MDedge Neurology

A population-based developmental surveillance program showed high diagnostic accuracy in identifying autism in a community-based sample of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers, according to new data published online in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers, led by Josephine Barbaro, PhD, of Olga Tennison Autism Research Centre at La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, said their findings indicate the benefit of using early autism developmental surveillance from infancy to the preschool period rather than one-time screening.

For the study, maternal and child health nurses in Melbourne were trained to use the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance–Revised (SACS-R) and SACS-Preschool (SACS-PR) tools during well-child checkups at 11-30 months of age and at follow-up (42 months of age). Dr. Barbaro helped develop the SACS tools.

Children identified as being at high likelihood for autism (1-2 years of age: n = 327; 42 months of age: n = 168) and at low likelihood for autism plus concerns (42 months of age: n = 28) were referred by their nurse for diagnostic assessment by the researchers.

Diagnostic accuracy of the SACS-R and SACS-PR was determined by comparing likelihood for autism with children’s diagnostic outcome using clinical judgment based on standard autism assessments.

Researchers included 13,511 children ages 11 months to 42 months. Results indicated the SACS-R with SACS-PR (SACS-R+PR) had very high diagnostic accuracy for early autism detection.

According to the paper, SACS-R showed 83% positive predictive value (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.87) and 99% estimated negative predictive value (95% CI, 0.01-0.02). Specificity (99.6%; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00) was high, with modest sensitivity (62%; 95% CI, 0.57-0.66). When the SACS-PR 42-month assessment was added, estimated sensitivity grew to 96% (95% CI, 0.94-0.98).

“Its greater accuracy, compared with psychometrics of commonly used autism screening tools when used in community-based samples, suggests that the SACS-R+PR can be used universally for the early identification of autism,” the authors wrote.

According to La Trobe University, the tool is used in 10 other countries around the world – among them China, Singapore, Poland, Japan, New Zealand, Nepal, and Bangladesh.

Early identification is crucial for children on the autism spectrum and their families because it facilitates early diagnosis and can help families get access to supports and services.

About 2% of the world’s population is on the autism spectrum. Some studies report prevalence of 4% or higher, the authors noted.

The authors called attention to a systematic review of universal autism screening in primary care, including the Infant-Toddler Checklist and the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers and various versions. The authors of the review noted that few studies had enough participants to establish population sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. Also, psychometric properties reported were modest and/or wide ranging, putting into question the diagnostic accuracy of the tools.

Dr. Barbaro and colleagues highlighted an advantage the current study offers. “A critical difference in this study was the use of a community-based sample rather than a clinical or high-likelihood sibling sample, which may not be representative of the general population of children on the autism spectrum because child outcomes, cognition, and autism prevalence vary by ascertainment strategy and multiplex or simplex status.”

The authors explained that, in the United States, The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has said there is not enough evidence to recommend universal autism screening and instead recommends routine general developmental surveillance. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends developmental surveillance between 9 and 30 months and autism-specific screening at 18 and 24 months because of the benefits of early supports and services.

Karen Pierce, PhD, codirector of the Autism Center of Excellence at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview that she was pleased to see that the researchers were able to identify a high percentage of children on the autism spectrum.

She said, however, that the system proposed in this paper involves a substantial amount of time for training the nurses.

The authors acknowledged that, saying, “there may be instances in which this could be impractical.”

Dr. Pierce said that, in the United States, parent questionnaires are combined with clinical judgment to decide which kids are at risk.

“It doesn’t take very much time to fill out these questionnaires,” she said. “That’s the sticking point. I’m not saying necessarily that it shouldn’t be adopted. It would be very hard, I think, to incorporate into current pediatric practice.”

She said a benefit of the SACS program is more hands-on observation of the child, beyond the parent report, which sometimes can reflect more emotionally how the parent is feeling about the child.

She pointed out it was impressive that the Australian team found virtually no false positives.

The researchers also identified an additional 168 children using the preschool version at 42 months who had actually passed at the earlier checkpoint, using the regular SACS-R.

“This underscores a supercritical point,” Dr. Pierce said. “Just because your child may have gotten screened at 12, 18, 24 months and they pass and everything’s looking great, it doesn’t necessarily mean at some point early in development around age 3 that there [wouldn’t] be some clearer signs of autism.”

She said in her own study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, 24% of their sample tested fine at first but were later identified as having autism.

“It underscores the need for repeat screening,” Dr. Pierce said. “That was a striking finding in this study.”

She also pointed out that the authors talk about the “false dichotomy” between screening and surveillance. “They are saying it doesn’t have to be that way. It can be a combined effort. We can have parents filling out screening tools and we can have more observational sessions with kids during checkups. It doesn’t have to be this rigid line between screening and surveillance. I would completely agree with that.”

Dr. Barbaro reported receiving grants from the Sir Robert Menzies Foundation and the Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism (Autism CRC) during the study. Funds are partially distributed to Dr. Barbaro for the background intellectual property. One coauthor reported grants from the Menzies Foundation and Autism CRC during the study. Another coauthor reported receiving salary from Autism CRC during the study. No other disclosures were reported. This work was supported by an Allied Health Sciences start-up grant from the Menzies Foundation and the Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism, established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program. Dr. Pierce reports no relevant financial relationships.

A population-based developmental surveillance program showed high diagnostic accuracy in identifying autism in a community-based sample of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers, according to new data published online in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers, led by Josephine Barbaro, PhD, of Olga Tennison Autism Research Centre at La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, said their findings indicate the benefit of using early autism developmental surveillance from infancy to the preschool period rather than one-time screening.

For the study, maternal and child health nurses in Melbourne were trained to use the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance–Revised (SACS-R) and SACS-Preschool (SACS-PR) tools during well-child checkups at 11-30 months of age and at follow-up (42 months of age). Dr. Barbaro helped develop the SACS tools.

Children identified as being at high likelihood for autism (1-2 years of age: n = 327; 42 months of age: n = 168) and at low likelihood for autism plus concerns (42 months of age: n = 28) were referred by their nurse for diagnostic assessment by the researchers.

Diagnostic accuracy of the SACS-R and SACS-PR was determined by comparing likelihood for autism with children’s diagnostic outcome using clinical judgment based on standard autism assessments.

Researchers included 13,511 children ages 11 months to 42 months. Results indicated the SACS-R with SACS-PR (SACS-R+PR) had very high diagnostic accuracy for early autism detection.

According to the paper, SACS-R showed 83% positive predictive value (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.87) and 99% estimated negative predictive value (95% CI, 0.01-0.02). Specificity (99.6%; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00) was high, with modest sensitivity (62%; 95% CI, 0.57-0.66). When the SACS-PR 42-month assessment was added, estimated sensitivity grew to 96% (95% CI, 0.94-0.98).

“Its greater accuracy, compared with psychometrics of commonly used autism screening tools when used in community-based samples, suggests that the SACS-R+PR can be used universally for the early identification of autism,” the authors wrote.

According to La Trobe University, the tool is used in 10 other countries around the world – among them China, Singapore, Poland, Japan, New Zealand, Nepal, and Bangladesh.

Early identification is crucial for children on the autism spectrum and their families because it facilitates early diagnosis and can help families get access to supports and services.

About 2% of the world’s population is on the autism spectrum. Some studies report prevalence of 4% or higher, the authors noted.

The authors called attention to a systematic review of universal autism screening in primary care, including the Infant-Toddler Checklist and the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers and various versions. The authors of the review noted that few studies had enough participants to establish population sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. Also, psychometric properties reported were modest and/or wide ranging, putting into question the diagnostic accuracy of the tools.

Dr. Barbaro and colleagues highlighted an advantage the current study offers. “A critical difference in this study was the use of a community-based sample rather than a clinical or high-likelihood sibling sample, which may not be representative of the general population of children on the autism spectrum because child outcomes, cognition, and autism prevalence vary by ascertainment strategy and multiplex or simplex status.”

The authors explained that, in the United States, The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has said there is not enough evidence to recommend universal autism screening and instead recommends routine general developmental surveillance. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends developmental surveillance between 9 and 30 months and autism-specific screening at 18 and 24 months because of the benefits of early supports and services.

Karen Pierce, PhD, codirector of the Autism Center of Excellence at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview that she was pleased to see that the researchers were able to identify a high percentage of children on the autism spectrum.

She said, however, that the system proposed in this paper involves a substantial amount of time for training the nurses.

The authors acknowledged that, saying, “there may be instances in which this could be impractical.”

Dr. Pierce said that, in the United States, parent questionnaires are combined with clinical judgment to decide which kids are at risk.

“It doesn’t take very much time to fill out these questionnaires,” she said. “That’s the sticking point. I’m not saying necessarily that it shouldn’t be adopted. It would be very hard, I think, to incorporate into current pediatric practice.”

She said a benefit of the SACS program is more hands-on observation of the child, beyond the parent report, which sometimes can reflect more emotionally how the parent is feeling about the child.

She pointed out it was impressive that the Australian team found virtually no false positives.

The researchers also identified an additional 168 children using the preschool version at 42 months who had actually passed at the earlier checkpoint, using the regular SACS-R.

“This underscores a supercritical point,” Dr. Pierce said. “Just because your child may have gotten screened at 12, 18, 24 months and they pass and everything’s looking great, it doesn’t necessarily mean at some point early in development around age 3 that there [wouldn’t] be some clearer signs of autism.”

She said in her own study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, 24% of their sample tested fine at first but were later identified as having autism.

“It underscores the need for repeat screening,” Dr. Pierce said. “That was a striking finding in this study.”

She also pointed out that the authors talk about the “false dichotomy” between screening and surveillance. “They are saying it doesn’t have to be that way. It can be a combined effort. We can have parents filling out screening tools and we can have more observational sessions with kids during checkups. It doesn’t have to be this rigid line between screening and surveillance. I would completely agree with that.”

Dr. Barbaro reported receiving grants from the Sir Robert Menzies Foundation and the Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism (Autism CRC) during the study. Funds are partially distributed to Dr. Barbaro for the background intellectual property. One coauthor reported grants from the Menzies Foundation and Autism CRC during the study. Another coauthor reported receiving salary from Autism CRC during the study. No other disclosures were reported. This work was supported by an Allied Health Sciences start-up grant from the Menzies Foundation and the Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism, established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program. Dr. Pierce reports no relevant financial relationships.

A population-based developmental surveillance program showed high diagnostic accuracy in identifying autism in a community-based sample of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers, according to new data published online in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers, led by Josephine Barbaro, PhD, of Olga Tennison Autism Research Centre at La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, said their findings indicate the benefit of using early autism developmental surveillance from infancy to the preschool period rather than one-time screening.

For the study, maternal and child health nurses in Melbourne were trained to use the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance–Revised (SACS-R) and SACS-Preschool (SACS-PR) tools during well-child checkups at 11-30 months of age and at follow-up (42 months of age). Dr. Barbaro helped develop the SACS tools.

Children identified as being at high likelihood for autism (1-2 years of age: n = 327; 42 months of age: n = 168) and at low likelihood for autism plus concerns (42 months of age: n = 28) were referred by their nurse for diagnostic assessment by the researchers.

Diagnostic accuracy of the SACS-R and SACS-PR was determined by comparing likelihood for autism with children’s diagnostic outcome using clinical judgment based on standard autism assessments.

Researchers included 13,511 children ages 11 months to 42 months. Results indicated the SACS-R with SACS-PR (SACS-R+PR) had very high diagnostic accuracy for early autism detection.

According to the paper, SACS-R showed 83% positive predictive value (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.87) and 99% estimated negative predictive value (95% CI, 0.01-0.02). Specificity (99.6%; 95% CI, 0.99-1.00) was high, with modest sensitivity (62%; 95% CI, 0.57-0.66). When the SACS-PR 42-month assessment was added, estimated sensitivity grew to 96% (95% CI, 0.94-0.98).

“Its greater accuracy, compared with psychometrics of commonly used autism screening tools when used in community-based samples, suggests that the SACS-R+PR can be used universally for the early identification of autism,” the authors wrote.

According to La Trobe University, the tool is used in 10 other countries around the world – among them China, Singapore, Poland, Japan, New Zealand, Nepal, and Bangladesh.

Early identification is crucial for children on the autism spectrum and their families because it facilitates early diagnosis and can help families get access to supports and services.

About 2% of the world’s population is on the autism spectrum. Some studies report prevalence of 4% or higher, the authors noted.

The authors called attention to a systematic review of universal autism screening in primary care, including the Infant-Toddler Checklist and the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers and various versions. The authors of the review noted that few studies had enough participants to establish population sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. Also, psychometric properties reported were modest and/or wide ranging, putting into question the diagnostic accuracy of the tools.

Dr. Barbaro and colleagues highlighted an advantage the current study offers. “A critical difference in this study was the use of a community-based sample rather than a clinical or high-likelihood sibling sample, which may not be representative of the general population of children on the autism spectrum because child outcomes, cognition, and autism prevalence vary by ascertainment strategy and multiplex or simplex status.”

The authors explained that, in the United States, The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has said there is not enough evidence to recommend universal autism screening and instead recommends routine general developmental surveillance. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends developmental surveillance between 9 and 30 months and autism-specific screening at 18 and 24 months because of the benefits of early supports and services.

Karen Pierce, PhD, codirector of the Autism Center of Excellence at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview that she was pleased to see that the researchers were able to identify a high percentage of children on the autism spectrum.

She said, however, that the system proposed in this paper involves a substantial amount of time for training the nurses.

The authors acknowledged that, saying, “there may be instances in which this could be impractical.”

Dr. Pierce said that, in the United States, parent questionnaires are combined with clinical judgment to decide which kids are at risk.

“It doesn’t take very much time to fill out these questionnaires,” she said. “That’s the sticking point. I’m not saying necessarily that it shouldn’t be adopted. It would be very hard, I think, to incorporate into current pediatric practice.”

She said a benefit of the SACS program is more hands-on observation of the child, beyond the parent report, which sometimes can reflect more emotionally how the parent is feeling about the child.

She pointed out it was impressive that the Australian team found virtually no false positives.

The researchers also identified an additional 168 children using the preschool version at 42 months who had actually passed at the earlier checkpoint, using the regular SACS-R.

“This underscores a supercritical point,” Dr. Pierce said. “Just because your child may have gotten screened at 12, 18, 24 months and they pass and everything’s looking great, it doesn’t necessarily mean at some point early in development around age 3 that there [wouldn’t] be some clearer signs of autism.”

She said in her own study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, 24% of their sample tested fine at first but were later identified as having autism.

“It underscores the need for repeat screening,” Dr. Pierce said. “That was a striking finding in this study.”

She also pointed out that the authors talk about the “false dichotomy” between screening and surveillance. “They are saying it doesn’t have to be that way. It can be a combined effort. We can have parents filling out screening tools and we can have more observational sessions with kids during checkups. It doesn’t have to be this rigid line between screening and surveillance. I would completely agree with that.”

Dr. Barbaro reported receiving grants from the Sir Robert Menzies Foundation and the Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism (Autism CRC) during the study. Funds are partially distributed to Dr. Barbaro for the background intellectual property. One coauthor reported grants from the Menzies Foundation and Autism CRC during the study. Another coauthor reported receiving salary from Autism CRC during the study. No other disclosures were reported. This work was supported by an Allied Health Sciences start-up grant from the Menzies Foundation and the Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism, established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program. Dr. Pierce reports no relevant financial relationships.

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

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

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

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

My previous column on practice valuation prompted a number of questions on the mechanics of selling a private practice. As usual, I cannot hope to cover this complex topic comprehensively in only 750 words, but here are the basics.

A generation ago, the sale of a medical practice was much like the sale of any other business: A retiring physician would sell his or her practice to a young doctor and the practice would continue on as before. Occasionally, that still happens, but changes in the business of medicine – most significantly the growth of managed care – have had a big impact on the way medical practices are bought and sold.

For one thing, there are far fewer solo practitioners these days, and polls indicate that most young physicians intend to continue that trend. The buyer of a medical practice today is more likely to be an institution, such as a hospital, an HMO, or a large practice group, rather than an individual.

For another, because the rules governing such sales have become so numbingly complex, the services of expert (and expensive) third parties are essential.

While these issues may complicate matters, there is still a market for the sale of medical practices. However, you must do everything possible to ensure you identify the best possible buyer and structure the best deal.

The first hurdle is the accurate valuation of your practice, which was covered in some detail in my last column. Briefly, for the protection of both parties, it is important that the appraisal be done by an experienced and neutral financial consultant, that all techniques used in the valuation be divulged and explained, and that documentation be supplied to support the conclusions reached.

Keep in mind that the valuation will not necessarily equal the purchase price; other factors may need to be considered before a final price can be agreed upon. Keep in mind, too, that there may be legal constraints on the purchase price. For example, if the buyer is a nonprofit corporation such as a hospital or HMO, by law it cannot pay in excess of fair market value for the practice – which may rule out any valuation of “good will.” In some states, the purchase of private practices by hospitals is prohibited altogether – so you might need to consider a long-term lease rather than a sale.

Once a value has been agreed upon, you must consider how the transaction will be structured. The most popular structures include purchase of assets, purchase of corporate stock, and merger.

Many buyers prefer to purchase assets, because it allows them to pick and choose only those items that have value to them. This can leave you with a bunch of “odd lot” assets to dispose of. But depending on the circumstances, an asset sale may still be to your advantage.

Sellers typically prefer to sell stock, because it allows them to sell their entire practice, which is often worth more than the sum of its parts, and often provides tax advantages.

The third option, merger, continues to grow in popularity and is a column subject in itself, and I will address it separately next month.

Tax issues must always be considered. Most private practices are corporations, and the sale of corporate stock will result in a long-term capital gain that will be taxed – currently at 15%-20%. As the saying goes, it’s not what you earn, it’s what you keep. So it may benefit you to accept a slightly lower price if the sale can be structured to provide significantly lower tax treatment. However, any gain that does not qualify as a long-term capital gain will be taxed as regular income – currently in the 32%-37% percent range – plus a Social Security tax of about 15%.

Payment in installments is a popular way to defer taxes, since they are incurred on each installment as it is paid; but such payments may be mistaken by the IRS for payments for referrals, which is illegal. And there is always the problem of making certain all payments are eventually made.

You may wish to continue working at the practice as an employee for an agreed-upon period of time, and this is often to the buyer’s advantage as well. Transitioning to new ownership in stages often maximizes the value of the business by improving patient retention, and allows patients to become accustomed to the transition. However, care must be taken, with the aid of good legal advice, to structure such an arrangement in a way that minimizes concerns of fraud and abuse.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FL – Including serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) and serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) at multiple sclerosis (MS) onset may lead to better prediction of long-term outcomes and relapse risk, new research suggests.

The research shows that once standard clinical models can be incorporated into practice, the early measurement of these biomarkers will provide useful information in predicting who may be at risk of poorer outcomes, researcher Gauruv Bose, MD, Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Center, Ann Romney Center for Neurologic Diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
 

Better together?

Although higher baseline sNfL levels in MS have previously been linked to greater brain atrophy and other long-term outcomes, and sGFAP changes are also associated with inflammation and damage through the disease course, less is known about longer-term effects of the two biomarker measures combined, Dr. Bose said.

“The value of using both sNfL and sGFAP in predictive models is of interest, since one correlates with neuroaxonal damage, while the other has correlated with astrocytic glial damage/cell turnover – potentially, though differently, reflecting inflammatory damage and neurodegeneration,” he added.

To investigate the relationship, the researchers evaluated patients with MS enrolled at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Center. All underwent neurologic examinations every 6 months, and MRI scans and blood samples were collected every year. Some had more than 20 years of follow-up.

The first study involved 144 patients (mean age, 37.4 years) from whom two samples of sNfL and sGFAP were collected within 3 years of MS onset.

The median baseline sNfL level was 10.7 pg/mL, and 50 patients (34.7%) already showed increases in sNfL at the 1-year follow-up. Their median sGFAP level at onset was 96 pg/mL, and 59 patients (41%) showed increases in sGFAP at the 1-year follow-up.

Results showed that higher baseline sNfL levels were significantly associated with increased risk for MS relapse at 10 years (hazard ratio, 1.34; P = .04), as well as with the development of new MRI lesions (HR, 1.35; P = .022).

Of the study group, 25 (17.4%) developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS) by the 10-year follow-up. For those prognostic assessments, the investigators compared utilization of a model using well-established clinical predictors of SPMS with and without the inclusion of sNfL and sGFAP.

The clinical model included key factors such as age, sex, body mass index, Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS), timed 25-foot walk, and other measures.

The researchers found the clinical model alone predicted 10-year outcomes with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.75. However, with the addition of baseline sNfL and sGFAP measures, the AUC was improved to 0.79 (P = .0008).

Furthermore, the inclusion of additional follow-up sNfL and sGFAP measurements taken after baseline further improved the model’s AUC (0.82; P = .046).

The addition of the sNfL and sGFAP measures to the clinical models also improved the prediction of disability in MS at 10 years on EDSS (P = .068), as well as prediction of 10-year brain T2 lesion volume (P = .009) and brain parenchymal fraction (P = .04).
 

Relapse predictor?

In the second study, Dr. Bose and colleagues evaluated the role of the two serum measures in predicting relapse after disease-modifying therapy (DMT) discontinuation. That study included 42 patients who discontinued DMT treatment after having been disease-activity free for 2 years while on the drugs. They were compared with 36 patients who had similar characteristics and had continued DMT treatment.

All patients (mean age, 44.5 years) had a mean of 7.4 years since prior disease activity.

Increases in sNfL following DMT discontinuation, but not before, were associated with a significantly greater risk for clinical disease worsening at a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (HR, 9.4; P = .007). Change in sGFAP was associated with new MRI lesions (HR, 8.3; P = .039), compared with no changes.

“The crux of this study” was that patients with increased biomarker levels after stopping DMTs “were at a significantly higher risk for disease activity in the future compared to those whose biomarker levels remained stable,” Dr. Bose noted.

“We think this finding, if replicated in another cohort, has the potential to be included in guidelines regarding stopping DMT in patients with MS,” he added.
 

Clinically useful?

Jeffrey Cohen, MD, current president of ACTRIMS, said the first study supports mounting evidence on how sNfL and sGFAP at onset can predict future disease and have the potential to improve current predictive models.

“Combining clinical, MRI, and serum biomarkers into a single model works better than any of the three factors individually,” said Dr. Cohen, who is director of the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research and professor of neurology at the Cleveland Clinic.

“For the clinician, this information may help with treatment selection,” he added.

Dr. Cohen noted that the suggestion that the biomarkers could also be helpful in predicting relapse after discontinuation is of importance.

“Increasingly, we are considering this issue in the clinical setting,” he said. However, he also noted some caveats.

“Interpretation of the results of the study is not straightforward, illustrating the complexity of the issue,” Dr. Cohen said. “One issue is that the patients in the study were relatively young, with an average age of 45, which is not a group in which we typically would consider stopping therapy.”

Dr. Bose has received a postdoctoral fellowship grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. Dr. Cohen reports having received personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Convelo, Genentech, Janssen, NervGen, Novartis, and PSI; speaking for H3 Communications; and serving as an editor of the Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FL – Including serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) and serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) at multiple sclerosis (MS) onset may lead to better prediction of long-term outcomes and relapse risk, new research suggests.

The research shows that once standard clinical models can be incorporated into practice, the early measurement of these biomarkers will provide useful information in predicting who may be at risk of poorer outcomes, researcher Gauruv Bose, MD, Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Center, Ann Romney Center for Neurologic Diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
 

Better together?

Although higher baseline sNfL levels in MS have previously been linked to greater brain atrophy and other long-term outcomes, and sGFAP changes are also associated with inflammation and damage through the disease course, less is known about longer-term effects of the two biomarker measures combined, Dr. Bose said.

“The value of using both sNfL and sGFAP in predictive models is of interest, since one correlates with neuroaxonal damage, while the other has correlated with astrocytic glial damage/cell turnover – potentially, though differently, reflecting inflammatory damage and neurodegeneration,” he added.

To investigate the relationship, the researchers evaluated patients with MS enrolled at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Center. All underwent neurologic examinations every 6 months, and MRI scans and blood samples were collected every year. Some had more than 20 years of follow-up.

The first study involved 144 patients (mean age, 37.4 years) from whom two samples of sNfL and sGFAP were collected within 3 years of MS onset.

The median baseline sNfL level was 10.7 pg/mL, and 50 patients (34.7%) already showed increases in sNfL at the 1-year follow-up. Their median sGFAP level at onset was 96 pg/mL, and 59 patients (41%) showed increases in sGFAP at the 1-year follow-up.

Results showed that higher baseline sNfL levels were significantly associated with increased risk for MS relapse at 10 years (hazard ratio, 1.34; P = .04), as well as with the development of new MRI lesions (HR, 1.35; P = .022).

Of the study group, 25 (17.4%) developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS) by the 10-year follow-up. For those prognostic assessments, the investigators compared utilization of a model using well-established clinical predictors of SPMS with and without the inclusion of sNfL and sGFAP.

The clinical model included key factors such as age, sex, body mass index, Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS), timed 25-foot walk, and other measures.

The researchers found the clinical model alone predicted 10-year outcomes with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.75. However, with the addition of baseline sNfL and sGFAP measures, the AUC was improved to 0.79 (P = .0008).

Furthermore, the inclusion of additional follow-up sNfL and sGFAP measurements taken after baseline further improved the model’s AUC (0.82; P = .046).

The addition of the sNfL and sGFAP measures to the clinical models also improved the prediction of disability in MS at 10 years on EDSS (P = .068), as well as prediction of 10-year brain T2 lesion volume (P = .009) and brain parenchymal fraction (P = .04).
 

Relapse predictor?

In the second study, Dr. Bose and colleagues evaluated the role of the two serum measures in predicting relapse after disease-modifying therapy (DMT) discontinuation. That study included 42 patients who discontinued DMT treatment after having been disease-activity free for 2 years while on the drugs. They were compared with 36 patients who had similar characteristics and had continued DMT treatment.

All patients (mean age, 44.5 years) had a mean of 7.4 years since prior disease activity.

Increases in sNfL following DMT discontinuation, but not before, were associated with a significantly greater risk for clinical disease worsening at a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (HR, 9.4; P = .007). Change in sGFAP was associated with new MRI lesions (HR, 8.3; P = .039), compared with no changes.

“The crux of this study” was that patients with increased biomarker levels after stopping DMTs “were at a significantly higher risk for disease activity in the future compared to those whose biomarker levels remained stable,” Dr. Bose noted.

“We think this finding, if replicated in another cohort, has the potential to be included in guidelines regarding stopping DMT in patients with MS,” he added.
 

Clinically useful?

Jeffrey Cohen, MD, current president of ACTRIMS, said the first study supports mounting evidence on how sNfL and sGFAP at onset can predict future disease and have the potential to improve current predictive models.

“Combining clinical, MRI, and serum biomarkers into a single model works better than any of the three factors individually,” said Dr. Cohen, who is director of the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research and professor of neurology at the Cleveland Clinic.

“For the clinician, this information may help with treatment selection,” he added.

Dr. Cohen noted that the suggestion that the biomarkers could also be helpful in predicting relapse after discontinuation is of importance.

“Increasingly, we are considering this issue in the clinical setting,” he said. However, he also noted some caveats.

“Interpretation of the results of the study is not straightforward, illustrating the complexity of the issue,” Dr. Cohen said. “One issue is that the patients in the study were relatively young, with an average age of 45, which is not a group in which we typically would consider stopping therapy.”

Dr. Bose has received a postdoctoral fellowship grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. Dr. Cohen reports having received personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Convelo, Genentech, Janssen, NervGen, Novartis, and PSI; speaking for H3 Communications; and serving as an editor of the Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FL – Including serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) and serum glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) at multiple sclerosis (MS) onset may lead to better prediction of long-term outcomes and relapse risk, new research suggests.

The research shows that once standard clinical models can be incorporated into practice, the early measurement of these biomarkers will provide useful information in predicting who may be at risk of poorer outcomes, researcher Gauruv Bose, MD, Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Center, Ann Romney Center for Neurologic Diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

The findings were presented at annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).
 

Better together?

Although higher baseline sNfL levels in MS have previously been linked to greater brain atrophy and other long-term outcomes, and sGFAP changes are also associated with inflammation and damage through the disease course, less is known about longer-term effects of the two biomarker measures combined, Dr. Bose said.

“The value of using both sNfL and sGFAP in predictive models is of interest, since one correlates with neuroaxonal damage, while the other has correlated with astrocytic glial damage/cell turnover – potentially, though differently, reflecting inflammatory damage and neurodegeneration,” he added.

To investigate the relationship, the researchers evaluated patients with MS enrolled at the Brigham Multiple Sclerosis Center. All underwent neurologic examinations every 6 months, and MRI scans and blood samples were collected every year. Some had more than 20 years of follow-up.

The first study involved 144 patients (mean age, 37.4 years) from whom two samples of sNfL and sGFAP were collected within 3 years of MS onset.

The median baseline sNfL level was 10.7 pg/mL, and 50 patients (34.7%) already showed increases in sNfL at the 1-year follow-up. Their median sGFAP level at onset was 96 pg/mL, and 59 patients (41%) showed increases in sGFAP at the 1-year follow-up.

Results showed that higher baseline sNfL levels were significantly associated with increased risk for MS relapse at 10 years (hazard ratio, 1.34; P = .04), as well as with the development of new MRI lesions (HR, 1.35; P = .022).

Of the study group, 25 (17.4%) developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS) by the 10-year follow-up. For those prognostic assessments, the investigators compared utilization of a model using well-established clinical predictors of SPMS with and without the inclusion of sNfL and sGFAP.

The clinical model included key factors such as age, sex, body mass index, Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS), timed 25-foot walk, and other measures.

The researchers found the clinical model alone predicted 10-year outcomes with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.75. However, with the addition of baseline sNfL and sGFAP measures, the AUC was improved to 0.79 (P = .0008).

Furthermore, the inclusion of additional follow-up sNfL and sGFAP measurements taken after baseline further improved the model’s AUC (0.82; P = .046).

The addition of the sNfL and sGFAP measures to the clinical models also improved the prediction of disability in MS at 10 years on EDSS (P = .068), as well as prediction of 10-year brain T2 lesion volume (P = .009) and brain parenchymal fraction (P = .04).
 

Relapse predictor?

In the second study, Dr. Bose and colleagues evaluated the role of the two serum measures in predicting relapse after disease-modifying therapy (DMT) discontinuation. That study included 42 patients who discontinued DMT treatment after having been disease-activity free for 2 years while on the drugs. They were compared with 36 patients who had similar characteristics and had continued DMT treatment.

All patients (mean age, 44.5 years) had a mean of 7.4 years since prior disease activity.

Increases in sNfL following DMT discontinuation, but not before, were associated with a significantly greater risk for clinical disease worsening at a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (HR, 9.4; P = .007). Change in sGFAP was associated with new MRI lesions (HR, 8.3; P = .039), compared with no changes.

“The crux of this study” was that patients with increased biomarker levels after stopping DMTs “were at a significantly higher risk for disease activity in the future compared to those whose biomarker levels remained stable,” Dr. Bose noted.

“We think this finding, if replicated in another cohort, has the potential to be included in guidelines regarding stopping DMT in patients with MS,” he added.
 

Clinically useful?

Jeffrey Cohen, MD, current president of ACTRIMS, said the first study supports mounting evidence on how sNfL and sGFAP at onset can predict future disease and have the potential to improve current predictive models.

“Combining clinical, MRI, and serum biomarkers into a single model works better than any of the three factors individually,” said Dr. Cohen, who is director of the Mellen Center for MS Treatment and Research and professor of neurology at the Cleveland Clinic.

“For the clinician, this information may help with treatment selection,” he added.

Dr. Cohen noted that the suggestion that the biomarkers could also be helpful in predicting relapse after discontinuation is of importance.

“Increasingly, we are considering this issue in the clinical setting,” he said. However, he also noted some caveats.

“Interpretation of the results of the study is not straightforward, illustrating the complexity of the issue,” Dr. Cohen said. “One issue is that the patients in the study were relatively young, with an average age of 45, which is not a group in which we typically would consider stopping therapy.”

Dr. Bose has received a postdoctoral fellowship grant from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. Dr. Cohen reports having received personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Convelo, Genentech, Janssen, NervGen, Novartis, and PSI; speaking for H3 Communications; and serving as an editor of the Multiple Sclerosis Journal.

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

Sleeping with a light on can play havoc with insulin levels and consequently impair the response to glucose, a 2-night sleep-lab study of 20 people indicates.

“The most important finding” is that, compared with one night in a dim light environment, “one night of exposure to a moderate level of room light while sleeping with eyes closed increased heart rate and sympathetic [nervous system] activity during the entire sleep period,” said senior author Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD.

And on the morning following the moderate room light condition, a higher amount of insulin secretion was required to normalize glucose levels following ingestion of a bolus of glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test, consistent with higher insulin resistance, Dr. Zee, director of the center for circadian and sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization in an email.

The study by Ivy C. Mason, PhD, also of Northwestern University, and colleagues was published March 14 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Melatonin levels were similar under the two light conditions, Dr. Zee added, which “suggests that the effect of light during sleep on these cardiometabolic measures were more likely due to activation of the sympathetic [nervous] system and less likely due to changes in sleep or suppression of melatonin by light.”

“Attention to avoiding exposure to light at night during sleep may be beneficial for cardiometabolic health,” the researchers conclude.

That means “turn lights off before sleeping,” Dr. Zee elaborated. If a light is needed for safety reasons, keep it as dim as possible, she advises, and avoid exposure to blue or green light, but instead try red-amber colors.
 

How light during sleep may affect insulin, melatonin, heart rate

Several studies have investigated the effect of light on sleep and metabolic outcomes, the researchers explain.

In one study, light in the bedroom was associated with obesity in women, and in another study, it was associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in an elderly population.

Research has suggested that nighttime light exposure may alter glucose metabolism by increasing insulin resistance; lowering melatonin levels, which alters insulin secretion; and having an arousing effect on the sympathetic autonomic nervous system (increasing the stress hormone cortisol or heart rate, and decreasing heart rate variability).

However, the effect of a single night of moderate room light exposure across the entire nighttime sleep period has not been fully investigated.

The researchers enrolled and randomized 20 healthy young adults who were 18-40 years old and regularly went to sleep between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. and slept 6.5-8.5 hours, to sleep 2 nights in the sleep laboratory under two conditions.

Ten participants (eight women, two men) slept in a dim light condition on night 1 and in a moderate light condition on night 2. The other 10 participants (six women, four men) slept 2 nights in the dim light condition.

The moderate light condition consisted of four 60-watt incandescent overhead ceiling light bulbs (a total of 100 lux), which “is bright enough to see, but not to read comfortably,” Dr. Zee explained. “It’s like hallway light in an apartment. But the people were sleeping, so about 90% of the light would be blocked by the eyelids.”

The dim light condition was less than 3 lux, which is dimmer than a night light.

When participants were awake, the room lighting was 240 lux.

Participants in each group were a mean age of 27 years and had a mean body mass index of 23 and 24 kg/m².

The week before the study, participants went to bed at 11 p.m. and slept for 7 hours (based on actigraphy measures). During the laboratory stay, the participants were allowed to sleep 8 hours, during which polysomnography was performed.  

They received standard meals at 2.5, 5, and 11 hours after waking and had 30 minutes to eat them. Snacking and caffeine were not permitted.

Participants were instructed to remain seated or standing in their room, but not exercise, when they were not sleeping. Blood samples to determine melatonin levels were collected hourly during wake and sleep via an intravenous line.

Participants slept for a similar time, around 7 hours, in both conditions.

Although melatonin levels were similar in both conditions, this was a relatively small sample, the researchers caution.

In the room light condition, participants spent proportionately more time in stage N2 sleep and less in slow-wave and rapid eye movement sleep. There was no increase in sleep fragmentation or arousals.

The research was partly supported by the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at Northwestern University, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Heart Association. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sleeping with a light on can play havoc with insulin levels and consequently impair the response to glucose, a 2-night sleep-lab study of 20 people indicates.

“The most important finding” is that, compared with one night in a dim light environment, “one night of exposure to a moderate level of room light while sleeping with eyes closed increased heart rate and sympathetic [nervous system] activity during the entire sleep period,” said senior author Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD.

And on the morning following the moderate room light condition, a higher amount of insulin secretion was required to normalize glucose levels following ingestion of a bolus of glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test, consistent with higher insulin resistance, Dr. Zee, director of the center for circadian and sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization in an email.

The study by Ivy C. Mason, PhD, also of Northwestern University, and colleagues was published March 14 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Melatonin levels were similar under the two light conditions, Dr. Zee added, which “suggests that the effect of light during sleep on these cardiometabolic measures were more likely due to activation of the sympathetic [nervous] system and less likely due to changes in sleep or suppression of melatonin by light.”

“Attention to avoiding exposure to light at night during sleep may be beneficial for cardiometabolic health,” the researchers conclude.

That means “turn lights off before sleeping,” Dr. Zee elaborated. If a light is needed for safety reasons, keep it as dim as possible, she advises, and avoid exposure to blue or green light, but instead try red-amber colors.
 

How light during sleep may affect insulin, melatonin, heart rate

Several studies have investigated the effect of light on sleep and metabolic outcomes, the researchers explain.

In one study, light in the bedroom was associated with obesity in women, and in another study, it was associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in an elderly population.

Research has suggested that nighttime light exposure may alter glucose metabolism by increasing insulin resistance; lowering melatonin levels, which alters insulin secretion; and having an arousing effect on the sympathetic autonomic nervous system (increasing the stress hormone cortisol or heart rate, and decreasing heart rate variability).

However, the effect of a single night of moderate room light exposure across the entire nighttime sleep period has not been fully investigated.

The researchers enrolled and randomized 20 healthy young adults who were 18-40 years old and regularly went to sleep between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. and slept 6.5-8.5 hours, to sleep 2 nights in the sleep laboratory under two conditions.

Ten participants (eight women, two men) slept in a dim light condition on night 1 and in a moderate light condition on night 2. The other 10 participants (six women, four men) slept 2 nights in the dim light condition.

The moderate light condition consisted of four 60-watt incandescent overhead ceiling light bulbs (a total of 100 lux), which “is bright enough to see, but not to read comfortably,” Dr. Zee explained. “It’s like hallway light in an apartment. But the people were sleeping, so about 90% of the light would be blocked by the eyelids.”

The dim light condition was less than 3 lux, which is dimmer than a night light.

When participants were awake, the room lighting was 240 lux.

Participants in each group were a mean age of 27 years and had a mean body mass index of 23 and 24 kg/m².

The week before the study, participants went to bed at 11 p.m. and slept for 7 hours (based on actigraphy measures). During the laboratory stay, the participants were allowed to sleep 8 hours, during which polysomnography was performed.  

They received standard meals at 2.5, 5, and 11 hours after waking and had 30 minutes to eat them. Snacking and caffeine were not permitted.

Participants were instructed to remain seated or standing in their room, but not exercise, when they were not sleeping. Blood samples to determine melatonin levels were collected hourly during wake and sleep via an intravenous line.

Participants slept for a similar time, around 7 hours, in both conditions.

Although melatonin levels were similar in both conditions, this was a relatively small sample, the researchers caution.

In the room light condition, participants spent proportionately more time in stage N2 sleep and less in slow-wave and rapid eye movement sleep. There was no increase in sleep fragmentation or arousals.

The research was partly supported by the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at Northwestern University, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Heart Association. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sleeping with a light on can play havoc with insulin levels and consequently impair the response to glucose, a 2-night sleep-lab study of 20 people indicates.

“The most important finding” is that, compared with one night in a dim light environment, “one night of exposure to a moderate level of room light while sleeping with eyes closed increased heart rate and sympathetic [nervous system] activity during the entire sleep period,” said senior author Phyllis C. Zee, MD, PhD.

And on the morning following the moderate room light condition, a higher amount of insulin secretion was required to normalize glucose levels following ingestion of a bolus of glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test, consistent with higher insulin resistance, Dr. Zee, director of the center for circadian and sleep medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization in an email.

The study by Ivy C. Mason, PhD, also of Northwestern University, and colleagues was published March 14 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Melatonin levels were similar under the two light conditions, Dr. Zee added, which “suggests that the effect of light during sleep on these cardiometabolic measures were more likely due to activation of the sympathetic [nervous] system and less likely due to changes in sleep or suppression of melatonin by light.”

“Attention to avoiding exposure to light at night during sleep may be beneficial for cardiometabolic health,” the researchers conclude.

That means “turn lights off before sleeping,” Dr. Zee elaborated. If a light is needed for safety reasons, keep it as dim as possible, she advises, and avoid exposure to blue or green light, but instead try red-amber colors.
 

How light during sleep may affect insulin, melatonin, heart rate

Several studies have investigated the effect of light on sleep and metabolic outcomes, the researchers explain.

In one study, light in the bedroom was associated with obesity in women, and in another study, it was associated with risk of type 2 diabetes in an elderly population.

Research has suggested that nighttime light exposure may alter glucose metabolism by increasing insulin resistance; lowering melatonin levels, which alters insulin secretion; and having an arousing effect on the sympathetic autonomic nervous system (increasing the stress hormone cortisol or heart rate, and decreasing heart rate variability).

However, the effect of a single night of moderate room light exposure across the entire nighttime sleep period has not been fully investigated.

The researchers enrolled and randomized 20 healthy young adults who were 18-40 years old and regularly went to sleep between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. and slept 6.5-8.5 hours, to sleep 2 nights in the sleep laboratory under two conditions.

Ten participants (eight women, two men) slept in a dim light condition on night 1 and in a moderate light condition on night 2. The other 10 participants (six women, four men) slept 2 nights in the dim light condition.

The moderate light condition consisted of four 60-watt incandescent overhead ceiling light bulbs (a total of 100 lux), which “is bright enough to see, but not to read comfortably,” Dr. Zee explained. “It’s like hallway light in an apartment. But the people were sleeping, so about 90% of the light would be blocked by the eyelids.”

The dim light condition was less than 3 lux, which is dimmer than a night light.

When participants were awake, the room lighting was 240 lux.

Participants in each group were a mean age of 27 years and had a mean body mass index of 23 and 24 kg/m².

The week before the study, participants went to bed at 11 p.m. and slept for 7 hours (based on actigraphy measures). During the laboratory stay, the participants were allowed to sleep 8 hours, during which polysomnography was performed.  

They received standard meals at 2.5, 5, and 11 hours after waking and had 30 minutes to eat them. Snacking and caffeine were not permitted.

Participants were instructed to remain seated or standing in their room, but not exercise, when they were not sleeping. Blood samples to determine melatonin levels were collected hourly during wake and sleep via an intravenous line.

Participants slept for a similar time, around 7 hours, in both conditions.

Although melatonin levels were similar in both conditions, this was a relatively small sample, the researchers caution.

In the room light condition, participants spent proportionately more time in stage N2 sleep and less in slow-wave and rapid eye movement sleep. There was no increase in sleep fragmentation or arousals.

The research was partly supported by the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at Northwestern University, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Heart Association. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The endocannabinoid system is a promising therapeutic target for the treatment of migraine, according to Italian researchers at the University of Pavia, and the C. Mondino National Institute of Neurology Foundation. “The complexity of the endocannabinoid system calls for accurate biochemical and pharmacological characterization of any new compounds undergoing testing and development,” noted Rosaria Greco, PhD. She and her colleagues authored a review on the topic that was published online Feb. 18, 2022, in Headache.

Although cannabis has been investigated for both the treatment and prevention of migraine, evidence for its benefit is weak because of lack of controlled studies, they explained. Archival data from a large database “showed greater improvements in men than in women and suggested that concentrated preparations were more effective than flower consumption.” In addition, a small single-center study linked nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, to reductions in pain duration, intensity, and daily intake of analgesics among patients with medication overuse headache. Finally, a pilot study reported a reduction in pain intensity among patients with chronic migraine treated with a combination of tested a combination of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. “Methodologically sound studies are now needed to investigate the possible effects of cannabis in migraine treatment and to define strains, formulations, and dosage,” they noted.
 

Not just cannabis

In addition to exogenous cannabis, there are now preclinical studies suggesting other compounds that interact with the endocannabinoid system “are also able to modulate the pathways involved in migraine-related pain,” the study authors wrote. “But the road ahead is still long. Multiple molecules linked to the endocannabinoid system have emerged as potential therapeutic targets.

The complexity of the system demands caution and precise biochemical and pharmacological characterization of the new compounds to be tested and developed.”

Among these compounds are endogenous ligands such as N-arachidonoylethanolamine (anandamide) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol that specifically target CB1 and CB2 receptors. Additionally, there are endocannabinoid-based drugs that also target the CB1/CB2 receptors, as well as other substances, such as lipids (palmitoylethanolamide [PEA]) and enzymes, that do not bind to the CB1/CB2 receptors but are responsible for endocannabinoid biosynthesis.

There is some evidence that the endocannabinoid system may be dysfunctional in patients with migraine, and the authors noted their work has shown that PEA plasma levels are increased during experimentally triggered migraine-like attacks. Thus, some preclinical and preliminary evidence suggests that administration of PEA or anandamide may have analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects in migraine.

Another approach is the inhibition of endocannabinoid catabolic enzymes, which could circumvent the adverse effects associated with direct activation of CB receptors. “Endocannabinoid tone enhancement has been proposed as an alternative modality of activation of CB receptors and is possibly devoid of the psychotropic effects reported with CB receptor agonists,” noted the authors, who have shown in animal and preclinical studies that inhibition of fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) and monoacylglycerol lipase can modulate migraine pain.

Yet another way of indirectly impacting CB receptors is through their allosteric ligands, an approach that “deserves further investigation”, and “might provide interesting leads for clinical development, given that it may have a favorable side-effect profile with limited psychomimetic and depressant effects,” wrote the authors. And finally, inhibition of N-acylethanolamine acid amide hydrolase, the enzyme that preferentially hydrolyzes PEA, might be a promising approach.

“The multiplicity of options and the wealth of data already obtained in animal models underscore the importance of further advancing research in this area,” the authors concluded.
 

Patients are taking cannabinoids; physicians should learn about them

Commenting on the paper, Alan Rapaport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said “this well-done paper points out the complexity of the endocannabinoid system and the multiple ways of getting it to work for certain patients. It details some of the studies that show beneficial results in migraine, medication overuse headache, chronic migraine, and pain. Patients with headache, other types of pain, anxiety, nausea, sleep issues, and other symptoms are already taking cannabinoids, usually derived from the marijuana plant, that are not well regulated. A few are prescribed drugs which target CB1 and CB2 receptors. Patients often get relief of some of their symptoms, sometimes getting high and many times not.

“The paper makes the point that previous studies are often small, not carefully controlled, or well documented. We do need to start doing larger, properly designed studies and getting them into the literature. Doctors need to learn more about these treatments. The next step will be to get [Food and Drug Administration]–approved treatments, so physicians and nurses will know exactly what we are giving, the beneficial effects to expect in a certain percentage of patients, and the adverse events to warn our patients about. Cannabinoids have been tried by a large percentage of patients with headache and pain. Now we need to standardize the various treatments that are sure to be suggested in the future.”

The study was funded by the Migraine Research Foundation, and the Italian Ministry of Health. The study authors declared no conflicts of interest.

The endocannabinoid system is a promising therapeutic target for the treatment of migraine, according to Italian researchers at the University of Pavia, and the C. Mondino National Institute of Neurology Foundation. “The complexity of the endocannabinoid system calls for accurate biochemical and pharmacological characterization of any new compounds undergoing testing and development,” noted Rosaria Greco, PhD. She and her colleagues authored a review on the topic that was published online Feb. 18, 2022, in Headache.

Although cannabis has been investigated for both the treatment and prevention of migraine, evidence for its benefit is weak because of lack of controlled studies, they explained. Archival data from a large database “showed greater improvements in men than in women and suggested that concentrated preparations were more effective than flower consumption.” In addition, a small single-center study linked nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, to reductions in pain duration, intensity, and daily intake of analgesics among patients with medication overuse headache. Finally, a pilot study reported a reduction in pain intensity among patients with chronic migraine treated with a combination of tested a combination of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. “Methodologically sound studies are now needed to investigate the possible effects of cannabis in migraine treatment and to define strains, formulations, and dosage,” they noted.
 

Not just cannabis

In addition to exogenous cannabis, there are now preclinical studies suggesting other compounds that interact with the endocannabinoid system “are also able to modulate the pathways involved in migraine-related pain,” the study authors wrote. “But the road ahead is still long. Multiple molecules linked to the endocannabinoid system have emerged as potential therapeutic targets.

The complexity of the system demands caution and precise biochemical and pharmacological characterization of the new compounds to be tested and developed.”

Among these compounds are endogenous ligands such as N-arachidonoylethanolamine (anandamide) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol that specifically target CB1 and CB2 receptors. Additionally, there are endocannabinoid-based drugs that also target the CB1/CB2 receptors, as well as other substances, such as lipids (palmitoylethanolamide [PEA]) and enzymes, that do not bind to the CB1/CB2 receptors but are responsible for endocannabinoid biosynthesis.

There is some evidence that the endocannabinoid system may be dysfunctional in patients with migraine, and the authors noted their work has shown that PEA plasma levels are increased during experimentally triggered migraine-like attacks. Thus, some preclinical and preliminary evidence suggests that administration of PEA or anandamide may have analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects in migraine.

Another approach is the inhibition of endocannabinoid catabolic enzymes, which could circumvent the adverse effects associated with direct activation of CB receptors. “Endocannabinoid tone enhancement has been proposed as an alternative modality of activation of CB receptors and is possibly devoid of the psychotropic effects reported with CB receptor agonists,” noted the authors, who have shown in animal and preclinical studies that inhibition of fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) and monoacylglycerol lipase can modulate migraine pain.

Yet another way of indirectly impacting CB receptors is through their allosteric ligands, an approach that “deserves further investigation”, and “might provide interesting leads for clinical development, given that it may have a favorable side-effect profile with limited psychomimetic and depressant effects,” wrote the authors. And finally, inhibition of N-acylethanolamine acid amide hydrolase, the enzyme that preferentially hydrolyzes PEA, might be a promising approach.

“The multiplicity of options and the wealth of data already obtained in animal models underscore the importance of further advancing research in this area,” the authors concluded.
 

Patients are taking cannabinoids; physicians should learn about them

Commenting on the paper, Alan Rapaport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said “this well-done paper points out the complexity of the endocannabinoid system and the multiple ways of getting it to work for certain patients. It details some of the studies that show beneficial results in migraine, medication overuse headache, chronic migraine, and pain. Patients with headache, other types of pain, anxiety, nausea, sleep issues, and other symptoms are already taking cannabinoids, usually derived from the marijuana plant, that are not well regulated. A few are prescribed drugs which target CB1 and CB2 receptors. Patients often get relief of some of their symptoms, sometimes getting high and many times not.

“The paper makes the point that previous studies are often small, not carefully controlled, or well documented. We do need to start doing larger, properly designed studies and getting them into the literature. Doctors need to learn more about these treatments. The next step will be to get [Food and Drug Administration]–approved treatments, so physicians and nurses will know exactly what we are giving, the beneficial effects to expect in a certain percentage of patients, and the adverse events to warn our patients about. Cannabinoids have been tried by a large percentage of patients with headache and pain. Now we need to standardize the various treatments that are sure to be suggested in the future.”

The study was funded by the Migraine Research Foundation, and the Italian Ministry of Health. The study authors declared no conflicts of interest.

The endocannabinoid system is a promising therapeutic target for the treatment of migraine, according to Italian researchers at the University of Pavia, and the C. Mondino National Institute of Neurology Foundation. “The complexity of the endocannabinoid system calls for accurate biochemical and pharmacological characterization of any new compounds undergoing testing and development,” noted Rosaria Greco, PhD. She and her colleagues authored a review on the topic that was published online Feb. 18, 2022, in Headache.

Although cannabis has been investigated for both the treatment and prevention of migraine, evidence for its benefit is weak because of lack of controlled studies, they explained. Archival data from a large database “showed greater improvements in men than in women and suggested that concentrated preparations were more effective than flower consumption.” In addition, a small single-center study linked nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, to reductions in pain duration, intensity, and daily intake of analgesics among patients with medication overuse headache. Finally, a pilot study reported a reduction in pain intensity among patients with chronic migraine treated with a combination of tested a combination of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. “Methodologically sound studies are now needed to investigate the possible effects of cannabis in migraine treatment and to define strains, formulations, and dosage,” they noted.
 

Not just cannabis

In addition to exogenous cannabis, there are now preclinical studies suggesting other compounds that interact with the endocannabinoid system “are also able to modulate the pathways involved in migraine-related pain,” the study authors wrote. “But the road ahead is still long. Multiple molecules linked to the endocannabinoid system have emerged as potential therapeutic targets.

The complexity of the system demands caution and precise biochemical and pharmacological characterization of the new compounds to be tested and developed.”

Among these compounds are endogenous ligands such as N-arachidonoylethanolamine (anandamide) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol that specifically target CB1 and CB2 receptors. Additionally, there are endocannabinoid-based drugs that also target the CB1/CB2 receptors, as well as other substances, such as lipids (palmitoylethanolamide [PEA]) and enzymes, that do not bind to the CB1/CB2 receptors but are responsible for endocannabinoid biosynthesis.

There is some evidence that the endocannabinoid system may be dysfunctional in patients with migraine, and the authors noted their work has shown that PEA plasma levels are increased during experimentally triggered migraine-like attacks. Thus, some preclinical and preliminary evidence suggests that administration of PEA or anandamide may have analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects in migraine.

Another approach is the inhibition of endocannabinoid catabolic enzymes, which could circumvent the adverse effects associated with direct activation of CB receptors. “Endocannabinoid tone enhancement has been proposed as an alternative modality of activation of CB receptors and is possibly devoid of the psychotropic effects reported with CB receptor agonists,” noted the authors, who have shown in animal and preclinical studies that inhibition of fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) and monoacylglycerol lipase can modulate migraine pain.

Yet another way of indirectly impacting CB receptors is through their allosteric ligands, an approach that “deserves further investigation”, and “might provide interesting leads for clinical development, given that it may have a favorable side-effect profile with limited psychomimetic and depressant effects,” wrote the authors. And finally, inhibition of N-acylethanolamine acid amide hydrolase, the enzyme that preferentially hydrolyzes PEA, might be a promising approach.

“The multiplicity of options and the wealth of data already obtained in animal models underscore the importance of further advancing research in this area,” the authors concluded.
 

Patients are taking cannabinoids; physicians should learn about them

Commenting on the paper, Alan Rapaport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said “this well-done paper points out the complexity of the endocannabinoid system and the multiple ways of getting it to work for certain patients. It details some of the studies that show beneficial results in migraine, medication overuse headache, chronic migraine, and pain. Patients with headache, other types of pain, anxiety, nausea, sleep issues, and other symptoms are already taking cannabinoids, usually derived from the marijuana plant, that are not well regulated. A few are prescribed drugs which target CB1 and CB2 receptors. Patients often get relief of some of their symptoms, sometimes getting high and many times not.

“The paper makes the point that previous studies are often small, not carefully controlled, or well documented. We do need to start doing larger, properly designed studies and getting them into the literature. Doctors need to learn more about these treatments. The next step will be to get [Food and Drug Administration]–approved treatments, so physicians and nurses will know exactly what we are giving, the beneficial effects to expect in a certain percentage of patients, and the adverse events to warn our patients about. Cannabinoids have been tried by a large percentage of patients with headache and pain. Now we need to standardize the various treatments that are sure to be suggested in the future.”

The study was funded by the Migraine Research Foundation, and the Italian Ministry of Health. The study authors declared no conflicts of interest.

More than 18 months after the Watchman FLX device was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA), a prospective analysis of registry data presented at CRT 2022, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute, supports its safely outside of the clinical trial setting.

The data, drawn from the LAA occlusion registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, showed a mortality rate at 45 days of under 1.0%, which was consistent with the acceptably low rate of other adverse events, according to Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

Only 0.5% had a pericardial effusion within 45 days of LAA closure that required intervention. Of those without effusion, 95% had a leak of less than 3 mm and 82% had no leak at all, according to Dr. Kapadia.

Patients enrolled in this analysis, called SURPASS (Surveillance Post Approval Analysis Plan), had undergone left atrial closure with the device from August 2020 to September 2022. There were no exclusion criteria. Ultimately, 2 years of follow-up is planned.

With more than 16,000 patients enrolled, the data on 14,363 patients in this initial 45-day analysis represents “the largest number of Watchman FLX patients evaluated to date,” Dr. Kapadia reported.
 

Device implantation success 97.5%

The Watchman FLX, which is delivered to the left atrial appendage by a transcatheter approach, was deployed successfully in 97.5% of all 16,048 patients enrolled in the registry. In the 398 cases without successful deployment, the anatomy was not conducive in nearly 70%. Other reasons included failure to meet device-release criteria and change in patient condition.

The outcomes of interest at 45 days were ischemic strokes, systemic emboli, device-related thrombi, device embolization, and bleeding. The primary endpoints at 2 years will be strokes and thrombotic events.

For stroke, the incidence within 45 days was 0.39%. About 25% of the strokes were hemorrhagic and the remainder were ischemic. There was 1 systemic embolism (0.01%), 5 device embolizations (0.03%), and 30 device-related thrombotic events (0.24%). Major bleeding occurred in 508 patients (3.55%).

For context, Dr. Kapadia compared these results to those observed in the PINNACLE FLX trial, which was a nonrandomized but prospective study of the Watchman FLX published about 1 year ago. In PINNACLE FLX, the enrollment was open to patients indicated for oral anticoagulation but who had an appropriate rationale for seeking a nonpharmacological alternative.

Taken from different studies, the outcomes at 45 days should not be construed as a direct comparison, but the similarity of the results can be considered reassuring, according to Dr. Kapadia.

For the composite safety endpoint of all-cause death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or implantation-related events requiring intervention, the rates in SURPASS (0.4%) and PINNACLE FLX (0.5%) were nearly identical. Device leak rates (82.0% vs. 82.8%), stroke rates (0.4% vs. 0.7%), and all-cause death rates (0.9% vs. 0.5%) were also similar.

The similarity of the SURPASS and PINNACLE FLX data provides another level of reassurance.

“The SURPASS registry confirms the safety of the Watchman Flex in the real-world experience when the device is being used by many different operators in a large patient population,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview.

In “appropriately selected patients,” the SURPASS data confirm that the Watchman FLX device “provides a safe and effective treatment option,” he added.

Relative to the PINNACLE FLX study, which enrolled 400 patients, it is noteworthy that the median age in SURPASS was older (76 vs. 73.8 years), a potential disadvantage in demonstrating comparable safety. The proportion of non-White patients was similar (6.7% vs. 6.3%). SURPASS had a higher proportion of women (40% vs. 35.5%).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The SURPASS data are credible, according to Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

“While there are certainly limitations to registry data, I do feel pretty confident that these procedural complication and success rates [in SURPASS] do indeed reflect reality,” said Dr. Reddy, who was a coauthor of the PINNACLE FLX trial. In general, the SURPASS data “mirror most of our clinical experiences in routine clinical practice.”

With these registry data backing up multiple clinical studies, Dr. Reddy concluded, “I do believe that it is fair to say that Watchman-FLX implantation is a quite safe procedure.”

Dr. Kapadia reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Reddy reported a financial relationship with Boston Scientific.

More than 18 months after the Watchman FLX device was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA), a prospective analysis of registry data presented at CRT 2022, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute, supports its safely outside of the clinical trial setting.

The data, drawn from the LAA occlusion registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, showed a mortality rate at 45 days of under 1.0%, which was consistent with the acceptably low rate of other adverse events, according to Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

Only 0.5% had a pericardial effusion within 45 days of LAA closure that required intervention. Of those without effusion, 95% had a leak of less than 3 mm and 82% had no leak at all, according to Dr. Kapadia.

Patients enrolled in this analysis, called SURPASS (Surveillance Post Approval Analysis Plan), had undergone left atrial closure with the device from August 2020 to September 2022. There were no exclusion criteria. Ultimately, 2 years of follow-up is planned.

With more than 16,000 patients enrolled, the data on 14,363 patients in this initial 45-day analysis represents “the largest number of Watchman FLX patients evaluated to date,” Dr. Kapadia reported.
 

Device implantation success 97.5%

The Watchman FLX, which is delivered to the left atrial appendage by a transcatheter approach, was deployed successfully in 97.5% of all 16,048 patients enrolled in the registry. In the 398 cases without successful deployment, the anatomy was not conducive in nearly 70%. Other reasons included failure to meet device-release criteria and change in patient condition.

The outcomes of interest at 45 days were ischemic strokes, systemic emboli, device-related thrombi, device embolization, and bleeding. The primary endpoints at 2 years will be strokes and thrombotic events.

For stroke, the incidence within 45 days was 0.39%. About 25% of the strokes were hemorrhagic and the remainder were ischemic. There was 1 systemic embolism (0.01%), 5 device embolizations (0.03%), and 30 device-related thrombotic events (0.24%). Major bleeding occurred in 508 patients (3.55%).

For context, Dr. Kapadia compared these results to those observed in the PINNACLE FLX trial, which was a nonrandomized but prospective study of the Watchman FLX published about 1 year ago. In PINNACLE FLX, the enrollment was open to patients indicated for oral anticoagulation but who had an appropriate rationale for seeking a nonpharmacological alternative.

Taken from different studies, the outcomes at 45 days should not be construed as a direct comparison, but the similarity of the results can be considered reassuring, according to Dr. Kapadia.

For the composite safety endpoint of all-cause death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or implantation-related events requiring intervention, the rates in SURPASS (0.4%) and PINNACLE FLX (0.5%) were nearly identical. Device leak rates (82.0% vs. 82.8%), stroke rates (0.4% vs. 0.7%), and all-cause death rates (0.9% vs. 0.5%) were also similar.

The similarity of the SURPASS and PINNACLE FLX data provides another level of reassurance.

“The SURPASS registry confirms the safety of the Watchman Flex in the real-world experience when the device is being used by many different operators in a large patient population,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview.

In “appropriately selected patients,” the SURPASS data confirm that the Watchman FLX device “provides a safe and effective treatment option,” he added.

Relative to the PINNACLE FLX study, which enrolled 400 patients, it is noteworthy that the median age in SURPASS was older (76 vs. 73.8 years), a potential disadvantage in demonstrating comparable safety. The proportion of non-White patients was similar (6.7% vs. 6.3%). SURPASS had a higher proportion of women (40% vs. 35.5%).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The SURPASS data are credible, according to Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

“While there are certainly limitations to registry data, I do feel pretty confident that these procedural complication and success rates [in SURPASS] do indeed reflect reality,” said Dr. Reddy, who was a coauthor of the PINNACLE FLX trial. In general, the SURPASS data “mirror most of our clinical experiences in routine clinical practice.”

With these registry data backing up multiple clinical studies, Dr. Reddy concluded, “I do believe that it is fair to say that Watchman-FLX implantation is a quite safe procedure.”

Dr. Kapadia reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Reddy reported a financial relationship with Boston Scientific.

More than 18 months after the Watchman FLX device was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA), a prospective analysis of registry data presented at CRT 2022, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute, supports its safely outside of the clinical trial setting.

The data, drawn from the LAA occlusion registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, showed a mortality rate at 45 days of under 1.0%, which was consistent with the acceptably low rate of other adverse events, according to Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

Only 0.5% had a pericardial effusion within 45 days of LAA closure that required intervention. Of those without effusion, 95% had a leak of less than 3 mm and 82% had no leak at all, according to Dr. Kapadia.

Patients enrolled in this analysis, called SURPASS (Surveillance Post Approval Analysis Plan), had undergone left atrial closure with the device from August 2020 to September 2022. There were no exclusion criteria. Ultimately, 2 years of follow-up is planned.

With more than 16,000 patients enrolled, the data on 14,363 patients in this initial 45-day analysis represents “the largest number of Watchman FLX patients evaluated to date,” Dr. Kapadia reported.
 

Device implantation success 97.5%

The Watchman FLX, which is delivered to the left atrial appendage by a transcatheter approach, was deployed successfully in 97.5% of all 16,048 patients enrolled in the registry. In the 398 cases without successful deployment, the anatomy was not conducive in nearly 70%. Other reasons included failure to meet device-release criteria and change in patient condition.

The outcomes of interest at 45 days were ischemic strokes, systemic emboli, device-related thrombi, device embolization, and bleeding. The primary endpoints at 2 years will be strokes and thrombotic events.

For stroke, the incidence within 45 days was 0.39%. About 25% of the strokes were hemorrhagic and the remainder were ischemic. There was 1 systemic embolism (0.01%), 5 device embolizations (0.03%), and 30 device-related thrombotic events (0.24%). Major bleeding occurred in 508 patients (3.55%).

For context, Dr. Kapadia compared these results to those observed in the PINNACLE FLX trial, which was a nonrandomized but prospective study of the Watchman FLX published about 1 year ago. In PINNACLE FLX, the enrollment was open to patients indicated for oral anticoagulation but who had an appropriate rationale for seeking a nonpharmacological alternative.

Taken from different studies, the outcomes at 45 days should not be construed as a direct comparison, but the similarity of the results can be considered reassuring, according to Dr. Kapadia.

For the composite safety endpoint of all-cause death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or implantation-related events requiring intervention, the rates in SURPASS (0.4%) and PINNACLE FLX (0.5%) were nearly identical. Device leak rates (82.0% vs. 82.8%), stroke rates (0.4% vs. 0.7%), and all-cause death rates (0.9% vs. 0.5%) were also similar.

The similarity of the SURPASS and PINNACLE FLX data provides another level of reassurance.

“The SURPASS registry confirms the safety of the Watchman Flex in the real-world experience when the device is being used by many different operators in a large patient population,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview.

In “appropriately selected patients,” the SURPASS data confirm that the Watchman FLX device “provides a safe and effective treatment option,” he added.

Relative to the PINNACLE FLX study, which enrolled 400 patients, it is noteworthy that the median age in SURPASS was older (76 vs. 73.8 years), a potential disadvantage in demonstrating comparable safety. The proportion of non-White patients was similar (6.7% vs. 6.3%). SURPASS had a higher proportion of women (40% vs. 35.5%).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The SURPASS data are credible, according to Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

“While there are certainly limitations to registry data, I do feel pretty confident that these procedural complication and success rates [in SURPASS] do indeed reflect reality,” said Dr. Reddy, who was a coauthor of the PINNACLE FLX trial. In general, the SURPASS data “mirror most of our clinical experiences in routine clinical practice.”

With these registry data backing up multiple clinical studies, Dr. Reddy concluded, “I do believe that it is fair to say that Watchman-FLX implantation is a quite safe procedure.”

Dr. Kapadia reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Reddy reported a financial relationship with Boston Scientific.

Among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) receiving ocrelizumab or rituximab, B cell depletion appears to last well past the 6-month dosing regimen typically used with these drugs. The results, drawn from a retrospective analysis, provide support for clinical trials to rest longer re-infusion intervals.

The study appeared online Jan. 21 in the journal Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, presented by lead author Mahmoud AbdelRazek, MD, at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

Both drugs were approved based on clinical trials that investigated 6-month doses, but previous studies have suggested depletion can last longer, including a range of 9-26 months in the case of rituximab.

The initial rationale for monitoring B cell depletion was to prevent a relapse by re-infusing a patient if B cells levels rise, but the researchers noted a pattern of sustained depletion, especially in patients who had a delayed infusion for some reason – they often still had low B cell counts at the time of the next drug infusion. “That became not an unusual finding,” said Dr. AbdelRazek in an interview. He is an instructor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.

Patients also found the delay appealing, in part because they often felt unwell in the days following an infusion, and delays could mean fewer infections and other adverse effects. “Most of my patients I’ve discussed this with would be very appreciative of that delay,” said Dr. AbdelRazek. “There’s obviously an economic benefit as well,” said Dr. AbdelRazek.
 

The final answer?

The retrospective nature of the study is a key weakness, and the rationale to delay infusions based on continuing B cell depletion assumes that B cell depletion is in fact the mechanism of action for countering MS. “That is a critical question,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. But if that is indeed the way the drugs work, then it would make sense to identify patients who repopulate B cells more slowly and tailor drug regimens. “It’s not one size fits all and blindly just re-dosing. The upsides are good: You come in less frequently for dosing, the cost to payers is less. But the bad is, maybe there are other markers. This is the putative mechanism, but what we believe may not be the final answer. There may be more to the story,” said Dr. Gutesblatt, who is Medical Director at South Shore Neurologic Associates, Patchogue, New York.

Dr. AbdelRazek also noted the study’s limitation. “I think a clinical trial is going to be warranted to really have this translated into clinical practice,” he said. His group is planning to conduct just such a trial, pending confirmation of a funding source.
 

B cell depletion beyond 6 months

The researchers analyzed data from 178 patients with MS and 10 patients with NMOSD who received ocrelizumab (n = 111) or rituximab (n = 53), or both (n = 24) at two Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals between 2010 and 2020. The data included 800 infusions and 1,054 CD19 measurements.

The researchers defined B cell depletion as an absolute count of 20 cells/uL or less, a B cell percentage of 2% or less, or if B cells were 5% or less of total lymphocytes.

Among the patient population, B cell depletion that met all 3 criteria occurred as long as 13.8 months after an initial ocrelizumab infusion cycle, and 22.8 months after second or more cycles of ocrelizumab. Following rituximab, the researchers noted B cell depletions. Following 500 mg of rituximab, B cell depletion defined by the first, second, or third criteria occurred as far out as 22.3, 26.2, and 28.5 months. For 1,000 mg doses of rituximab, B cell depletion occurred as long as 18.3, 18.3, and 29.1 months after a dose.

Examining 90 B cell measurements conducted at least 8 months after an ocrelizumab infusion, 50% were depleted by the first definition and 54% by the second definition. At 13 months, the figures were 58% and 62% among 26 B-cell measurements. Eight months or more after rituximab, 113 B-cell measurements showed rates of 43% and 52% B-cell depletion by the first two criteria.

Dr. AbdelRazek and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

Among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) receiving ocrelizumab or rituximab, B cell depletion appears to last well past the 6-month dosing regimen typically used with these drugs. The results, drawn from a retrospective analysis, provide support for clinical trials to rest longer re-infusion intervals.

The study appeared online Jan. 21 in the journal Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, presented by lead author Mahmoud AbdelRazek, MD, at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

Both drugs were approved based on clinical trials that investigated 6-month doses, but previous studies have suggested depletion can last longer, including a range of 9-26 months in the case of rituximab.

The initial rationale for monitoring B cell depletion was to prevent a relapse by re-infusing a patient if B cells levels rise, but the researchers noted a pattern of sustained depletion, especially in patients who had a delayed infusion for some reason – they often still had low B cell counts at the time of the next drug infusion. “That became not an unusual finding,” said Dr. AbdelRazek in an interview. He is an instructor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.

Patients also found the delay appealing, in part because they often felt unwell in the days following an infusion, and delays could mean fewer infections and other adverse effects. “Most of my patients I’ve discussed this with would be very appreciative of that delay,” said Dr. AbdelRazek. “There’s obviously an economic benefit as well,” said Dr. AbdelRazek.
 

The final answer?

The retrospective nature of the study is a key weakness, and the rationale to delay infusions based on continuing B cell depletion assumes that B cell depletion is in fact the mechanism of action for countering MS. “That is a critical question,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. But if that is indeed the way the drugs work, then it would make sense to identify patients who repopulate B cells more slowly and tailor drug regimens. “It’s not one size fits all and blindly just re-dosing. The upsides are good: You come in less frequently for dosing, the cost to payers is less. But the bad is, maybe there are other markers. This is the putative mechanism, but what we believe may not be the final answer. There may be more to the story,” said Dr. Gutesblatt, who is Medical Director at South Shore Neurologic Associates, Patchogue, New York.

Dr. AbdelRazek also noted the study’s limitation. “I think a clinical trial is going to be warranted to really have this translated into clinical practice,” he said. His group is planning to conduct just such a trial, pending confirmation of a funding source.
 

B cell depletion beyond 6 months

The researchers analyzed data from 178 patients with MS and 10 patients with NMOSD who received ocrelizumab (n = 111) or rituximab (n = 53), or both (n = 24) at two Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals between 2010 and 2020. The data included 800 infusions and 1,054 CD19 measurements.

The researchers defined B cell depletion as an absolute count of 20 cells/uL or less, a B cell percentage of 2% or less, or if B cells were 5% or less of total lymphocytes.

Among the patient population, B cell depletion that met all 3 criteria occurred as long as 13.8 months after an initial ocrelizumab infusion cycle, and 22.8 months after second or more cycles of ocrelizumab. Following rituximab, the researchers noted B cell depletions. Following 500 mg of rituximab, B cell depletion defined by the first, second, or third criteria occurred as far out as 22.3, 26.2, and 28.5 months. For 1,000 mg doses of rituximab, B cell depletion occurred as long as 18.3, 18.3, and 29.1 months after a dose.

Examining 90 B cell measurements conducted at least 8 months after an ocrelizumab infusion, 50% were depleted by the first definition and 54% by the second definition. At 13 months, the figures were 58% and 62% among 26 B-cell measurements. Eight months or more after rituximab, 113 B-cell measurements showed rates of 43% and 52% B-cell depletion by the first two criteria.

Dr. AbdelRazek and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

Among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) or neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) receiving ocrelizumab or rituximab, B cell depletion appears to last well past the 6-month dosing regimen typically used with these drugs. The results, drawn from a retrospective analysis, provide support for clinical trials to rest longer re-infusion intervals.

The study appeared online Jan. 21 in the journal Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, presented by lead author Mahmoud AbdelRazek, MD, at the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

Both drugs were approved based on clinical trials that investigated 6-month doses, but previous studies have suggested depletion can last longer, including a range of 9-26 months in the case of rituximab.

The initial rationale for monitoring B cell depletion was to prevent a relapse by re-infusing a patient if B cells levels rise, but the researchers noted a pattern of sustained depletion, especially in patients who had a delayed infusion for some reason – they often still had low B cell counts at the time of the next drug infusion. “That became not an unusual finding,” said Dr. AbdelRazek in an interview. He is an instructor of neurology at Harvard Medical School.

Patients also found the delay appealing, in part because they often felt unwell in the days following an infusion, and delays could mean fewer infections and other adverse effects. “Most of my patients I’ve discussed this with would be very appreciative of that delay,” said Dr. AbdelRazek. “There’s obviously an economic benefit as well,” said Dr. AbdelRazek.
 

The final answer?

The retrospective nature of the study is a key weakness, and the rationale to delay infusions based on continuing B cell depletion assumes that B cell depletion is in fact the mechanism of action for countering MS. “That is a critical question,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. But if that is indeed the way the drugs work, then it would make sense to identify patients who repopulate B cells more slowly and tailor drug regimens. “It’s not one size fits all and blindly just re-dosing. The upsides are good: You come in less frequently for dosing, the cost to payers is less. But the bad is, maybe there are other markers. This is the putative mechanism, but what we believe may not be the final answer. There may be more to the story,” said Dr. Gutesblatt, who is Medical Director at South Shore Neurologic Associates, Patchogue, New York.

Dr. AbdelRazek also noted the study’s limitation. “I think a clinical trial is going to be warranted to really have this translated into clinical practice,” he said. His group is planning to conduct just such a trial, pending confirmation of a funding source.
 

B cell depletion beyond 6 months

The researchers analyzed data from 178 patients with MS and 10 patients with NMOSD who received ocrelizumab (n = 111) or rituximab (n = 53), or both (n = 24) at two Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals between 2010 and 2020. The data included 800 infusions and 1,054 CD19 measurements.

The researchers defined B cell depletion as an absolute count of 20 cells/uL or less, a B cell percentage of 2% or less, or if B cells were 5% or less of total lymphocytes.

Among the patient population, B cell depletion that met all 3 criteria occurred as long as 13.8 months after an initial ocrelizumab infusion cycle, and 22.8 months after second or more cycles of ocrelizumab. Following rituximab, the researchers noted B cell depletions. Following 500 mg of rituximab, B cell depletion defined by the first, second, or third criteria occurred as far out as 22.3, 26.2, and 28.5 months. For 1,000 mg doses of rituximab, B cell depletion occurred as long as 18.3, 18.3, and 29.1 months after a dose.

Examining 90 B cell measurements conducted at least 8 months after an ocrelizumab infusion, 50% were depleted by the first definition and 54% by the second definition. At 13 months, the figures were 58% and 62% among 26 B-cell measurements. Eight months or more after rituximab, 113 B-cell measurements showed rates of 43% and 52% B-cell depletion by the first two criteria.

Dr. AbdelRazek and Dr. Gudesblatt have no relevant financial disclosures.

Lack of contact with the outside world and an active lifestyle could play a role in why indigenous groups in the remote Amazon of Bolivia have some of the lowest rates of dementia in the world.   

What to know

• Only about 1% of members of the Tsimane and Moseten peoples of the Bolivian Amazon suffer from dementia, compared with 11% of people aged 65 and older in the United States.
• Underscoring the profound relationship between lifestyle and cognitive health, something about the preindustrial subsistence lifestyle of the groups appears to protect older tribe members from dementia.
• The rate of  generally accepted as typical in aging is comparable between the tribes and rates in developed countries such as the United States.
• The Tsimane and Moseten people remain very physically active throughout their lives by fishing, hunting, and farming and experience less brain atrophy than their American and European peers.
• Indigenous populations elsewhere in the world have been found to have high rates of dementia, which are attributed to more contact with their nonindigenous neighbors and adoption of their lifestyles.

--From staff reports

This is a summary of the article, “Study: Some of the world’s lowest rates of dementia found in Amazonian indigenous groups,” published by Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, on March 9, 2022. The full article can be found on news.ucsb.edu.



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

Lack of contact with the outside world and an active lifestyle could play a role in why indigenous groups in the remote Amazon of Bolivia have some of the lowest rates of dementia in the world.   

What to know

• Only about 1% of members of the Tsimane and Moseten peoples of the Bolivian Amazon suffer from dementia, compared with 11% of people aged 65 and older in the United States.
• Underscoring the profound relationship between lifestyle and cognitive health, something about the preindustrial subsistence lifestyle of the groups appears to protect older tribe members from dementia.
• The rate of  generally accepted as typical in aging is comparable between the tribes and rates in developed countries such as the United States.
• The Tsimane and Moseten people remain very physically active throughout their lives by fishing, hunting, and farming and experience less brain atrophy than their American and European peers.
• Indigenous populations elsewhere in the world have been found to have high rates of dementia, which are attributed to more contact with their nonindigenous neighbors and adoption of their lifestyles.

--From staff reports

This is a summary of the article, “Study: Some of the world’s lowest rates of dementia found in Amazonian indigenous groups,” published by Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, on March 9, 2022. The full article can be found on news.ucsb.edu.



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

Lack of contact with the outside world and an active lifestyle could play a role in why indigenous groups in the remote Amazon of Bolivia have some of the lowest rates of dementia in the world.   

What to know

• Only about 1% of members of the Tsimane and Moseten peoples of the Bolivian Amazon suffer from dementia, compared with 11% of people aged 65 and older in the United States.
• Underscoring the profound relationship between lifestyle and cognitive health, something about the preindustrial subsistence lifestyle of the groups appears to protect older tribe members from dementia.
• The rate of  generally accepted as typical in aging is comparable between the tribes and rates in developed countries such as the United States.
• The Tsimane and Moseten people remain very physically active throughout their lives by fishing, hunting, and farming and experience less brain atrophy than their American and European peers.
• Indigenous populations elsewhere in the world have been found to have high rates of dementia, which are attributed to more contact with their nonindigenous neighbors and adoption of their lifestyles.

--From staff reports

This is a summary of the article, “Study: Some of the world’s lowest rates of dementia found in Amazonian indigenous groups,” published by Alzheimer’s & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association, on March 9, 2022. The full article can be found on news.ucsb.edu.



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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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