This could be with short periods of moderate to vigorous activity each day, longer periods of light activity, or just sedentary for shorter periods of time. All these things can make a difference.”

Dr. Hooker explained that, while it has been found previously that moderate to vigorous exercise reduces stroke risk, this study gives more information on light-intensity activities and sedentary behavior and the risk of stroke.

“Our results suggest that you don’t have to be a chronic exerciser to reduce stroke risk. Replacing sedentary time with light-intensity activity will be beneficial. Just go for a short walk, get up from your desk and move around the house at regular intervals. That can help to reduce stroke risk,” Dr. Hooker said.  

“Our message is basically to sit less and move more,” he added.  

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study involved 7,607 U.S. individuals without a history of stroke, with oversampling from the southeastern “Stroke Belt,” who were participating in the REGARDS cohort study.

The participants wore an accelerometer to measure physical activity and sedentary behavior for 7 consecutive days. The mean age of the individuals was 63 years; 54% were female, 32% were Black.

Over a mean follow-up of 7.4 years, 286 incident stroke cases occurred.

Results showed that increased levels of physical activity were associated with reduced risk of stroke.

For moderate to vigorous activity, compared with participants in the lowest tertile, those in the highest tertile of total daily time in moderate to vigorous activity had a 43% lower risk of stroke.

In the current study, the amount of moderate to vigorous activity associated with a significant reduction in stroke risk was approximately 25 minutes per day (3 hours per week).

Dr. Hooker noted that moderate to vigorous activity included things such as brisk walking, jogging, bike riding, swimming, or playing tennis or soccer. “Doing such activities for just 25 minutes per day reduced risk of stroke by 43%. This is very doable. Just commuting to work by bicycle would cover you here,” he said.

In terms of light-intensity activity, individuals who did 4-5 hours of light activities each day had a 26% reduced risk for first stroke, compared with those doing less than 3 hours of such light activities.

Dr. Hooker explained that examples of light activity included household chores, such as vacuuming, washing dishes, or going for a gentle stroll. “These activities do not require heaving breathing, increased heart rate or breaking into a sweat. They are activities of daily living and relatively easy to engage in.”

But he pointed out that the 4-5 hours of light activity every day linked to a reduction in stroke risk may be more difficult to achieve than the 25 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity, saying: “You have to have some intentionality here.”
 

Long bouts of sedentary time are harmful

The study also showed that sedentary time was associated with a higher risk for stroke.

The authors noted that time spent in sedentary behavior is of interest because most adults spend most of their awake time being physically inactive.

They report that participants in the highest tertile of sedentary time (more than 13 hours/day) exhibited a 44% increase in risk of stroke, compared with those in the lowest tertile (less than 11 hours/day), and the association remained significant when adjusted for several covariates, including moderate to vigorous activity.

“Even when controlling for the amount of other physical activity, sedentary behavior is still highly associated with risk of stroke. So even if you are active, long bouts of sedentary behavior are harmful,” Dr. Hooker commented.

They also found that longer bouts of sedentary time (more than 17 minutes at a time) were associated with a 54% higher risk of stroke than shorter bouts (less than 8 minutes).

“This suggests that breaking up periods of sedentary behavior into shorter bouts would be beneficial,” Dr. Hooker said.

“If you are going to spend the evening on the couch watching television, try to stand up and walk around every few minutes. Same for if you are sitting at a computer all day – try having a standing workstation, or at least take regular breaks to walk around,” he added.

This research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging. Additional funding was provided by an unrestricted grant from the Coca-Cola Company. The authors report no disclosures.

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

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Positive data support autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, and it’s a “reasonable option for people that have largely failed other disease-modifying options.” But, he said, it remains unclear which patients should undergo the procedure.

An especially pressing question is “whether transplant is an alternative to our high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies” (DMTs) in some high-risk patients, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center, said in a presidential lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

A handful of ongoing randomized controlled trials will bring answers, he said.

Stem cell therapy exists because there are gaps in MS treatment, Dr. Cohen said. “We have now more than 20 medications. However, none of these therapies is completely effective in all patients. In particular, there are some patients with very active disease who continue to have relapses or new MRI lesion activity despite treatment with all of the available therapies.”

And in progressive MS, the efficacy of a couple of agents is modest and mainly for people with ongoing focal lesion activity, he said. “Finally, all of these currently available therapies are intended primarily to prevent the accumulation of damage, and none of them directly promotes repair. So despite our progress in the field, there still are a number of unmet needs.”
 

‘Rebooting’ the immune system

Several types of stem cell therapy exist, including remyelination and anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Cohen said. In his lecture, he focused on immunoablative or myeloablative therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

This “complicated, multistep procedure” involves first eliminating the immune system to get rid of pathogenic inflammatory cells. This “big component is actually the therapy for MS. It’s also the step that has the most potential complications,” he said.

According to Dr. Cohen, the next step has been described as “rebooting” the immune system.

Does this procedure help patients with MS? In relapsing MS, reports suggest there’s “almost complete abrogation of disease activity following transplant,” he said, “a benefit that’s lasted 5-10-15 years. In addition, there’s also a benefit on the accumulation of CNS damage as measured by whole brain atrophy.”

Recent data, he said, suggests that MS patients most likely to benefit are young, developed MS relatively recently, are still ambulatory, and have highly active MS despite treatment with first- and second-line agents.

However, there have only been two randomized controlled trials of stem cell transplantation versus DMT, and Dr. Cohen said both studies have limitations. The first one, from 2015, is very small, with just 21 subjects. The second study – from 2019 – is larger (n = 103), but some patients weren’t taking higher-efficacy DMTs.

Other research is more promising: Dr. Cohen highlighted a 2017 analysis that found patients with relapsing/remitting MS who underwent stem-cell transplantation were more likely to be symptom-free at 2 years (78%-83%) than those who took DMTs in clinical trials (13%-46%).
 

Clinical concerns

As for side effects of stem cell transplantation, Dr. Cohen said, “most patients have some adverse effects during the procedure itself. There may be an MS relapse or pseudorelapses in association with the mobilization and the conditioning regimens.”

A wide range of other adverse effects is possible before the immune system is reconstituted, he said, including reactivation of various virus infections, such as HPV, CMV or EPV (Epstein-Barr virus), secondary autoimmune phenomenon, and secondary malignancy. EPV infection is also common after transplant, and is “probably the most troublesome posttransplant complication from a management point of view,” he said.

“Thankfully, once the patient ... recovers from the transplant procedure, late adverse effects are relatively uncommon, the most common of which would be infertility,” he said. “There have been some reports of successful pregnancies following transplant, but it’s important to advise people who are considering transplant that most men and women have infertility after the procedure. So if they desire to have children afterward, they need to be counseled on necessary preparations to do that.”

What about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which seems a possible risk because of the suppression of the immune system? Dr. Cohen is aware of one case linked to a stem-cell transplant, and it may not have been caused by the procedure.

Cost is another potential obstacle, he noted. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants cost $150,000 on average in the U.S., although the expense varies widely.
 

Unanswered questions

Moving forward, Dr. Cohen said it remains unclear how these procedures fare against the newest generations of DMTs in MS. Five phase 3 randomized controlled trials are now trying to clarify the matter, he said, by pitting stem-cell transplantation against various MS drugs – alemtuzumab, cladribine, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and rituximab.

There are also unanswered questions about the best conditioning regimens in the transplants, he said, and lack of clarity about where to draw the line between eligible and ineligible patients with MS. “How many DMTs does the person have to fail? What’s the upper level of disability beyond which it is unlikely to be helpful and more likely to cause harm?”

He added: “A particular profile that we’re seeing increasingly at our center is someone with very active disease and onset who gets started on a high-efficacy therapy as their first therapy and effectively stops relapses and MRI lesion activity. But within a couple of years, we can tell that they’re already starting to accumulate disability. Is this someone for whom transplant might be useful, and by extension, is transplant appropriate as the first therapy in some patients? And beyond MS, is transplant a consideration for other autoimmune CNS disorders? There are lots of unanswered questions, which future studies will hopefully begin to address.”

Dr. Cohen reports consulting for Biogen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Convelo, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK), Janssen, Mylan, and PSI. He serves as an editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Positive data support autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, and it’s a “reasonable option for people that have largely failed other disease-modifying options.” But, he said, it remains unclear which patients should undergo the procedure.

An especially pressing question is “whether transplant is an alternative to our high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies” (DMTs) in some high-risk patients, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center, said in a presidential lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

A handful of ongoing randomized controlled trials will bring answers, he said.

Stem cell therapy exists because there are gaps in MS treatment, Dr. Cohen said. “We have now more than 20 medications. However, none of these therapies is completely effective in all patients. In particular, there are some patients with very active disease who continue to have relapses or new MRI lesion activity despite treatment with all of the available therapies.”

And in progressive MS, the efficacy of a couple of agents is modest and mainly for people with ongoing focal lesion activity, he said. “Finally, all of these currently available therapies are intended primarily to prevent the accumulation of damage, and none of them directly promotes repair. So despite our progress in the field, there still are a number of unmet needs.”
 

‘Rebooting’ the immune system

Several types of stem cell therapy exist, including remyelination and anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Cohen said. In his lecture, he focused on immunoablative or myeloablative therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

This “complicated, multistep procedure” involves first eliminating the immune system to get rid of pathogenic inflammatory cells. This “big component is actually the therapy for MS. It’s also the step that has the most potential complications,” he said.

According to Dr. Cohen, the next step has been described as “rebooting” the immune system.

Does this procedure help patients with MS? In relapsing MS, reports suggest there’s “almost complete abrogation of disease activity following transplant,” he said, “a benefit that’s lasted 5-10-15 years. In addition, there’s also a benefit on the accumulation of CNS damage as measured by whole brain atrophy.”

Recent data, he said, suggests that MS patients most likely to benefit are young, developed MS relatively recently, are still ambulatory, and have highly active MS despite treatment with first- and second-line agents.

However, there have only been two randomized controlled trials of stem cell transplantation versus DMT, and Dr. Cohen said both studies have limitations. The first one, from 2015, is very small, with just 21 subjects. The second study – from 2019 – is larger (n = 103), but some patients weren’t taking higher-efficacy DMTs.

Other research is more promising: Dr. Cohen highlighted a 2017 analysis that found patients with relapsing/remitting MS who underwent stem-cell transplantation were more likely to be symptom-free at 2 years (78%-83%) than those who took DMTs in clinical trials (13%-46%).
 

Clinical concerns

As for side effects of stem cell transplantation, Dr. Cohen said, “most patients have some adverse effects during the procedure itself. There may be an MS relapse or pseudorelapses in association with the mobilization and the conditioning regimens.”

A wide range of other adverse effects is possible before the immune system is reconstituted, he said, including reactivation of various virus infections, such as HPV, CMV or EPV (Epstein-Barr virus), secondary autoimmune phenomenon, and secondary malignancy. EPV infection is also common after transplant, and is “probably the most troublesome posttransplant complication from a management point of view,” he said.

“Thankfully, once the patient ... recovers from the transplant procedure, late adverse effects are relatively uncommon, the most common of which would be infertility,” he said. “There have been some reports of successful pregnancies following transplant, but it’s important to advise people who are considering transplant that most men and women have infertility after the procedure. So if they desire to have children afterward, they need to be counseled on necessary preparations to do that.”

What about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which seems a possible risk because of the suppression of the immune system? Dr. Cohen is aware of one case linked to a stem-cell transplant, and it may not have been caused by the procedure.

Cost is another potential obstacle, he noted. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants cost $150,000 on average in the U.S., although the expense varies widely.
 

Unanswered questions

Moving forward, Dr. Cohen said it remains unclear how these procedures fare against the newest generations of DMTs in MS. Five phase 3 randomized controlled trials are now trying to clarify the matter, he said, by pitting stem-cell transplantation against various MS drugs – alemtuzumab, cladribine, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and rituximab.

There are also unanswered questions about the best conditioning regimens in the transplants, he said, and lack of clarity about where to draw the line between eligible and ineligible patients with MS. “How many DMTs does the person have to fail? What’s the upper level of disability beyond which it is unlikely to be helpful and more likely to cause harm?”

He added: “A particular profile that we’re seeing increasingly at our center is someone with very active disease and onset who gets started on a high-efficacy therapy as their first therapy and effectively stops relapses and MRI lesion activity. But within a couple of years, we can tell that they’re already starting to accumulate disability. Is this someone for whom transplant might be useful, and by extension, is transplant appropriate as the first therapy in some patients? And beyond MS, is transplant a consideration for other autoimmune CNS disorders? There are lots of unanswered questions, which future studies will hopefully begin to address.”

Dr. Cohen reports consulting for Biogen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Convelo, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK), Janssen, Mylan, and PSI. He serves as an editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Positive data support autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurologist told colleagues, and it’s a “reasonable option for people that have largely failed other disease-modifying options.” But, he said, it remains unclear which patients should undergo the procedure.

An especially pressing question is “whether transplant is an alternative to our high-efficacy disease-modifying therapies” (DMTs) in some high-risk patients, Jeffrey A. Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics at Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center, said in a presidential lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

A handful of ongoing randomized controlled trials will bring answers, he said.

Stem cell therapy exists because there are gaps in MS treatment, Dr. Cohen said. “We have now more than 20 medications. However, none of these therapies is completely effective in all patients. In particular, there are some patients with very active disease who continue to have relapses or new MRI lesion activity despite treatment with all of the available therapies.”

And in progressive MS, the efficacy of a couple of agents is modest and mainly for people with ongoing focal lesion activity, he said. “Finally, all of these currently available therapies are intended primarily to prevent the accumulation of damage, and none of them directly promotes repair. So despite our progress in the field, there still are a number of unmet needs.”
 

‘Rebooting’ the immune system

Several types of stem cell therapy exist, including remyelination and anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Cohen said. In his lecture, he focused on immunoablative or myeloablative therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

This “complicated, multistep procedure” involves first eliminating the immune system to get rid of pathogenic inflammatory cells. This “big component is actually the therapy for MS. It’s also the step that has the most potential complications,” he said.

According to Dr. Cohen, the next step has been described as “rebooting” the immune system.

Does this procedure help patients with MS? In relapsing MS, reports suggest there’s “almost complete abrogation of disease activity following transplant,” he said, “a benefit that’s lasted 5-10-15 years. In addition, there’s also a benefit on the accumulation of CNS damage as measured by whole brain atrophy.”

Recent data, he said, suggests that MS patients most likely to benefit are young, developed MS relatively recently, are still ambulatory, and have highly active MS despite treatment with first- and second-line agents.

However, there have only been two randomized controlled trials of stem cell transplantation versus DMT, and Dr. Cohen said both studies have limitations. The first one, from 2015, is very small, with just 21 subjects. The second study – from 2019 – is larger (n = 103), but some patients weren’t taking higher-efficacy DMTs.

Other research is more promising: Dr. Cohen highlighted a 2017 analysis that found patients with relapsing/remitting MS who underwent stem-cell transplantation were more likely to be symptom-free at 2 years (78%-83%) than those who took DMTs in clinical trials (13%-46%).
 

Clinical concerns

As for side effects of stem cell transplantation, Dr. Cohen said, “most patients have some adverse effects during the procedure itself. There may be an MS relapse or pseudorelapses in association with the mobilization and the conditioning regimens.”

A wide range of other adverse effects is possible before the immune system is reconstituted, he said, including reactivation of various virus infections, such as HPV, CMV or EPV (Epstein-Barr virus), secondary autoimmune phenomenon, and secondary malignancy. EPV infection is also common after transplant, and is “probably the most troublesome posttransplant complication from a management point of view,” he said.

“Thankfully, once the patient ... recovers from the transplant procedure, late adverse effects are relatively uncommon, the most common of which would be infertility,” he said. “There have been some reports of successful pregnancies following transplant, but it’s important to advise people who are considering transplant that most men and women have infertility after the procedure. So if they desire to have children afterward, they need to be counseled on necessary preparations to do that.”

What about progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), which seems a possible risk because of the suppression of the immune system? Dr. Cohen is aware of one case linked to a stem-cell transplant, and it may not have been caused by the procedure.

Cost is another potential obstacle, he noted. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplants cost $150,000 on average in the U.S., although the expense varies widely.
 

Unanswered questions

Moving forward, Dr. Cohen said it remains unclear how these procedures fare against the newest generations of DMTs in MS. Five phase 3 randomized controlled trials are now trying to clarify the matter, he said, by pitting stem-cell transplantation against various MS drugs – alemtuzumab, cladribine, natalizumab, ocrelizumab, and rituximab.

There are also unanswered questions about the best conditioning regimens in the transplants, he said, and lack of clarity about where to draw the line between eligible and ineligible patients with MS. “How many DMTs does the person have to fail? What’s the upper level of disability beyond which it is unlikely to be helpful and more likely to cause harm?”

He added: “A particular profile that we’re seeing increasingly at our center is someone with very active disease and onset who gets started on a high-efficacy therapy as their first therapy and effectively stops relapses and MRI lesion activity. But within a couple of years, we can tell that they’re already starting to accumulate disability. Is this someone for whom transplant might be useful, and by extension, is transplant appropriate as the first therapy in some patients? And beyond MS, is transplant a consideration for other autoimmune CNS disorders? There are lots of unanswered questions, which future studies will hopefully begin to address.”

Dr. Cohen reports consulting for Biogen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Convelo, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline (now GSK), Janssen, Mylan, and PSI. He serves as an editor of Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)

In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.

In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that patients with MS aren’t at higher risk of COVID infection, although hospitalization may be more common. There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.

Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.

He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).

Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.

“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”

As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.

COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”

Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.

Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)

In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.

In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that patients with MS aren’t at higher risk of COVID infection, although hospitalization may be more common. There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.

Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.

He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).

Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.

“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”

As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.

COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”

Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.

Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – While patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) don’t seem to be more likely to be infected with COVID-19, a neurologist told colleagues, the jury is still out over whether they face a higher mortality risk, especially if they take certain disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)

In regard to MS overall, “the data is conflicting, but any increased risk of mortality appears to be slight. And it appears to be chiefly the consequences associated with comorbidities as seen in other populations,” Joseph R. Berger, MD, said at the John F. Kurtzke Memorial Lecture at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “If you’re old, if you’re infirm, if you have obesity and cardiovascular disease and underlying pulmonary disease, you’re at risk of dying yourself. It’s not so much the MS,” said Dr. Berger, professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Berger had his own COVID-19 story to tell: He couldn’t attend the conference in person because he was quarantining in Portugal since he tested positive. At press time, he was faring well but had reported 4 days of intense back pain.

In regard to MS and COVID-19, Dr. Berger said consistent research suggests that patients with MS aren’t at higher risk of COVID infection, although hospitalization may be more common. There may be a very small increase in risk of MS relapse in patients with COVID-19, he said, but pseudorelapses are far more common. As for mortality, he highlighted a 2021 pooled analysis of 18 studies with 5,634 patients that suggested they had a crude death rate of 1.97%, standardized lethality ratio of 1.24, and a 24% increased risk of death.

Dr. Berger is skeptical of these findings, however, in light of overall death rate numbers. Early on in the pandemic, the fatality rate in China was estimated at 2.3%.

He said he’s more convinced by a retrospective 2021 German COVID-19 study that compared 551 patients with MS to 156,973 other patients and found lower rates of ICU admission (17.1% in patients with MS vs. 22.7% in those without it), ventilation (9.8% vs. 14.5%), and in‐hospital mortality (11.1% vs. 19.3%).

Meanwhile, a 2021 systematic review found no increase in mortality among 4,310 patients with MS (3% death rate, 20.7% hospitalization), but the death risk was highest among those on no DMTs and those taking anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The COViMS Registry has reported similar findings regarding the anti-CD20 drugs rituximab and ocrelizumab, Dr. Berger noted, and a pooled study of Italian and French data links the monoclonal antibodies to more severe COVID. A 2021 aggregated study also linked the antibodies to increased risk of hospitalization and ICU admission.

“Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies appear to increase the risk of hospitalization and perhaps the acquisition of the virus, ICU admission, maybe death,” he said, with rituximab appearing to pose the most risk, followed by ocrelizumab and ofatumumab. “And it appears that the platform [older] therapies may be associated with lesser mortality.”

As for nondrug factors, Dr. Berger said, studies have linked higher risk to age, male sex, and comorbidities.

COVID-19 vaccines are another area of concern, he said. “The recommendation is to administer vaccination prior to the initiation of the anti-CD20s, alemtuzumab, and cladribine, and wait a period of time. Three months is ideal, maybe a little longer, because it appears that the antibody response seems to be best as your CD19 count starts to return.”

Finally, Dr. Berger noted that “passive vaccination” is now available via Evusheld (tixagevimab and cilgavimab) as a preexposure treatment for people with moderate to severe immune compromise who may not mount an effective immune response to COVID-19 vaccination or those who are allergic.

Dr. Berger reported multiple disclosures.

Cannabis-based products may control chronic pain as effectively as opioids, but adverse effects are common, and long-term safety remains unknown, according to a new study.

Several other systematic reviews have recently evaluated cannabinoids for treating chronic pain, but the new study’s methodology was “distinct” in “important ways,” leading to “conclusions that differ from other reviews,” according to the authors of the paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the new systematic review, synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios were associated with moderate improvements in pain, whereas plant-based products with comparable THC:CBD ratios offered less relief, said study author Marian S. McDonagh, PharmD, professor of medical informatics and clinical epidemiology, and codirector of the Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

Specifically, the investigators stratified cannabis-based interventions according to relative content of two key cannabinoids: THC and CBD. Products were sorted into five categories: high THC:CBD ratio (at least 2:1), comparable THC:CBD ratio (less than 2:1 but more than 1:2), low THC:CBD ratio (no more than 1:2), whole-plant cannabis products, and other cannabinoids.

“In preclinical studies, THC and related compounds have demonstrated analgesic properties, although its psychoactive effects and addiction potential may limit its suitability as an analgesic,” the investigators wrote. “CBD and other cannabinoids may also have some analgesic or anti-inflammatory properties and are not believed to be psychoactive or addictive. Given the variation in analgesic effect with THC and CBD, response may differ according to the ratio of THC to CBD in products used to treat pain.”

The final analysis included 18 randomized placebo-controlled trials involving 1,740 individuals and 7 cohort studies involving 13,095 individuals. Most of the studies were short-term, lasting 1-6 months.

Pain was scored on a ten-point scale, with improvements reported as the mean difference from baseline to post treatment. A mean difference in pain score of 0.5-1.0 was considered a “small effect,” an improvement of 1-2 points was considered a “moderate effect,” and an improvement greater than 2 points was considered a “large effect.”
 

Cannabis-based products with relatively high THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy

Synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios offered moderate pain relief, based on a mean difference in pain score of –1.15 (95% confidence interval, –1.99 to –0.54), whereas products with comparable THC:CBD ratios were associated with a small effect on pain, with a mean difference of –0.52 (95% CI, –0.95 to –0.19).

According to Dr. McDonagh, treatment response rates were on par with response rates for more conventional treatments, “such as opioids or specific antidepressant drugs,” but data for the cannabis-based products are weaker.

“The amount of evidence available for cannabis-related products is very limited for [response rates], and therefore less certain,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “The average reduction in pain severity is also similar to some other treatments, but we do not have studies directly comparing these treatments to draw conclusions.”

Although the cannabis-based products with relatively high and comparable THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy, they were also associated with “moderate to large increased risk for dizziness, sedation, and nausea,” the investigators wrote, noting that evidence was insufficient to characterize other “key adverse event outcomes” that may occur with long-term use, such as “psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive deficits.”

For products with low THC:CBD ratios, or without reported THC:CBD ratios, data were too scarce to reach any conclusions at all about safety or efficacy, highlighting the sizable knowledge gaps that remain in the area, the authors said.

“The current evidence on cannabis-related products for chronic pain is quite limited,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “Patients with chronic pain should consult with their doctor to discuss which of the many options for treating chronic pain is best for them to start with.”
 

Patients may face resistance when asking about cannabis

According to Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, and Daniel J. Clauw, MD, of the anesthesiology department and Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, patients with chronic pain may face resistance, or even risk of being reported, when asking about cannabis-based products.

“Some physicians cite lack of data as rationale for not engaging with patients who wish to use or currently use cannabis,” Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Such practices may reflect consideration of cannabis solely as a drug of misuse (even in the 37 states where medical cannabis is legal) and requirements to refer patients who disclose or test positive for cannabis use to addiction services or decline to refill opioid prescriptions.”

Instead of shutting patients out, Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw suggested clinicians engage in an “open information exchange” with their patients that focuses on “pragmatism, patient experience, known cannabinoid effects, and harm reduction.” In these conversations, the editorialists recommend noting that, “as with other analgesics, some persons will benefit, and others will not.”

They also offered some practical guidance: “Clinicians could suggest using tinctures (effect onset, 15-45 minutes) for breakthrough pain and edibles or capsules (which last about 6-8 hours) for extended relief. ... The scientific literature suggests that CBD doses could start at 5-10 mg twice daily and increase to 40-50 mg daily, whereas THC doses could start at 0.5-3 mg (initially at night) and increase to 30-40 mg/day.”

David Copenhaver, MD, MPH, clinical professor and chief of the division of pain medicine at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, shared a similar clinical mindset for patients choosing between opioids and cannabis-based products, specifically, CBD.

Compared with opioids, “the side-effect profile for CBD is less and the risk of mortality is less,” Dr. Copenhaver said in an interview, pointing out that nobody, to his knowledge, has ever died from an overdose of cannabis alone, and that CBD doses up to 1,000 mg/kg have been safely tolerated in people. “You present that, and most patients will say, ‘You know, I’d like to give this a try.’”

If so, Dr. Copenhaver makes sure patients know about a nonmedical risk: “The risk to the pocketbook.” Unlike opioids, which are covered under most insurance policies, most cannabis-based therapies are self-pay.

Buyers may get what they pay for, Dr. Copenhaver said, since products vary in quality, as do the dispensaries, from “very modest,” to highly sophisticated, with some even using chromatographic datasets to support the purity of their products.

Dr. Copenhaver steers his patients toward these more sophisticated retailers. Their expertise appears to be paying off, he said, not only in relief for patients, but also in market share. “Survival of the most fit will occur in the marketplace based on the results,” he said. “Unfortunately, some of that information doesn’t get percolated out into the literature.”

For investigators to fully uncover what cannabis-based products can do for chronic pain, Dr. Copenhaver said they need to get as “granular” as the leading dispensaries, which may first require recognition of the “very expansive opportunity” that less-studied cannabinoids may provide.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators, Dr. Boehnke, Dr. Clauw, and Dr. Copenhaver, disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Cannabis-based products may control chronic pain as effectively as opioids, but adverse effects are common, and long-term safety remains unknown, according to a new study.

Several other systematic reviews have recently evaluated cannabinoids for treating chronic pain, but the new study’s methodology was “distinct” in “important ways,” leading to “conclusions that differ from other reviews,” according to the authors of the paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the new systematic review, synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios were associated with moderate improvements in pain, whereas plant-based products with comparable THC:CBD ratios offered less relief, said study author Marian S. McDonagh, PharmD, professor of medical informatics and clinical epidemiology, and codirector of the Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

Specifically, the investigators stratified cannabis-based interventions according to relative content of two key cannabinoids: THC and CBD. Products were sorted into five categories: high THC:CBD ratio (at least 2:1), comparable THC:CBD ratio (less than 2:1 but more than 1:2), low THC:CBD ratio (no more than 1:2), whole-plant cannabis products, and other cannabinoids.

“In preclinical studies, THC and related compounds have demonstrated analgesic properties, although its psychoactive effects and addiction potential may limit its suitability as an analgesic,” the investigators wrote. “CBD and other cannabinoids may also have some analgesic or anti-inflammatory properties and are not believed to be psychoactive or addictive. Given the variation in analgesic effect with THC and CBD, response may differ according to the ratio of THC to CBD in products used to treat pain.”

The final analysis included 18 randomized placebo-controlled trials involving 1,740 individuals and 7 cohort studies involving 13,095 individuals. Most of the studies were short-term, lasting 1-6 months.

Pain was scored on a ten-point scale, with improvements reported as the mean difference from baseline to post treatment. A mean difference in pain score of 0.5-1.0 was considered a “small effect,” an improvement of 1-2 points was considered a “moderate effect,” and an improvement greater than 2 points was considered a “large effect.”
 

Cannabis-based products with relatively high THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy

Synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios offered moderate pain relief, based on a mean difference in pain score of –1.15 (95% confidence interval, –1.99 to –0.54), whereas products with comparable THC:CBD ratios were associated with a small effect on pain, with a mean difference of –0.52 (95% CI, –0.95 to –0.19).

According to Dr. McDonagh, treatment response rates were on par with response rates for more conventional treatments, “such as opioids or specific antidepressant drugs,” but data for the cannabis-based products are weaker.

“The amount of evidence available for cannabis-related products is very limited for [response rates], and therefore less certain,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “The average reduction in pain severity is also similar to some other treatments, but we do not have studies directly comparing these treatments to draw conclusions.”

Although the cannabis-based products with relatively high and comparable THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy, they were also associated with “moderate to large increased risk for dizziness, sedation, and nausea,” the investigators wrote, noting that evidence was insufficient to characterize other “key adverse event outcomes” that may occur with long-term use, such as “psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive deficits.”

For products with low THC:CBD ratios, or without reported THC:CBD ratios, data were too scarce to reach any conclusions at all about safety or efficacy, highlighting the sizable knowledge gaps that remain in the area, the authors said.

“The current evidence on cannabis-related products for chronic pain is quite limited,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “Patients with chronic pain should consult with their doctor to discuss which of the many options for treating chronic pain is best for them to start with.”
 

Patients may face resistance when asking about cannabis

According to Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, and Daniel J. Clauw, MD, of the anesthesiology department and Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, patients with chronic pain may face resistance, or even risk of being reported, when asking about cannabis-based products.

“Some physicians cite lack of data as rationale for not engaging with patients who wish to use or currently use cannabis,” Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Such practices may reflect consideration of cannabis solely as a drug of misuse (even in the 37 states where medical cannabis is legal) and requirements to refer patients who disclose or test positive for cannabis use to addiction services or decline to refill opioid prescriptions.”

Instead of shutting patients out, Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw suggested clinicians engage in an “open information exchange” with their patients that focuses on “pragmatism, patient experience, known cannabinoid effects, and harm reduction.” In these conversations, the editorialists recommend noting that, “as with other analgesics, some persons will benefit, and others will not.”

They also offered some practical guidance: “Clinicians could suggest using tinctures (effect onset, 15-45 minutes) for breakthrough pain and edibles or capsules (which last about 6-8 hours) for extended relief. ... The scientific literature suggests that CBD doses could start at 5-10 mg twice daily and increase to 40-50 mg daily, whereas THC doses could start at 0.5-3 mg (initially at night) and increase to 30-40 mg/day.”

David Copenhaver, MD, MPH, clinical professor and chief of the division of pain medicine at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, shared a similar clinical mindset for patients choosing between opioids and cannabis-based products, specifically, CBD.

Compared with opioids, “the side-effect profile for CBD is less and the risk of mortality is less,” Dr. Copenhaver said in an interview, pointing out that nobody, to his knowledge, has ever died from an overdose of cannabis alone, and that CBD doses up to 1,000 mg/kg have been safely tolerated in people. “You present that, and most patients will say, ‘You know, I’d like to give this a try.’”

If so, Dr. Copenhaver makes sure patients know about a nonmedical risk: “The risk to the pocketbook.” Unlike opioids, which are covered under most insurance policies, most cannabis-based therapies are self-pay.

Buyers may get what they pay for, Dr. Copenhaver said, since products vary in quality, as do the dispensaries, from “very modest,” to highly sophisticated, with some even using chromatographic datasets to support the purity of their products.

Dr. Copenhaver steers his patients toward these more sophisticated retailers. Their expertise appears to be paying off, he said, not only in relief for patients, but also in market share. “Survival of the most fit will occur in the marketplace based on the results,” he said. “Unfortunately, some of that information doesn’t get percolated out into the literature.”

For investigators to fully uncover what cannabis-based products can do for chronic pain, Dr. Copenhaver said they need to get as “granular” as the leading dispensaries, which may first require recognition of the “very expansive opportunity” that less-studied cannabinoids may provide.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators, Dr. Boehnke, Dr. Clauw, and Dr. Copenhaver, disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Cannabis-based products may control chronic pain as effectively as opioids, but adverse effects are common, and long-term safety remains unknown, according to a new study.

Several other systematic reviews have recently evaluated cannabinoids for treating chronic pain, but the new study’s methodology was “distinct” in “important ways,” leading to “conclusions that differ from other reviews,” according to the authors of the paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the new systematic review, synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios were associated with moderate improvements in pain, whereas plant-based products with comparable THC:CBD ratios offered less relief, said study author Marian S. McDonagh, PharmD, professor of medical informatics and clinical epidemiology, and codirector of the Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

Specifically, the investigators stratified cannabis-based interventions according to relative content of two key cannabinoids: THC and CBD. Products were sorted into five categories: high THC:CBD ratio (at least 2:1), comparable THC:CBD ratio (less than 2:1 but more than 1:2), low THC:CBD ratio (no more than 1:2), whole-plant cannabis products, and other cannabinoids.

“In preclinical studies, THC and related compounds have demonstrated analgesic properties, although its psychoactive effects and addiction potential may limit its suitability as an analgesic,” the investigators wrote. “CBD and other cannabinoids may also have some analgesic or anti-inflammatory properties and are not believed to be psychoactive or addictive. Given the variation in analgesic effect with THC and CBD, response may differ according to the ratio of THC to CBD in products used to treat pain.”

The final analysis included 18 randomized placebo-controlled trials involving 1,740 individuals and 7 cohort studies involving 13,095 individuals. Most of the studies were short-term, lasting 1-6 months.

Pain was scored on a ten-point scale, with improvements reported as the mean difference from baseline to post treatment. A mean difference in pain score of 0.5-1.0 was considered a “small effect,” an improvement of 1-2 points was considered a “moderate effect,” and an improvement greater than 2 points was considered a “large effect.”
 

Cannabis-based products with relatively high THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy

Synthetic products with high THC:CBD ratios offered moderate pain relief, based on a mean difference in pain score of –1.15 (95% confidence interval, –1.99 to –0.54), whereas products with comparable THC:CBD ratios were associated with a small effect on pain, with a mean difference of –0.52 (95% CI, –0.95 to –0.19).

According to Dr. McDonagh, treatment response rates were on par with response rates for more conventional treatments, “such as opioids or specific antidepressant drugs,” but data for the cannabis-based products are weaker.

“The amount of evidence available for cannabis-related products is very limited for [response rates], and therefore less certain,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “The average reduction in pain severity is also similar to some other treatments, but we do not have studies directly comparing these treatments to draw conclusions.”

Although the cannabis-based products with relatively high and comparable THC:CBD ratios showed efficacy, they were also associated with “moderate to large increased risk for dizziness, sedation, and nausea,” the investigators wrote, noting that evidence was insufficient to characterize other “key adverse event outcomes” that may occur with long-term use, such as “psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive deficits.”

For products with low THC:CBD ratios, or without reported THC:CBD ratios, data were too scarce to reach any conclusions at all about safety or efficacy, highlighting the sizable knowledge gaps that remain in the area, the authors said.

“The current evidence on cannabis-related products for chronic pain is quite limited,” Dr. McDonagh said in an interview. “Patients with chronic pain should consult with their doctor to discuss which of the many options for treating chronic pain is best for them to start with.”
 

Patients may face resistance when asking about cannabis

According to Kevin F. Boehnke, PhD, and Daniel J. Clauw, MD, of the anesthesiology department and Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, patients with chronic pain may face resistance, or even risk of being reported, when asking about cannabis-based products.

“Some physicians cite lack of data as rationale for not engaging with patients who wish to use or currently use cannabis,” Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Such practices may reflect consideration of cannabis solely as a drug of misuse (even in the 37 states where medical cannabis is legal) and requirements to refer patients who disclose or test positive for cannabis use to addiction services or decline to refill opioid prescriptions.”

Instead of shutting patients out, Dr. Boehnke and Dr. Clauw suggested clinicians engage in an “open information exchange” with their patients that focuses on “pragmatism, patient experience, known cannabinoid effects, and harm reduction.” In these conversations, the editorialists recommend noting that, “as with other analgesics, some persons will benefit, and others will not.”

They also offered some practical guidance: “Clinicians could suggest using tinctures (effect onset, 15-45 minutes) for breakthrough pain and edibles or capsules (which last about 6-8 hours) for extended relief. ... The scientific literature suggests that CBD doses could start at 5-10 mg twice daily and increase to 40-50 mg daily, whereas THC doses could start at 0.5-3 mg (initially at night) and increase to 30-40 mg/day.”

David Copenhaver, MD, MPH, clinical professor and chief of the division of pain medicine at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, shared a similar clinical mindset for patients choosing between opioids and cannabis-based products, specifically, CBD.

Compared with opioids, “the side-effect profile for CBD is less and the risk of mortality is less,” Dr. Copenhaver said in an interview, pointing out that nobody, to his knowledge, has ever died from an overdose of cannabis alone, and that CBD doses up to 1,000 mg/kg have been safely tolerated in people. “You present that, and most patients will say, ‘You know, I’d like to give this a try.’”

If so, Dr. Copenhaver makes sure patients know about a nonmedical risk: “The risk to the pocketbook.” Unlike opioids, which are covered under most insurance policies, most cannabis-based therapies are self-pay.

Buyers may get what they pay for, Dr. Copenhaver said, since products vary in quality, as do the dispensaries, from “very modest,” to highly sophisticated, with some even using chromatographic datasets to support the purity of their products.

Dr. Copenhaver steers his patients toward these more sophisticated retailers. Their expertise appears to be paying off, he said, not only in relief for patients, but also in market share. “Survival of the most fit will occur in the marketplace based on the results,” he said. “Unfortunately, some of that information doesn’t get percolated out into the literature.”

For investigators to fully uncover what cannabis-based products can do for chronic pain, Dr. Copenhaver said they need to get as “granular” as the leading dispensaries, which may first require recognition of the “very expansive opportunity” that less-studied cannabinoids may provide.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators, Dr. Boehnke, Dr. Clauw, and Dr. Copenhaver, disclosed no conflicts of interest.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

A novel blood-based assay could one day be used to diagnose Parkinson’s disease and possibly other chronic inflammatory conditions, according to investigators. In addition to being highly accurate, the assay, which detects changes in expression of cytochrome P450s, is faster and easier to perform than other Parkinson’s disease assays under investigation, reported lead author Kohei Ihara, PhD, of Kobe University, Japan, and colleagues.

“Effective diagnostic systems and biomarkers for patients without subjective motor symptoms have not yet been established,” the investigators wrote in Nature Scientific Reports. “Consequently, the poor diagnostic options for Parkinson’s disease delay the development of therapeutic approaches and medication. Therefore, the development of efficient diagnostic systems and biomarkers is crucial for overcoming Parkinson’s disease.”

According to Dr. Ihara and colleagues, various cytochrome P450 expression patterns and associated serum metabolites correlate with chronic conditions, making them possible markers of disease. To detect these changes, they developed the present assay. It relies upon recombinant P450s expressed on the surface of Escherichia coli. By mixing the E. coli with serum and Vivid, a fluorescent substrate, the investigators can measure “the inhibition rate of the Vivid decomposition reaction” that was driven by “serum metabolites associated with P450s,” revealing underlying expression and, if present, disease.

After some promising initial experiments with mouse models of ulcerative colitis and diabetes, Dr. Ihara and colleagues focused on a rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Evaluating inhibition rates associated with four P450s revealed area-under-the-curve (AUC) values of 0.814-0.914. Two of those P450s were also associated with progression of disease symptoms.

“Therefore, we concluded that the P450 inhibition assay could discriminate between Parkinson’s disease model rats and control rats,” the investigators wrote.

Next, the investigators tested the approach with a case-control study involving 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and 20 healthy volunteers. Twelve P450s were analyzed, three of which revealed significant differences between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls, with AUCs ranging from 0.740-0.775. Each of the three P450 enzymes also correlated significantly with stage of disease on the Hoehn & Yahr scale, although severity and frequency of symptoms were not reported.

To increase accuracy of the technique, the investigators developed a logistic regression model using two of the three P450s, generating an AUC of 0.910. Further testing showed that the P450 inhibition assay could distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease, as well as other chronic inflammatory diseases.

“The P450 inhibition assay is easier to perform and is faster than other assays because this assay does not require pretreatment, such as purification of exosomes, and it involves a single enzymatic reaction,” the investigators wrote, suggesting that the assay may be suitable for real-world diagnosis.
 

‘Promising’ findings need replication

According to Douglas Galasko, MD, a neurologist and professor of neurosciences at UC San Diego Health, the reported accuracy of the assay “seems spectacular,” and the findings are “promising,” but they need to be replicated, “particularly in early-stage patients where the diagnosis [of Parkinson’s disease] is more difficult and important to make.” In practice, the assay would likely see greatest usage for “early diagnosis or diagnosis of unusual or challenging cases,” so accuracy testing needs to be conducted in this setting, he said.

Dr. Galasko, who was not involved in the study, predicted that liquid biopsy for detecting Parkinson’s disease is unlikely to hit the clinic floor anytime soon. “We’re not really close with blood-based biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease,” he said, “unlike the situation for Alzheimer’s disease, where there are several promising blood-based biomarkers.”

For diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Galasko suggested that assays using skin biopsies to measure alpha-synuclein accumulation may be closer to approval.

The study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K20223 and the Sumitomo Electric Industries Group Corporate Social Responsibility Foundation. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A novel blood-based assay could one day be used to diagnose Parkinson’s disease and possibly other chronic inflammatory conditions, according to investigators. In addition to being highly accurate, the assay, which detects changes in expression of cytochrome P450s, is faster and easier to perform than other Parkinson’s disease assays under investigation, reported lead author Kohei Ihara, PhD, of Kobe University, Japan, and colleagues.

“Effective diagnostic systems and biomarkers for patients without subjective motor symptoms have not yet been established,” the investigators wrote in Nature Scientific Reports. “Consequently, the poor diagnostic options for Parkinson’s disease delay the development of therapeutic approaches and medication. Therefore, the development of efficient diagnostic systems and biomarkers is crucial for overcoming Parkinson’s disease.”

According to Dr. Ihara and colleagues, various cytochrome P450 expression patterns and associated serum metabolites correlate with chronic conditions, making them possible markers of disease. To detect these changes, they developed the present assay. It relies upon recombinant P450s expressed on the surface of Escherichia coli. By mixing the E. coli with serum and Vivid, a fluorescent substrate, the investigators can measure “the inhibition rate of the Vivid decomposition reaction” that was driven by “serum metabolites associated with P450s,” revealing underlying expression and, if present, disease.

After some promising initial experiments with mouse models of ulcerative colitis and diabetes, Dr. Ihara and colleagues focused on a rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Evaluating inhibition rates associated with four P450s revealed area-under-the-curve (AUC) values of 0.814-0.914. Two of those P450s were also associated with progression of disease symptoms.

“Therefore, we concluded that the P450 inhibition assay could discriminate between Parkinson’s disease model rats and control rats,” the investigators wrote.

Next, the investigators tested the approach with a case-control study involving 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and 20 healthy volunteers. Twelve P450s were analyzed, three of which revealed significant differences between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls, with AUCs ranging from 0.740-0.775. Each of the three P450 enzymes also correlated significantly with stage of disease on the Hoehn & Yahr scale, although severity and frequency of symptoms were not reported.

To increase accuracy of the technique, the investigators developed a logistic regression model using two of the three P450s, generating an AUC of 0.910. Further testing showed that the P450 inhibition assay could distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease, as well as other chronic inflammatory diseases.

“The P450 inhibition assay is easier to perform and is faster than other assays because this assay does not require pretreatment, such as purification of exosomes, and it involves a single enzymatic reaction,” the investigators wrote, suggesting that the assay may be suitable for real-world diagnosis.
 

‘Promising’ findings need replication

According to Douglas Galasko, MD, a neurologist and professor of neurosciences at UC San Diego Health, the reported accuracy of the assay “seems spectacular,” and the findings are “promising,” but they need to be replicated, “particularly in early-stage patients where the diagnosis [of Parkinson’s disease] is more difficult and important to make.” In practice, the assay would likely see greatest usage for “early diagnosis or diagnosis of unusual or challenging cases,” so accuracy testing needs to be conducted in this setting, he said.

Dr. Galasko, who was not involved in the study, predicted that liquid biopsy for detecting Parkinson’s disease is unlikely to hit the clinic floor anytime soon. “We’re not really close with blood-based biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease,” he said, “unlike the situation for Alzheimer’s disease, where there are several promising blood-based biomarkers.”

For diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Galasko suggested that assays using skin biopsies to measure alpha-synuclein accumulation may be closer to approval.

The study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K20223 and the Sumitomo Electric Industries Group Corporate Social Responsibility Foundation. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A novel blood-based assay could one day be used to diagnose Parkinson’s disease and possibly other chronic inflammatory conditions, according to investigators. In addition to being highly accurate, the assay, which detects changes in expression of cytochrome P450s, is faster and easier to perform than other Parkinson’s disease assays under investigation, reported lead author Kohei Ihara, PhD, of Kobe University, Japan, and colleagues.

“Effective diagnostic systems and biomarkers for patients without subjective motor symptoms have not yet been established,” the investigators wrote in Nature Scientific Reports. “Consequently, the poor diagnostic options for Parkinson’s disease delay the development of therapeutic approaches and medication. Therefore, the development of efficient diagnostic systems and biomarkers is crucial for overcoming Parkinson’s disease.”

According to Dr. Ihara and colleagues, various cytochrome P450 expression patterns and associated serum metabolites correlate with chronic conditions, making them possible markers of disease. To detect these changes, they developed the present assay. It relies upon recombinant P450s expressed on the surface of Escherichia coli. By mixing the E. coli with serum and Vivid, a fluorescent substrate, the investigators can measure “the inhibition rate of the Vivid decomposition reaction” that was driven by “serum metabolites associated with P450s,” revealing underlying expression and, if present, disease.

After some promising initial experiments with mouse models of ulcerative colitis and diabetes, Dr. Ihara and colleagues focused on a rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Evaluating inhibition rates associated with four P450s revealed area-under-the-curve (AUC) values of 0.814-0.914. Two of those P450s were also associated with progression of disease symptoms.

“Therefore, we concluded that the P450 inhibition assay could discriminate between Parkinson’s disease model rats and control rats,” the investigators wrote.

Next, the investigators tested the approach with a case-control study involving 20 patients with Parkinson’s disease and 20 healthy volunteers. Twelve P450s were analyzed, three of which revealed significant differences between patients with Parkinson’s disease and controls, with AUCs ranging from 0.740-0.775. Each of the three P450 enzymes also correlated significantly with stage of disease on the Hoehn & Yahr scale, although severity and frequency of symptoms were not reported.

To increase accuracy of the technique, the investigators developed a logistic regression model using two of the three P450s, generating an AUC of 0.910. Further testing showed that the P450 inhibition assay could distinguish between patients with Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease, as well as other chronic inflammatory diseases.

“The P450 inhibition assay is easier to perform and is faster than other assays because this assay does not require pretreatment, such as purification of exosomes, and it involves a single enzymatic reaction,” the investigators wrote, suggesting that the assay may be suitable for real-world diagnosis.
 

‘Promising’ findings need replication

According to Douglas Galasko, MD, a neurologist and professor of neurosciences at UC San Diego Health, the reported accuracy of the assay “seems spectacular,” and the findings are “promising,” but they need to be replicated, “particularly in early-stage patients where the diagnosis [of Parkinson’s disease] is more difficult and important to make.” In practice, the assay would likely see greatest usage for “early diagnosis or diagnosis of unusual or challenging cases,” so accuracy testing needs to be conducted in this setting, he said.

Dr. Galasko, who was not involved in the study, predicted that liquid biopsy for detecting Parkinson’s disease is unlikely to hit the clinic floor anytime soon. “We’re not really close with blood-based biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease,” he said, “unlike the situation for Alzheimer’s disease, where there are several promising blood-based biomarkers.”

For diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, Dr. Galasko suggested that assays using skin biopsies to measure alpha-synuclein accumulation may be closer to approval.

The study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 20K20223 and the Sumitomo Electric Industries Group Corporate Social Responsibility Foundation. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.