MDedge Neurology

March 30 was National Doctor’s Day, which resulted in my getting all kinds of generic emails from pharmaceutical reps, market research places, insurance companies, and the two hospitals I’m on staff at.

They all had similar meaningless platitudes thanking me for what I do, reassuring me that I’m appreciated, that I make the world a better place, yadda yadda yadda. The hospital even said I could swing by the medical staff office and pick up an “appreciation bag,” which I’m told contained a T-shirt, bottle of hand sanitizer, and a few other trinkets.

Spare me.

I’m not looking for any of that. In fact, I really don’t care.

Wishing me a “Happy Doctors Day” after spending the other 364 days denying my claims, refusing to cover tests or medications for my patients who need them (I don’t order these things for the hell of it, you know), telling me that I’m bringing down your Press Ganey scores, complaining about the copay that I have no control over, yelling at my staff for doing their jobs ... is pretty damn hollow.

It’s kind of like Mother’s Day: If you’re a jackass to your mom most of the year, sending her flowers on a Sunday in May doesn’t make it all right.

People also seem to forget that, in a small practice, my awesome staff is an extension of myself. Mistreating them, then wishing me a “Happy Doctor’s Day,” is also worthless.

I still like what I do. All the hassles from insurance companies, various administrators, the occasional angry patient … after all these years, they put a dent in it, but I still have no regrets about the course I’ve chosen. They can’t take away the happiness I get from helping those who need me.

It’s a job I love that’s allowed me to support my family and work with two wonderful staff members I’d never have met otherwise. After 23 years the only gratitude that means anything to me is the occasional heartfelt “thank you” from a patient.

And that’s all I need.

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

March 30 was National Doctor’s Day, which resulted in my getting all kinds of generic emails from pharmaceutical reps, market research places, insurance companies, and the two hospitals I’m on staff at.

They all had similar meaningless platitudes thanking me for what I do, reassuring me that I’m appreciated, that I make the world a better place, yadda yadda yadda. The hospital even said I could swing by the medical staff office and pick up an “appreciation bag,” which I’m told contained a T-shirt, bottle of hand sanitizer, and a few other trinkets.

Spare me.

I’m not looking for any of that. In fact, I really don’t care.

Wishing me a “Happy Doctors Day” after spending the other 364 days denying my claims, refusing to cover tests or medications for my patients who need them (I don’t order these things for the hell of it, you know), telling me that I’m bringing down your Press Ganey scores, complaining about the copay that I have no control over, yelling at my staff for doing their jobs ... is pretty damn hollow.

It’s kind of like Mother’s Day: If you’re a jackass to your mom most of the year, sending her flowers on a Sunday in May doesn’t make it all right.

People also seem to forget that, in a small practice, my awesome staff is an extension of myself. Mistreating them, then wishing me a “Happy Doctor’s Day,” is also worthless.

I still like what I do. All the hassles from insurance companies, various administrators, the occasional angry patient … after all these years, they put a dent in it, but I still have no regrets about the course I’ve chosen. They can’t take away the happiness I get from helping those who need me.

It’s a job I love that’s allowed me to support my family and work with two wonderful staff members I’d never have met otherwise. After 23 years the only gratitude that means anything to me is the occasional heartfelt “thank you” from a patient.

And that’s all I need.

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

March 30 was National Doctor’s Day, which resulted in my getting all kinds of generic emails from pharmaceutical reps, market research places, insurance companies, and the two hospitals I’m on staff at.

They all had similar meaningless platitudes thanking me for what I do, reassuring me that I’m appreciated, that I make the world a better place, yadda yadda yadda. The hospital even said I could swing by the medical staff office and pick up an “appreciation bag,” which I’m told contained a T-shirt, bottle of hand sanitizer, and a few other trinkets.

Spare me.

I’m not looking for any of that. In fact, I really don’t care.

Wishing me a “Happy Doctors Day” after spending the other 364 days denying my claims, refusing to cover tests or medications for my patients who need them (I don’t order these things for the hell of it, you know), telling me that I’m bringing down your Press Ganey scores, complaining about the copay that I have no control over, yelling at my staff for doing their jobs ... is pretty damn hollow.

It’s kind of like Mother’s Day: If you’re a jackass to your mom most of the year, sending her flowers on a Sunday in May doesn’t make it all right.

People also seem to forget that, in a small practice, my awesome staff is an extension of myself. Mistreating them, then wishing me a “Happy Doctor’s Day,” is also worthless.

I still like what I do. All the hassles from insurance companies, various administrators, the occasional angry patient … after all these years, they put a dent in it, but I still have no regrets about the course I’ve chosen. They can’t take away the happiness I get from helping those who need me.

It’s a job I love that’s allowed me to support my family and work with two wonderful staff members I’d never have met otherwise. After 23 years the only gratitude that means anything to me is the occasional heartfelt “thank you” from a patient.

And that’s all I need.

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

SEATTLE – The latest data from a phase 3 clinical trial shows that gene therapy can counter visual degeneration associated with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). The therapy, delivered by intravitreal injection, uses an adeno-associated virus vector to deliver a corrected copy of the mutated ND4 mitochondrial gene.

LHON is a rare, maternally inherited mitochondrial mutation that can cause blindness, most commonly in young men, though it does not happen in all individuals with the mutation. The condition often starts with blindness in one eye, accompanied or followed shortly by blindness in the second eye. Researchers believe that the injected viral vector gets taken up retinal ganglion cells, where the mutated gene interferes with vision. Once synthesized, a mitochondria-targeting sequence facilitates transport of the protein to the mitochondria.

The study protocol called for injection of the therapy into one eye and a placebo into the other, using the patient as his or own placebo control. The results in the treated eye were encouraging, though modest. “This is not hitting it out of the ballpark. But for people whose vision is devastated by this disease, it certainly is a first step,” said Nancy J. Newman, MD, during a press conference held March 29 in advance of the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Dr. Newman also noted a surprise finding: Visual improvement also occurred in the placebo-control eye. This was noted in previous studies, called RESCUE and REVERSE, and follow-up studies in monkeys found viral vector in the unaffected eye 3-6 months after an injection. “This would imply some kind of transport within retrograde up the opposite optic nerve after crossing in the chiasm to the eye, but this is going to take a fair bit of work to know exactly how that happens,” said Dr. Newman

Unfortunately, the phase 3 REFLECT study was designed before that process was understood. “This was not a case-control study by person, it was by eye. And that was a mistake, because it turns out there is a does appear to be second eye effects. We do not have naive controls here that did not receive any injection at all in any eye. That’s something that we will [do going] forward,” said Dr. Newman.

Despite the problem with placebo, the results were encouraging. “Those patients who had both eyes injected with the drug did better than in those who had one eye injected with drug and one eye injected with placebo, suggesting some sort of dose effect. There were no adverse events other than what we would expect from injecting [into] eyes. Those treated with the drug had more ocular inflammation, as would also be expected, but all were easily treated with topical medications,” said Dr. Newman.
 

What are the long-term effects?

Natalia Rost, MD, who chairs the AAN Science Committee, commented after the presentation: “We’re quite impressed with advances in gene therapy. The question is, are there early indications that this improvement in vision will have a lasting effect?”

Dr. Newman responded that ongoing data from earlier studies are also encouraging regarding the long-term effect of the treatment. At 4 years, there was a difference of 16.5 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters equivalent between treated patients and natural history controls (P < .01), “which [does] suggest that this effect is maintained,” said Dr. Newman, who is a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Rost also wondered if it would be possible to capture patients earlier in their disease process, in the hopes of countering degeneration before it becomes severe enough to impact vision. Dr. Newman answered by noting another surprise from the research. Previous studies had shown that intervention while only a single eye is affected had little impact on spread of the condition to the second eye, “which was very disappointing,” said Dr. Newman. When they stratified patients by time since vision loss, they found that those who received the therapy 6 months or later after vision loss had better responses than those who were treated earlier.

The mechanism of this counter-intuitive finding remains uncertain, “but we do know that acutely in this disease when people are just starting to lose this vision, during the first couple of months, they get swelling of the axons from these retinal ganglion cells. Our hypothesis is that swelling may actually act as a barrier for the drug to get into the retinal ganglion cell bodies themselves and be transfected. So it turns out that earlier may not be better,” said Dr. Newman.

The study included patients at 13 sites worldwide; 48 were treated bilaterally and 50 treated unilaterally. Just under 80% were male, the mean age was 31.5 years, and the mean duration of vision loss was 8.30 months.

After 1.5 years, the improvement in best-corrected visual acuity between second-affected eyes was stronger in the treatment eye, equivalent to +3 ETDRS letters. The first-affected eye improved by 19 ETDRS letters, and the second-affected eye improved by 16 (P < .0001). Improvement in placebo eyes was +13 ETDRS letters (P < .0001).

Dr. Rost has served on a scientific advisory board or data monitoring board for Omniox. Dr. Newman has consulted for GenSight, Santhera/Chiesi, and Neurophoenix, and has received research support from GenSight and Santhera/Chiesi.

SEATTLE – The latest data from a phase 3 clinical trial shows that gene therapy can counter visual degeneration associated with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). The therapy, delivered by intravitreal injection, uses an adeno-associated virus vector to deliver a corrected copy of the mutated ND4 mitochondrial gene.

LHON is a rare, maternally inherited mitochondrial mutation that can cause blindness, most commonly in young men, though it does not happen in all individuals with the mutation. The condition often starts with blindness in one eye, accompanied or followed shortly by blindness in the second eye. Researchers believe that the injected viral vector gets taken up retinal ganglion cells, where the mutated gene interferes with vision. Once synthesized, a mitochondria-targeting sequence facilitates transport of the protein to the mitochondria.

The study protocol called for injection of the therapy into one eye and a placebo into the other, using the patient as his or own placebo control. The results in the treated eye were encouraging, though modest. “This is not hitting it out of the ballpark. But for people whose vision is devastated by this disease, it certainly is a first step,” said Nancy J. Newman, MD, during a press conference held March 29 in advance of the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Dr. Newman also noted a surprise finding: Visual improvement also occurred in the placebo-control eye. This was noted in previous studies, called RESCUE and REVERSE, and follow-up studies in monkeys found viral vector in the unaffected eye 3-6 months after an injection. “This would imply some kind of transport within retrograde up the opposite optic nerve after crossing in the chiasm to the eye, but this is going to take a fair bit of work to know exactly how that happens,” said Dr. Newman

Unfortunately, the phase 3 REFLECT study was designed before that process was understood. “This was not a case-control study by person, it was by eye. And that was a mistake, because it turns out there is a does appear to be second eye effects. We do not have naive controls here that did not receive any injection at all in any eye. That’s something that we will [do going] forward,” said Dr. Newman.

Despite the problem with placebo, the results were encouraging. “Those patients who had both eyes injected with the drug did better than in those who had one eye injected with drug and one eye injected with placebo, suggesting some sort of dose effect. There were no adverse events other than what we would expect from injecting [into] eyes. Those treated with the drug had more ocular inflammation, as would also be expected, but all were easily treated with topical medications,” said Dr. Newman.
 

What are the long-term effects?

Natalia Rost, MD, who chairs the AAN Science Committee, commented after the presentation: “We’re quite impressed with advances in gene therapy. The question is, are there early indications that this improvement in vision will have a lasting effect?”

Dr. Newman responded that ongoing data from earlier studies are also encouraging regarding the long-term effect of the treatment. At 4 years, there was a difference of 16.5 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters equivalent between treated patients and natural history controls (P < .01), “which [does] suggest that this effect is maintained,” said Dr. Newman, who is a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Rost also wondered if it would be possible to capture patients earlier in their disease process, in the hopes of countering degeneration before it becomes severe enough to impact vision. Dr. Newman answered by noting another surprise from the research. Previous studies had shown that intervention while only a single eye is affected had little impact on spread of the condition to the second eye, “which was very disappointing,” said Dr. Newman. When they stratified patients by time since vision loss, they found that those who received the therapy 6 months or later after vision loss had better responses than those who were treated earlier.

The mechanism of this counter-intuitive finding remains uncertain, “but we do know that acutely in this disease when people are just starting to lose this vision, during the first couple of months, they get swelling of the axons from these retinal ganglion cells. Our hypothesis is that swelling may actually act as a barrier for the drug to get into the retinal ganglion cell bodies themselves and be transfected. So it turns out that earlier may not be better,” said Dr. Newman.

The study included patients at 13 sites worldwide; 48 were treated bilaterally and 50 treated unilaterally. Just under 80% were male, the mean age was 31.5 years, and the mean duration of vision loss was 8.30 months.

After 1.5 years, the improvement in best-corrected visual acuity between second-affected eyes was stronger in the treatment eye, equivalent to +3 ETDRS letters. The first-affected eye improved by 19 ETDRS letters, and the second-affected eye improved by 16 (P < .0001). Improvement in placebo eyes was +13 ETDRS letters (P < .0001).

Dr. Rost has served on a scientific advisory board or data monitoring board for Omniox. Dr. Newman has consulted for GenSight, Santhera/Chiesi, and Neurophoenix, and has received research support from GenSight and Santhera/Chiesi.

SEATTLE – The latest data from a phase 3 clinical trial shows that gene therapy can counter visual degeneration associated with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy (LHON). The therapy, delivered by intravitreal injection, uses an adeno-associated virus vector to deliver a corrected copy of the mutated ND4 mitochondrial gene.

LHON is a rare, maternally inherited mitochondrial mutation that can cause blindness, most commonly in young men, though it does not happen in all individuals with the mutation. The condition often starts with blindness in one eye, accompanied or followed shortly by blindness in the second eye. Researchers believe that the injected viral vector gets taken up retinal ganglion cells, where the mutated gene interferes with vision. Once synthesized, a mitochondria-targeting sequence facilitates transport of the protein to the mitochondria.

The study protocol called for injection of the therapy into one eye and a placebo into the other, using the patient as his or own placebo control. The results in the treated eye were encouraging, though modest. “This is not hitting it out of the ballpark. But for people whose vision is devastated by this disease, it certainly is a first step,” said Nancy J. Newman, MD, during a press conference held March 29 in advance of the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

Dr. Newman also noted a surprise finding: Visual improvement also occurred in the placebo-control eye. This was noted in previous studies, called RESCUE and REVERSE, and follow-up studies in monkeys found viral vector in the unaffected eye 3-6 months after an injection. “This would imply some kind of transport within retrograde up the opposite optic nerve after crossing in the chiasm to the eye, but this is going to take a fair bit of work to know exactly how that happens,” said Dr. Newman

Unfortunately, the phase 3 REFLECT study was designed before that process was understood. “This was not a case-control study by person, it was by eye. And that was a mistake, because it turns out there is a does appear to be second eye effects. We do not have naive controls here that did not receive any injection at all in any eye. That’s something that we will [do going] forward,” said Dr. Newman.

Despite the problem with placebo, the results were encouraging. “Those patients who had both eyes injected with the drug did better than in those who had one eye injected with drug and one eye injected with placebo, suggesting some sort of dose effect. There were no adverse events other than what we would expect from injecting [into] eyes. Those treated with the drug had more ocular inflammation, as would also be expected, but all were easily treated with topical medications,” said Dr. Newman.
 

What are the long-term effects?

Natalia Rost, MD, who chairs the AAN Science Committee, commented after the presentation: “We’re quite impressed with advances in gene therapy. The question is, are there early indications that this improvement in vision will have a lasting effect?”

Dr. Newman responded that ongoing data from earlier studies are also encouraging regarding the long-term effect of the treatment. At 4 years, there was a difference of 16.5 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters equivalent between treated patients and natural history controls (P < .01), “which [does] suggest that this effect is maintained,” said Dr. Newman, who is a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Rost also wondered if it would be possible to capture patients earlier in their disease process, in the hopes of countering degeneration before it becomes severe enough to impact vision. Dr. Newman answered by noting another surprise from the research. Previous studies had shown that intervention while only a single eye is affected had little impact on spread of the condition to the second eye, “which was very disappointing,” said Dr. Newman. When they stratified patients by time since vision loss, they found that those who received the therapy 6 months or later after vision loss had better responses than those who were treated earlier.

The mechanism of this counter-intuitive finding remains uncertain, “but we do know that acutely in this disease when people are just starting to lose this vision, during the first couple of months, they get swelling of the axons from these retinal ganglion cells. Our hypothesis is that swelling may actually act as a barrier for the drug to get into the retinal ganglion cell bodies themselves and be transfected. So it turns out that earlier may not be better,” said Dr. Newman.

The study included patients at 13 sites worldwide; 48 were treated bilaterally and 50 treated unilaterally. Just under 80% were male, the mean age was 31.5 years, and the mean duration of vision loss was 8.30 months.

After 1.5 years, the improvement in best-corrected visual acuity between second-affected eyes was stronger in the treatment eye, equivalent to +3 ETDRS letters. The first-affected eye improved by 19 ETDRS letters, and the second-affected eye improved by 16 (P < .0001). Improvement in placebo eyes was +13 ETDRS letters (P < .0001).

Dr. Rost has served on a scientific advisory board or data monitoring board for Omniox. Dr. Newman has consulted for GenSight, Santhera/Chiesi, and Neurophoenix, and has received research support from GenSight and Santhera/Chiesi.

Atypical anxiety in adults with Parkinson’s disease ranged from 15% to 51% in a systematic review of 60 studies.

Anxiety is common in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and has been shown to increase functional disability and decrease quality of life, but atypical presentations of anxiety are underrecognized and often undertreated in PD patients, wrote Nadeeka N. Dissanayaka, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues.

Courtesy University of Queensland

In a study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , the researchers conducted a systematic review of 60 studies to better characterize atypical PD-related anxiety. Fourteen studies involved Anxiety Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), 31 included fluctuating anxiety symptoms, and 22 included Fear of Falling (FOF).

Overall, the average prevalence rate for anxiety disorders in the PD population was 31%.

Anxiety NOS, fluctuating anxiety, and FOF accounted for a weighted mean prevalence of 14.9%, 34.19%, and 51.5%, respectively.

The symptomatology of anxiety NOS included psychological distress about the PD diagnosis, insecurity about the future, fear of losing control of motor and bodily functions, and social embarrassment. Clinically, anxiety NOS was associated with a range of factors including minor depression, on-off motor symptoms, muscle cramps, poor quality of life, and gait impairment.

The symptomatology of fluctuating anxiety was assessed in 9 studies of the “on” motor state and 16 studies of both “on” and “off.” Symptoms associated with the off state included panic attacks, feeling anxious or sad, and avoiding situations, as well as palpitations, dizziness, chills, and hot flashes.

Clinically, studies showed that anxiety was more severe in the off-medication state, and symptoms were reduced in the on state. Data from some studies showed that fluctuating anxiety was more common in PD patients who were female, and who had a younger age of PD onset and longer disease duration.

The symptomatology of FOF included associations between FOF and difficulty with walking and gait: Using a walker or other device, more frequent freezing in place, hesitation when turning, and slower speed while walking. Clinically, characteristics associated with FOF included older age, needing assistance for activities of daily living, a history of falls, and reduced quality of life.

The results of the review were limited by several factors including the varying assessment techniques, and the lack of data on treatment for atypical anxiety in PD, the researchers noted. “To our knowledge there are no treatment trials focused on Anxiety NOS,” and studies on the treatment of fluctuating anxiety and FOF are preliminary, they said.

However, the results support the need for early identification and classification of PD-related anxiety to improve treatment strategies and long-term outcomes, the researchers concluded. In the absence of evidence-based treatment strategies, “Given the heterogeneity of anxiety presentations in PD, the importance of tailoring interventions to meet the specific needs and unique symptom profiles of each individual cannot be overstated,” and routine screening of PD patients for anxiety every 6-12 months is recommended, they emphasized.

Dr. Dissanayaka disclosed support from the National Health and Medical Research Boosting Dementia Research Leadership Fellowship.

Atypical anxiety in adults with Parkinson’s disease ranged from 15% to 51% in a systematic review of 60 studies.

Anxiety is common in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and has been shown to increase functional disability and decrease quality of life, but atypical presentations of anxiety are underrecognized and often undertreated in PD patients, wrote Nadeeka N. Dissanayaka, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues.

Courtesy University of Queensland

In a study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , the researchers conducted a systematic review of 60 studies to better characterize atypical PD-related anxiety. Fourteen studies involved Anxiety Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), 31 included fluctuating anxiety symptoms, and 22 included Fear of Falling (FOF).

Overall, the average prevalence rate for anxiety disorders in the PD population was 31%.

Anxiety NOS, fluctuating anxiety, and FOF accounted for a weighted mean prevalence of 14.9%, 34.19%, and 51.5%, respectively.

The symptomatology of anxiety NOS included psychological distress about the PD diagnosis, insecurity about the future, fear of losing control of motor and bodily functions, and social embarrassment. Clinically, anxiety NOS was associated with a range of factors including minor depression, on-off motor symptoms, muscle cramps, poor quality of life, and gait impairment.

The symptomatology of fluctuating anxiety was assessed in 9 studies of the “on” motor state and 16 studies of both “on” and “off.” Symptoms associated with the off state included panic attacks, feeling anxious or sad, and avoiding situations, as well as palpitations, dizziness, chills, and hot flashes.

Clinically, studies showed that anxiety was more severe in the off-medication state, and symptoms were reduced in the on state. Data from some studies showed that fluctuating anxiety was more common in PD patients who were female, and who had a younger age of PD onset and longer disease duration.

The symptomatology of FOF included associations between FOF and difficulty with walking and gait: Using a walker or other device, more frequent freezing in place, hesitation when turning, and slower speed while walking. Clinically, characteristics associated with FOF included older age, needing assistance for activities of daily living, a history of falls, and reduced quality of life.

The results of the review were limited by several factors including the varying assessment techniques, and the lack of data on treatment for atypical anxiety in PD, the researchers noted. “To our knowledge there are no treatment trials focused on Anxiety NOS,” and studies on the treatment of fluctuating anxiety and FOF are preliminary, they said.

However, the results support the need for early identification and classification of PD-related anxiety to improve treatment strategies and long-term outcomes, the researchers concluded. In the absence of evidence-based treatment strategies, “Given the heterogeneity of anxiety presentations in PD, the importance of tailoring interventions to meet the specific needs and unique symptom profiles of each individual cannot be overstated,” and routine screening of PD patients for anxiety every 6-12 months is recommended, they emphasized.

Dr. Dissanayaka disclosed support from the National Health and Medical Research Boosting Dementia Research Leadership Fellowship.

Atypical anxiety in adults with Parkinson’s disease ranged from 15% to 51% in a systematic review of 60 studies.

Anxiety is common in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and has been shown to increase functional disability and decrease quality of life, but atypical presentations of anxiety are underrecognized and often undertreated in PD patients, wrote Nadeeka N. Dissanayaka, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, and colleagues.

Courtesy University of Queensland

In a study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , the researchers conducted a systematic review of 60 studies to better characterize atypical PD-related anxiety. Fourteen studies involved Anxiety Not Otherwise Specified (NOS), 31 included fluctuating anxiety symptoms, and 22 included Fear of Falling (FOF).

Overall, the average prevalence rate for anxiety disorders in the PD population was 31%.

Anxiety NOS, fluctuating anxiety, and FOF accounted for a weighted mean prevalence of 14.9%, 34.19%, and 51.5%, respectively.

The symptomatology of anxiety NOS included psychological distress about the PD diagnosis, insecurity about the future, fear of losing control of motor and bodily functions, and social embarrassment. Clinically, anxiety NOS was associated with a range of factors including minor depression, on-off motor symptoms, muscle cramps, poor quality of life, and gait impairment.

The symptomatology of fluctuating anxiety was assessed in 9 studies of the “on” motor state and 16 studies of both “on” and “off.” Symptoms associated with the off state included panic attacks, feeling anxious or sad, and avoiding situations, as well as palpitations, dizziness, chills, and hot flashes.

Clinically, studies showed that anxiety was more severe in the off-medication state, and symptoms were reduced in the on state. Data from some studies showed that fluctuating anxiety was more common in PD patients who were female, and who had a younger age of PD onset and longer disease duration.

The symptomatology of FOF included associations between FOF and difficulty with walking and gait: Using a walker or other device, more frequent freezing in place, hesitation when turning, and slower speed while walking. Clinically, characteristics associated with FOF included older age, needing assistance for activities of daily living, a history of falls, and reduced quality of life.

The results of the review were limited by several factors including the varying assessment techniques, and the lack of data on treatment for atypical anxiety in PD, the researchers noted. “To our knowledge there are no treatment trials focused on Anxiety NOS,” and studies on the treatment of fluctuating anxiety and FOF are preliminary, they said.

However, the results support the need for early identification and classification of PD-related anxiety to improve treatment strategies and long-term outcomes, the researchers concluded. In the absence of evidence-based treatment strategies, “Given the heterogeneity of anxiety presentations in PD, the importance of tailoring interventions to meet the specific needs and unique symptom profiles of each individual cannot be overstated,” and routine screening of PD patients for anxiety every 6-12 months is recommended, they emphasized.

Dr. Dissanayaka disclosed support from the National Health and Medical Research Boosting Dementia Research Leadership Fellowship.

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

A panel of experts that advises the FDA narrowly voted to reject a new drug intended to treat amyotrophic lateral scelrosis (ALS). Six of 10 members of the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee decided there is not enough evidence to support approval of the drug from Amylyx Pharmaceuticals. The evidence from a single phase 2 trial is insufficient, the panel said.

The fate of the drug, known as AMX0035, and the panel’s vote, has been closely watched as new treatments for this devastating disease are greatly needed. Committee members said they were moved by passionate testimony from patients, caregivers, and others. But, they believe the evidence does not meet the required standard for FDA approval.

“We were asked to look for substantial evidence of persuasiveness and robustness, and I think this one trial doesn’t quite meet that bar and was problematic,” said Kenneth Fischbeck, MD, investigator with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. “It would be a disservice to patients and their families to move ahead and approve a treatment that is of uncertain benefit,” said Dr. Fischbeck.

The committee’s vote is not binding. While the FDA often follows its advisors’ decisions, the agency last year approved a controversial new drug for Alzheimer’s disease after a similar advisory committee voted against it.
 

Phase 3 study in the works

This new ALS drug was shown to slow the decline caused by ALS, sometimes known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, Jamie Timmons, MD, head of scientific communications at Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said. The study found the drug slowed decline by 25%, compared with patients taking a placebo. That change is considered clinically meaningful.

This is the first time a treatment has shown a benefit on both function and survival in ALS, the two key measures in a relentlessly progressive, fatal disease, said Joshua Cohen, co-CEO and co-founder of Amylyx.

During the meeting, patients with ALS said they were willing to accept greater risk for the possibility of having even a little more time with their loved ones and argued that the drug contains two compounds that are already available. They pleaded for the FDA to exercise its regulatory flexibility in approving this experimental drug.

However, the FDA panel raised a number of issues with the trial. These concerns included the study’s small sample size and no survival benefit at 24 weeks.

Many panel members said they hope an ongoing phase III trial will be more definitive because it’s so much larger. The results of that trial are expected by early 2024.

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

A panel of experts that advises the FDA narrowly voted to reject a new drug intended to treat amyotrophic lateral scelrosis (ALS). Six of 10 members of the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee decided there is not enough evidence to support approval of the drug from Amylyx Pharmaceuticals. The evidence from a single phase 2 trial is insufficient, the panel said.

The fate of the drug, known as AMX0035, and the panel’s vote, has been closely watched as new treatments for this devastating disease are greatly needed. Committee members said they were moved by passionate testimony from patients, caregivers, and others. But, they believe the evidence does not meet the required standard for FDA approval.

“We were asked to look for substantial evidence of persuasiveness and robustness, and I think this one trial doesn’t quite meet that bar and was problematic,” said Kenneth Fischbeck, MD, investigator with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. “It would be a disservice to patients and their families to move ahead and approve a treatment that is of uncertain benefit,” said Dr. Fischbeck.

The committee’s vote is not binding. While the FDA often follows its advisors’ decisions, the agency last year approved a controversial new drug for Alzheimer’s disease after a similar advisory committee voted against it.
 

Phase 3 study in the works

This new ALS drug was shown to slow the decline caused by ALS, sometimes known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, Jamie Timmons, MD, head of scientific communications at Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said. The study found the drug slowed decline by 25%, compared with patients taking a placebo. That change is considered clinically meaningful.

This is the first time a treatment has shown a benefit on both function and survival in ALS, the two key measures in a relentlessly progressive, fatal disease, said Joshua Cohen, co-CEO and co-founder of Amylyx.

During the meeting, patients with ALS said they were willing to accept greater risk for the possibility of having even a little more time with their loved ones and argued that the drug contains two compounds that are already available. They pleaded for the FDA to exercise its regulatory flexibility in approving this experimental drug.

However, the FDA panel raised a number of issues with the trial. These concerns included the study’s small sample size and no survival benefit at 24 weeks.

Many panel members said they hope an ongoing phase III trial will be more definitive because it’s so much larger. The results of that trial are expected by early 2024.

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

A panel of experts that advises the FDA narrowly voted to reject a new drug intended to treat amyotrophic lateral scelrosis (ALS). Six of 10 members of the FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee decided there is not enough evidence to support approval of the drug from Amylyx Pharmaceuticals. The evidence from a single phase 2 trial is insufficient, the panel said.

The fate of the drug, known as AMX0035, and the panel’s vote, has been closely watched as new treatments for this devastating disease are greatly needed. Committee members said they were moved by passionate testimony from patients, caregivers, and others. But, they believe the evidence does not meet the required standard for FDA approval.

“We were asked to look for substantial evidence of persuasiveness and robustness, and I think this one trial doesn’t quite meet that bar and was problematic,” said Kenneth Fischbeck, MD, investigator with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. “It would be a disservice to patients and their families to move ahead and approve a treatment that is of uncertain benefit,” said Dr. Fischbeck.

The committee’s vote is not binding. While the FDA often follows its advisors’ decisions, the agency last year approved a controversial new drug for Alzheimer’s disease after a similar advisory committee voted against it.
 

Phase 3 study in the works

This new ALS drug was shown to slow the decline caused by ALS, sometimes known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, Jamie Timmons, MD, head of scientific communications at Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, said. The study found the drug slowed decline by 25%, compared with patients taking a placebo. That change is considered clinically meaningful.

This is the first time a treatment has shown a benefit on both function and survival in ALS, the two key measures in a relentlessly progressive, fatal disease, said Joshua Cohen, co-CEO and co-founder of Amylyx.

During the meeting, patients with ALS said they were willing to accept greater risk for the possibility of having even a little more time with their loved ones and argued that the drug contains two compounds that are already available. They pleaded for the FDA to exercise its regulatory flexibility in approving this experimental drug.

However, the FDA panel raised a number of issues with the trial. These concerns included the study’s small sample size and no survival benefit at 24 weeks.

Many panel members said they hope an ongoing phase III trial will be more definitive because it’s so much larger. The results of that trial are expected by early 2024.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Requests for a medical waiver to avoid a second COVID-19 vaccine dose or a booster after cutaneous reactions to the first dose are not justified on the basis of risk, according to an analysis of several large sets of data presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

According to the data, “there are no serious adverse consequences from these cutaneous reactions,” said Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of Global Health Dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

This is important because the risk of vaccine hesitancy goes up dramatically in patients who experience reactions to the first vaccine dose, according to follow-up of more than 50,000 employees vaccinated in the Mass General Brigham Healthcare System (MGBHS). According to Dr. Freeman, there was almost a fourfold increase in the rate of second-dose refusals for those with cutaneous reactions and a more than fourfold increase in those who developed angioedema.

Before the data were available, skin reactions were a source of concern among dermatologists and others involved in monitoring vaccine-related adverse events. Injection site reactions (ISRs) are associated with essentially every injectable vaccine, so these were expected, but a small proportion of patients developed large red plaques in the injection arm 7-8 days after the inoculation.

“These delayed reactions caused a lot of initial panic,” said Dr. Freeman, who counted herself among those alarmed about what the reactions might signify. “Was this cellulitis? Would the next dose cause anaphylaxis? We were concerned.”

This concern dissipated with the availability of more data. In a global registry that has so far captured more than 1,000 cutaneous reactions from 52 participating countries, it appears that about 2% of patients have a cutaneous reaction other than an ISR after the first dose. All resolve with minimal skin care or no treatment.

After the second dose, the proportion is lower. If there is a reaction, it typically occurs earlier and resolves more quickly.

“What we have learned is that fewer than half of patients who had a reaction to the first dose have a reaction to the second, and those who did have a reaction had a milder course,” said Dr. Freeman.

These data are “incredibly reassuring” on many levels, she explained. In addition, it allows clinicians to confidently explain to patients that there are no serious sequelae from the rashes, whether immediate or delayed, from the available COVID-19 vaccines.

“Every skin reaction I have seen is something we can treat through,” she added, noting that most reactions resolve with little or no supportive care. Following skin reactions, particularly the delayed lesions, it is not uncommon for patients to refuse a second shot. Some request a medical waiver to avoid further vaccine exposure. According to Dr. Freeman, this is unwarranted.

“I have granted exactly zero waivers,” she said. She explains to patients that these reactions have not been predictive of serious events, such as anaphylaxis. Although the trigger of the hypersensitivity reaction remains unknown, there is no evidence of serious consequences.

Delayed skin reactions are more commonly associated with the Moderna than the Pfizer vaccine. One notable difference between these vaccines is the greater content of mRNA in the Moderna formulation, but Freeman said that this is only one potential hypothesis for higher frequency of reactions to this version of the vaccine.

Patients with a history of allergic disease are more likely to develop a reaction but not significantly more likely to have a reaction that is more difficult to manage, according to Kimberly G. Blumenthal, MD, quality and safety officer for allergy, and codirector of the clinical epidemiology program in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Mass General.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Anaphylaxis has been associated with COVD-19 vaccines just as it has with essentially every injectable vaccine, Dr. Blumenthal said during the same session. But the risk is very low, and it stays low even among those with a history of severe hypersensitivity reactions in the past.

Among the data collected from more than 52,000 vaccinated MGBHS employees, 0.9% had a history of severe allergic reaction to a prior vaccine. Of these, 11.6% had an allergic reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. This was more than twice the 4.6% rate of allergic reactions among employees without a history of allergic reactions, but serious consequences were rare in both groups.

Of those with a reaction to the first dose, all but 2.4% took a subsequent dose. Again, serious reactions were exceedingly rare. These serious reactions did include anaphylaxis and hospitalization in 3% of patients, but there were no fatalities and all resolved.

The absence of serious sequelae from a reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine must be considered within the context of the benefit, which includes protection from death and hospitalization from the virus, according to Dr. Blumenthal. Citing the evidence that first-shot reactions are a source of vaccine hesitancy, she agreed that it is important to educate patients about relative risks.

“Even in our own cohort of MGBHS employees, we have people, including those who had been provaccine in the past, become hesitant,” commented Dr. Blumenthal, who said there are data from the Kaiser Permanente System showing similar vaccine reluctance following a first-shot reaction.

After more than 500 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines had been administered worldwide, there was not a single reported death from anaphylaxis. Although Dr. Blumenthal said that an unconfirmed death of this type had been recently reported, she emphasized that this single death, if valid, is dwarfed by the lives saved with vaccination.

Asked about her strategy for counseling patients with vaccine hesitancy, Dr. Freeman said the body of safety data is large and compelling. There is overwhelming evidence of a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio overall and among those with a first-shot reaction.

“I can reassure them on the basis of the data,” Dr. Freeman said in an interview. “Less than half will have a reaction to the second shot and even if they do have a reaction, it is likely to be less severe.”

Although the main message is that vaccination is potentially lifesaving and far outweighs any risks, Freeman specifically gives this message to those hesitant to take a second shot after a first-shot reaction: “I can get you through it.”

Dr. Freeman encouraged health care professionals to report cases of COVID-19 vaccine–related dermatologic side effects to the American Academy of Dermatology / International League of Dermatologic Societies COVID-19 dermatology registry. Dermatologic manifestations of COVID-19 can also be reported to the registry.

Dr. Freeman disclosed receiving grants/research funding from the International League of Dermatologic Societies and from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Blumenthal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

Pointing a finger at COVID-19

The battle against COVID-19 is seemingly never ending. It’s been 2 years and still we struggle against the virus. But now, a new hero rises against the eternal menace, a powerful weapon against this scourge of humanity. And that weapon? Finger length.

Before you break out the sad trombone, hear us out. One of the big questions around COVID-19 is the role testosterone plays in its severity: Does low testosterone increase or decrease the odds of contracting severe COVID-19? To help answer that question, English researchers have published a study analyzing finger length ratios in both COVID-19 patients and a healthy control group. That seems random, but high testosterone in the womb leads to longer ring fingers in adulthood, while high estrogen leads to longer index fingers.

PxHere

According to the researchers, those who had significant left hand–right hand differences in the ratio between the second and fourth digits, as well as the third and fifth digits, were significantly more likely to have severe COVID-19 compared with those with more even ratios. Those with “feminized” short little fingers were also at risk. Those large ratio differences indicate low testosterone and high estrogen, which may explain why elderly men are at such high risk for severe COVID-19. Testosterone naturally falls off as men get older.

The results add credence to clinical trials looking to use testosterone-boosting drugs against COVID-19, the researchers said. It also gives credence to LOTME’s brand-new 12-step finger strength fitness routine and our branded finger weights. Now just $19.95! It’s the bargain of the century! Boost your testosterone naturally and protect yourself from COVID-19! We promise it’s not a scam.
 

Some emergencies need a superhero

Last week, we learned about the most boring person in the world. This week just happens to be opposite week, so we’re looking at a candidate for the most interesting person. Someone who can swoop down from the sky to save the injured and helpless. Someone who can go where helicopters fear to tread. Someone with jet engines for arms. Superhero-type stuff.

Richard Browning/Gravity Industries

The Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a charitable organization located in the United Kingdom, recently announced that one of its members has completed training on the Gravity Industries Jet Suit. The suit “has two engines on each arm and a larger engine on the back [that] provide up to 317 pounds of thrust,” Interesting Engineering explained.

GNAAS is putting the suit into operation in England’s Lake District National Park, which includes mountainous terrain that is not very hospitable to helicopter landings. A paramedic using the suit can reach hikers stranded on mountainsides much faster than rescuers who have to run or hike from the nearest helicopter landing site.

“Everyone looks at the wow factor and the fact we are the world’s first jet suit paramedics, but for us, it’s about delivering patient care,” GNAAS’ Andy Mawson told Interesting Engineering. Sounds like superhero-speak to us.

So if you’re in the Lake District and have taken a bit of a tumble, you can call a superhero on your cell phone or you can use this to summon one.
 

Why we’re rejecting food as medicine

Humans have been using food to treat ailments much longer than we’ve had the advances of modern medicine. So why have we rejected its worth in our treatment processes? And what can be done to change that? The Center for Food as Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center just released a 335-page report that answers those questions.

phototake/ThinkStock

First, the why: Meals in health care settings are not medically designed to help with the specific needs of the patient. Produce-prescription and nutrition-incentive programs don’t have the government funds to fully support them. And a lot of medical schools don’t even require students to take a basic nutrition course. So there’s a lack of knowledge and a disconnect between health care providers and food as a resource.

Then there’s a lack of trust in the food industry and their validity. Social media uses food as a means of promoting “pseudoscientific alternative medicine” or spreading false info, pushing away legitimate providers. The food industry has had its fingers in food science studies and an almost mafia-esque chokehold on American dietary guidelines. No wonder food for medicine is getting the boot!

To change the situation, the report offers 10 key recommendations on how to advance the idea of incorporating food into medicine for treatment and prevention. They include boosting the funding for research, making hospitals more food-as-medicine focused, expanding federal programs, and improving public awareness on the role nutrition can play in medical treatment or prevention.

So maybe instead of rejecting food outright, we should be looking a little deeper at how we can use it to our advantage. Just a thought: Ice cream as an antidepressant.
 

Being rude is a good thing, apparently

If you’ve ever been called argumentative, stubborn, or unpleasant, then this LOTME is for you. Researchers at the University of Geneva have found that people who are more stubborn and hate to conform have brains that are more protected against Alzheimer’s disease. That type of personality seems to preserve the part of the brain that usually deteriorates as we grow older.

Piqsels

The original hypothesis that personality may have a protective effect against brain degeneration led the investigators to conduct cognitive and personality assessments of 65 elderly participants over a 5-year period. Researchers have been attempting to create vaccines to protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but these new findings offer a nonbiological way to help.

“For a long time, the brain is able to compensate by activating alternative networks; when the first clinical signs appear, however, it is unfortunately often too late. The identification of early biomarkers is therefore essential for … effective disease management,” lead author Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, MD, said in a Study Finds report.

You may be wondering how people with more agreeable and less confrontational personalities can seek help. Well, researchers are working on that, too. It’s a complex situation, but as always, we’re rooting for you, science!

At least now you can take solace in the fact that your elderly next-door neighbor who yells at you for stepping on his lawn is probably more protected against Alzheimer’s disease.

Pointing a finger at COVID-19

The battle against COVID-19 is seemingly never ending. It’s been 2 years and still we struggle against the virus. But now, a new hero rises against the eternal menace, a powerful weapon against this scourge of humanity. And that weapon? Finger length.

Before you break out the sad trombone, hear us out. One of the big questions around COVID-19 is the role testosterone plays in its severity: Does low testosterone increase or decrease the odds of contracting severe COVID-19? To help answer that question, English researchers have published a study analyzing finger length ratios in both COVID-19 patients and a healthy control group. That seems random, but high testosterone in the womb leads to longer ring fingers in adulthood, while high estrogen leads to longer index fingers.

PxHere

According to the researchers, those who had significant left hand–right hand differences in the ratio between the second and fourth digits, as well as the third and fifth digits, were significantly more likely to have severe COVID-19 compared with those with more even ratios. Those with “feminized” short little fingers were also at risk. Those large ratio differences indicate low testosterone and high estrogen, which may explain why elderly men are at such high risk for severe COVID-19. Testosterone naturally falls off as men get older.

The results add credence to clinical trials looking to use testosterone-boosting drugs against COVID-19, the researchers said. It also gives credence to LOTME’s brand-new 12-step finger strength fitness routine and our branded finger weights. Now just $19.95! It’s the bargain of the century! Boost your testosterone naturally and protect yourself from COVID-19! We promise it’s not a scam.
 

Some emergencies need a superhero

Last week, we learned about the most boring person in the world. This week just happens to be opposite week, so we’re looking at a candidate for the most interesting person. Someone who can swoop down from the sky to save the injured and helpless. Someone who can go where helicopters fear to tread. Someone with jet engines for arms. Superhero-type stuff.

Richard Browning/Gravity Industries

The Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a charitable organization located in the United Kingdom, recently announced that one of its members has completed training on the Gravity Industries Jet Suit. The suit “has two engines on each arm and a larger engine on the back [that] provide up to 317 pounds of thrust,” Interesting Engineering explained.

GNAAS is putting the suit into operation in England’s Lake District National Park, which includes mountainous terrain that is not very hospitable to helicopter landings. A paramedic using the suit can reach hikers stranded on mountainsides much faster than rescuers who have to run or hike from the nearest helicopter landing site.

“Everyone looks at the wow factor and the fact we are the world’s first jet suit paramedics, but for us, it’s about delivering patient care,” GNAAS’ Andy Mawson told Interesting Engineering. Sounds like superhero-speak to us.

So if you’re in the Lake District and have taken a bit of a tumble, you can call a superhero on your cell phone or you can use this to summon one.
 

Why we’re rejecting food as medicine

Humans have been using food to treat ailments much longer than we’ve had the advances of modern medicine. So why have we rejected its worth in our treatment processes? And what can be done to change that? The Center for Food as Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center just released a 335-page report that answers those questions.

phototake/ThinkStock

First, the why: Meals in health care settings are not medically designed to help with the specific needs of the patient. Produce-prescription and nutrition-incentive programs don’t have the government funds to fully support them. And a lot of medical schools don’t even require students to take a basic nutrition course. So there’s a lack of knowledge and a disconnect between health care providers and food as a resource.

Then there’s a lack of trust in the food industry and their validity. Social media uses food as a means of promoting “pseudoscientific alternative medicine” or spreading false info, pushing away legitimate providers. The food industry has had its fingers in food science studies and an almost mafia-esque chokehold on American dietary guidelines. No wonder food for medicine is getting the boot!

To change the situation, the report offers 10 key recommendations on how to advance the idea of incorporating food into medicine for treatment and prevention. They include boosting the funding for research, making hospitals more food-as-medicine focused, expanding federal programs, and improving public awareness on the role nutrition can play in medical treatment or prevention.

So maybe instead of rejecting food outright, we should be looking a little deeper at how we can use it to our advantage. Just a thought: Ice cream as an antidepressant.
 

Being rude is a good thing, apparently

If you’ve ever been called argumentative, stubborn, or unpleasant, then this LOTME is for you. Researchers at the University of Geneva have found that people who are more stubborn and hate to conform have brains that are more protected against Alzheimer’s disease. That type of personality seems to preserve the part of the brain that usually deteriorates as we grow older.

Piqsels

The original hypothesis that personality may have a protective effect against brain degeneration led the investigators to conduct cognitive and personality assessments of 65 elderly participants over a 5-year period. Researchers have been attempting to create vaccines to protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but these new findings offer a nonbiological way to help.

“For a long time, the brain is able to compensate by activating alternative networks; when the first clinical signs appear, however, it is unfortunately often too late. The identification of early biomarkers is therefore essential for … effective disease management,” lead author Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, MD, said in a Study Finds report.

You may be wondering how people with more agreeable and less confrontational personalities can seek help. Well, researchers are working on that, too. It’s a complex situation, but as always, we’re rooting for you, science!

At least now you can take solace in the fact that your elderly next-door neighbor who yells at you for stepping on his lawn is probably more protected against Alzheimer’s disease.

Pointing a finger at COVID-19

The battle against COVID-19 is seemingly never ending. It’s been 2 years and still we struggle against the virus. But now, a new hero rises against the eternal menace, a powerful weapon against this scourge of humanity. And that weapon? Finger length.

Before you break out the sad trombone, hear us out. One of the big questions around COVID-19 is the role testosterone plays in its severity: Does low testosterone increase or decrease the odds of contracting severe COVID-19? To help answer that question, English researchers have published a study analyzing finger length ratios in both COVID-19 patients and a healthy control group. That seems random, but high testosterone in the womb leads to longer ring fingers in adulthood, while high estrogen leads to longer index fingers.

PxHere

According to the researchers, those who had significant left hand–right hand differences in the ratio between the second and fourth digits, as well as the third and fifth digits, were significantly more likely to have severe COVID-19 compared with those with more even ratios. Those with “feminized” short little fingers were also at risk. Those large ratio differences indicate low testosterone and high estrogen, which may explain why elderly men are at such high risk for severe COVID-19. Testosterone naturally falls off as men get older.

The results add credence to clinical trials looking to use testosterone-boosting drugs against COVID-19, the researchers said. It also gives credence to LOTME’s brand-new 12-step finger strength fitness routine and our branded finger weights. Now just $19.95! It’s the bargain of the century! Boost your testosterone naturally and protect yourself from COVID-19! We promise it’s not a scam.
 

Some emergencies need a superhero

Last week, we learned about the most boring person in the world. This week just happens to be opposite week, so we’re looking at a candidate for the most interesting person. Someone who can swoop down from the sky to save the injured and helpless. Someone who can go where helicopters fear to tread. Someone with jet engines for arms. Superhero-type stuff.

Richard Browning/Gravity Industries

The Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a charitable organization located in the United Kingdom, recently announced that one of its members has completed training on the Gravity Industries Jet Suit. The suit “has two engines on each arm and a larger engine on the back [that] provide up to 317 pounds of thrust,” Interesting Engineering explained.

GNAAS is putting the suit into operation in England’s Lake District National Park, which includes mountainous terrain that is not very hospitable to helicopter landings. A paramedic using the suit can reach hikers stranded on mountainsides much faster than rescuers who have to run or hike from the nearest helicopter landing site.

“Everyone looks at the wow factor and the fact we are the world’s first jet suit paramedics, but for us, it’s about delivering patient care,” GNAAS’ Andy Mawson told Interesting Engineering. Sounds like superhero-speak to us.

So if you’re in the Lake District and have taken a bit of a tumble, you can call a superhero on your cell phone or you can use this to summon one.
 

Why we’re rejecting food as medicine

Humans have been using food to treat ailments much longer than we’ve had the advances of modern medicine. So why have we rejected its worth in our treatment processes? And what can be done to change that? The Center for Food as Medicine and the Hunter College NYC Food Policy Center just released a 335-page report that answers those questions.

phototake/ThinkStock

First, the why: Meals in health care settings are not medically designed to help with the specific needs of the patient. Produce-prescription and nutrition-incentive programs don’t have the government funds to fully support them. And a lot of medical schools don’t even require students to take a basic nutrition course. So there’s a lack of knowledge and a disconnect between health care providers and food as a resource.

Then there’s a lack of trust in the food industry and their validity. Social media uses food as a means of promoting “pseudoscientific alternative medicine” or spreading false info, pushing away legitimate providers. The food industry has had its fingers in food science studies and an almost mafia-esque chokehold on American dietary guidelines. No wonder food for medicine is getting the boot!

To change the situation, the report offers 10 key recommendations on how to advance the idea of incorporating food into medicine for treatment and prevention. They include boosting the funding for research, making hospitals more food-as-medicine focused, expanding federal programs, and improving public awareness on the role nutrition can play in medical treatment or prevention.

So maybe instead of rejecting food outright, we should be looking a little deeper at how we can use it to our advantage. Just a thought: Ice cream as an antidepressant.
 

Being rude is a good thing, apparently

If you’ve ever been called argumentative, stubborn, or unpleasant, then this LOTME is for you. Researchers at the University of Geneva have found that people who are more stubborn and hate to conform have brains that are more protected against Alzheimer’s disease. That type of personality seems to preserve the part of the brain that usually deteriorates as we grow older.

Piqsels

The original hypothesis that personality may have a protective effect against brain degeneration led the investigators to conduct cognitive and personality assessments of 65 elderly participants over a 5-year period. Researchers have been attempting to create vaccines to protect against Alzheimer’s disease, but these new findings offer a nonbiological way to help.

“For a long time, the brain is able to compensate by activating alternative networks; when the first clinical signs appear, however, it is unfortunately often too late. The identification of early biomarkers is therefore essential for … effective disease management,” lead author Panteleimon Giannakopoulos, MD, said in a Study Finds report.

You may be wondering how people with more agreeable and less confrontational personalities can seek help. Well, researchers are working on that, too. It’s a complex situation, but as always, we’re rooting for you, science!

At least now you can take solace in the fact that your elderly next-door neighbor who yells at you for stepping on his lawn is probably more protected against Alzheimer’s disease.

Antidopaminergic antiemetics (ADAs) that are widely used for nausea and vomiting, including that related to chemotherapy, have been associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a new study from France.

The authors found that ADA users could be at a threefold increased risk of stroke shortly after the initiation of treatment.

Further analysis showed that all three ADAs studied (domperidone, metopimazine, and metoclopramide) were associated with an increased risk, especially in the first days of use, but the highest increase was found for metopimazine and metoclopramide.

The study was published online March 23, 2022, in the BMJ.

“Our results show that the risk of ischemic stroke appears to be associated with ADA use,” wrote the authors, led by Anne Bénard-Laribière, PharmD, MS, of the University of Bordeaux (France). They emphasized, however, that this is an observational study and cannot therefore establish causation.

One important note about this study is that patients with a history of cancer were specifically excluded. The authors did not elaborate on what the ADAs were being used for, other than to say that ADAs are used for nausea and vomiting of “variable origins,” and a press release noted that these drugs are often used by patients with migraine.

Hence it is not clear what relevance these findings have for patients with cancer, suggested an expert unrelated to the study, Ian Olver, MD, PhD, professorial research fellow, faculty of health and medical sciences, University of Adelaide.

“So the best that can be said, from my viewpoint, is that the ADAs studied have been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients other than cancer patients,” he told this news organization.

In addition, he also emphasized that an observational study cannot establish causation.

For their study, the authors used data from the nationwide reimbursement database. Hence, they “needed to make the assumption that the date of reimbursement approximated to the date of administration, and that would not be the case for drugs used prophylactically prior to chemotherapy or radiotherapy,” Dr. Olver commented.

The authors were also unable to make any statement about dose and schedule. “Certainly chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting would require more intermittent dosing compared to noncancer uses,” Dr. Olver said. In addition, “metoclopramide in conventional doses is not very effective for this purpose and metopimazine is mainly used in Europe.”

Most patients with cancer would not be receiving these drugs, he suggested: “These days they would be receiving 5HT3 receptor antagonists and NK1 receptor antagonists and steroids.”
 

Study details

The French study investigated the risk of ischemic stroke associated with ADA use in a real-world setting. The authors conducted a case-time-control study using data from the nationwide French reimbursement health care system database Système National des Données de Santé.

They identified 2,612 patients from the database who had experienced a first ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2016 and had also received at least one reimbursement for domperidone, metopimazine, or metoclopramide during the 70-day period prior to their stroke.

The frequency of reimbursements for ADAs was compared with a risk period (1-14 days before a stroke) and three matched reference periods (57-70 days, 43-56 days, and 29-42 days before stroke).

Patients who had experienced a stroke were matched to a control group of 21,859 randomly selected healthy people who also received an ADA in the same time period.

Within the stroke cohort, 1,250 patients received an ADA at least once during the designated risk period and 1,060 in the reference periods. Among the controls, 5,128 and 13,165 received an ADA at least one time in the risk and reference periods, respectively.

This yielded a case-time-control ratio of adjusted odds ratios of 3.12, of a risk of stroke among new users. Stratification by age (<70 years and ≥70 years), sex, history of dementia, and gastroenteritis epidemic periods revealed similar results, although the highest case-time-control ratio observed in men(aOR, 3.59).

The risk of stroke appeared to increase for all ADAs, but the highest was for metopimazine (3.62-fold increase) and metoclopramide (a 3.53-fold increase), which are both drugs that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The study was funded by Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé through a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. All authors had financial support from ANSM for the submitted work; one coauthor disclosed relationships with Pfizer and Roche. Dr. Olver disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antidopaminergic antiemetics (ADAs) that are widely used for nausea and vomiting, including that related to chemotherapy, have been associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a new study from France.

The authors found that ADA users could be at a threefold increased risk of stroke shortly after the initiation of treatment.

Further analysis showed that all three ADAs studied (domperidone, metopimazine, and metoclopramide) were associated with an increased risk, especially in the first days of use, but the highest increase was found for metopimazine and metoclopramide.

The study was published online March 23, 2022, in the BMJ.

“Our results show that the risk of ischemic stroke appears to be associated with ADA use,” wrote the authors, led by Anne Bénard-Laribière, PharmD, MS, of the University of Bordeaux (France). They emphasized, however, that this is an observational study and cannot therefore establish causation.

One important note about this study is that patients with a history of cancer were specifically excluded. The authors did not elaborate on what the ADAs were being used for, other than to say that ADAs are used for nausea and vomiting of “variable origins,” and a press release noted that these drugs are often used by patients with migraine.

Hence it is not clear what relevance these findings have for patients with cancer, suggested an expert unrelated to the study, Ian Olver, MD, PhD, professorial research fellow, faculty of health and medical sciences, University of Adelaide.

“So the best that can be said, from my viewpoint, is that the ADAs studied have been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients other than cancer patients,” he told this news organization.

In addition, he also emphasized that an observational study cannot establish causation.

For their study, the authors used data from the nationwide reimbursement database. Hence, they “needed to make the assumption that the date of reimbursement approximated to the date of administration, and that would not be the case for drugs used prophylactically prior to chemotherapy or radiotherapy,” Dr. Olver commented.

The authors were also unable to make any statement about dose and schedule. “Certainly chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting would require more intermittent dosing compared to noncancer uses,” Dr. Olver said. In addition, “metoclopramide in conventional doses is not very effective for this purpose and metopimazine is mainly used in Europe.”

Most patients with cancer would not be receiving these drugs, he suggested: “These days they would be receiving 5HT3 receptor antagonists and NK1 receptor antagonists and steroids.”
 

Study details

The French study investigated the risk of ischemic stroke associated with ADA use in a real-world setting. The authors conducted a case-time-control study using data from the nationwide French reimbursement health care system database Système National des Données de Santé.

They identified 2,612 patients from the database who had experienced a first ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2016 and had also received at least one reimbursement for domperidone, metopimazine, or metoclopramide during the 70-day period prior to their stroke.

The frequency of reimbursements for ADAs was compared with a risk period (1-14 days before a stroke) and three matched reference periods (57-70 days, 43-56 days, and 29-42 days before stroke).

Patients who had experienced a stroke were matched to a control group of 21,859 randomly selected healthy people who also received an ADA in the same time period.

Within the stroke cohort, 1,250 patients received an ADA at least once during the designated risk period and 1,060 in the reference periods. Among the controls, 5,128 and 13,165 received an ADA at least one time in the risk and reference periods, respectively.

This yielded a case-time-control ratio of adjusted odds ratios of 3.12, of a risk of stroke among new users. Stratification by age (<70 years and ≥70 years), sex, history of dementia, and gastroenteritis epidemic periods revealed similar results, although the highest case-time-control ratio observed in men(aOR, 3.59).

The risk of stroke appeared to increase for all ADAs, but the highest was for metopimazine (3.62-fold increase) and metoclopramide (a 3.53-fold increase), which are both drugs that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The study was funded by Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé through a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. All authors had financial support from ANSM for the submitted work; one coauthor disclosed relationships with Pfizer and Roche. Dr. Olver disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antidopaminergic antiemetics (ADAs) that are widely used for nausea and vomiting, including that related to chemotherapy, have been associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a new study from France.

The authors found that ADA users could be at a threefold increased risk of stroke shortly after the initiation of treatment.

Further analysis showed that all three ADAs studied (domperidone, metopimazine, and metoclopramide) were associated with an increased risk, especially in the first days of use, but the highest increase was found for metopimazine and metoclopramide.

The study was published online March 23, 2022, in the BMJ.

“Our results show that the risk of ischemic stroke appears to be associated with ADA use,” wrote the authors, led by Anne Bénard-Laribière, PharmD, MS, of the University of Bordeaux (France). They emphasized, however, that this is an observational study and cannot therefore establish causation.

One important note about this study is that patients with a history of cancer were specifically excluded. The authors did not elaborate on what the ADAs were being used for, other than to say that ADAs are used for nausea and vomiting of “variable origins,” and a press release noted that these drugs are often used by patients with migraine.

Hence it is not clear what relevance these findings have for patients with cancer, suggested an expert unrelated to the study, Ian Olver, MD, PhD, professorial research fellow, faculty of health and medical sciences, University of Adelaide.

“So the best that can be said, from my viewpoint, is that the ADAs studied have been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients other than cancer patients,” he told this news organization.

In addition, he also emphasized that an observational study cannot establish causation.

For their study, the authors used data from the nationwide reimbursement database. Hence, they “needed to make the assumption that the date of reimbursement approximated to the date of administration, and that would not be the case for drugs used prophylactically prior to chemotherapy or radiotherapy,” Dr. Olver commented.

The authors were also unable to make any statement about dose and schedule. “Certainly chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting would require more intermittent dosing compared to noncancer uses,” Dr. Olver said. In addition, “metoclopramide in conventional doses is not very effective for this purpose and metopimazine is mainly used in Europe.”

Most patients with cancer would not be receiving these drugs, he suggested: “These days they would be receiving 5HT3 receptor antagonists and NK1 receptor antagonists and steroids.”
 

Study details

The French study investigated the risk of ischemic stroke associated with ADA use in a real-world setting. The authors conducted a case-time-control study using data from the nationwide French reimbursement health care system database Système National des Données de Santé.

They identified 2,612 patients from the database who had experienced a first ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2016 and had also received at least one reimbursement for domperidone, metopimazine, or metoclopramide during the 70-day period prior to their stroke.

The frequency of reimbursements for ADAs was compared with a risk period (1-14 days before a stroke) and three matched reference periods (57-70 days, 43-56 days, and 29-42 days before stroke).

Patients who had experienced a stroke were matched to a control group of 21,859 randomly selected healthy people who also received an ADA in the same time period.

Within the stroke cohort, 1,250 patients received an ADA at least once during the designated risk period and 1,060 in the reference periods. Among the controls, 5,128 and 13,165 received an ADA at least one time in the risk and reference periods, respectively.

This yielded a case-time-control ratio of adjusted odds ratios of 3.12, of a risk of stroke among new users. Stratification by age (<70 years and ≥70 years), sex, history of dementia, and gastroenteritis epidemic periods revealed similar results, although the highest case-time-control ratio observed in men(aOR, 3.59).

The risk of stroke appeared to increase for all ADAs, but the highest was for metopimazine (3.62-fold increase) and metoclopramide (a 3.53-fold increase), which are both drugs that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The study was funded by Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé through a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. All authors had financial support from ANSM for the submitted work; one coauthor disclosed relationships with Pfizer and Roche. Dr. Olver disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dietary supplements that contain omega-3 fatty acids have been widely consumed for years. Researchers have been investigating the benefits of such preparations for cardiovascular, neurologic, and psychological conditions. A recently published study on omega-3 fatty acids and depression inspired neurologist Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, of the Institute for Epidemiology at the University Duisburg-Essen (Germany), to examine scientific publications concerning omega-3 fatty acids or fish-oil capsules in more detail.

Prevention of depression

Dr. Diener told the story of how he stumbled upon an interesting article in JAMA  in December 2021. It was about a placebo-controlled study that investigated whether omega-3 fatty acids can prevent incident depression.

As the study authors reported, treatment with omega-3 preparations in adults aged 50 years or older without clinically relevant symptoms of depression at study initiation was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the risk for depression or clinically relevant symptoms of depression. There was no difference in mood scale value, however, over a median follow-up of 5.3 years. According to the study authors, these results did not support the administration of omega-3 preparations for the prevention of depression.

This study was, as Dr. Diener said, somewhat negative, but it did arouse his interest in questions such as what biological effects omega-3 fatty acids have and what is known “about this topic with regard to neurology,” he said. When reviewing the literature, he noticed that there “were association studies, i.e., studies that describe that the intake of omega-3 fatty acids may possibly be associated with a lower risk of certain diseases.”
 

Beginning with the Inuit

It all started “with observations of the Inuit [population] in Greenland and Alaska after World War II, because it was remarked upon that these people ate a lot of fish and seal meat and had a very low incidence of cardiovascular diseases.” Over the years, a large number of association studies have been published, which may have encouraged the assumption that omega-3 fatty acids have positive health effects on various conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, various malignancies, cognitive impairments, Alzheimer’s disease, depression and anxiety disorders, heart failure, slipped disks, ADHD, symptoms of menopause, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, periodontitis, epilepsy, chemotherapy tolerance, premenstrual syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Dr. Diener believes that the problem is that these are association studies. But association does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
 

Disappointing study results

On the contrary, the results from the randomized placebo-controlled studies are truly frustrating, according to the neurologist. A meta-analysis of the use of omega-3 fatty acids in cardiovascular diseases included 86 studies with over 162,000 patients. According to Dr. Diener, it did not reveal any benefit for overall and cardiovascular mortality, nor any benefit for the reduction of myocardial infarction and stroke.

The results did indicate a trend, however, for reduced mortality in coronary heart disease. Even so, the number needed to treat for this was 334, which means that 334 people would have to take omega-3 fatty acids for years to prevent one fatal cardiac event.

Aside from this study, Dr. Diener found six studies on Alzheimer’s disease and three studies on dementia with patient populations between 600 and 800. In these studies, too, a positive effect of omega-3 fatty acids could not be identified. Then he discovered another 31 placebo-controlled studies of omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment or prevention of depression and anxiety disorder. Despite including 50,000 patients, these studies also did not show any positive effect.

“I see a significant discrepancy between the promotion of omega-3 fatty acids, whether it’s on television, in the ‘yellow’ [journalism] press, or in advertisements, and the actual scientific evidence,” said Dr. Diener. “At least from a neurological perspective, there is no evidence that omega-3 fatty acids have any benefit. This is true for strokes, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and anxiety disorders.”
 

Potential adverse effects

Omega-3 fatty acids also have potentially adverse effects. The VITAL Rhythm study recently provided evidence that, depending on the dose, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids may increase the risk for atrial fibrillation. As the authors wrote, the results do not support taking omega-3 fatty acids to prevent atrial fibrillation.

In 2019, the global market for omega-3 fatty acids reached a value of $4.1 billion. This value is expected to double by 2025, according to a comment by Gregory Curfman, MD, deputy editor of JAMA and lecturer in health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

As Dr. Curfman wrote, this impressive amount of expenditure shows how beloved these products are and how strongly many people believe that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial for their health. It is therefore important to know the potential risks of such preparations. One such example for this would be the risk for atrial fibrillation.

According to Dr. Curfman, in the last 2 years, four randomized clinical studies have provided data on the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids. In the STRENGTH study, 13,078 high-risk patients with cardiovascular diseases were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The subjects received either a high dose (4 g/day) of a combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or corn oil. After a median of 42 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint, but more frequent atrial fibrillation in the omega-3 fatty acid group, compared with the corn oil group (2.2% vs. 1.3%; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.21; P < .001).

In the REDUCE-IT study, 8179 subjects were randomly assigned to a high dose (4 g/day, as in STRENGTH) of an omega-3 fatty acid preparation consisting of a purified EPA (icosapent ethyl) or mineral oil. After a median observation period of 4.9 years, icosapent ethyl was associated with a relative reduction of the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint by 25%, compared with mineral oil. As in the STRENGTH study, this study found that the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, compared with mineral oil, was significantly higher (5.3% vs. 3.9%; P = .003).

In a third study (OMEMI), as Dr. Curfman reported, 1027 elderly patients who had recently had a myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive either a median dose of 1.8 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids (a combination of EPA and DHA) or corn oil. After 2 years, there was no significant difference between the two groups in primary composite cardiovascular endpoints, but 7.2% of the patients taking omega-3 fatty acids developed atrial fibrillation. In the corn oil group, this proportion was 4% (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.98-3.45; P = .06).

The data from the four studies together indicate a potential dose-dependent risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, according to Dr. Curfman. At a dose of 4.0 g/day, there is a highly significant risk increase (almost double). With a median dose of 1.8 g/day, the risk increase (HR, 1.84) did not reach statistical significance. At a daily standard dose of 840 mg/day, an increase in risk could not be determined.

Dr. Curfman’s recommendation is that patients who take, or want to take, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids be informed of the potential development of arrhythmia at higher dosages. These patients also should undergo cardiological monitoring.

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

Dietary supplements that contain omega-3 fatty acids have been widely consumed for years. Researchers have been investigating the benefits of such preparations for cardiovascular, neurologic, and psychological conditions. A recently published study on omega-3 fatty acids and depression inspired neurologist Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, of the Institute for Epidemiology at the University Duisburg-Essen (Germany), to examine scientific publications concerning omega-3 fatty acids or fish-oil capsules in more detail.

Prevention of depression

Dr. Diener told the story of how he stumbled upon an interesting article in JAMA  in December 2021. It was about a placebo-controlled study that investigated whether omega-3 fatty acids can prevent incident depression.

As the study authors reported, treatment with omega-3 preparations in adults aged 50 years or older without clinically relevant symptoms of depression at study initiation was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the risk for depression or clinically relevant symptoms of depression. There was no difference in mood scale value, however, over a median follow-up of 5.3 years. According to the study authors, these results did not support the administration of omega-3 preparations for the prevention of depression.

This study was, as Dr. Diener said, somewhat negative, but it did arouse his interest in questions such as what biological effects omega-3 fatty acids have and what is known “about this topic with regard to neurology,” he said. When reviewing the literature, he noticed that there “were association studies, i.e., studies that describe that the intake of omega-3 fatty acids may possibly be associated with a lower risk of certain diseases.”
 

Beginning with the Inuit

It all started “with observations of the Inuit [population] in Greenland and Alaska after World War II, because it was remarked upon that these people ate a lot of fish and seal meat and had a very low incidence of cardiovascular diseases.” Over the years, a large number of association studies have been published, which may have encouraged the assumption that omega-3 fatty acids have positive health effects on various conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, various malignancies, cognitive impairments, Alzheimer’s disease, depression and anxiety disorders, heart failure, slipped disks, ADHD, symptoms of menopause, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, periodontitis, epilepsy, chemotherapy tolerance, premenstrual syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Dr. Diener believes that the problem is that these are association studies. But association does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
 

Disappointing study results

On the contrary, the results from the randomized placebo-controlled studies are truly frustrating, according to the neurologist. A meta-analysis of the use of omega-3 fatty acids in cardiovascular diseases included 86 studies with over 162,000 patients. According to Dr. Diener, it did not reveal any benefit for overall and cardiovascular mortality, nor any benefit for the reduction of myocardial infarction and stroke.

The results did indicate a trend, however, for reduced mortality in coronary heart disease. Even so, the number needed to treat for this was 334, which means that 334 people would have to take omega-3 fatty acids for years to prevent one fatal cardiac event.

Aside from this study, Dr. Diener found six studies on Alzheimer’s disease and three studies on dementia with patient populations between 600 and 800. In these studies, too, a positive effect of omega-3 fatty acids could not be identified. Then he discovered another 31 placebo-controlled studies of omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment or prevention of depression and anxiety disorder. Despite including 50,000 patients, these studies also did not show any positive effect.

“I see a significant discrepancy between the promotion of omega-3 fatty acids, whether it’s on television, in the ‘yellow’ [journalism] press, or in advertisements, and the actual scientific evidence,” said Dr. Diener. “At least from a neurological perspective, there is no evidence that omega-3 fatty acids have any benefit. This is true for strokes, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and anxiety disorders.”
 

Potential adverse effects

Omega-3 fatty acids also have potentially adverse effects. The VITAL Rhythm study recently provided evidence that, depending on the dose, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids may increase the risk for atrial fibrillation. As the authors wrote, the results do not support taking omega-3 fatty acids to prevent atrial fibrillation.

In 2019, the global market for omega-3 fatty acids reached a value of $4.1 billion. This value is expected to double by 2025, according to a comment by Gregory Curfman, MD, deputy editor of JAMA and lecturer in health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

As Dr. Curfman wrote, this impressive amount of expenditure shows how beloved these products are and how strongly many people believe that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial for their health. It is therefore important to know the potential risks of such preparations. One such example for this would be the risk for atrial fibrillation.

According to Dr. Curfman, in the last 2 years, four randomized clinical studies have provided data on the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids. In the STRENGTH study, 13,078 high-risk patients with cardiovascular diseases were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The subjects received either a high dose (4 g/day) of a combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or corn oil. After a median of 42 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint, but more frequent atrial fibrillation in the omega-3 fatty acid group, compared with the corn oil group (2.2% vs. 1.3%; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.21; P < .001).

In the REDUCE-IT study, 8179 subjects were randomly assigned to a high dose (4 g/day, as in STRENGTH) of an omega-3 fatty acid preparation consisting of a purified EPA (icosapent ethyl) or mineral oil. After a median observation period of 4.9 years, icosapent ethyl was associated with a relative reduction of the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint by 25%, compared with mineral oil. As in the STRENGTH study, this study found that the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, compared with mineral oil, was significantly higher (5.3% vs. 3.9%; P = .003).

In a third study (OMEMI), as Dr. Curfman reported, 1027 elderly patients who had recently had a myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive either a median dose of 1.8 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids (a combination of EPA and DHA) or corn oil. After 2 years, there was no significant difference between the two groups in primary composite cardiovascular endpoints, but 7.2% of the patients taking omega-3 fatty acids developed atrial fibrillation. In the corn oil group, this proportion was 4% (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.98-3.45; P = .06).

The data from the four studies together indicate a potential dose-dependent risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, according to Dr. Curfman. At a dose of 4.0 g/day, there is a highly significant risk increase (almost double). With a median dose of 1.8 g/day, the risk increase (HR, 1.84) did not reach statistical significance. At a daily standard dose of 840 mg/day, an increase in risk could not be determined.

Dr. Curfman’s recommendation is that patients who take, or want to take, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids be informed of the potential development of arrhythmia at higher dosages. These patients also should undergo cardiological monitoring.

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

Dietary supplements that contain omega-3 fatty acids have been widely consumed for years. Researchers have been investigating the benefits of such preparations for cardiovascular, neurologic, and psychological conditions. A recently published study on omega-3 fatty acids and depression inspired neurologist Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, of the Institute for Epidemiology at the University Duisburg-Essen (Germany), to examine scientific publications concerning omega-3 fatty acids or fish-oil capsules in more detail.

Prevention of depression

Dr. Diener told the story of how he stumbled upon an interesting article in JAMA  in December 2021. It was about a placebo-controlled study that investigated whether omega-3 fatty acids can prevent incident depression.

As the study authors reported, treatment with omega-3 preparations in adults aged 50 years or older without clinically relevant symptoms of depression at study initiation was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the risk for depression or clinically relevant symptoms of depression. There was no difference in mood scale value, however, over a median follow-up of 5.3 years. According to the study authors, these results did not support the administration of omega-3 preparations for the prevention of depression.

This study was, as Dr. Diener said, somewhat negative, but it did arouse his interest in questions such as what biological effects omega-3 fatty acids have and what is known “about this topic with regard to neurology,” he said. When reviewing the literature, he noticed that there “were association studies, i.e., studies that describe that the intake of omega-3 fatty acids may possibly be associated with a lower risk of certain diseases.”
 

Beginning with the Inuit

It all started “with observations of the Inuit [population] in Greenland and Alaska after World War II, because it was remarked upon that these people ate a lot of fish and seal meat and had a very low incidence of cardiovascular diseases.” Over the years, a large number of association studies have been published, which may have encouraged the assumption that omega-3 fatty acids have positive health effects on various conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, various malignancies, cognitive impairments, Alzheimer’s disease, depression and anxiety disorders, heart failure, slipped disks, ADHD, symptoms of menopause, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, periodontitis, epilepsy, chemotherapy tolerance, premenstrual syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Dr. Diener believes that the problem is that these are association studies. But association does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
 

Disappointing study results

On the contrary, the results from the randomized placebo-controlled studies are truly frustrating, according to the neurologist. A meta-analysis of the use of omega-3 fatty acids in cardiovascular diseases included 86 studies with over 162,000 patients. According to Dr. Diener, it did not reveal any benefit for overall and cardiovascular mortality, nor any benefit for the reduction of myocardial infarction and stroke.

The results did indicate a trend, however, for reduced mortality in coronary heart disease. Even so, the number needed to treat for this was 334, which means that 334 people would have to take omega-3 fatty acids for years to prevent one fatal cardiac event.

Aside from this study, Dr. Diener found six studies on Alzheimer’s disease and three studies on dementia with patient populations between 600 and 800. In these studies, too, a positive effect of omega-3 fatty acids could not be identified. Then he discovered another 31 placebo-controlled studies of omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment or prevention of depression and anxiety disorder. Despite including 50,000 patients, these studies also did not show any positive effect.

“I see a significant discrepancy between the promotion of omega-3 fatty acids, whether it’s on television, in the ‘yellow’ [journalism] press, or in advertisements, and the actual scientific evidence,” said Dr. Diener. “At least from a neurological perspective, there is no evidence that omega-3 fatty acids have any benefit. This is true for strokes, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and anxiety disorders.”
 

Potential adverse effects

Omega-3 fatty acids also have potentially adverse effects. The VITAL Rhythm study recently provided evidence that, depending on the dose, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids may increase the risk for atrial fibrillation. As the authors wrote, the results do not support taking omega-3 fatty acids to prevent atrial fibrillation.

In 2019, the global market for omega-3 fatty acids reached a value of $4.1 billion. This value is expected to double by 2025, according to a comment by Gregory Curfman, MD, deputy editor of JAMA and lecturer in health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

As Dr. Curfman wrote, this impressive amount of expenditure shows how beloved these products are and how strongly many people believe that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial for their health. It is therefore important to know the potential risks of such preparations. One such example for this would be the risk for atrial fibrillation.

According to Dr. Curfman, in the last 2 years, four randomized clinical studies have provided data on the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids. In the STRENGTH study, 13,078 high-risk patients with cardiovascular diseases were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The subjects received either a high dose (4 g/day) of a combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or corn oil. After a median of 42 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint, but more frequent atrial fibrillation in the omega-3 fatty acid group, compared with the corn oil group (2.2% vs. 1.3%; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.21; P < .001).

In the REDUCE-IT study, 8179 subjects were randomly assigned to a high dose (4 g/day, as in STRENGTH) of an omega-3 fatty acid preparation consisting of a purified EPA (icosapent ethyl) or mineral oil. After a median observation period of 4.9 years, icosapent ethyl was associated with a relative reduction of the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint by 25%, compared with mineral oil. As in the STRENGTH study, this study found that the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, compared with mineral oil, was significantly higher (5.3% vs. 3.9%; P = .003).

In a third study (OMEMI), as Dr. Curfman reported, 1027 elderly patients who had recently had a myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive either a median dose of 1.8 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids (a combination of EPA and DHA) or corn oil. After 2 years, there was no significant difference between the two groups in primary composite cardiovascular endpoints, but 7.2% of the patients taking omega-3 fatty acids developed atrial fibrillation. In the corn oil group, this proportion was 4% (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.98-3.45; P = .06).

The data from the four studies together indicate a potential dose-dependent risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, according to Dr. Curfman. At a dose of 4.0 g/day, there is a highly significant risk increase (almost double). With a median dose of 1.8 g/day, the risk increase (HR, 1.84) did not reach statistical significance. At a daily standard dose of 840 mg/day, an increase in risk could not be determined.

Dr. Curfman’s recommendation is that patients who take, or want to take, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids be informed of the potential development of arrhythmia at higher dosages. These patients also should undergo cardiological monitoring.

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