MDedge Neurology

Physician clients will find themselves in difficult legal situations from time to time. Sometimes it’s an investigation for Medicare fraud or other illegal conduct. Other times it’s a review related to Drug Enforcement Administration or licensure compliance. More commonly, physicians are involved in employer inquiries into workplace misconduct.

The common element among these very different legal issues is that physicians typically have no idea what to do when they find themselves potentially in trouble, but how they choose to deal with the issue can have significant consequences.

In my opinion, physicians should have a relationship with a health care lawyer or firm in place before any investigation occurs. Whether they are being investigated for a license or medical staff issue, Medicare fraud, or contract issue, it’s important to know where to go for help quickly. Even if the physician does not retain a lawyer in advance, having the name of a qualified person who can be called for a variety of health care issues is already a step in the right direction.

More important than having a knowledgeable lawyer is actually contacting that lawyer. Some physicians will sit and chat with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigators for hours, only to call me after the visitors leave. I have other clients who handle important medical staff hearings, discipline meetings, and license investigations on their own without consulting counsel first. In all of these situations, it can be too late to help a physician once their case has progressed too far down the road.

Employment issues arising in the workplace setting are the most common and troubling. Physicians will – without a second thought – attend a human resources–called or other meeting without thinking through the reason for the meeting, whether they are prepared or not, and without considering whether counsel could be helpful. Sometimes in the moment, there may be no choice, but most meetings are scheduled in advance with ample time for consultation and planning.

Many issues that arise in the workplace setting are troubling because they can be easily avoided. The No. 1 piece of advice which I offer to young physician clients as they enter the workplace is: Remember that nobody in the workplace is your friend. Every word that is said, text that is sent, gesture that is made, can put you at risk. You must assume that all conversations and messages will be shared with others. Joking around in the operating room about sexual escapades, sending texts with flirtatious comments, making comments that can be construed as racist or homophobic, or raising your voice in a moment of frustration are all real examples of situations where physicians ended up disciplined and terminated. Are these innocent comments or ones the doctor thought they could get away with among “friends?” From a human resources perspective, there is little tolerance for such conduct, regardless of the doctor’s intent.

There are also situations in the workplace that are more troubling. Many times a physician is accused of noncompliance with a contract or a policy, when in fact the accuser is retaliating or engaging in efforts to discredit a doctor. I have seen this happen where minority physicians complain about how they are treated and are suddenly investigated for a performance issue. I have had female physicians criticize a business decision at a committee meeting, only to receive a formal notice that their “negative attitude” violated a policy.

In these situations, talking with counsel before a meeting with the employer representative is recommended and can impact the trajectory of a physician’s career. Physicians cannot and should not handle such events on their own.

If a physician is forced or chooses to attend a meeting with an investigator or other party without counsel, there are some steps to consider (subject to the type of meeting and the specific circumstances).

• Listen more than you talk. Make sure you know the name of everyone who is present and their role within the organization.
• If you have previously provided any written or oral statements, or have written correspondence related to the issues at hand, review all materials in advance. If there is anything you think needs to be corrected or added, let the interviewer know that at the outset.
• Be familiar with your own employment agreement/policies and the terms that may be relevant to the discussion or meeting.
• Be calm, honest, and forthcoming in response to the questions, and don’t embellish or exaggerate.
• Avoid personal attacks on anyone. This generally serves to weaken an argument and credibility.
• Be prepared to explain your allegations or defense, and when you do so, keep in mind that the interviewer may not know the history, background, or details of any of the issues.
• If the reason for the situation relates to race or national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected category, don’t hesitate to say so.
• Answer the question you’re asked, but if you feel that the interviewer needs more information or is not understanding what you’ve said, feel free to explain. Be forthcoming, but don’t dominate the conversation.
• If they ask whether you have counsel, be honest, but decline to provide them any information about what you discussed with counsel, as those conversations are privileged.
• If the interviewer asks to record the conversation, you can agree, but ask to be provided a copy of the recording.
• Know your rights in advance. If the subject of the meeting is governed by bylaws or policies, for example, you may have the right to bring an attorney or adviser to the meeting, receive advance notice of who will be attending the meeting and the subject matter, and avail yourself of specific procedures or appeal rights of any discipline or decisions decided during the meeting.

There are many circumstances that can lead to a physician being under investigation or interrogation. In every single circumstance, it is ideal to seek legal counsel immediately. Whether the physician has actually engaged in wrongful conduct or not, without proper handling a physician’s career can be permanently, and sometimes irrevocably, affected.

Ms. Adler is a shareholder and health law practice group manager for Chicago-based law firm Roetzel, a member of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys, and a current advisory board member at DePaul College of Law Health Law Institute. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician clients will find themselves in difficult legal situations from time to time. Sometimes it’s an investigation for Medicare fraud or other illegal conduct. Other times it’s a review related to Drug Enforcement Administration or licensure compliance. More commonly, physicians are involved in employer inquiries into workplace misconduct.

The common element among these very different legal issues is that physicians typically have no idea what to do when they find themselves potentially in trouble, but how they choose to deal with the issue can have significant consequences.

In my opinion, physicians should have a relationship with a health care lawyer or firm in place before any investigation occurs. Whether they are being investigated for a license or medical staff issue, Medicare fraud, or contract issue, it’s important to know where to go for help quickly. Even if the physician does not retain a lawyer in advance, having the name of a qualified person who can be called for a variety of health care issues is already a step in the right direction.

More important than having a knowledgeable lawyer is actually contacting that lawyer. Some physicians will sit and chat with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigators for hours, only to call me after the visitors leave. I have other clients who handle important medical staff hearings, discipline meetings, and license investigations on their own without consulting counsel first. In all of these situations, it can be too late to help a physician once their case has progressed too far down the road.

Employment issues arising in the workplace setting are the most common and troubling. Physicians will – without a second thought – attend a human resources–called or other meeting without thinking through the reason for the meeting, whether they are prepared or not, and without considering whether counsel could be helpful. Sometimes in the moment, there may be no choice, but most meetings are scheduled in advance with ample time for consultation and planning.

Many issues that arise in the workplace setting are troubling because they can be easily avoided. The No. 1 piece of advice which I offer to young physician clients as they enter the workplace is: Remember that nobody in the workplace is your friend. Every word that is said, text that is sent, gesture that is made, can put you at risk. You must assume that all conversations and messages will be shared with others. Joking around in the operating room about sexual escapades, sending texts with flirtatious comments, making comments that can be construed as racist or homophobic, or raising your voice in a moment of frustration are all real examples of situations where physicians ended up disciplined and terminated. Are these innocent comments or ones the doctor thought they could get away with among “friends?” From a human resources perspective, there is little tolerance for such conduct, regardless of the doctor’s intent.

There are also situations in the workplace that are more troubling. Many times a physician is accused of noncompliance with a contract or a policy, when in fact the accuser is retaliating or engaging in efforts to discredit a doctor. I have seen this happen where minority physicians complain about how they are treated and are suddenly investigated for a performance issue. I have had female physicians criticize a business decision at a committee meeting, only to receive a formal notice that their “negative attitude” violated a policy.

In these situations, talking with counsel before a meeting with the employer representative is recommended and can impact the trajectory of a physician’s career. Physicians cannot and should not handle such events on their own.

If a physician is forced or chooses to attend a meeting with an investigator or other party without counsel, there are some steps to consider (subject to the type of meeting and the specific circumstances).

• Listen more than you talk. Make sure you know the name of everyone who is present and their role within the organization.
• If you have previously provided any written or oral statements, or have written correspondence related to the issues at hand, review all materials in advance. If there is anything you think needs to be corrected or added, let the interviewer know that at the outset.
• Be familiar with your own employment agreement/policies and the terms that may be relevant to the discussion or meeting.
• Be calm, honest, and forthcoming in response to the questions, and don’t embellish or exaggerate.
• Avoid personal attacks on anyone. This generally serves to weaken an argument and credibility.
• Be prepared to explain your allegations or defense, and when you do so, keep in mind that the interviewer may not know the history, background, or details of any of the issues.
• If the reason for the situation relates to race or national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected category, don’t hesitate to say so.
• Answer the question you’re asked, but if you feel that the interviewer needs more information or is not understanding what you’ve said, feel free to explain. Be forthcoming, but don’t dominate the conversation.
• If they ask whether you have counsel, be honest, but decline to provide them any information about what you discussed with counsel, as those conversations are privileged.
• If the interviewer asks to record the conversation, you can agree, but ask to be provided a copy of the recording.
• Know your rights in advance. If the subject of the meeting is governed by bylaws or policies, for example, you may have the right to bring an attorney or adviser to the meeting, receive advance notice of who will be attending the meeting and the subject matter, and avail yourself of specific procedures or appeal rights of any discipline or decisions decided during the meeting.

There are many circumstances that can lead to a physician being under investigation or interrogation. In every single circumstance, it is ideal to seek legal counsel immediately. Whether the physician has actually engaged in wrongful conduct or not, without proper handling a physician’s career can be permanently, and sometimes irrevocably, affected.

Ms. Adler is a shareholder and health law practice group manager for Chicago-based law firm Roetzel, a member of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys, and a current advisory board member at DePaul College of Law Health Law Institute. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physician clients will find themselves in difficult legal situations from time to time. Sometimes it’s an investigation for Medicare fraud or other illegal conduct. Other times it’s a review related to Drug Enforcement Administration or licensure compliance. More commonly, physicians are involved in employer inquiries into workplace misconduct.

The common element among these very different legal issues is that physicians typically have no idea what to do when they find themselves potentially in trouble, but how they choose to deal with the issue can have significant consequences.

In my opinion, physicians should have a relationship with a health care lawyer or firm in place before any investigation occurs. Whether they are being investigated for a license or medical staff issue, Medicare fraud, or contract issue, it’s important to know where to go for help quickly. Even if the physician does not retain a lawyer in advance, having the name of a qualified person who can be called for a variety of health care issues is already a step in the right direction.

More important than having a knowledgeable lawyer is actually contacting that lawyer. Some physicians will sit and chat with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other investigators for hours, only to call me after the visitors leave. I have other clients who handle important medical staff hearings, discipline meetings, and license investigations on their own without consulting counsel first. In all of these situations, it can be too late to help a physician once their case has progressed too far down the road.

Employment issues arising in the workplace setting are the most common and troubling. Physicians will – without a second thought – attend a human resources–called or other meeting without thinking through the reason for the meeting, whether they are prepared or not, and without considering whether counsel could be helpful. Sometimes in the moment, there may be no choice, but most meetings are scheduled in advance with ample time for consultation and planning.

Many issues that arise in the workplace setting are troubling because they can be easily avoided. The No. 1 piece of advice which I offer to young physician clients as they enter the workplace is: Remember that nobody in the workplace is your friend. Every word that is said, text that is sent, gesture that is made, can put you at risk. You must assume that all conversations and messages will be shared with others. Joking around in the operating room about sexual escapades, sending texts with flirtatious comments, making comments that can be construed as racist or homophobic, or raising your voice in a moment of frustration are all real examples of situations where physicians ended up disciplined and terminated. Are these innocent comments or ones the doctor thought they could get away with among “friends?” From a human resources perspective, there is little tolerance for such conduct, regardless of the doctor’s intent.

There are also situations in the workplace that are more troubling. Many times a physician is accused of noncompliance with a contract or a policy, when in fact the accuser is retaliating or engaging in efforts to discredit a doctor. I have seen this happen where minority physicians complain about how they are treated and are suddenly investigated for a performance issue. I have had female physicians criticize a business decision at a committee meeting, only to receive a formal notice that their “negative attitude” violated a policy.

In these situations, talking with counsel before a meeting with the employer representative is recommended and can impact the trajectory of a physician’s career. Physicians cannot and should not handle such events on their own.

If a physician is forced or chooses to attend a meeting with an investigator or other party without counsel, there are some steps to consider (subject to the type of meeting and the specific circumstances).

• Listen more than you talk. Make sure you know the name of everyone who is present and their role within the organization.
• If you have previously provided any written or oral statements, or have written correspondence related to the issues at hand, review all materials in advance. If there is anything you think needs to be corrected or added, let the interviewer know that at the outset.
• Be familiar with your own employment agreement/policies and the terms that may be relevant to the discussion or meeting.
• Be calm, honest, and forthcoming in response to the questions, and don’t embellish or exaggerate.
• Avoid personal attacks on anyone. This generally serves to weaken an argument and credibility.
• Be prepared to explain your allegations or defense, and when you do so, keep in mind that the interviewer may not know the history, background, or details of any of the issues.
• If the reason for the situation relates to race or national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected category, don’t hesitate to say so.
• Answer the question you’re asked, but if you feel that the interviewer needs more information or is not understanding what you’ve said, feel free to explain. Be forthcoming, but don’t dominate the conversation.
• If they ask whether you have counsel, be honest, but decline to provide them any information about what you discussed with counsel, as those conversations are privileged.
• If the interviewer asks to record the conversation, you can agree, but ask to be provided a copy of the recording.
• Know your rights in advance. If the subject of the meeting is governed by bylaws or policies, for example, you may have the right to bring an attorney or adviser to the meeting, receive advance notice of who will be attending the meeting and the subject matter, and avail yourself of specific procedures or appeal rights of any discipline or decisions decided during the meeting.

There are many circumstances that can lead to a physician being under investigation or interrogation. In every single circumstance, it is ideal to seek legal counsel immediately. Whether the physician has actually engaged in wrongful conduct or not, without proper handling a physician’s career can be permanently, and sometimes irrevocably, affected.

Ms. Adler is a shareholder and health law practice group manager for Chicago-based law firm Roetzel, a member of the Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys, and a current advisory board member at DePaul College of Law Health Law Institute. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LAS VEGAS – While frontline health care workers may have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire workforce has experienced some level of anxiety, stress, loss, grief, and trauma, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“There are those who will need mental health treatment, so creating an easy way to reach out for help and facilitate linkage with care is critically important,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The vast majority of our workforce will thrive with proper support. But what can each of us do to take care of ourselves?”

Step one is to recognize common stress reactions as well as signs of distress. He offered the oxygen mask metaphor, the idea that before we can take care of and support anyone else, we must first take care of ourselves. “When people are stressed, they don’t always think about the oxygen mask metaphor,” Dr. Levenson said. Step two is to practice and model self-care by adopting principles often discussed in acceptance and commitment therapy: to focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t control.

“We can’t control the amount of toilet paper at the grocery store, how long the pandemic will last, or how others have reacted,” Dr. Levenson said. “We also can’t control other people’s motives, predict what will happen, or the actions of others, including whether they will follow social distancing guidelines or not.”

How about what we can control? One is a positive attitude, “which can sustain people during times of intense stress,” he said. “Other things that we can do include turn off the news and find fun and enriching activities to do at home, whether it be playing a game with family or reaching out to friends through an iPad or a smartphone. You can also follow [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations, control your own social distancing, and limit social media activity, which can be stressful. We can also control our kindness and grace.” He added that resilience does not mean “snapping back” to how you were before the pandemic, but rather “learning to integrate the adverse experiences into who you are and growing with them, which is sometimes known as posttraumatic growth.”

Dr. Levenson encouraged health care workers to use their coping resources, connect to others, and cultivate their values and purpose in life as they navigate these challenging times. “You also want to promote realistic optimism; find a way to stay positive,” he said. “We emphasize to our staff that while you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control – your positive relationships – and remind yourself of your values and sources of gratitude. Figure out, and reflect on, what you care about, and then care about it. Remind yourself in a deliberate, purposeful way what anchors you to your job, which in the health care setting tends to be a desire to care for others, to assist those in need, and to work in teams. We also encourage staff to refrain from judgment. Guilt is a normal and near-universal response to this stressor, but there are many ways to contribute without a judgmental or guilty tone.”

Other tips for self-support are to remind yourself that it is not selfish to take breaks. “The needs of your patients are not more important than your own needs,” Dr. Levenson said. “Working nonstop can put you at higher risk for stress, exhaustion, and illness. You may need to give yourself more time to step back and recover from workplace challenges or extended coverage for peers; this is important. We remind our staff that your work may feel more emotionally draining than usual because everything is more intense overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminder helps staff normalize what they already may be experiencing, and in turn, to further support each other.”

Soothing activities to relieve stress include meditation, prayer, deep and slow breathing, relaxation exercises, yoga, mindfulness, stretching, staying hydrated, eating healthfully, exercise, and getting sufficient sleep. Other stress management tips include avoiding excessive alcohol intake, reaching out to others, asking for assistance, and delegating when possible. “We want to promote psychological flexibility: the ability to stay in contact with the present moment,” he said. “We encourage our peers to be aware of unpleasant thoughts and feelings, and to try to redirect negative thought patterns to a proactive problem-solving approach; this includes choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values.”

Dr. Levenson reported having no disclosures related to his presentation.

LAS VEGAS – While frontline health care workers may have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire workforce has experienced some level of anxiety, stress, loss, grief, and trauma, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“There are those who will need mental health treatment, so creating an easy way to reach out for help and facilitate linkage with care is critically important,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The vast majority of our workforce will thrive with proper support. But what can each of us do to take care of ourselves?”

Step one is to recognize common stress reactions as well as signs of distress. He offered the oxygen mask metaphor, the idea that before we can take care of and support anyone else, we must first take care of ourselves. “When people are stressed, they don’t always think about the oxygen mask metaphor,” Dr. Levenson said. Step two is to practice and model self-care by adopting principles often discussed in acceptance and commitment therapy: to focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t control.

“We can’t control the amount of toilet paper at the grocery store, how long the pandemic will last, or how others have reacted,” Dr. Levenson said. “We also can’t control other people’s motives, predict what will happen, or the actions of others, including whether they will follow social distancing guidelines or not.”

How about what we can control? One is a positive attitude, “which can sustain people during times of intense stress,” he said. “Other things that we can do include turn off the news and find fun and enriching activities to do at home, whether it be playing a game with family or reaching out to friends through an iPad or a smartphone. You can also follow [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations, control your own social distancing, and limit social media activity, which can be stressful. We can also control our kindness and grace.” He added that resilience does not mean “snapping back” to how you were before the pandemic, but rather “learning to integrate the adverse experiences into who you are and growing with them, which is sometimes known as posttraumatic growth.”

Dr. Levenson encouraged health care workers to use their coping resources, connect to others, and cultivate their values and purpose in life as they navigate these challenging times. “You also want to promote realistic optimism; find a way to stay positive,” he said. “We emphasize to our staff that while you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control – your positive relationships – and remind yourself of your values and sources of gratitude. Figure out, and reflect on, what you care about, and then care about it. Remind yourself in a deliberate, purposeful way what anchors you to your job, which in the health care setting tends to be a desire to care for others, to assist those in need, and to work in teams. We also encourage staff to refrain from judgment. Guilt is a normal and near-universal response to this stressor, but there are many ways to contribute without a judgmental or guilty tone.”

Other tips for self-support are to remind yourself that it is not selfish to take breaks. “The needs of your patients are not more important than your own needs,” Dr. Levenson said. “Working nonstop can put you at higher risk for stress, exhaustion, and illness. You may need to give yourself more time to step back and recover from workplace challenges or extended coverage for peers; this is important. We remind our staff that your work may feel more emotionally draining than usual because everything is more intense overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminder helps staff normalize what they already may be experiencing, and in turn, to further support each other.”

Soothing activities to relieve stress include meditation, prayer, deep and slow breathing, relaxation exercises, yoga, mindfulness, stretching, staying hydrated, eating healthfully, exercise, and getting sufficient sleep. Other stress management tips include avoiding excessive alcohol intake, reaching out to others, asking for assistance, and delegating when possible. “We want to promote psychological flexibility: the ability to stay in contact with the present moment,” he said. “We encourage our peers to be aware of unpleasant thoughts and feelings, and to try to redirect negative thought patterns to a proactive problem-solving approach; this includes choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values.”

Dr. Levenson reported having no disclosures related to his presentation.

LAS VEGAS – While frontline health care workers may have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire workforce has experienced some level of anxiety, stress, loss, grief, and trauma, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“There are those who will need mental health treatment, so creating an easy way to reach out for help and facilitate linkage with care is critically important,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The vast majority of our workforce will thrive with proper support. But what can each of us do to take care of ourselves?”

Step one is to recognize common stress reactions as well as signs of distress. He offered the oxygen mask metaphor, the idea that before we can take care of and support anyone else, we must first take care of ourselves. “When people are stressed, they don’t always think about the oxygen mask metaphor,” Dr. Levenson said. Step two is to practice and model self-care by adopting principles often discussed in acceptance and commitment therapy: to focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t control.

“We can’t control the amount of toilet paper at the grocery store, how long the pandemic will last, or how others have reacted,” Dr. Levenson said. “We also can’t control other people’s motives, predict what will happen, or the actions of others, including whether they will follow social distancing guidelines or not.”

How about what we can control? One is a positive attitude, “which can sustain people during times of intense stress,” he said. “Other things that we can do include turn off the news and find fun and enriching activities to do at home, whether it be playing a game with family or reaching out to friends through an iPad or a smartphone. You can also follow [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations, control your own social distancing, and limit social media activity, which can be stressful. We can also control our kindness and grace.” He added that resilience does not mean “snapping back” to how you were before the pandemic, but rather “learning to integrate the adverse experiences into who you are and growing with them, which is sometimes known as posttraumatic growth.”

Dr. Levenson encouraged health care workers to use their coping resources, connect to others, and cultivate their values and purpose in life as they navigate these challenging times. “You also want to promote realistic optimism; find a way to stay positive,” he said. “We emphasize to our staff that while you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control – your positive relationships – and remind yourself of your values and sources of gratitude. Figure out, and reflect on, what you care about, and then care about it. Remind yourself in a deliberate, purposeful way what anchors you to your job, which in the health care setting tends to be a desire to care for others, to assist those in need, and to work in teams. We also encourage staff to refrain from judgment. Guilt is a normal and near-universal response to this stressor, but there are many ways to contribute without a judgmental or guilty tone.”

Other tips for self-support are to remind yourself that it is not selfish to take breaks. “The needs of your patients are not more important than your own needs,” Dr. Levenson said. “Working nonstop can put you at higher risk for stress, exhaustion, and illness. You may need to give yourself more time to step back and recover from workplace challenges or extended coverage for peers; this is important. We remind our staff that your work may feel more emotionally draining than usual because everything is more intense overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminder helps staff normalize what they already may be experiencing, and in turn, to further support each other.”

Soothing activities to relieve stress include meditation, prayer, deep and slow breathing, relaxation exercises, yoga, mindfulness, stretching, staying hydrated, eating healthfully, exercise, and getting sufficient sleep. Other stress management tips include avoiding excessive alcohol intake, reaching out to others, asking for assistance, and delegating when possible. “We want to promote psychological flexibility: the ability to stay in contact with the present moment,” he said. “We encourage our peers to be aware of unpleasant thoughts and feelings, and to try to redirect negative thought patterns to a proactive problem-solving approach; this includes choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values.”

Dr. Levenson reported having no disclosures related to his presentation.

Among individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), disease modifying therapies (DMTs) are associated with a reduced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, according to a new retrospective analysis. The link is particularly strong among B-cell depleting drugs.

“A lot of patients ask us if having MS by itself affects the vaccine response. We did not find that, but it’s about the disease-modifying therapy that a patient is being treated with,” Tirisham Gyang, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Gyang presented the study at a poster session during the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

“These patients (on DMTs) had decreased neutralizing antibody levels to the vaccine after they received it. We also saw a similar marker in drugs that modulate the sphingosine S-1 receptor. These patients also had a lower titer. It wasn’t statistically significant, but we think it’s positive. It was underpowered because there was a small number of patients in that subgroup,” said Dr. Gyang, assistant professor of neurology at The Ohio State University.

The results can inform vaccine strategies among people with MS, but the issue remains complex. “I don’t know that we could do a blanket statement and say, if you wait this amount of time, everybody will be okay. It’s a very individualized approach, and patients need to discuss timing of vaccines with their providers, because we know that waiting is better. It’s preferable to wait until towards the end of the dosing cycle. The other factor is making sure that the MS is well treated,” said Dr. Gyang.

The researchers prospectively followed 83 MS patients at the The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Among the cohort, 71% were female. Fifty-one subjects had serum samples analyzed following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and they were compared with 38 health care worker controls.

After vaccination, people with MS had about 2.4-fold lower levels of half-maximal neutralization titer (NT50) values compared with health care worker controls. This appeared to be driven primarily by DMTs. There was a more than ninefold reduction in the neutralizing antibody (nAb) response among 13 patients on B-cell depleting agents, compared with no therapy or other therapies (P < .001). Among of individuals on these agents, 61.5% had no detectable nAb.

The researchers also found an association between postvaccine NT50 values and when the vaccine was received compared with the last infusion of B-cell depleting agents. Every additional day since the previous infusion was associated with a 3.7% increase in NT50 value (P = .0032).

The average length of exposure to B-cell depleting agents was 24 months and the median was 25 months. There was no association between length of time on a B-cell depleting agent and NT50 values after vaccination (Spearman correlation 0.35, P = .24).

Subanalyses by sex and vaccine type revealed no differences in nAb levels.

The study did not look at T-cell responses after vaccination or the effect of T-cell depleting agents, and T cells likely still provide some protection, according to Dr. Gyang. “Even though the vaccine response may not be as robust as it would have been if they were not on the drug, there is still some degree of protection,” she said.
 

Some answers, more questions

The study is important, even though it was presented at the time that the COVID-19 Omicron variant surge was waning. “COVID still remains a major concern. Even though it seems to be on the wane at the moment, that doesn’t mean it will be on the wane next week,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director at South Shore Neurologic Associates (Patchogue, N.Y.), who was asked to comment on the study.

He noted that about 21% of patients in the study who received a vaccination had no detectable antibodies. “That’s a problem. You need to pick a medication that works, but not if the medication puts you at risk for other problems, especially in the world of now, where we know there are viral pandemics that occur. And that calls into question: What if you’re immunocompromised and you get a flu vaccine or a tetanus vaccine? How much do we know about the vaccination response to most of these? No one really considers [vaccine response] when choosing a medication,” said Dr. Gudesblatt.

The results broadly confirm what has been seen in other studies, though its focus on the humoral response is a limitation, according to Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and director of Stony Brook (N.Y.) MS Comprehensive Care Center. “For example, there have been independent studies with the (anti-CD-20 therapies) that indicate that they have a normal cell-mediated vaccine response to the COVID vaccine, even though the antibody response may be impaired in a significant number of individuals, though as you continue to vaccinate the antibody response seems to get better,” Dr. Coyle said in an interview.

Dr. Gyang has served as consultant for Genentech, Horizon Therapeutics, Greenwich Biosciences and EMD Serono. Dr. Gudesblatt has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Coyle has consulted or received speaker fees from Accordant, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has received research funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, Genentech/Roche, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Among individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), disease modifying therapies (DMTs) are associated with a reduced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, according to a new retrospective analysis. The link is particularly strong among B-cell depleting drugs.

“A lot of patients ask us if having MS by itself affects the vaccine response. We did not find that, but it’s about the disease-modifying therapy that a patient is being treated with,” Tirisham Gyang, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Gyang presented the study at a poster session during the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

“These patients (on DMTs) had decreased neutralizing antibody levels to the vaccine after they received it. We also saw a similar marker in drugs that modulate the sphingosine S-1 receptor. These patients also had a lower titer. It wasn’t statistically significant, but we think it’s positive. It was underpowered because there was a small number of patients in that subgroup,” said Dr. Gyang, assistant professor of neurology at The Ohio State University.

The results can inform vaccine strategies among people with MS, but the issue remains complex. “I don’t know that we could do a blanket statement and say, if you wait this amount of time, everybody will be okay. It’s a very individualized approach, and patients need to discuss timing of vaccines with their providers, because we know that waiting is better. It’s preferable to wait until towards the end of the dosing cycle. The other factor is making sure that the MS is well treated,” said Dr. Gyang.

The researchers prospectively followed 83 MS patients at the The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Among the cohort, 71% were female. Fifty-one subjects had serum samples analyzed following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and they were compared with 38 health care worker controls.

After vaccination, people with MS had about 2.4-fold lower levels of half-maximal neutralization titer (NT50) values compared with health care worker controls. This appeared to be driven primarily by DMTs. There was a more than ninefold reduction in the neutralizing antibody (nAb) response among 13 patients on B-cell depleting agents, compared with no therapy or other therapies (P < .001). Among of individuals on these agents, 61.5% had no detectable nAb.

The researchers also found an association between postvaccine NT50 values and when the vaccine was received compared with the last infusion of B-cell depleting agents. Every additional day since the previous infusion was associated with a 3.7% increase in NT50 value (P = .0032).

The average length of exposure to B-cell depleting agents was 24 months and the median was 25 months. There was no association between length of time on a B-cell depleting agent and NT50 values after vaccination (Spearman correlation 0.35, P = .24).

Subanalyses by sex and vaccine type revealed no differences in nAb levels.

The study did not look at T-cell responses after vaccination or the effect of T-cell depleting agents, and T cells likely still provide some protection, according to Dr. Gyang. “Even though the vaccine response may not be as robust as it would have been if they were not on the drug, there is still some degree of protection,” she said.
 

Some answers, more questions

The study is important, even though it was presented at the time that the COVID-19 Omicron variant surge was waning. “COVID still remains a major concern. Even though it seems to be on the wane at the moment, that doesn’t mean it will be on the wane next week,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director at South Shore Neurologic Associates (Patchogue, N.Y.), who was asked to comment on the study.

He noted that about 21% of patients in the study who received a vaccination had no detectable antibodies. “That’s a problem. You need to pick a medication that works, but not if the medication puts you at risk for other problems, especially in the world of now, where we know there are viral pandemics that occur. And that calls into question: What if you’re immunocompromised and you get a flu vaccine or a tetanus vaccine? How much do we know about the vaccination response to most of these? No one really considers [vaccine response] when choosing a medication,” said Dr. Gudesblatt.

The results broadly confirm what has been seen in other studies, though its focus on the humoral response is a limitation, according to Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and director of Stony Brook (N.Y.) MS Comprehensive Care Center. “For example, there have been independent studies with the (anti-CD-20 therapies) that indicate that they have a normal cell-mediated vaccine response to the COVID vaccine, even though the antibody response may be impaired in a significant number of individuals, though as you continue to vaccinate the antibody response seems to get better,” Dr. Coyle said in an interview.

Dr. Gyang has served as consultant for Genentech, Horizon Therapeutics, Greenwich Biosciences and EMD Serono. Dr. Gudesblatt has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Coyle has consulted or received speaker fees from Accordant, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has received research funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, Genentech/Roche, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Among individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), disease modifying therapies (DMTs) are associated with a reduced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, according to a new retrospective analysis. The link is particularly strong among B-cell depleting drugs.

“A lot of patients ask us if having MS by itself affects the vaccine response. We did not find that, but it’s about the disease-modifying therapy that a patient is being treated with,” Tirisham Gyang, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Gyang presented the study at a poster session during the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

“These patients (on DMTs) had decreased neutralizing antibody levels to the vaccine after they received it. We also saw a similar marker in drugs that modulate the sphingosine S-1 receptor. These patients also had a lower titer. It wasn’t statistically significant, but we think it’s positive. It was underpowered because there was a small number of patients in that subgroup,” said Dr. Gyang, assistant professor of neurology at The Ohio State University.

The results can inform vaccine strategies among people with MS, but the issue remains complex. “I don’t know that we could do a blanket statement and say, if you wait this amount of time, everybody will be okay. It’s a very individualized approach, and patients need to discuss timing of vaccines with their providers, because we know that waiting is better. It’s preferable to wait until towards the end of the dosing cycle. The other factor is making sure that the MS is well treated,” said Dr. Gyang.

The researchers prospectively followed 83 MS patients at the The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Among the cohort, 71% were female. Fifty-one subjects had serum samples analyzed following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and they were compared with 38 health care worker controls.

After vaccination, people with MS had about 2.4-fold lower levels of half-maximal neutralization titer (NT50) values compared with health care worker controls. This appeared to be driven primarily by DMTs. There was a more than ninefold reduction in the neutralizing antibody (nAb) response among 13 patients on B-cell depleting agents, compared with no therapy or other therapies (P < .001). Among of individuals on these agents, 61.5% had no detectable nAb.

The researchers also found an association between postvaccine NT50 values and when the vaccine was received compared with the last infusion of B-cell depleting agents. Every additional day since the previous infusion was associated with a 3.7% increase in NT50 value (P = .0032).

The average length of exposure to B-cell depleting agents was 24 months and the median was 25 months. There was no association between length of time on a B-cell depleting agent and NT50 values after vaccination (Spearman correlation 0.35, P = .24).

Subanalyses by sex and vaccine type revealed no differences in nAb levels.

The study did not look at T-cell responses after vaccination or the effect of T-cell depleting agents, and T cells likely still provide some protection, according to Dr. Gyang. “Even though the vaccine response may not be as robust as it would have been if they were not on the drug, there is still some degree of protection,” she said.
 

Some answers, more questions

The study is important, even though it was presented at the time that the COVID-19 Omicron variant surge was waning. “COVID still remains a major concern. Even though it seems to be on the wane at the moment, that doesn’t mean it will be on the wane next week,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director at South Shore Neurologic Associates (Patchogue, N.Y.), who was asked to comment on the study.

He noted that about 21% of patients in the study who received a vaccination had no detectable antibodies. “That’s a problem. You need to pick a medication that works, but not if the medication puts you at risk for other problems, especially in the world of now, where we know there are viral pandemics that occur. And that calls into question: What if you’re immunocompromised and you get a flu vaccine or a tetanus vaccine? How much do we know about the vaccination response to most of these? No one really considers [vaccine response] when choosing a medication,” said Dr. Gudesblatt.

The results broadly confirm what has been seen in other studies, though its focus on the humoral response is a limitation, according to Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and director of Stony Brook (N.Y.) MS Comprehensive Care Center. “For example, there have been independent studies with the (anti-CD-20 therapies) that indicate that they have a normal cell-mediated vaccine response to the COVID vaccine, even though the antibody response may be impaired in a significant number of individuals, though as you continue to vaccinate the antibody response seems to get better,” Dr. Coyle said in an interview.

Dr. Gyang has served as consultant for Genentech, Horizon Therapeutics, Greenwich Biosciences and EMD Serono. Dr. Gudesblatt has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Coyle has consulted or received speaker fees from Accordant, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has received research funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, Genentech/Roche, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Chocolate: Now part of a well-balanced diet

Asking if someone loves chocolate is like asking if they love breathing. It’s really not a question that needs to be asked. The thing with chocolate, however, is that most people who love chocolate actually love sugar, since your typical milk chocolate contains only about 30% cacao. The rest, of course, is sugar.

Now, dark chocolate is actually kind of good for you since it contains beneficial flavonoids and less sugar. But that healthiness comes at a cost: Dark chocolate is quite bitter, and gets more so as the cacao content rises, to the point where 100% cacao chocolate is very nearly inedible. That’s the chocolate conundrum, the healthier it is, the worse it tastes. But what if there’s another way? What if you can have tasty chocolate that’s good for you?

Sascha Luehr/Pixabay

That’s the question a group of researchers from Penn State University dared to ask. The secret, they discovered, is to subject the cacao beans to extra-intense roasting. We’re not sure how screaming insults at a bunch of beans will help, but if science says so ... YOU USELESS LUMP OF BARELY EDIBLE FOOD! HOW DARE YOU EXIST!

Oh, not that kind of roasting. Oops.

For their study, the researchers made 27 unsweetened chocolates, prepared using various cacao bean roasting times and temperatures, and served them to volunteers. Those volunteers reported that chocolates made with cacao beans roasted more intensely (such as 20 minutes at 340° F, 80 min at 275° F, and 54 min at 304° F) were far more acceptable than were chocolates prepared with raw or lightly roasted cacao beans.

The implications of healthy yet tasty chocolate are obvious: Master the chocolate and you’ll make millions. Imagine a future where parents say to their kids: “Don’t forget to eat your chocolate.” So, we’re off to do some cooking. Don’t want Hershey to make all the money off of this revelation.
 

The villain hiding in dairy for some MS patients

For some of us, lactose can be a real heartbreaker when it comes to dairy consumption, but for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) there’s another villain they may also have to face that can make their symptoms worse.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

Physicians at the Institute of Anatomy at University Hospital Bonn (Germany) were getting so many complaints from patients with MS about how much worse they felt about after having cheese, yogurt, and milk that they decided to get to the bottom of it. The culprit, it seems, is casein, a protein specifically found in cow’s milk.

The researchers injected mice with various proteins found in cow’s milk and found perforated myelin sheaths in those given casein. In MS, the patient’s own immune system destroys that sheath, which leads to paresthesia, vision problems, and movement disorders.

“The body’s defenses actually attack the casein, but in the process they also destroy proteins involved in the formation of myelin, “ said Rittika Chunder, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bonn. How? Apparently it’s all a big misunderstanding.

While looking at molecules needed for myelin production, the researchers came across MAG, which is very similar to casein, which is a problem when patients with MS are allergic to casein. After they have dairy products, the B-cell squad gets called in to clean up the evil twin, casein, but can’t differentiate it from the good twin, MAG, so it all gets a wash and the myelin sheath suffers.

Since this happens only to patients with MS who have a casein allergy, the researchers advise them to stay away from milk, yogurt, or cottage cheese while they work on a self-test to check if patients carry the antibodies.

A small price to pay, perhaps, to stop a villainous evil twin.
 

You would even say it glows

If you’re anything like us – and we think you are since you’re reading this – you’ve been asking yourself: Are there any common medications in my house that will make good radiation sensors?

Vnukko/Pixabay

Not that anyone needs to worry about excess radiation or anything. Far from it. We were just wondering.

It just so happens that Anna Mrozik and Paweł Bilski, both of the Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Kraków, Poland, were wondering the same thing: “During an uncontrolled release of radiation, it is highly unlikely that members of the public will be equipped with personal radiation dose monitors.”

People would need to use something they had lying around the house. A smartphone would work, the investigators explained in a statement from the IFJ PAN, but the process of converting one to radiation-sensor duty, which involves dismantling it and breaking the display glass, “is laborious and time-consuming [and] the destruction of a valuable and useful device does not seem to be the optimal solution.”

Naturally, they turned to drugs. The key, in this case, is optically stimulated luminescence. They needed to find materials that would glow with greater intensity as the radiation dose increased. Turns out that ibuprofen- and paracetamol-based painkillers fit the bill quite nicely, although aspirin also works.

It’s not known exactly which substance is causing the luminescence, but rest assured, the “physicists from the IFJ PAN intend to identify it.”
 

This is why you don’t interrupt someone using headphones

There’s nothing like taking a nice relaxing walk with your headphones. Whether you’re listening to a podcast or a song or talking on the phone, it’s an escape from reality that makes you feel like you’re completely in tune with what you’re listening to.

Weedezign/Thinkstock

According to a new study, headphones, as opposed to speakers, make people feel more connected to what they are listening to. Data collected from more than 4,000 people showed that listening with headphones makes more of an impact than listening to speakers.

“Headphones produce a phenomenon called in-head localization, which makes the speaker sound as if they’re inside your head,” study coauthor On Amir of the University of California, San Diego, said in a statement. Because of this, people feel like the speakers are close to them and there’s more of a sense of empathy for the speakers and the listener is more likely to be swayed toward the ideas of the speaker.

These findings could lead to more efficient training programs, online work, and advertising, the investigators suggested.

We now finally understand why people get so mad when they have to take out their headphones to answer or talk to us. We ruined a satisfying moment going on in their brains.

Chocolate: Now part of a well-balanced diet

Asking if someone loves chocolate is like asking if they love breathing. It’s really not a question that needs to be asked. The thing with chocolate, however, is that most people who love chocolate actually love sugar, since your typical milk chocolate contains only about 30% cacao. The rest, of course, is sugar.

Now, dark chocolate is actually kind of good for you since it contains beneficial flavonoids and less sugar. But that healthiness comes at a cost: Dark chocolate is quite bitter, and gets more so as the cacao content rises, to the point where 100% cacao chocolate is very nearly inedible. That’s the chocolate conundrum, the healthier it is, the worse it tastes. But what if there’s another way? What if you can have tasty chocolate that’s good for you?

Sascha Luehr/Pixabay

That’s the question a group of researchers from Penn State University dared to ask. The secret, they discovered, is to subject the cacao beans to extra-intense roasting. We’re not sure how screaming insults at a bunch of beans will help, but if science says so ... YOU USELESS LUMP OF BARELY EDIBLE FOOD! HOW DARE YOU EXIST!

Oh, not that kind of roasting. Oops.

For their study, the researchers made 27 unsweetened chocolates, prepared using various cacao bean roasting times and temperatures, and served them to volunteers. Those volunteers reported that chocolates made with cacao beans roasted more intensely (such as 20 minutes at 340° F, 80 min at 275° F, and 54 min at 304° F) were far more acceptable than were chocolates prepared with raw or lightly roasted cacao beans.

The implications of healthy yet tasty chocolate are obvious: Master the chocolate and you’ll make millions. Imagine a future where parents say to their kids: “Don’t forget to eat your chocolate.” So, we’re off to do some cooking. Don’t want Hershey to make all the money off of this revelation.
 

The villain hiding in dairy for some MS patients

For some of us, lactose can be a real heartbreaker when it comes to dairy consumption, but for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) there’s another villain they may also have to face that can make their symptoms worse.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

Physicians at the Institute of Anatomy at University Hospital Bonn (Germany) were getting so many complaints from patients with MS about how much worse they felt about after having cheese, yogurt, and milk that they decided to get to the bottom of it. The culprit, it seems, is casein, a protein specifically found in cow’s milk.

The researchers injected mice with various proteins found in cow’s milk and found perforated myelin sheaths in those given casein. In MS, the patient’s own immune system destroys that sheath, which leads to paresthesia, vision problems, and movement disorders.

“The body’s defenses actually attack the casein, but in the process they also destroy proteins involved in the formation of myelin, “ said Rittika Chunder, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bonn. How? Apparently it’s all a big misunderstanding.

While looking at molecules needed for myelin production, the researchers came across MAG, which is very similar to casein, which is a problem when patients with MS are allergic to casein. After they have dairy products, the B-cell squad gets called in to clean up the evil twin, casein, but can’t differentiate it from the good twin, MAG, so it all gets a wash and the myelin sheath suffers.

Since this happens only to patients with MS who have a casein allergy, the researchers advise them to stay away from milk, yogurt, or cottage cheese while they work on a self-test to check if patients carry the antibodies.

A small price to pay, perhaps, to stop a villainous evil twin.
 

You would even say it glows

If you’re anything like us – and we think you are since you’re reading this – you’ve been asking yourself: Are there any common medications in my house that will make good radiation sensors?

Vnukko/Pixabay

Not that anyone needs to worry about excess radiation or anything. Far from it. We were just wondering.

It just so happens that Anna Mrozik and Paweł Bilski, both of the Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Kraków, Poland, were wondering the same thing: “During an uncontrolled release of radiation, it is highly unlikely that members of the public will be equipped with personal radiation dose monitors.”

People would need to use something they had lying around the house. A smartphone would work, the investigators explained in a statement from the IFJ PAN, but the process of converting one to radiation-sensor duty, which involves dismantling it and breaking the display glass, “is laborious and time-consuming [and] the destruction of a valuable and useful device does not seem to be the optimal solution.”

Naturally, they turned to drugs. The key, in this case, is optically stimulated luminescence. They needed to find materials that would glow with greater intensity as the radiation dose increased. Turns out that ibuprofen- and paracetamol-based painkillers fit the bill quite nicely, although aspirin also works.

It’s not known exactly which substance is causing the luminescence, but rest assured, the “physicists from the IFJ PAN intend to identify it.”
 

This is why you don’t interrupt someone using headphones

There’s nothing like taking a nice relaxing walk with your headphones. Whether you’re listening to a podcast or a song or talking on the phone, it’s an escape from reality that makes you feel like you’re completely in tune with what you’re listening to.

Weedezign/Thinkstock

According to a new study, headphones, as opposed to speakers, make people feel more connected to what they are listening to. Data collected from more than 4,000 people showed that listening with headphones makes more of an impact than listening to speakers.

“Headphones produce a phenomenon called in-head localization, which makes the speaker sound as if they’re inside your head,” study coauthor On Amir of the University of California, San Diego, said in a statement. Because of this, people feel like the speakers are close to them and there’s more of a sense of empathy for the speakers and the listener is more likely to be swayed toward the ideas of the speaker.

These findings could lead to more efficient training programs, online work, and advertising, the investigators suggested.

We now finally understand why people get so mad when they have to take out their headphones to answer or talk to us. We ruined a satisfying moment going on in their brains.

Chocolate: Now part of a well-balanced diet

Asking if someone loves chocolate is like asking if they love breathing. It’s really not a question that needs to be asked. The thing with chocolate, however, is that most people who love chocolate actually love sugar, since your typical milk chocolate contains only about 30% cacao. The rest, of course, is sugar.

Now, dark chocolate is actually kind of good for you since it contains beneficial flavonoids and less sugar. But that healthiness comes at a cost: Dark chocolate is quite bitter, and gets more so as the cacao content rises, to the point where 100% cacao chocolate is very nearly inedible. That’s the chocolate conundrum, the healthier it is, the worse it tastes. But what if there’s another way? What if you can have tasty chocolate that’s good for you?

Sascha Luehr/Pixabay

That’s the question a group of researchers from Penn State University dared to ask. The secret, they discovered, is to subject the cacao beans to extra-intense roasting. We’re not sure how screaming insults at a bunch of beans will help, but if science says so ... YOU USELESS LUMP OF BARELY EDIBLE FOOD! HOW DARE YOU EXIST!

Oh, not that kind of roasting. Oops.

For their study, the researchers made 27 unsweetened chocolates, prepared using various cacao bean roasting times and temperatures, and served them to volunteers. Those volunteers reported that chocolates made with cacao beans roasted more intensely (such as 20 minutes at 340° F, 80 min at 275° F, and 54 min at 304° F) were far more acceptable than were chocolates prepared with raw or lightly roasted cacao beans.

The implications of healthy yet tasty chocolate are obvious: Master the chocolate and you’ll make millions. Imagine a future where parents say to their kids: “Don’t forget to eat your chocolate.” So, we’re off to do some cooking. Don’t want Hershey to make all the money off of this revelation.
 

The villain hiding in dairy for some MS patients

For some of us, lactose can be a real heartbreaker when it comes to dairy consumption, but for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) there’s another villain they may also have to face that can make their symptoms worse.

fcafotodigital/Getty Images

Physicians at the Institute of Anatomy at University Hospital Bonn (Germany) were getting so many complaints from patients with MS about how much worse they felt about after having cheese, yogurt, and milk that they decided to get to the bottom of it. The culprit, it seems, is casein, a protein specifically found in cow’s milk.

The researchers injected mice with various proteins found in cow’s milk and found perforated myelin sheaths in those given casein. In MS, the patient’s own immune system destroys that sheath, which leads to paresthesia, vision problems, and movement disorders.

“The body’s defenses actually attack the casein, but in the process they also destroy proteins involved in the formation of myelin, “ said Rittika Chunder, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Bonn. How? Apparently it’s all a big misunderstanding.

While looking at molecules needed for myelin production, the researchers came across MAG, which is very similar to casein, which is a problem when patients with MS are allergic to casein. After they have dairy products, the B-cell squad gets called in to clean up the evil twin, casein, but can’t differentiate it from the good twin, MAG, so it all gets a wash and the myelin sheath suffers.

Since this happens only to patients with MS who have a casein allergy, the researchers advise them to stay away from milk, yogurt, or cottage cheese while they work on a self-test to check if patients carry the antibodies.

A small price to pay, perhaps, to stop a villainous evil twin.
 

You would even say it glows

If you’re anything like us – and we think you are since you’re reading this – you’ve been asking yourself: Are there any common medications in my house that will make good radiation sensors?

Vnukko/Pixabay

Not that anyone needs to worry about excess radiation or anything. Far from it. We were just wondering.

It just so happens that Anna Mrozik and Paweł Bilski, both of the Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Kraków, Poland, were wondering the same thing: “During an uncontrolled release of radiation, it is highly unlikely that members of the public will be equipped with personal radiation dose monitors.”

People would need to use something they had lying around the house. A smartphone would work, the investigators explained in a statement from the IFJ PAN, but the process of converting one to radiation-sensor duty, which involves dismantling it and breaking the display glass, “is laborious and time-consuming [and] the destruction of a valuable and useful device does not seem to be the optimal solution.”

Naturally, they turned to drugs. The key, in this case, is optically stimulated luminescence. They needed to find materials that would glow with greater intensity as the radiation dose increased. Turns out that ibuprofen- and paracetamol-based painkillers fit the bill quite nicely, although aspirin also works.

It’s not known exactly which substance is causing the luminescence, but rest assured, the “physicists from the IFJ PAN intend to identify it.”
 

This is why you don’t interrupt someone using headphones

There’s nothing like taking a nice relaxing walk with your headphones. Whether you’re listening to a podcast or a song or talking on the phone, it’s an escape from reality that makes you feel like you’re completely in tune with what you’re listening to.

Weedezign/Thinkstock

According to a new study, headphones, as opposed to speakers, make people feel more connected to what they are listening to. Data collected from more than 4,000 people showed that listening with headphones makes more of an impact than listening to speakers.

“Headphones produce a phenomenon called in-head localization, which makes the speaker sound as if they’re inside your head,” study coauthor On Amir of the University of California, San Diego, said in a statement. Because of this, people feel like the speakers are close to them and there’s more of a sense of empathy for the speakers and the listener is more likely to be swayed toward the ideas of the speaker.

These findings could lead to more efficient training programs, online work, and advertising, the investigators suggested.

We now finally understand why people get so mad when they have to take out their headphones to answer or talk to us. We ruined a satisfying moment going on in their brains.

Mental disorders in early life are associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in later years.

Results of a large, longitudinal, population-based study show that individuals hospitalized for a mental health disorder had a fourfold increased relative risk (RR) for developing dementia, compared with those who were not hospitalized with a mental illness.

In addition, those with dementia plus a mental disorder developed dementia almost 6 years earlier than those without a mental illness.

The findings were consistent among men and women, in patients with early- and late-onset dementia, in those with Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementia, and across all mental health disorders – and remained so after accounting for pre-existing physical illness and socioeconomic factors.

“Dementia is not typically treated until later in life, but our study suggests that we need to be thinking about dementia prevention much earlier in the life course,” study investigator Leah Richmond-Rakerd, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychology, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Supporting young people’s mental health could be a window of opportunity to help reduce the burden of dementia in older adults,” she said.

The findings were published online Feb. 16.
 

Underappreciated risk factor

“Recognition of the outsized influence of dementia on later-life functioning has fueled research into modifiable risk factors and prevention targets,” the investigators write.

Previous research suggests mental disorders may “comprise an underappreciated category of modifiable risk factors.” However, those studies focused primarily on midlife and older individuals, not on capturing mental disorders during young adulthood, which is the time of “peak prevalence,” they add. In addition, most studies have not explored the full range of mental disorders.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that it is well known that mental health disorders peak in adolescence and young adulthood – and are treatable.

“If the same people who have mental disorders when they are young tend to develop dementia when they are older, that would mean that preventing mental health problems in younger people might reduce or delay the burden of dementia in older people,” she said.

The investigators assessed records from the New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure, which is a de-identified register that includes the entire New Zealand population. They also examined information about hospitalizations and diagnoses from records kept by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

The researchers followed 1,711,386 individuals born between 1928 and 1967 (50.6% men, aged 21 to 60 years at baseline) for 30 years. The population was subdivided into age groups based on birth years: 1928-1937 (14.8%), 1938-1947 (20.85%), 1948-1957 (29.35%), and 1958-1967 (35.1%).
 

Earlier onset

During the study period, 3.8% of individuals were identified as having a mental disorder, and 2% were identified as having dementia. Similar percentages of men and women had a mental disorder, and similar percentages had dementia.

Dementia was “over-represented” among participants with versus without a mental disorder (6.1% vs. 1.8%). This finding held across all age groups.

Those diagnosed with a mental disorder were also more likely to develop dementia, compared with their peers without a mental disorder (RR, 3.51; 95% confidence interval, 3.39-3.64), which is a larger association than that between physical diseases and dementia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.21).

These associations were present in both sexes and in all age groups, although the associations were stronger in more recently born cohorts.

A sixfold higher risk for dementia remained even after adjusting for pre-existing physical illnesses (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 6.25-6.73); and the elevated risk was evident across different lengths of follow-up from the index mental disorder.

When the researchers focused specifically on individuals diagnosed with dementia, they found that those diagnosed with a mental disorder developed dementia a mean of 5.60 years earlier than those without a mental disorder diagnosis – an association observed across both sexes and all age groups.

“Individuals diagnosed with psychotic, substance use, mood, neurotic, and all other mental disorders and who engaged in self-harm were all more likely than those without a mental disorder to be diagnosed with subsequent dementia, even after accounting for their physical disease histories,” the investigators write.

Although there was a link between mental disorders in both Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementias, the association was larger in non-Alzheimer’s.

The researchers note that the study has several limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in New Zealand and therefore the results may not be generalizable to other regions. In addition, inpatient hospital records do not capture less severe mental disorder cases treated in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd suggested several potential mechanisms that could account for the link between mental illness and dementia, including poor lifestyle choices and metabolic side effects associated with some psychiatric medications.

“There could also be shared risk factors for both mental disorders and dementia, such as shared genetics, or individuals may experience a lifelong brain vulnerability that shows up as mental health problems earlier in life and shows up as dementia later in life,” she said.
 

An important risk factor

Commenting for this article, Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said a major strength of the study was its longitudinal scope and large population size.

He described the study as allowing clinicians to “watch the movie,” as opposed to looking at a “snapshot” of data.

“Although you can learn things from snapshots, a large, comprehensive public health system looking at 30 years of claims – something not possible in the U.S. because of our more fragmented health care system – offers more insight,” said Dr. Duckworth, who was not involved with the research.

The investigators are “painting a picture of a correlation of risk, and to me, that’s the beginning of further inquiry,” he added. “Would preventive efforts targeting dementia, such as exercise and socialization, be helpful? It’s a great study that raises these interesting questions.”

Also commenting in an interview, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “adds a wealth of data to our understanding” of mental disorders as a dementia risk factor.

However, the study was observational, so “the findings cannot imply causation, [and just] because someone has depression, that does not mean they will go on to develop Alzheimer’s,” said Dr. Sexton, who also was not involved with the research.

Still, “these data support the idea that taking care of one’s mental health is incredibly important for overall wellbeing. For providers, it’s important to have mental health evaluation be a part of your patient’s regular checkups,” she added.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that even if mental health conditions are not a causal risk factor for dementia, “the presence of a mental health problem is still an important indicator of risk. Mental health providers may wish to target other risk factors for dementia that are more common in individuals with mental health conditions, such as social disconnection.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Child Health and Development through the Duke Population Research Center, and the National Institute on Aging through the Center for Advancing Sociodemographic and Economic Study of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias. Dr. Richmond-Rakerd reports no relevant financial relationships. The other investigators’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Sexton and Dr. Duckworth report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mental disorders in early life are associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in later years.

Results of a large, longitudinal, population-based study show that individuals hospitalized for a mental health disorder had a fourfold increased relative risk (RR) for developing dementia, compared with those who were not hospitalized with a mental illness.

In addition, those with dementia plus a mental disorder developed dementia almost 6 years earlier than those without a mental illness.

The findings were consistent among men and women, in patients with early- and late-onset dementia, in those with Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementia, and across all mental health disorders – and remained so after accounting for pre-existing physical illness and socioeconomic factors.

“Dementia is not typically treated until later in life, but our study suggests that we need to be thinking about dementia prevention much earlier in the life course,” study investigator Leah Richmond-Rakerd, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychology, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Supporting young people’s mental health could be a window of opportunity to help reduce the burden of dementia in older adults,” she said.

The findings were published online Feb. 16.
 

Underappreciated risk factor

“Recognition of the outsized influence of dementia on later-life functioning has fueled research into modifiable risk factors and prevention targets,” the investigators write.

Previous research suggests mental disorders may “comprise an underappreciated category of modifiable risk factors.” However, those studies focused primarily on midlife and older individuals, not on capturing mental disorders during young adulthood, which is the time of “peak prevalence,” they add. In addition, most studies have not explored the full range of mental disorders.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that it is well known that mental health disorders peak in adolescence and young adulthood – and are treatable.

“If the same people who have mental disorders when they are young tend to develop dementia when they are older, that would mean that preventing mental health problems in younger people might reduce or delay the burden of dementia in older people,” she said.

The investigators assessed records from the New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure, which is a de-identified register that includes the entire New Zealand population. They also examined information about hospitalizations and diagnoses from records kept by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

The researchers followed 1,711,386 individuals born between 1928 and 1967 (50.6% men, aged 21 to 60 years at baseline) for 30 years. The population was subdivided into age groups based on birth years: 1928-1937 (14.8%), 1938-1947 (20.85%), 1948-1957 (29.35%), and 1958-1967 (35.1%).
 

Earlier onset

During the study period, 3.8% of individuals were identified as having a mental disorder, and 2% were identified as having dementia. Similar percentages of men and women had a mental disorder, and similar percentages had dementia.

Dementia was “over-represented” among participants with versus without a mental disorder (6.1% vs. 1.8%). This finding held across all age groups.

Those diagnosed with a mental disorder were also more likely to develop dementia, compared with their peers without a mental disorder (RR, 3.51; 95% confidence interval, 3.39-3.64), which is a larger association than that between physical diseases and dementia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.21).

These associations were present in both sexes and in all age groups, although the associations were stronger in more recently born cohorts.

A sixfold higher risk for dementia remained even after adjusting for pre-existing physical illnesses (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 6.25-6.73); and the elevated risk was evident across different lengths of follow-up from the index mental disorder.

When the researchers focused specifically on individuals diagnosed with dementia, they found that those diagnosed with a mental disorder developed dementia a mean of 5.60 years earlier than those without a mental disorder diagnosis – an association observed across both sexes and all age groups.

“Individuals diagnosed with psychotic, substance use, mood, neurotic, and all other mental disorders and who engaged in self-harm were all more likely than those without a mental disorder to be diagnosed with subsequent dementia, even after accounting for their physical disease histories,” the investigators write.

Although there was a link between mental disorders in both Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementias, the association was larger in non-Alzheimer’s.

The researchers note that the study has several limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in New Zealand and therefore the results may not be generalizable to other regions. In addition, inpatient hospital records do not capture less severe mental disorder cases treated in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd suggested several potential mechanisms that could account for the link between mental illness and dementia, including poor lifestyle choices and metabolic side effects associated with some psychiatric medications.

“There could also be shared risk factors for both mental disorders and dementia, such as shared genetics, or individuals may experience a lifelong brain vulnerability that shows up as mental health problems earlier in life and shows up as dementia later in life,” she said.
 

An important risk factor

Commenting for this article, Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said a major strength of the study was its longitudinal scope and large population size.

He described the study as allowing clinicians to “watch the movie,” as opposed to looking at a “snapshot” of data.

“Although you can learn things from snapshots, a large, comprehensive public health system looking at 30 years of claims – something not possible in the U.S. because of our more fragmented health care system – offers more insight,” said Dr. Duckworth, who was not involved with the research.

The investigators are “painting a picture of a correlation of risk, and to me, that’s the beginning of further inquiry,” he added. “Would preventive efforts targeting dementia, such as exercise and socialization, be helpful? It’s a great study that raises these interesting questions.”

Also commenting in an interview, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “adds a wealth of data to our understanding” of mental disorders as a dementia risk factor.

However, the study was observational, so “the findings cannot imply causation, [and just] because someone has depression, that does not mean they will go on to develop Alzheimer’s,” said Dr. Sexton, who also was not involved with the research.

Still, “these data support the idea that taking care of one’s mental health is incredibly important for overall wellbeing. For providers, it’s important to have mental health evaluation be a part of your patient’s regular checkups,” she added.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that even if mental health conditions are not a causal risk factor for dementia, “the presence of a mental health problem is still an important indicator of risk. Mental health providers may wish to target other risk factors for dementia that are more common in individuals with mental health conditions, such as social disconnection.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Child Health and Development through the Duke Population Research Center, and the National Institute on Aging through the Center for Advancing Sociodemographic and Economic Study of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias. Dr. Richmond-Rakerd reports no relevant financial relationships. The other investigators’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Sexton and Dr. Duckworth report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mental disorders in early life are associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in later years.

Results of a large, longitudinal, population-based study show that individuals hospitalized for a mental health disorder had a fourfold increased relative risk (RR) for developing dementia, compared with those who were not hospitalized with a mental illness.

In addition, those with dementia plus a mental disorder developed dementia almost 6 years earlier than those without a mental illness.

The findings were consistent among men and women, in patients with early- and late-onset dementia, in those with Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementia, and across all mental health disorders – and remained so after accounting for pre-existing physical illness and socioeconomic factors.

“Dementia is not typically treated until later in life, but our study suggests that we need to be thinking about dementia prevention much earlier in the life course,” study investigator Leah Richmond-Rakerd, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychology, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Supporting young people’s mental health could be a window of opportunity to help reduce the burden of dementia in older adults,” she said.

The findings were published online Feb. 16.
 

Underappreciated risk factor

“Recognition of the outsized influence of dementia on later-life functioning has fueled research into modifiable risk factors and prevention targets,” the investigators write.

Previous research suggests mental disorders may “comprise an underappreciated category of modifiable risk factors.” However, those studies focused primarily on midlife and older individuals, not on capturing mental disorders during young adulthood, which is the time of “peak prevalence,” they add. In addition, most studies have not explored the full range of mental disorders.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that it is well known that mental health disorders peak in adolescence and young adulthood – and are treatable.

“If the same people who have mental disorders when they are young tend to develop dementia when they are older, that would mean that preventing mental health problems in younger people might reduce or delay the burden of dementia in older people,” she said.

The investigators assessed records from the New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure, which is a de-identified register that includes the entire New Zealand population. They also examined information about hospitalizations and diagnoses from records kept by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

The researchers followed 1,711,386 individuals born between 1928 and 1967 (50.6% men, aged 21 to 60 years at baseline) for 30 years. The population was subdivided into age groups based on birth years: 1928-1937 (14.8%), 1938-1947 (20.85%), 1948-1957 (29.35%), and 1958-1967 (35.1%).
 

Earlier onset

During the study period, 3.8% of individuals were identified as having a mental disorder, and 2% were identified as having dementia. Similar percentages of men and women had a mental disorder, and similar percentages had dementia.

Dementia was “over-represented” among participants with versus without a mental disorder (6.1% vs. 1.8%). This finding held across all age groups.

Those diagnosed with a mental disorder were also more likely to develop dementia, compared with their peers without a mental disorder (RR, 3.51; 95% confidence interval, 3.39-3.64), which is a larger association than that between physical diseases and dementia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.21).

These associations were present in both sexes and in all age groups, although the associations were stronger in more recently born cohorts.

A sixfold higher risk for dementia remained even after adjusting for pre-existing physical illnesses (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 6.25-6.73); and the elevated risk was evident across different lengths of follow-up from the index mental disorder.

When the researchers focused specifically on individuals diagnosed with dementia, they found that those diagnosed with a mental disorder developed dementia a mean of 5.60 years earlier than those without a mental disorder diagnosis – an association observed across both sexes and all age groups.

“Individuals diagnosed with psychotic, substance use, mood, neurotic, and all other mental disorders and who engaged in self-harm were all more likely than those without a mental disorder to be diagnosed with subsequent dementia, even after accounting for their physical disease histories,” the investigators write.

Although there was a link between mental disorders in both Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementias, the association was larger in non-Alzheimer’s.

The researchers note that the study has several limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in New Zealand and therefore the results may not be generalizable to other regions. In addition, inpatient hospital records do not capture less severe mental disorder cases treated in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd suggested several potential mechanisms that could account for the link between mental illness and dementia, including poor lifestyle choices and metabolic side effects associated with some psychiatric medications.

“There could also be shared risk factors for both mental disorders and dementia, such as shared genetics, or individuals may experience a lifelong brain vulnerability that shows up as mental health problems earlier in life and shows up as dementia later in life,” she said.
 

An important risk factor

Commenting for this article, Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said a major strength of the study was its longitudinal scope and large population size.

He described the study as allowing clinicians to “watch the movie,” as opposed to looking at a “snapshot” of data.

“Although you can learn things from snapshots, a large, comprehensive public health system looking at 30 years of claims – something not possible in the U.S. because of our more fragmented health care system – offers more insight,” said Dr. Duckworth, who was not involved with the research.

The investigators are “painting a picture of a correlation of risk, and to me, that’s the beginning of further inquiry,” he added. “Would preventive efforts targeting dementia, such as exercise and socialization, be helpful? It’s a great study that raises these interesting questions.”

Also commenting in an interview, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “adds a wealth of data to our understanding” of mental disorders as a dementia risk factor.

However, the study was observational, so “the findings cannot imply causation, [and just] because someone has depression, that does not mean they will go on to develop Alzheimer’s,” said Dr. Sexton, who also was not involved with the research.

Still, “these data support the idea that taking care of one’s mental health is incredibly important for overall wellbeing. For providers, it’s important to have mental health evaluation be a part of your patient’s regular checkups,” she added.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that even if mental health conditions are not a causal risk factor for dementia, “the presence of a mental health problem is still an important indicator of risk. Mental health providers may wish to target other risk factors for dementia that are more common in individuals with mental health conditions, such as social disconnection.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Child Health and Development through the Duke Population Research Center, and the National Institute on Aging through the Center for Advancing Sociodemographic and Economic Study of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias. Dr. Richmond-Rakerd reports no relevant financial relationships. The other investigators’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Sexton and Dr. Duckworth report no relevant financial relationships.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – The presence of paramagnetic rim lesions (PRLs) on MRI may help in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS), as well as in predicting more severe disease course, new research suggests.

Results from two studies add to the mounting evidence underscoring the importance of the imaging features, researchers noted. “Our data suggest that the presence and number of iron rim lesions hold a prognostic value for long-term disability in MS, especially the presence of four or more rim lesions,” said Amjad I. AlTokhis, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom, and Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, who was the lead author of both studies.

Importantly, the effect of the rim lesions on disability was greater than that of established prognostic biomarkers of T2 white matter lesion count and volume, she noted.

“This could support the use of iron rim lesions as an imaging biomarker for disease severity and worse prognosis,” said Dr. AlTokhis. “These findings also support that iron rim lesions might be clinically useful not only diagnostically but also for disease progression and predicting future disability in MS,” she added.

The findings were presented at the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum 2022.
 

Sign of aggressive disease?

Dozens of studies have linked rim lesions, which are also known as iron rim lesions because of their composition of iron-laden macrophages/microglia, to more severe disease course in MS, as well as to having potential as an important imaging biomarker for diagnosis. However, studies have often been limited to smaller longitudinal cohorts.

In the first study, Dr. AlTokhis and colleagues enrolled 91 patients with MS (56 women) between 2008 and 2013 for whom 7 Tesla (7T) MRI was available with SWI-filtered phase sequencing.

At baseline, among 42 patients with clinically isolated syndrome, 50% had one or more of the rim lesions. The corresponding rates were 38% among 34 patients with relapsing-remitting MS, 38% among 18 patients with primary-progressive MS, and as high as 71% among 17 patients with secondary-progressive MS (P < .05 vs. primary progressive MS and clinically isolated syndrome).

At a median follow-up of 9 years, 18 of the patients with clinically isolated syndrome and relapsing-remitting MS progressed to secondary progressive MS; and among them, 56% had at least one rim lesion.

Of 24 who did not progress to secondary progressive MS, only 33% had at least one rim lesion.

The median baseline level of disease severity in the entire cohort, as measured by Age-Related Multiple Sclerosis Score (ARMSS), was 5.4. However, the median score among patients with rim lesions was higher, compared with those without the lesions (ARMSS, 6.7 vs. 5.0).

After the median 9-year follow-up, disease severity remained higher among those with versus those without the lesions (ARMSS, 7.3 vs. 6.3).

Patients with rim lesions had more white matter lesions overall; and a further analysis surprisingly showed that the number of rim lesions was indeed associated with long-term disability (P = .005).

“Detecting four or more iron rim lesions could be a sign of more aggressive disease and disability – thus, possibly useful in earlier treatment and a potential target for therapies,” Dr. AlTokhis said.

“Also, for clinical practicality, [the number of] iron rim lesions had the most direct effect on disability compared to white matter lesion count and volume, supporting its role as an independent prognostic imaging biomarker,” she added.

Dr. AlTokhis noted that “detecting and counting rim lesions is much easier than assessing all white matter lesions, adding to the clinical utility of this sign.”
 

Diagnostic value

The second study, presented at the meeting by coinvestigator Brian Renner, MD, Department of Neurology at Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, reported on the significance of the rim lesions in MS diagnosis. It included 95 patients who had presented for new evaluation on suspicion of MS at 10 centers in the North American Imaging in MS Cooperative (NAIMS).

Of these participants, 44 (46%) were positively diagnosed according to McDonald 2017 criteria (MC2017) for MS, while 37 (39%) were given an alternative diagnosis to MS. Fourteen were considered at risk for MS with diagnoses of clinically isolating syndrome or radiologically isolating syndrome.

Overall, among the 44 with an MS diagnosis, 34 had one or more rim lesions; among the 51 who did not meet an MS diagnosis, only six had one or more of the rim lesions. One or more rim lesions were further observed in three patients with radiologically isolating syndrome and one patient with clinically isolating syndrome.

Among those with one or more of the rim lesions, a diagnosis of MS with MC2017 MS criteria was identified with a high sensitivity of 80%, high specificity of 88%, accuracy of 84%, and an AUC of 81%.

“We’ve shown that paramagnetic rim lesions are highly specific for MS, and the sensitivity of rim lesions for MS is higher than previously reported, despite similar techniques in rating, processing, and evaluation – which was likely related to the nature of the cohort,” Dr. Renner said.
 

Promising data

During the NAIMS symposium, Christopher C. Hemond, MD, assistant professor or neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, noted to meeting attendees that the rim lesions were seen across the entire course of the MS disease spectrum, spanning from radiologically isolating syndrome to secondary progressive MS.

“We know paramagnetic rim lesions are visible at all disease stages. They are uniquely larger and more destructive than their rimless peers and are associated with stronger disease severity,” said Dr. Hemond, who was not involved with the research.

“There is promising data at this point suggesting that [the rim lesions] may represent a biomarker predictive of future disability accumulation,” he added.

Dr. Hemond noted that, unlike in Dr. Renner’s study, the bulk of previous studies have indicated that rim lesions “are associated with a high specificity but only modest sensitivity, in the mid-50% range, for the diagnosis of MS in comparison to some conditions that mimic MS.”

Commenting on the findings, Dr. Hemond noted the results from Dr. Renner’s ongoing study “are critical in building confidence in the translational use of this biomarker to assist in ruling in a diagnosis of MS,” while Dr. AlTokis’ study “adds to and is consistent with the growing literature of pathological associations of paramagnetic rim lesions in MS.”

Dr. Hemond added that the NAIMS cooperative plans to publish guidance in the area in the coming months.

“Although paramagnetic rim lesions have strong pathological associations in MS, it remains unclear if the presence of these lesions should change MS clinical management at the present time,” he said.

During the NAIMS session, Francesca Bagnato, MD, PhD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., noted the growing importance of the role of rim lesions in clinical research. “It is clear that these paramagnetic rim lesions are going to be the new biomarker for the next generation of clinical trials,” she said.

Dr. Renner’s study received funding from the Race to Erase MS Foundation. Dr. AlTokhis, Dr. Renner, and Dr. Hemond have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – The presence of paramagnetic rim lesions (PRLs) on MRI may help in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS), as well as in predicting more severe disease course, new research suggests.

Results from two studies add to the mounting evidence underscoring the importance of the imaging features, researchers noted. “Our data suggest that the presence and number of iron rim lesions hold a prognostic value for long-term disability in MS, especially the presence of four or more rim lesions,” said Amjad I. AlTokhis, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom, and Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, who was the lead author of both studies.

Importantly, the effect of the rim lesions on disability was greater than that of established prognostic biomarkers of T2 white matter lesion count and volume, she noted.

“This could support the use of iron rim lesions as an imaging biomarker for disease severity and worse prognosis,” said Dr. AlTokhis. “These findings also support that iron rim lesions might be clinically useful not only diagnostically but also for disease progression and predicting future disability in MS,” she added.

The findings were presented at the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum 2022.
 

Sign of aggressive disease?

Dozens of studies have linked rim lesions, which are also known as iron rim lesions because of their composition of iron-laden macrophages/microglia, to more severe disease course in MS, as well as to having potential as an important imaging biomarker for diagnosis. However, studies have often been limited to smaller longitudinal cohorts.

In the first study, Dr. AlTokhis and colleagues enrolled 91 patients with MS (56 women) between 2008 and 2013 for whom 7 Tesla (7T) MRI was available with SWI-filtered phase sequencing.

At baseline, among 42 patients with clinically isolated syndrome, 50% had one or more of the rim lesions. The corresponding rates were 38% among 34 patients with relapsing-remitting MS, 38% among 18 patients with primary-progressive MS, and as high as 71% among 17 patients with secondary-progressive MS (P < .05 vs. primary progressive MS and clinically isolated syndrome).

At a median follow-up of 9 years, 18 of the patients with clinically isolated syndrome and relapsing-remitting MS progressed to secondary progressive MS; and among them, 56% had at least one rim lesion.

Of 24 who did not progress to secondary progressive MS, only 33% had at least one rim lesion.

The median baseline level of disease severity in the entire cohort, as measured by Age-Related Multiple Sclerosis Score (ARMSS), was 5.4. However, the median score among patients with rim lesions was higher, compared with those without the lesions (ARMSS, 6.7 vs. 5.0).

After the median 9-year follow-up, disease severity remained higher among those with versus those without the lesions (ARMSS, 7.3 vs. 6.3).

Patients with rim lesions had more white matter lesions overall; and a further analysis surprisingly showed that the number of rim lesions was indeed associated with long-term disability (P = .005).

“Detecting four or more iron rim lesions could be a sign of more aggressive disease and disability – thus, possibly useful in earlier treatment and a potential target for therapies,” Dr. AlTokhis said.

“Also, for clinical practicality, [the number of] iron rim lesions had the most direct effect on disability compared to white matter lesion count and volume, supporting its role as an independent prognostic imaging biomarker,” she added.

Dr. AlTokhis noted that “detecting and counting rim lesions is much easier than assessing all white matter lesions, adding to the clinical utility of this sign.”
 

Diagnostic value

The second study, presented at the meeting by coinvestigator Brian Renner, MD, Department of Neurology at Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, reported on the significance of the rim lesions in MS diagnosis. It included 95 patients who had presented for new evaluation on suspicion of MS at 10 centers in the North American Imaging in MS Cooperative (NAIMS).

Of these participants, 44 (46%) were positively diagnosed according to McDonald 2017 criteria (MC2017) for MS, while 37 (39%) were given an alternative diagnosis to MS. Fourteen were considered at risk for MS with diagnoses of clinically isolating syndrome or radiologically isolating syndrome.

Overall, among the 44 with an MS diagnosis, 34 had one or more rim lesions; among the 51 who did not meet an MS diagnosis, only six had one or more of the rim lesions. One or more rim lesions were further observed in three patients with radiologically isolating syndrome and one patient with clinically isolating syndrome.

Among those with one or more of the rim lesions, a diagnosis of MS with MC2017 MS criteria was identified with a high sensitivity of 80%, high specificity of 88%, accuracy of 84%, and an AUC of 81%.

“We’ve shown that paramagnetic rim lesions are highly specific for MS, and the sensitivity of rim lesions for MS is higher than previously reported, despite similar techniques in rating, processing, and evaluation – which was likely related to the nature of the cohort,” Dr. Renner said.
 

Promising data

During the NAIMS symposium, Christopher C. Hemond, MD, assistant professor or neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, noted to meeting attendees that the rim lesions were seen across the entire course of the MS disease spectrum, spanning from radiologically isolating syndrome to secondary progressive MS.

“We know paramagnetic rim lesions are visible at all disease stages. They are uniquely larger and more destructive than their rimless peers and are associated with stronger disease severity,” said Dr. Hemond, who was not involved with the research.

“There is promising data at this point suggesting that [the rim lesions] may represent a biomarker predictive of future disability accumulation,” he added.

Dr. Hemond noted that, unlike in Dr. Renner’s study, the bulk of previous studies have indicated that rim lesions “are associated with a high specificity but only modest sensitivity, in the mid-50% range, for the diagnosis of MS in comparison to some conditions that mimic MS.”

Commenting on the findings, Dr. Hemond noted the results from Dr. Renner’s ongoing study “are critical in building confidence in the translational use of this biomarker to assist in ruling in a diagnosis of MS,” while Dr. AlTokis’ study “adds to and is consistent with the growing literature of pathological associations of paramagnetic rim lesions in MS.”

Dr. Hemond added that the NAIMS cooperative plans to publish guidance in the area in the coming months.

“Although paramagnetic rim lesions have strong pathological associations in MS, it remains unclear if the presence of these lesions should change MS clinical management at the present time,” he said.

During the NAIMS session, Francesca Bagnato, MD, PhD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., noted the growing importance of the role of rim lesions in clinical research. “It is clear that these paramagnetic rim lesions are going to be the new biomarker for the next generation of clinical trials,” she said.

Dr. Renner’s study received funding from the Race to Erase MS Foundation. Dr. AlTokhis, Dr. Renner, and Dr. Hemond have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – The presence of paramagnetic rim lesions (PRLs) on MRI may help in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS), as well as in predicting more severe disease course, new research suggests.

Results from two studies add to the mounting evidence underscoring the importance of the imaging features, researchers noted. “Our data suggest that the presence and number of iron rim lesions hold a prognostic value for long-term disability in MS, especially the presence of four or more rim lesions,” said Amjad I. AlTokhis, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom, and Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, who was the lead author of both studies.

Importantly, the effect of the rim lesions on disability was greater than that of established prognostic biomarkers of T2 white matter lesion count and volume, she noted.

“This could support the use of iron rim lesions as an imaging biomarker for disease severity and worse prognosis,” said Dr. AlTokhis. “These findings also support that iron rim lesions might be clinically useful not only diagnostically but also for disease progression and predicting future disability in MS,” she added.

The findings were presented at the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS) Forum 2022.
 

Sign of aggressive disease?

Dozens of studies have linked rim lesions, which are also known as iron rim lesions because of their composition of iron-laden macrophages/microglia, to more severe disease course in MS, as well as to having potential as an important imaging biomarker for diagnosis. However, studies have often been limited to smaller longitudinal cohorts.

In the first study, Dr. AlTokhis and colleagues enrolled 91 patients with MS (56 women) between 2008 and 2013 for whom 7 Tesla (7T) MRI was available with SWI-filtered phase sequencing.

At baseline, among 42 patients with clinically isolated syndrome, 50% had one or more of the rim lesions. The corresponding rates were 38% among 34 patients with relapsing-remitting MS, 38% among 18 patients with primary-progressive MS, and as high as 71% among 17 patients with secondary-progressive MS (P < .05 vs. primary progressive MS and clinically isolated syndrome).

At a median follow-up of 9 years, 18 of the patients with clinically isolated syndrome and relapsing-remitting MS progressed to secondary progressive MS; and among them, 56% had at least one rim lesion.

Of 24 who did not progress to secondary progressive MS, only 33% had at least one rim lesion.

The median baseline level of disease severity in the entire cohort, as measured by Age-Related Multiple Sclerosis Score (ARMSS), was 5.4. However, the median score among patients with rim lesions was higher, compared with those without the lesions (ARMSS, 6.7 vs. 5.0).

After the median 9-year follow-up, disease severity remained higher among those with versus those without the lesions (ARMSS, 7.3 vs. 6.3).

Patients with rim lesions had more white matter lesions overall; and a further analysis surprisingly showed that the number of rim lesions was indeed associated with long-term disability (P = .005).

“Detecting four or more iron rim lesions could be a sign of more aggressive disease and disability – thus, possibly useful in earlier treatment and a potential target for therapies,” Dr. AlTokhis said.

“Also, for clinical practicality, [the number of] iron rim lesions had the most direct effect on disability compared to white matter lesion count and volume, supporting its role as an independent prognostic imaging biomarker,” she added.

Dr. AlTokhis noted that “detecting and counting rim lesions is much easier than assessing all white matter lesions, adding to the clinical utility of this sign.”
 

Diagnostic value

The second study, presented at the meeting by coinvestigator Brian Renner, MD, Department of Neurology at Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles, reported on the significance of the rim lesions in MS diagnosis. It included 95 patients who had presented for new evaluation on suspicion of MS at 10 centers in the North American Imaging in MS Cooperative (NAIMS).

Of these participants, 44 (46%) were positively diagnosed according to McDonald 2017 criteria (MC2017) for MS, while 37 (39%) were given an alternative diagnosis to MS. Fourteen were considered at risk for MS with diagnoses of clinically isolating syndrome or radiologically isolating syndrome.

Overall, among the 44 with an MS diagnosis, 34 had one or more rim lesions; among the 51 who did not meet an MS diagnosis, only six had one or more of the rim lesions. One or more rim lesions were further observed in three patients with radiologically isolating syndrome and one patient with clinically isolating syndrome.

Among those with one or more of the rim lesions, a diagnosis of MS with MC2017 MS criteria was identified with a high sensitivity of 80%, high specificity of 88%, accuracy of 84%, and an AUC of 81%.

“We’ve shown that paramagnetic rim lesions are highly specific for MS, and the sensitivity of rim lesions for MS is higher than previously reported, despite similar techniques in rating, processing, and evaluation – which was likely related to the nature of the cohort,” Dr. Renner said.
 

Promising data

During the NAIMS symposium, Christopher C. Hemond, MD, assistant professor or neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, noted to meeting attendees that the rim lesions were seen across the entire course of the MS disease spectrum, spanning from radiologically isolating syndrome to secondary progressive MS.

“We know paramagnetic rim lesions are visible at all disease stages. They are uniquely larger and more destructive than their rimless peers and are associated with stronger disease severity,” said Dr. Hemond, who was not involved with the research.

“There is promising data at this point suggesting that [the rim lesions] may represent a biomarker predictive of future disability accumulation,” he added.

Dr. Hemond noted that, unlike in Dr. Renner’s study, the bulk of previous studies have indicated that rim lesions “are associated with a high specificity but only modest sensitivity, in the mid-50% range, for the diagnosis of MS in comparison to some conditions that mimic MS.”

Commenting on the findings, Dr. Hemond noted the results from Dr. Renner’s ongoing study “are critical in building confidence in the translational use of this biomarker to assist in ruling in a diagnosis of MS,” while Dr. AlTokis’ study “adds to and is consistent with the growing literature of pathological associations of paramagnetic rim lesions in MS.”

Dr. Hemond added that the NAIMS cooperative plans to publish guidance in the area in the coming months.

“Although paramagnetic rim lesions have strong pathological associations in MS, it remains unclear if the presence of these lesions should change MS clinical management at the present time,” he said.

During the NAIMS session, Francesca Bagnato, MD, PhD, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., noted the growing importance of the role of rim lesions in clinical research. “It is clear that these paramagnetic rim lesions are going to be the new biomarker for the next generation of clinical trials,” she said.

Dr. Renner’s study received funding from the Race to Erase MS Foundation. Dr. AlTokhis, Dr. Renner, and Dr. Hemond have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Spinal cord atrophy, as detected on calibrated brain MRI scans, significantly correlates with silent progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) to progressive MS, new research shows. Study results suggest that this is a potentially important biomarker for disease progression that may otherwise go unrecognized by clinicians and patients, investigators noted.

“We found that cervical cord atrophy at the C1 level, as obtained from routine brain MRI, is the strongest indicator of silent progression and secondary progressive MS conversion,” said lead author Antje Bischof, MD, department of neurology and Institute of Translational Neurology, University Hospital, Munster, Germany.

“Silent progression and secondary progressive MS conversion are each predominantly related to spinal cord atrophy,” she added.

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

Relatively new concept

Secondary progressive MS (SPMS) generally occurs when relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) progresses, with relapses ceasing and a more steady accumulation of disability occurring.

However, a relapse-free “silent progression” of MS, described in previous research as occurring in as many as one-third or more of patients with relapsing MS, emerges at a much earlier stage prior to secondary progression. This potentially involves widespread neurodegeneration in early disease stages.

“Because the concept of silent progression is relatively new and directly challenges the long-accepted two-stage hypothesis, many clinicians have yet to actively identify silent progression in clinical practice,” said coinvestigator Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco).

To investigate the underlying structural or pathophysiologic changes that are linked to silent progression, the researchers focused on spinal cord measures, which are known to strongly correlate with disability.

They evaluated 360 patients with RRMS and 47 with SPMS and compared outcomes with 80 participants who acted as the study controls. The groups were matched for age, sex, disease duration, and treatments over a 12-year observation period using data from the UCSF MS Center.

To examine spinal cord changes in areas that could affect MS, the investigators used a novel orientation of MRI brain scans to capture the upper cervical cord area.

Among the patients with RRMS, 54 converted to SPMS over 12 years; 159 had silent progression during the period. Silent progression was defined as the onset of irreversible worsening of scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Silent progression was confirmed over 12 months and occurred independently of relapses.
 

‘Strongest predictor’

The analysis showed spinal cord atrophy at the C1 vertebral level to be the strongest predictor of silent progression, with each 1% increase in spinal cord atrophy associated with a 69% shorter time to silent clinical progression (P < .0001).

Those who converted from RRMS to SPMS showed spinal atrophy rates of –2.19% per year, versus –0.88% per year among those who did not convert (P < .001).

“C1A atrophy rates in patients with silent progression were faster even when combining RRMS and SPMS patients,” Dr. Bischof said.

Of note, the patients who silently progressed showed a lower EDSS score at baseline, she added.

Next to spinal atrophy, ventricular enlargement was the second strongest MRI metric associated with silent progression over the 12 years. Each 1% increase in lateral ventricle size was associated with a 16% reduced time to silent clinical progression (P = .007).

“These findings extend the prognostic value of spinal cord atrophy not only for the conversion to SPMS but also silent progression,” Dr. Bischof said. “Furthermore, we show that the enlargement of the lateral ventricles is the second strongest indicator of impending silent progression and the strongest of all brain measures,” she said.
 

Standard of care?

While the unique MRI techniques used in the study may not be easily obtained in standard practice, Dr. Cree noted that efforts are underway to facilitate the process. “Development of a fully automated software package to obtain those measurements for both clinical trials and in some [clinical settings] is underway,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that once those technologies are available, the assessment of spinal cord atrophy could become standard in MS care. “I predict that when upper cervical cord measurements can be readily measured, assessment for decrease in the upper cervical cord area will be an essential component of routine care of relapsing MS patients,” he said.

“Because decreases in upper cervical cord areas herald disability worsening, there may well be a window of opportunity to use highly effective treatments to arrest or even reverse this process before irreversible disability accumulates,” Dr. Cree added.
 

Treatment implications

Commenting on the findings, ACTRIMS program cochair Anne Cross, MD, professor of neurology and the Manny and Rosalyn Rosenthal–Dr John Trotter MS Chair in Neuroimmunology, Washington University, St. Louis, noted that the study is important for two key reasons.

“We lack a good prognostic marker of future progression, but this could have very important implications for the choice of treatment of patients, particularly if the findings are applicable not only at the group level, as in the study, but also at the level of the individual patient,” said Dr. Cross, who was not involved with the research.

Secondly, the results suggest benefits in the selection of patients for clinical trials of agents that might stop progression. “Choosing patients who would deliver the most impact in studies of potential new treatments for progressive MS” is important, Dr. Cross said.

“We don’t want to dilute our trial patient populations with patients who might not be destined to progress in the ensuing years,” she added.

Also commenting on the findings, Benjamin Segal, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Multiple Sclerosis Center and the Holtom-Garrett Program in Neuroimmunology, Ann Arbor, agreed that the study offers valuable insights. “These findings are striking in that they underscore the fact that even patients with relapsing-remitting MS undergo functional decline in between overt clinical exacerbations, although the decline is more subtle than that experienced by people with progressive forms of MS,” Dr. Segal said.

He noted that the strong correlation between silent progression and spinal cord atrophy, more so than with brain measures, “is not so surprising, since clinical decline was measured using the EDSS scale – which emphasizes ambulation over other functions,” such as cognition.

“It would be interesting to correlate silent progression with serum neurofilament light chain levels, at baseline as well as change over time,” Dr. Segal added.

Dr. Bischof and Dr. Segal have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cree has received personal compensation for consulting from Biogen, EMD Serono, and Novartis.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Spinal cord atrophy, as detected on calibrated brain MRI scans, significantly correlates with silent progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) to progressive MS, new research shows. Study results suggest that this is a potentially important biomarker for disease progression that may otherwise go unrecognized by clinicians and patients, investigators noted.

“We found that cervical cord atrophy at the C1 level, as obtained from routine brain MRI, is the strongest indicator of silent progression and secondary progressive MS conversion,” said lead author Antje Bischof, MD, department of neurology and Institute of Translational Neurology, University Hospital, Munster, Germany.

“Silent progression and secondary progressive MS conversion are each predominantly related to spinal cord atrophy,” she added.

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

Relatively new concept

Secondary progressive MS (SPMS) generally occurs when relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) progresses, with relapses ceasing and a more steady accumulation of disability occurring.

However, a relapse-free “silent progression” of MS, described in previous research as occurring in as many as one-third or more of patients with relapsing MS, emerges at a much earlier stage prior to secondary progression. This potentially involves widespread neurodegeneration in early disease stages.

“Because the concept of silent progression is relatively new and directly challenges the long-accepted two-stage hypothesis, many clinicians have yet to actively identify silent progression in clinical practice,” said coinvestigator Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco).

To investigate the underlying structural or pathophysiologic changes that are linked to silent progression, the researchers focused on spinal cord measures, which are known to strongly correlate with disability.

They evaluated 360 patients with RRMS and 47 with SPMS and compared outcomes with 80 participants who acted as the study controls. The groups were matched for age, sex, disease duration, and treatments over a 12-year observation period using data from the UCSF MS Center.

To examine spinal cord changes in areas that could affect MS, the investigators used a novel orientation of MRI brain scans to capture the upper cervical cord area.

Among the patients with RRMS, 54 converted to SPMS over 12 years; 159 had silent progression during the period. Silent progression was defined as the onset of irreversible worsening of scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Silent progression was confirmed over 12 months and occurred independently of relapses.
 

‘Strongest predictor’

The analysis showed spinal cord atrophy at the C1 vertebral level to be the strongest predictor of silent progression, with each 1% increase in spinal cord atrophy associated with a 69% shorter time to silent clinical progression (P < .0001).

Those who converted from RRMS to SPMS showed spinal atrophy rates of –2.19% per year, versus –0.88% per year among those who did not convert (P < .001).

“C1A atrophy rates in patients with silent progression were faster even when combining RRMS and SPMS patients,” Dr. Bischof said.

Of note, the patients who silently progressed showed a lower EDSS score at baseline, she added.

Next to spinal atrophy, ventricular enlargement was the second strongest MRI metric associated with silent progression over the 12 years. Each 1% increase in lateral ventricle size was associated with a 16% reduced time to silent clinical progression (P = .007).

“These findings extend the prognostic value of spinal cord atrophy not only for the conversion to SPMS but also silent progression,” Dr. Bischof said. “Furthermore, we show that the enlargement of the lateral ventricles is the second strongest indicator of impending silent progression and the strongest of all brain measures,” she said.
 

Standard of care?

While the unique MRI techniques used in the study may not be easily obtained in standard practice, Dr. Cree noted that efforts are underway to facilitate the process. “Development of a fully automated software package to obtain those measurements for both clinical trials and in some [clinical settings] is underway,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that once those technologies are available, the assessment of spinal cord atrophy could become standard in MS care. “I predict that when upper cervical cord measurements can be readily measured, assessment for decrease in the upper cervical cord area will be an essential component of routine care of relapsing MS patients,” he said.

“Because decreases in upper cervical cord areas herald disability worsening, there may well be a window of opportunity to use highly effective treatments to arrest or even reverse this process before irreversible disability accumulates,” Dr. Cree added.
 

Treatment implications

Commenting on the findings, ACTRIMS program cochair Anne Cross, MD, professor of neurology and the Manny and Rosalyn Rosenthal–Dr John Trotter MS Chair in Neuroimmunology, Washington University, St. Louis, noted that the study is important for two key reasons.

“We lack a good prognostic marker of future progression, but this could have very important implications for the choice of treatment of patients, particularly if the findings are applicable not only at the group level, as in the study, but also at the level of the individual patient,” said Dr. Cross, who was not involved with the research.

Secondly, the results suggest benefits in the selection of patients for clinical trials of agents that might stop progression. “Choosing patients who would deliver the most impact in studies of potential new treatments for progressive MS” is important, Dr. Cross said.

“We don’t want to dilute our trial patient populations with patients who might not be destined to progress in the ensuing years,” she added.

Also commenting on the findings, Benjamin Segal, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Multiple Sclerosis Center and the Holtom-Garrett Program in Neuroimmunology, Ann Arbor, agreed that the study offers valuable insights. “These findings are striking in that they underscore the fact that even patients with relapsing-remitting MS undergo functional decline in between overt clinical exacerbations, although the decline is more subtle than that experienced by people with progressive forms of MS,” Dr. Segal said.

He noted that the strong correlation between silent progression and spinal cord atrophy, more so than with brain measures, “is not so surprising, since clinical decline was measured using the EDSS scale – which emphasizes ambulation over other functions,” such as cognition.

“It would be interesting to correlate silent progression with serum neurofilament light chain levels, at baseline as well as change over time,” Dr. Segal added.

Dr. Bischof and Dr. Segal have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cree has received personal compensation for consulting from Biogen, EMD Serono, and Novartis.

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

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. – Spinal cord atrophy, as detected on calibrated brain MRI scans, significantly correlates with silent progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) to progressive MS, new research shows. Study results suggest that this is a potentially important biomarker for disease progression that may otherwise go unrecognized by clinicians and patients, investigators noted.

“We found that cervical cord atrophy at the C1 level, as obtained from routine brain MRI, is the strongest indicator of silent progression and secondary progressive MS conversion,” said lead author Antje Bischof, MD, department of neurology and Institute of Translational Neurology, University Hospital, Munster, Germany.

“Silent progression and secondary progressive MS conversion are each predominantly related to spinal cord atrophy,” she added.

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

Relatively new concept

Secondary progressive MS (SPMS) generally occurs when relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) progresses, with relapses ceasing and a more steady accumulation of disability occurring.

However, a relapse-free “silent progression” of MS, described in previous research as occurring in as many as one-third or more of patients with relapsing MS, emerges at a much earlier stage prior to secondary progression. This potentially involves widespread neurodegeneration in early disease stages.

“Because the concept of silent progression is relatively new and directly challenges the long-accepted two-stage hypothesis, many clinicians have yet to actively identify silent progression in clinical practice,” said coinvestigator Bruce A. C. Cree, MD, PhD, professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco).

To investigate the underlying structural or pathophysiologic changes that are linked to silent progression, the researchers focused on spinal cord measures, which are known to strongly correlate with disability.

They evaluated 360 patients with RRMS and 47 with SPMS and compared outcomes with 80 participants who acted as the study controls. The groups were matched for age, sex, disease duration, and treatments over a 12-year observation period using data from the UCSF MS Center.

To examine spinal cord changes in areas that could affect MS, the investigators used a novel orientation of MRI brain scans to capture the upper cervical cord area.

Among the patients with RRMS, 54 converted to SPMS over 12 years; 159 had silent progression during the period. Silent progression was defined as the onset of irreversible worsening of scores on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Silent progression was confirmed over 12 months and occurred independently of relapses.
 

‘Strongest predictor’

The analysis showed spinal cord atrophy at the C1 vertebral level to be the strongest predictor of silent progression, with each 1% increase in spinal cord atrophy associated with a 69% shorter time to silent clinical progression (P < .0001).

Those who converted from RRMS to SPMS showed spinal atrophy rates of –2.19% per year, versus –0.88% per year among those who did not convert (P < .001).

“C1A atrophy rates in patients with silent progression were faster even when combining RRMS and SPMS patients,” Dr. Bischof said.

Of note, the patients who silently progressed showed a lower EDSS score at baseline, she added.

Next to spinal atrophy, ventricular enlargement was the second strongest MRI metric associated with silent progression over the 12 years. Each 1% increase in lateral ventricle size was associated with a 16% reduced time to silent clinical progression (P = .007).

“These findings extend the prognostic value of spinal cord atrophy not only for the conversion to SPMS but also silent progression,” Dr. Bischof said. “Furthermore, we show that the enlargement of the lateral ventricles is the second strongest indicator of impending silent progression and the strongest of all brain measures,” she said.
 

Standard of care?

While the unique MRI techniques used in the study may not be easily obtained in standard practice, Dr. Cree noted that efforts are underway to facilitate the process. “Development of a fully automated software package to obtain those measurements for both clinical trials and in some [clinical settings] is underway,” he said.

Dr. Cree noted that once those technologies are available, the assessment of spinal cord atrophy could become standard in MS care. “I predict that when upper cervical cord measurements can be readily measured, assessment for decrease in the upper cervical cord area will be an essential component of routine care of relapsing MS patients,” he said.

“Because decreases in upper cervical cord areas herald disability worsening, there may well be a window of opportunity to use highly effective treatments to arrest or even reverse this process before irreversible disability accumulates,” Dr. Cree added.
 

Treatment implications

Commenting on the findings, ACTRIMS program cochair Anne Cross, MD, professor of neurology and the Manny and Rosalyn Rosenthal–Dr John Trotter MS Chair in Neuroimmunology, Washington University, St. Louis, noted that the study is important for two key reasons.

“We lack a good prognostic marker of future progression, but this could have very important implications for the choice of treatment of patients, particularly if the findings are applicable not only at the group level, as in the study, but also at the level of the individual patient,” said Dr. Cross, who was not involved with the research.

Secondly, the results suggest benefits in the selection of patients for clinical trials of agents that might stop progression. “Choosing patients who would deliver the most impact in studies of potential new treatments for progressive MS” is important, Dr. Cross said.

“We don’t want to dilute our trial patient populations with patients who might not be destined to progress in the ensuing years,” she added.

Also commenting on the findings, Benjamin Segal, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Multiple Sclerosis Center and the Holtom-Garrett Program in Neuroimmunology, Ann Arbor, agreed that the study offers valuable insights. “These findings are striking in that they underscore the fact that even patients with relapsing-remitting MS undergo functional decline in between overt clinical exacerbations, although the decline is more subtle than that experienced by people with progressive forms of MS,” Dr. Segal said.

He noted that the strong correlation between silent progression and spinal cord atrophy, more so than with brain measures, “is not so surprising, since clinical decline was measured using the EDSS scale – which emphasizes ambulation over other functions,” such as cognition.

“It would be interesting to correlate silent progression with serum neurofilament light chain levels, at baseline as well as change over time,” Dr. Segal added.

Dr. Bischof and Dr. Segal have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cree has received personal compensation for consulting from Biogen, EMD Serono, and Novartis.

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

Elective surgical procedures should be delayed at least 7 weeks after COVID-19 infection in unvaccinated patients, according to a new joint statement issued by the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF).

For patients fully vaccinated against COVID-19 with breakthrough infections, there is no consensus on how vaccination affects the time between COVID-19 infection and elective surgery. Clinicians should use their clinical judgment to schedule procedures, said Randall M. Clark, MD, president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). “We need all physicians, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and others to base their decision to go ahead with elective surgery on the patient’s symptoms, their need for the procedure, and whether delays could cause other problems with their health,” he said in an interview.

Prior to these updated recommendations, which were published Feb. 22, the ASA and the APSF recommended a 4-week gap between COVID-19 diagnosis and elective surgery for asymptomatic or mild cases, regardless of a patient’s vaccination status.

Extending the wait time from 4 to 7 weeks was based on a multination study conducted in October 2020 following more than 140,000 surgical patients. Patients with previous COVID-19 infection had an increased risk for complications and death in elective surgery for up to 6 weeks following their diagnosis, compared with patients without COVID-19. Additional research in the United States found that patients with a preoperative COVID diagnosis were at higher risk for postoperative complications of respiratory failure for up to 4 weeks after diagnosis and postoperative pneumonia complications for up to 8 weeks after diagnosis.

Because these studies were conducted in unvaccinated populations or those with low vaccination rates, and preliminary data suggest vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections may have a lower risk for complications and death postinfection, “we felt that it was prudent to just make recommendations specific to unvaccinated patients,” Dr. Clark added.

Although this guidance is “very helpful” in that it summarizes the currently available research to give evidence-based recommendations, the 7-week wait time is a “very conservative estimate,” Brent Matthews, MD, surgeon-in-chief of the surgery care division of Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., told this news organization. At Atrium Health, surgery is scheduled at least 21 days after a patient’s COVID-19 diagnosis, regardless of their vaccination status, Dr. Matthews said.

The studies currently available were conducted earlier in the pandemic, when a different variant was prevalent, Dr. Matthews explained. The Omicron variant is currently the most prevalent COVID-19 variant and is less virulent than earlier strains of the virus. The joint statement does note that there is currently “no robust data” on patients infected with the Delta or Omicron variants of COVID-19, and that “the Omicron variant causes less severe disease and is more likely to reside in the oro- and nasopharynx without infiltration and damage to the lungs.”

Still, the new recommendations are a reminder to re-evaluate the potential complications from surgery for previously infected patients and to consider what comorbidities might make them more vulnerable, Dr. Matthews said. “The real power of the joint statement is to get people to ensure that they make an assessment of every patient that comes in front of them who has had a recent positive COVID test.”

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

Elective surgical procedures should be delayed at least 7 weeks after COVID-19 infection in unvaccinated patients, according to a new joint statement issued by the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF).

For patients fully vaccinated against COVID-19 with breakthrough infections, there is no consensus on how vaccination affects the time between COVID-19 infection and elective surgery. Clinicians should use their clinical judgment to schedule procedures, said Randall M. Clark, MD, president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). “We need all physicians, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and others to base their decision to go ahead with elective surgery on the patient’s symptoms, their need for the procedure, and whether delays could cause other problems with their health,” he said in an interview.

Prior to these updated recommendations, which were published Feb. 22, the ASA and the APSF recommended a 4-week gap between COVID-19 diagnosis and elective surgery for asymptomatic or mild cases, regardless of a patient’s vaccination status.

Extending the wait time from 4 to 7 weeks was based on a multination study conducted in October 2020 following more than 140,000 surgical patients. Patients with previous COVID-19 infection had an increased risk for complications and death in elective surgery for up to 6 weeks following their diagnosis, compared with patients without COVID-19. Additional research in the United States found that patients with a preoperative COVID diagnosis were at higher risk for postoperative complications of respiratory failure for up to 4 weeks after diagnosis and postoperative pneumonia complications for up to 8 weeks after diagnosis.

Because these studies were conducted in unvaccinated populations or those with low vaccination rates, and preliminary data suggest vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections may have a lower risk for complications and death postinfection, “we felt that it was prudent to just make recommendations specific to unvaccinated patients,” Dr. Clark added.

Although this guidance is “very helpful” in that it summarizes the currently available research to give evidence-based recommendations, the 7-week wait time is a “very conservative estimate,” Brent Matthews, MD, surgeon-in-chief of the surgery care division of Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., told this news organization. At Atrium Health, surgery is scheduled at least 21 days after a patient’s COVID-19 diagnosis, regardless of their vaccination status, Dr. Matthews said.

The studies currently available were conducted earlier in the pandemic, when a different variant was prevalent, Dr. Matthews explained. The Omicron variant is currently the most prevalent COVID-19 variant and is less virulent than earlier strains of the virus. The joint statement does note that there is currently “no robust data” on patients infected with the Delta or Omicron variants of COVID-19, and that “the Omicron variant causes less severe disease and is more likely to reside in the oro- and nasopharynx without infiltration and damage to the lungs.”

Still, the new recommendations are a reminder to re-evaluate the potential complications from surgery for previously infected patients and to consider what comorbidities might make them more vulnerable, Dr. Matthews said. “The real power of the joint statement is to get people to ensure that they make an assessment of every patient that comes in front of them who has had a recent positive COVID test.”

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

Elective surgical procedures should be delayed at least 7 weeks after COVID-19 infection in unvaccinated patients, according to a new joint statement issued by the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF).

For patients fully vaccinated against COVID-19 with breakthrough infections, there is no consensus on how vaccination affects the time between COVID-19 infection and elective surgery. Clinicians should use their clinical judgment to schedule procedures, said Randall M. Clark, MD, president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). “We need all physicians, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and others to base their decision to go ahead with elective surgery on the patient’s symptoms, their need for the procedure, and whether delays could cause other problems with their health,” he said in an interview.

Prior to these updated recommendations, which were published Feb. 22, the ASA and the APSF recommended a 4-week gap between COVID-19 diagnosis and elective surgery for asymptomatic or mild cases, regardless of a patient’s vaccination status.

Extending the wait time from 4 to 7 weeks was based on a multination study conducted in October 2020 following more than 140,000 surgical patients. Patients with previous COVID-19 infection had an increased risk for complications and death in elective surgery for up to 6 weeks following their diagnosis, compared with patients without COVID-19. Additional research in the United States found that patients with a preoperative COVID diagnosis were at higher risk for postoperative complications of respiratory failure for up to 4 weeks after diagnosis and postoperative pneumonia complications for up to 8 weeks after diagnosis.

Because these studies were conducted in unvaccinated populations or those with low vaccination rates, and preliminary data suggest vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections may have a lower risk for complications and death postinfection, “we felt that it was prudent to just make recommendations specific to unvaccinated patients,” Dr. Clark added.

Although this guidance is “very helpful” in that it summarizes the currently available research to give evidence-based recommendations, the 7-week wait time is a “very conservative estimate,” Brent Matthews, MD, surgeon-in-chief of the surgery care division of Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., told this news organization. At Atrium Health, surgery is scheduled at least 21 days after a patient’s COVID-19 diagnosis, regardless of their vaccination status, Dr. Matthews said.

The studies currently available were conducted earlier in the pandemic, when a different variant was prevalent, Dr. Matthews explained. The Omicron variant is currently the most prevalent COVID-19 variant and is less virulent than earlier strains of the virus. The joint statement does note that there is currently “no robust data” on patients infected with the Delta or Omicron variants of COVID-19, and that “the Omicron variant causes less severe disease and is more likely to reside in the oro- and nasopharynx without infiltration and damage to the lungs.”

Still, the new recommendations are a reminder to re-evaluate the potential complications from surgery for previously infected patients and to consider what comorbidities might make them more vulnerable, Dr. Matthews said. “The real power of the joint statement is to get people to ensure that they make an assessment of every patient that comes in front of them who has had a recent positive COVID test.”

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

Anecdotal reports have linked the vaccines against COVID-19 to the sudden loss of hearing in some people. But a new study has found no evidence for such a connection with any of the three approved shots. 

The analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) found that the incidence of sudden onset hearing loss was not elevated – and might even be a bit lower than expected – in the first few weeks after the injections.

“We’re not finding a signal,” said Eric J. Formeister, MD, a neurotology fellow at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the first author of the U.S. study, which appeared Feb. 24 in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Dr. Formeister and colleagues undertook the study in response to reports of hearing problems, including hearing loss and tinnitus, that occurred soon after COVID-19 vaccination.

They analyzed reports of sudden hearing loss, experienced within 21 days of vaccination, logged in VAERS. Anyone can report a potential event to the database, which does not require medical documentation in support of the adverse event. To minimize potential misdiagnoses, Dr. Formeister and colleagues reviewed only those reports that indicated that a doctor had diagnosed sudden hearing loss, leaving 555 cases (305 in women; mean age 54 years) between December 2020 and July 2021.

Dividing these reports by the total doses of vaccines administered in the United States during that period yielded an incidence rate of 0.6 cases of sudden hearing loss for every 100,000 people, Dr. Formeister and colleagues reported.

When the researchers divided all cases of hearing loss in the VAERS database (2,170) by the number of people who had received two doses of vaccine, the incidence rate increased to 28 per 100,000 people. For comparison, the authors reported, the incidence of sudden hearing loss within the United States population is between 11 and 77 per 100,000 people, depending on age.

“There was not an increase in cases of sudden [sensorineural] hearing loss associated with COVID-19 vaccination compared to previously published reports before the COVID-19 vaccination era,” study coauthor Elliott D. Kozin, MD, assistant professor of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Another reassuring sign: If hearing loss were linked to the vaccines, the researchers said, they would expect to see an increase in the number of complaints in lockstep with an increase in the number of doses administered. However, the opposite was true. “[T]he rate of reports per 100,000 doses decreased across the vaccination period, despite large concomitant increases in the absolute number of vaccine doses administered per week,” the researchers reported.

They also looked at case reports of 21 men and women who had experienced sudden hearing loss after having received COVID-19 vaccines, to see if they could discern any clinically relevant signs of people most likely to experience the adverse event. However, the group had a range of preexisting conditions and varying times after receiving a vaccine when their hearing loss occurred, leading Dr. Formeister’s team to conclude that they could find no clear markers of risk.

“When we examined patients across several institutions, there was no obvious pattern. The patient demographics and clinical findings were variable,” Dr. Kozin said. A provisional interpretation of this data, he added, is that no link exists between COVID-19 vaccination and predictable hearing deficits, although the analysis covered a small number of patients.

“Association does not necessarily imply a causal relationship,” said Michael Brenner, MD, FACS, associate professor of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Brenner, who was not involved in the study, said any hearing loss attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines could have had other causes besides the injections.

But a second study, also published in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery on Feb. 24, leaves open the possibility of a link. Researchers in Israel looked for increases in steroid prescriptions used to treat sudden hearing loss as vaccination with the Pfizer version of the shot became widespread in that country. Their conclusion: The vaccine might be associated with a slightly increased risk of sudden hearing loss, although if so, that risk is likely “very small” and the benefits of vaccination “outweigh its potential association” with the side effect.

Dr. Brenner agreed. “The evidence supports [the] clear public health benefit of COVID-19 vaccination, and the scale of those benefits dwarfs associations with hearing, which are of uncertain significance,” he said.

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

Anecdotal reports have linked the vaccines against COVID-19 to the sudden loss of hearing in some people. But a new study has found no evidence for such a connection with any of the three approved shots. 

The analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) found that the incidence of sudden onset hearing loss was not elevated – and might even be a bit lower than expected – in the first few weeks after the injections.

“We’re not finding a signal,” said Eric J. Formeister, MD, a neurotology fellow at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the first author of the U.S. study, which appeared Feb. 24 in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Dr. Formeister and colleagues undertook the study in response to reports of hearing problems, including hearing loss and tinnitus, that occurred soon after COVID-19 vaccination.

They analyzed reports of sudden hearing loss, experienced within 21 days of vaccination, logged in VAERS. Anyone can report a potential event to the database, which does not require medical documentation in support of the adverse event. To minimize potential misdiagnoses, Dr. Formeister and colleagues reviewed only those reports that indicated that a doctor had diagnosed sudden hearing loss, leaving 555 cases (305 in women; mean age 54 years) between December 2020 and July 2021.

Dividing these reports by the total doses of vaccines administered in the United States during that period yielded an incidence rate of 0.6 cases of sudden hearing loss for every 100,000 people, Dr. Formeister and colleagues reported.

When the researchers divided all cases of hearing loss in the VAERS database (2,170) by the number of people who had received two doses of vaccine, the incidence rate increased to 28 per 100,000 people. For comparison, the authors reported, the incidence of sudden hearing loss within the United States population is between 11 and 77 per 100,000 people, depending on age.

“There was not an increase in cases of sudden [sensorineural] hearing loss associated with COVID-19 vaccination compared to previously published reports before the COVID-19 vaccination era,” study coauthor Elliott D. Kozin, MD, assistant professor of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Another reassuring sign: If hearing loss were linked to the vaccines, the researchers said, they would expect to see an increase in the number of complaints in lockstep with an increase in the number of doses administered. However, the opposite was true. “[T]he rate of reports per 100,000 doses decreased across the vaccination period, despite large concomitant increases in the absolute number of vaccine doses administered per week,” the researchers reported.

They also looked at case reports of 21 men and women who had experienced sudden hearing loss after having received COVID-19 vaccines, to see if they could discern any clinically relevant signs of people most likely to experience the adverse event. However, the group had a range of preexisting conditions and varying times after receiving a vaccine when their hearing loss occurred, leading Dr. Formeister’s team to conclude that they could find no clear markers of risk.

“When we examined patients across several institutions, there was no obvious pattern. The patient demographics and clinical findings were variable,” Dr. Kozin said. A provisional interpretation of this data, he added, is that no link exists between COVID-19 vaccination and predictable hearing deficits, although the analysis covered a small number of patients.

“Association does not necessarily imply a causal relationship,” said Michael Brenner, MD, FACS, associate professor of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Brenner, who was not involved in the study, said any hearing loss attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines could have had other causes besides the injections.

But a second study, also published in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery on Feb. 24, leaves open the possibility of a link. Researchers in Israel looked for increases in steroid prescriptions used to treat sudden hearing loss as vaccination with the Pfizer version of the shot became widespread in that country. Their conclusion: The vaccine might be associated with a slightly increased risk of sudden hearing loss, although if so, that risk is likely “very small” and the benefits of vaccination “outweigh its potential association” with the side effect.

Dr. Brenner agreed. “The evidence supports [the] clear public health benefit of COVID-19 vaccination, and the scale of those benefits dwarfs associations with hearing, which are of uncertain significance,” he said.

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

Anecdotal reports have linked the vaccines against COVID-19 to the sudden loss of hearing in some people. But a new study has found no evidence for such a connection with any of the three approved shots. 

The analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) found that the incidence of sudden onset hearing loss was not elevated – and might even be a bit lower than expected – in the first few weeks after the injections.

“We’re not finding a signal,” said Eric J. Formeister, MD, a neurotology fellow at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the first author of the U.S. study, which appeared Feb. 24 in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Dr. Formeister and colleagues undertook the study in response to reports of hearing problems, including hearing loss and tinnitus, that occurred soon after COVID-19 vaccination.

They analyzed reports of sudden hearing loss, experienced within 21 days of vaccination, logged in VAERS. Anyone can report a potential event to the database, which does not require medical documentation in support of the adverse event. To minimize potential misdiagnoses, Dr. Formeister and colleagues reviewed only those reports that indicated that a doctor had diagnosed sudden hearing loss, leaving 555 cases (305 in women; mean age 54 years) between December 2020 and July 2021.

Dividing these reports by the total doses of vaccines administered in the United States during that period yielded an incidence rate of 0.6 cases of sudden hearing loss for every 100,000 people, Dr. Formeister and colleagues reported.

When the researchers divided all cases of hearing loss in the VAERS database (2,170) by the number of people who had received two doses of vaccine, the incidence rate increased to 28 per 100,000 people. For comparison, the authors reported, the incidence of sudden hearing loss within the United States population is between 11 and 77 per 100,000 people, depending on age.

“There was not an increase in cases of sudden [sensorineural] hearing loss associated with COVID-19 vaccination compared to previously published reports before the COVID-19 vaccination era,” study coauthor Elliott D. Kozin, MD, assistant professor of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Another reassuring sign: If hearing loss were linked to the vaccines, the researchers said, they would expect to see an increase in the number of complaints in lockstep with an increase in the number of doses administered. However, the opposite was true. “[T]he rate of reports per 100,000 doses decreased across the vaccination period, despite large concomitant increases in the absolute number of vaccine doses administered per week,” the researchers reported.

They also looked at case reports of 21 men and women who had experienced sudden hearing loss after having received COVID-19 vaccines, to see if they could discern any clinically relevant signs of people most likely to experience the adverse event. However, the group had a range of preexisting conditions and varying times after receiving a vaccine when their hearing loss occurred, leading Dr. Formeister’s team to conclude that they could find no clear markers of risk.

“When we examined patients across several institutions, there was no obvious pattern. The patient demographics and clinical findings were variable,” Dr. Kozin said. A provisional interpretation of this data, he added, is that no link exists between COVID-19 vaccination and predictable hearing deficits, although the analysis covered a small number of patients.

“Association does not necessarily imply a causal relationship,” said Michael Brenner, MD, FACS, associate professor of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Brenner, who was not involved in the study, said any hearing loss attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines could have had other causes besides the injections.

But a second study, also published in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery on Feb. 24, leaves open the possibility of a link. Researchers in Israel looked for increases in steroid prescriptions used to treat sudden hearing loss as vaccination with the Pfizer version of the shot became widespread in that country. Their conclusion: The vaccine might be associated with a slightly increased risk of sudden hearing loss, although if so, that risk is likely “very small” and the benefits of vaccination “outweigh its potential association” with the side effect.

Dr. Brenner agreed. “The evidence supports [the] clear public health benefit of COVID-19 vaccination, and the scale of those benefits dwarfs associations with hearing, which are of uncertain significance,” he said.

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

I have a secret. It’s one I think many physicians and nurses share. Sometimes, when I’m stretched too thin — overbooked, hungry, tired, fielding yet another appeal to an insurance company in the middle of a clinic day — I find myself momentarily resenting the patients on my schedule.

As soon as this happens, I feel immediate guilt. These are the worst moments of my day. Why the heck would I resent my patients? They’re the entire reason I’m there. I wouldn’t be a physician without patients to care for. I became a physician, and completed subspecialty training, to help patients. People.

Recently, I started thinking more about this emotion of resentment. What exactly is it, and where does it come from? Is what I’m feeling actually resentment? Or is it something else?

Two books I’ve recently read have helped me explore the complicated emotion of resentment and how it might play a role in burnout for both physicians and nurses.

First, Brené Brown’s most recent book, Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience, provides a roadmap for 87 of our human emotions. (That’s right — 87!)

One emotion of the 87 that she shares has been a particular struggle for her has been our good old friend, resentment.

In her book, Dr Brown shares that she initially considered resentment to belong to the anger family of emotion. As I read this, I agreed. When I feel resentful, I associate that with feeling angry.

But she then writes about her discovery that resentment, in fact, belongs to the envy family. She explains how this discovery shook her world. I had to close the book for a moment at this point.

Wait a minute, I thought. If resentment is in the envy family, why do we (physicians) often find ourselves resenting patients who take up our time? What are we envious of?

I took some time to think about how this might be true. Could it be that I’m envious they have the time I don’t have? I want to have all the time in the world to answer their questions, but the reality is I don’t.

Or maybe it’s because sometimes I feel the patient is expecting me to offer them something more than is available. A cure when there might be none.

But is this actually true? Or is this my unrealistic expectation of myself?

Here’s how Brené Brown defines resentment in her book: “Resentment is the feeling of frustration, judgment, anger, ‘better than,’ and/or hidden envy related to perceived unfairness or injustice. It’s an emotion that we often experience when we fail to set boundaries or ask for what we need, or when expectations let us down because they were based on things we can’t control, like what other people think, what they feel, or how they’re going to react.”

Wow, I thought, Healthcare checks all of these boxes.

• Perceived unfairness of work schedules? Check.
• Perceived injustice? Of course — we see that in our dealings with insurance company denials every day.

But those are both extrinsic. What about the intrinsic factors she’s calling us out on here?

• Do we, as physicians, fail to set boundaries?
• Do we fail to ask for what we need?

Hard yes and yes. (Do we even know, as physicians, what our own boundaries are?)

And the last one:

• Do our expectations of how our clinic day will go let us down every day because they’re based on things we can’t control?

My brain had to repeat the critical parts of that: Expectations let us down when they’re based on things we can’t control.

But wait, my brain argued back; I’m the physician, I thought I was supposed to get to control things.

Next, the revelation: Could it be that a key to experiencing less resentment is accepting how much control we don’t have in a typical day?

And a corollary: How much does resentment factor into burnout? (To read more on my personal journey with burnout, see this piece).

It so happens that around this same time, I was reading another excellent book, Changing How We Think About Difficult Patients: A Guide for Physicians and Healthcare Professionals, by Joan Naidorf, DO.

Dr Naidorf is an emergency medicine physician of 30 years who wrote the book to “provid[e] insight and tools to manage our negative thoughts about difficult patients” and help “beleaguered colleagues…return to their benevolent guiding principles and find more enjoyment in their vitally important careers.”

As I read Dr Naidorf’s book, I thus did so with the mindset of wanting to further understand for myself where this specific emotion of resentment toward our “difficult” patients could come from and how to best understand it in order to get past it.

Dr. Naidorf writes, “Challenging patients will never stop appearing… You cannot change them or control them—the only person you can control is you.”

I wondered how much the resentment we might involuntarily feel at being asked to see a “difficult” patient has nothing to do with the patient but everything to do with it making us feel not in control of the situation.

Dr. Naidorf also writes, “Negative thoughts about challenging patients can cause, in otherwise capable clinicians, a sense of inadequacy and incompetence.”

Do we perhaps resent our challenging patients because of the negative thoughts they sometimes trigger in us? If so, how does this relate to envy, as Dr. Brown asserts resentment is tied to? Is it triggering us to feel inadequate?

“[Difficult patients] often make us question ourselves,” Dr. Naidorf writes, “and we need to feel comfortable with the answers.”

Again, the discrepancy between expectations and reality creates the negative emotion.

Or, as Dr. Naidorf writes, “What if you could stop judging others so harshly and accept them exactly as they are?”

Hmmm, I thought, then the cessation of harsh judgment and implementation of acceptance would have to apply to us too. The elusive concept of self-compassion.

Maybe the resentment/envy comes from us not allowing ourselves to behave in this way because to do so would allow too much vulnerability. Something most of us were conditioned to avoid to survive medical training.

Dr. Brown also writes about an “aha” moment she had in her struggle to understand resentment. “I’m not mad because you’re resting. I’m mad because I’m so bone tired and I want to rest. But, unlike you, I’m going to pretend that I don’t need to.”

I felt all too seen in that passage. Could it be my old nemesis, perfectionism, creeping its way back in? Is resentment the ugly stepsister to perfectionism?

Perhaps challenging patients can engender resentment because they make us feel like we’re not living up to our own unrealistic expectations. And in that case, we need to change our unrealistic expectations for ourselves.

Dr Naidorf’s book explores much more on the complex matter of what makes a “difficult” patient, but I chose to focus here only on the resentment piece as a tie-in to Dr. Brown’s book. I highly recommend both books for further reading to help physicians and nurses navigate the complex emotions our jobs can trigger.

Most importantly, recognizing that we have these transient negative emotions does not make us bad people or healthcare professionals. It only makes us human.

Dr. Lycette is medical director, Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic, Seaside, Ore. She has disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

I have a secret. It’s one I think many physicians and nurses share. Sometimes, when I’m stretched too thin — overbooked, hungry, tired, fielding yet another appeal to an insurance company in the middle of a clinic day — I find myself momentarily resenting the patients on my schedule.

As soon as this happens, I feel immediate guilt. These are the worst moments of my day. Why the heck would I resent my patients? They’re the entire reason I’m there. I wouldn’t be a physician without patients to care for. I became a physician, and completed subspecialty training, to help patients. People.

Recently, I started thinking more about this emotion of resentment. What exactly is it, and where does it come from? Is what I’m feeling actually resentment? Or is it something else?

Two books I’ve recently read have helped me explore the complicated emotion of resentment and how it might play a role in burnout for both physicians and nurses.

First, Brené Brown’s most recent book, Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience, provides a roadmap for 87 of our human emotions. (That’s right — 87!)

One emotion of the 87 that she shares has been a particular struggle for her has been our good old friend, resentment.

In her book, Dr Brown shares that she initially considered resentment to belong to the anger family of emotion. As I read this, I agreed. When I feel resentful, I associate that with feeling angry.

But she then writes about her discovery that resentment, in fact, belongs to the envy family. She explains how this discovery shook her world. I had to close the book for a moment at this point.

Wait a minute, I thought. If resentment is in the envy family, why do we (physicians) often find ourselves resenting patients who take up our time? What are we envious of?

I took some time to think about how this might be true. Could it be that I’m envious they have the time I don’t have? I want to have all the time in the world to answer their questions, but the reality is I don’t.

Or maybe it’s because sometimes I feel the patient is expecting me to offer them something more than is available. A cure when there might be none.

But is this actually true? Or is this my unrealistic expectation of myself?

Here’s how Brené Brown defines resentment in her book: “Resentment is the feeling of frustration, judgment, anger, ‘better than,’ and/or hidden envy related to perceived unfairness or injustice. It’s an emotion that we often experience when we fail to set boundaries or ask for what we need, or when expectations let us down because they were based on things we can’t control, like what other people think, what they feel, or how they’re going to react.”

Wow, I thought, Healthcare checks all of these boxes.

• Perceived unfairness of work schedules? Check.
• Perceived injustice? Of course — we see that in our dealings with insurance company denials every day.

But those are both extrinsic. What about the intrinsic factors she’s calling us out on here?

• Do we, as physicians, fail to set boundaries?
• Do we fail to ask for what we need?

Hard yes and yes. (Do we even know, as physicians, what our own boundaries are?)

And the last one:

• Do our expectations of how our clinic day will go let us down every day because they’re based on things we can’t control?

My brain had to repeat the critical parts of that: Expectations let us down when they’re based on things we can’t control.

But wait, my brain argued back; I’m the physician, I thought I was supposed to get to control things.

Next, the revelation: Could it be that a key to experiencing less resentment is accepting how much control we don’t have in a typical day?

And a corollary: How much does resentment factor into burnout? (To read more on my personal journey with burnout, see this piece).

It so happens that around this same time, I was reading another excellent book, Changing How We Think About Difficult Patients: A Guide for Physicians and Healthcare Professionals, by Joan Naidorf, DO.

Dr Naidorf is an emergency medicine physician of 30 years who wrote the book to “provid[e] insight and tools to manage our negative thoughts about difficult patients” and help “beleaguered colleagues…return to their benevolent guiding principles and find more enjoyment in their vitally important careers.”

As I read Dr Naidorf’s book, I thus did so with the mindset of wanting to further understand for myself where this specific emotion of resentment toward our “difficult” patients could come from and how to best understand it in order to get past it.

Dr. Naidorf writes, “Challenging patients will never stop appearing… You cannot change them or control them—the only person you can control is you.”

I wondered how much the resentment we might involuntarily feel at being asked to see a “difficult” patient has nothing to do with the patient but everything to do with it making us feel not in control of the situation.

Dr. Naidorf also writes, “Negative thoughts about challenging patients can cause, in otherwise capable clinicians, a sense of inadequacy and incompetence.”

Do we perhaps resent our challenging patients because of the negative thoughts they sometimes trigger in us? If so, how does this relate to envy, as Dr. Brown asserts resentment is tied to? Is it triggering us to feel inadequate?

“[Difficult patients] often make us question ourselves,” Dr. Naidorf writes, “and we need to feel comfortable with the answers.”

Again, the discrepancy between expectations and reality creates the negative emotion.

Or, as Dr. Naidorf writes, “What if you could stop judging others so harshly and accept them exactly as they are?”

Hmmm, I thought, then the cessation of harsh judgment and implementation of acceptance would have to apply to us too. The elusive concept of self-compassion.

Maybe the resentment/envy comes from us not allowing ourselves to behave in this way because to do so would allow too much vulnerability. Something most of us were conditioned to avoid to survive medical training.

Dr. Brown also writes about an “aha” moment she had in her struggle to understand resentment. “I’m not mad because you’re resting. I’m mad because I’m so bone tired and I want to rest. But, unlike you, I’m going to pretend that I don’t need to.”

I felt all too seen in that passage. Could it be my old nemesis, perfectionism, creeping its way back in? Is resentment the ugly stepsister to perfectionism?

Perhaps challenging patients can engender resentment because they make us feel like we’re not living up to our own unrealistic expectations. And in that case, we need to change our unrealistic expectations for ourselves.

Dr Naidorf’s book explores much more on the complex matter of what makes a “difficult” patient, but I chose to focus here only on the resentment piece as a tie-in to Dr. Brown’s book. I highly recommend both books for further reading to help physicians and nurses navigate the complex emotions our jobs can trigger.

Most importantly, recognizing that we have these transient negative emotions does not make us bad people or healthcare professionals. It only makes us human.

Dr. Lycette is medical director, Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic, Seaside, Ore. She has disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

I have a secret. It’s one I think many physicians and nurses share. Sometimes, when I’m stretched too thin — overbooked, hungry, tired, fielding yet another appeal to an insurance company in the middle of a clinic day — I find myself momentarily resenting the patients on my schedule.

As soon as this happens, I feel immediate guilt. These are the worst moments of my day. Why the heck would I resent my patients? They’re the entire reason I’m there. I wouldn’t be a physician without patients to care for. I became a physician, and completed subspecialty training, to help patients. People.

Recently, I started thinking more about this emotion of resentment. What exactly is it, and where does it come from? Is what I’m feeling actually resentment? Or is it something else?

Two books I’ve recently read have helped me explore the complicated emotion of resentment and how it might play a role in burnout for both physicians and nurses.

First, Brené Brown’s most recent book, Atlas of the Heart: Mapping Meaningful Connection and the Language of Human Experience, provides a roadmap for 87 of our human emotions. (That’s right — 87!)

One emotion of the 87 that she shares has been a particular struggle for her has been our good old friend, resentment.

In her book, Dr Brown shares that she initially considered resentment to belong to the anger family of emotion. As I read this, I agreed. When I feel resentful, I associate that with feeling angry.

But she then writes about her discovery that resentment, in fact, belongs to the envy family. She explains how this discovery shook her world. I had to close the book for a moment at this point.

Wait a minute, I thought. If resentment is in the envy family, why do we (physicians) often find ourselves resenting patients who take up our time? What are we envious of?

I took some time to think about how this might be true. Could it be that I’m envious they have the time I don’t have? I want to have all the time in the world to answer their questions, but the reality is I don’t.

Or maybe it’s because sometimes I feel the patient is expecting me to offer them something more than is available. A cure when there might be none.

But is this actually true? Or is this my unrealistic expectation of myself?

Here’s how Brené Brown defines resentment in her book: “Resentment is the feeling of frustration, judgment, anger, ‘better than,’ and/or hidden envy related to perceived unfairness or injustice. It’s an emotion that we often experience when we fail to set boundaries or ask for what we need, or when expectations let us down because they were based on things we can’t control, like what other people think, what they feel, or how they’re going to react.”

Wow, I thought, Healthcare checks all of these boxes.

• Perceived unfairness of work schedules? Check.
• Perceived injustice? Of course — we see that in our dealings with insurance company denials every day.

But those are both extrinsic. What about the intrinsic factors she’s calling us out on here?

• Do we, as physicians, fail to set boundaries?
• Do we fail to ask for what we need?

Hard yes and yes. (Do we even know, as physicians, what our own boundaries are?)

And the last one:

• Do our expectations of how our clinic day will go let us down every day because they’re based on things we can’t control?

My brain had to repeat the critical parts of that: Expectations let us down when they’re based on things we can’t control.

But wait, my brain argued back; I’m the physician, I thought I was supposed to get to control things.

Next, the revelation: Could it be that a key to experiencing less resentment is accepting how much control we don’t have in a typical day?

And a corollary: How much does resentment factor into burnout? (To read more on my personal journey with burnout, see this piece).

It so happens that around this same time, I was reading another excellent book, Changing How We Think About Difficult Patients: A Guide for Physicians and Healthcare Professionals, by Joan Naidorf, DO.

Dr Naidorf is an emergency medicine physician of 30 years who wrote the book to “provid[e] insight and tools to manage our negative thoughts about difficult patients” and help “beleaguered colleagues…return to their benevolent guiding principles and find more enjoyment in their vitally important careers.”

As I read Dr Naidorf’s book, I thus did so with the mindset of wanting to further understand for myself where this specific emotion of resentment toward our “difficult” patients could come from and how to best understand it in order to get past it.

Dr. Naidorf writes, “Challenging patients will never stop appearing… You cannot change them or control them—the only person you can control is you.”

I wondered how much the resentment we might involuntarily feel at being asked to see a “difficult” patient has nothing to do with the patient but everything to do with it making us feel not in control of the situation.

Dr. Naidorf also writes, “Negative thoughts about challenging patients can cause, in otherwise capable clinicians, a sense of inadequacy and incompetence.”

Do we perhaps resent our challenging patients because of the negative thoughts they sometimes trigger in us? If so, how does this relate to envy, as Dr. Brown asserts resentment is tied to? Is it triggering us to feel inadequate?

“[Difficult patients] often make us question ourselves,” Dr. Naidorf writes, “and we need to feel comfortable with the answers.”

Again, the discrepancy between expectations and reality creates the negative emotion.

Or, as Dr. Naidorf writes, “What if you could stop judging others so harshly and accept them exactly as they are?”

Hmmm, I thought, then the cessation of harsh judgment and implementation of acceptance would have to apply to us too. The elusive concept of self-compassion.

Maybe the resentment/envy comes from us not allowing ourselves to behave in this way because to do so would allow too much vulnerability. Something most of us were conditioned to avoid to survive medical training.

Dr. Brown also writes about an “aha” moment she had in her struggle to understand resentment. “I’m not mad because you’re resting. I’m mad because I’m so bone tired and I want to rest. But, unlike you, I’m going to pretend that I don’t need to.”

I felt all too seen in that passage. Could it be my old nemesis, perfectionism, creeping its way back in? Is resentment the ugly stepsister to perfectionism?

Perhaps challenging patients can engender resentment because they make us feel like we’re not living up to our own unrealistic expectations. And in that case, we need to change our unrealistic expectations for ourselves.

Dr Naidorf’s book explores much more on the complex matter of what makes a “difficult” patient, but I chose to focus here only on the resentment piece as a tie-in to Dr. Brown’s book. I highly recommend both books for further reading to help physicians and nurses navigate the complex emotions our jobs can trigger.

Most importantly, recognizing that we have these transient negative emotions does not make us bad people or healthcare professionals. It only makes us human.

Dr. Lycette is medical director, Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic, Seaside, Ore. She has disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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