MDedge Neurology

The number of individuals older than 40 with dementia will nearly triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taken to address risk factors, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 195 countries and territories estimates that by 2050, 153 million people are expected to have dementia worldwide – up from 57 million in 2019. In the United States, the number is expected to increase 100%, from an estimated 5.3 million in 2019 to 10.5 million in 2050.

The increase is largely driven by population growth and population aging, but researchers noted that expanding access to education and addressing risk factors such as obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking could blunt the rise in cases.

The study predicts increases in dementia in every country included in the analysis. The sharpest rise is expected in north Africa and the Middle East (367%) and sub-Saharan Africa (357%). The smallest increases will be in high-income countries in Asia Pacific (53%) and western Europe (74%).

Although the United States had the 37th lowest percentage increase across all countries considered, “this expected increase is still large and requires attention from policy and decision-makers,” said coinvestigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle.

The findings were published online Jan. 6, 2022, in The Lancet Public Health (doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667[21]00249-8).
 

Dementia prevalence

For the study, researchers used country-specific estimates of dementia prevalence from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 study to project dementia prevalence globally, by world region, and at the country level.

They also used information on projected trends in four important dementia risk factors (high body mass index, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and education) to estimate how changes in these risk factors might impact dementia prevalence between 2019 and 2050.

Despite large increases in the projected number of people living with dementia, age-standardized both-sex prevalence remained stable between 2019 and 2050, with a global percentage change of 0.1% (95% uncertainty interval, –7.5 to 10.8).

Dementia prevalence was higher in women than in men and increased with age, doubling about every 5 years until 85 years of age in both 2019 and 2050 (female-to-male ratio, 1.67; 95% UI, 1.52-1.85).

Projected increases in cases could largely be attributed to population growth and population aging, although their relative importance varied by world region. Population growth contributed most to the increases in sub-Saharan Africa and population aging contributed most to the increases in east Asia.

The countries with the highest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were: Qatar (1,926%), United Arab Emirates (1,795%), Bahrain (1,084%), Oman (943%), Saudi Arabia (898%), Kuwait (850%), Iraq (559%), Maldives (554%), Jordan (522%), and Equatorial Guinea (498%).

The countries with the lowest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were Japan (27%), Bulgaria (37%), Serbia (38%), Lithuania (44%), Greece (45%), Latvia (47%), Croatia (55%), Ukraine (55%), Italy (56%), and Finland (58%).
 

Modifiable risk factors

Researchers also calculated how changes in risk factors might affect dementia prevalence. They found that improvements in global education access would reduce dementia prevalence by an estimated 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, that decrease would be offset by expected increases in obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking, which investigators estimate will result in an additional 6.8 million dementia cases.

The projections are based on expected trends in population aging, population growth, and risk factor trajectories, but “projections could change if effective interventions for modifiable risk factors are developed and deployed,” Ms. Nichols said.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care issued an update of its 2017 report, identifying 12 modifiable risk factors that could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases. The risk factors were low education, hypertension, hearing impairment, smoking, midlife obesity, depression, physical inactivity, diabetes, social isolation, excessive alcohol consumption, head injury, and air pollution.

“Countries, including the U.S., should look to develop effective interventions for modifiable risk factors, but also should invest in the resources needed to support those with dementia and their caregivers,” Ms. Nichols said. She added that additional support for research and resources to develop therapeutic interventions is also warranted.
 

Oversimplifying mechanisms?

In an accompanying commentary, Michaël Schwarzinger, MD, and Carole Dufouil, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, noted that the authors’ efforts to build on GBD 2019 oversimplify the underlying mechanisms that cause dementia. The authors “provide somehow apocalyptic projections that do not factor in advisable changes in lifestyle over the lifetime,” they wrote.

“There is a considerable and urgent need to reinforce a public health approach towards dementia to better inform the people and decision-makers about the appropriate means to delay or avoid these dire projections,” the editorialists added.

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gates Ventures. Ms. Nichols and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of individuals older than 40 with dementia will nearly triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taken to address risk factors, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 195 countries and territories estimates that by 2050, 153 million people are expected to have dementia worldwide – up from 57 million in 2019. In the United States, the number is expected to increase 100%, from an estimated 5.3 million in 2019 to 10.5 million in 2050.

The increase is largely driven by population growth and population aging, but researchers noted that expanding access to education and addressing risk factors such as obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking could blunt the rise in cases.

The study predicts increases in dementia in every country included in the analysis. The sharpest rise is expected in north Africa and the Middle East (367%) and sub-Saharan Africa (357%). The smallest increases will be in high-income countries in Asia Pacific (53%) and western Europe (74%).

Although the United States had the 37th lowest percentage increase across all countries considered, “this expected increase is still large and requires attention from policy and decision-makers,” said coinvestigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle.

The findings were published online Jan. 6, 2022, in The Lancet Public Health (doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667[21]00249-8).
 

Dementia prevalence

For the study, researchers used country-specific estimates of dementia prevalence from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 study to project dementia prevalence globally, by world region, and at the country level.

They also used information on projected trends in four important dementia risk factors (high body mass index, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and education) to estimate how changes in these risk factors might impact dementia prevalence between 2019 and 2050.

Despite large increases in the projected number of people living with dementia, age-standardized both-sex prevalence remained stable between 2019 and 2050, with a global percentage change of 0.1% (95% uncertainty interval, –7.5 to 10.8).

Dementia prevalence was higher in women than in men and increased with age, doubling about every 5 years until 85 years of age in both 2019 and 2050 (female-to-male ratio, 1.67; 95% UI, 1.52-1.85).

Projected increases in cases could largely be attributed to population growth and population aging, although their relative importance varied by world region. Population growth contributed most to the increases in sub-Saharan Africa and population aging contributed most to the increases in east Asia.

The countries with the highest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were: Qatar (1,926%), United Arab Emirates (1,795%), Bahrain (1,084%), Oman (943%), Saudi Arabia (898%), Kuwait (850%), Iraq (559%), Maldives (554%), Jordan (522%), and Equatorial Guinea (498%).

The countries with the lowest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were Japan (27%), Bulgaria (37%), Serbia (38%), Lithuania (44%), Greece (45%), Latvia (47%), Croatia (55%), Ukraine (55%), Italy (56%), and Finland (58%).
 

Modifiable risk factors

Researchers also calculated how changes in risk factors might affect dementia prevalence. They found that improvements in global education access would reduce dementia prevalence by an estimated 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, that decrease would be offset by expected increases in obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking, which investigators estimate will result in an additional 6.8 million dementia cases.

The projections are based on expected trends in population aging, population growth, and risk factor trajectories, but “projections could change if effective interventions for modifiable risk factors are developed and deployed,” Ms. Nichols said.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care issued an update of its 2017 report, identifying 12 modifiable risk factors that could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases. The risk factors were low education, hypertension, hearing impairment, smoking, midlife obesity, depression, physical inactivity, diabetes, social isolation, excessive alcohol consumption, head injury, and air pollution.

“Countries, including the U.S., should look to develop effective interventions for modifiable risk factors, but also should invest in the resources needed to support those with dementia and their caregivers,” Ms. Nichols said. She added that additional support for research and resources to develop therapeutic interventions is also warranted.
 

Oversimplifying mechanisms?

In an accompanying commentary, Michaël Schwarzinger, MD, and Carole Dufouil, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, noted that the authors’ efforts to build on GBD 2019 oversimplify the underlying mechanisms that cause dementia. The authors “provide somehow apocalyptic projections that do not factor in advisable changes in lifestyle over the lifetime,” they wrote.

“There is a considerable and urgent need to reinforce a public health approach towards dementia to better inform the people and decision-makers about the appropriate means to delay or avoid these dire projections,” the editorialists added.

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gates Ventures. Ms. Nichols and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of individuals older than 40 with dementia will nearly triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taken to address risk factors, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 195 countries and territories estimates that by 2050, 153 million people are expected to have dementia worldwide – up from 57 million in 2019. In the United States, the number is expected to increase 100%, from an estimated 5.3 million in 2019 to 10.5 million in 2050.

The increase is largely driven by population growth and population aging, but researchers noted that expanding access to education and addressing risk factors such as obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking could blunt the rise in cases.

The study predicts increases in dementia in every country included in the analysis. The sharpest rise is expected in north Africa and the Middle East (367%) and sub-Saharan Africa (357%). The smallest increases will be in high-income countries in Asia Pacific (53%) and western Europe (74%).

Although the United States had the 37th lowest percentage increase across all countries considered, “this expected increase is still large and requires attention from policy and decision-makers,” said coinvestigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle.

The findings were published online Jan. 6, 2022, in The Lancet Public Health (doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667[21]00249-8).
 

Dementia prevalence

For the study, researchers used country-specific estimates of dementia prevalence from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 study to project dementia prevalence globally, by world region, and at the country level.

They also used information on projected trends in four important dementia risk factors (high body mass index, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and education) to estimate how changes in these risk factors might impact dementia prevalence between 2019 and 2050.

Despite large increases in the projected number of people living with dementia, age-standardized both-sex prevalence remained stable between 2019 and 2050, with a global percentage change of 0.1% (95% uncertainty interval, –7.5 to 10.8).

Dementia prevalence was higher in women than in men and increased with age, doubling about every 5 years until 85 years of age in both 2019 and 2050 (female-to-male ratio, 1.67; 95% UI, 1.52-1.85).

Projected increases in cases could largely be attributed to population growth and population aging, although their relative importance varied by world region. Population growth contributed most to the increases in sub-Saharan Africa and population aging contributed most to the increases in east Asia.

The countries with the highest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were: Qatar (1,926%), United Arab Emirates (1,795%), Bahrain (1,084%), Oman (943%), Saudi Arabia (898%), Kuwait (850%), Iraq (559%), Maldives (554%), Jordan (522%), and Equatorial Guinea (498%).

The countries with the lowest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were Japan (27%), Bulgaria (37%), Serbia (38%), Lithuania (44%), Greece (45%), Latvia (47%), Croatia (55%), Ukraine (55%), Italy (56%), and Finland (58%).
 

Modifiable risk factors

Researchers also calculated how changes in risk factors might affect dementia prevalence. They found that improvements in global education access would reduce dementia prevalence by an estimated 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, that decrease would be offset by expected increases in obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking, which investigators estimate will result in an additional 6.8 million dementia cases.

The projections are based on expected trends in population aging, population growth, and risk factor trajectories, but “projections could change if effective interventions for modifiable risk factors are developed and deployed,” Ms. Nichols said.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care issued an update of its 2017 report, identifying 12 modifiable risk factors that could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases. The risk factors were low education, hypertension, hearing impairment, smoking, midlife obesity, depression, physical inactivity, diabetes, social isolation, excessive alcohol consumption, head injury, and air pollution.

“Countries, including the U.S., should look to develop effective interventions for modifiable risk factors, but also should invest in the resources needed to support those with dementia and their caregivers,” Ms. Nichols said. She added that additional support for research and resources to develop therapeutic interventions is also warranted.
 

Oversimplifying mechanisms?

In an accompanying commentary, Michaël Schwarzinger, MD, and Carole Dufouil, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, noted that the authors’ efforts to build on GBD 2019 oversimplify the underlying mechanisms that cause dementia. The authors “provide somehow apocalyptic projections that do not factor in advisable changes in lifestyle over the lifetime,” they wrote.

“There is a considerable and urgent need to reinforce a public health approach towards dementia to better inform the people and decision-makers about the appropriate means to delay or avoid these dire projections,” the editorialists added.

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gates Ventures. Ms. Nichols and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

During my usual 2 weeks off over the holidays I did my usual stuff – taxes, read journals, do CME, review legal cases that have come in, hang out with my family, nap with my dogs.

Somewhere in that stretch of time off. I run out of things to do, and that’s when I have to confront an odd truth: I’ve forgotten how to relax.

In medical school and residency I certainly could enjoy the rare weekend time off. I’d watch sports, go running, do things with friends.

But now it’s a different world. My friends, while still people I enjoy, are on the other end of a computer, far away. My interest in sports and movies waned years ago, and I avoid televisions as part of my aversion to the news. Even the books I used to enjoy, such as the late Clive Cussler’s, don’t hold my attention anymore. If I’m going to read anything it’s going to be humor, because the medical field is serious enough as it is.

The bottom line is that it’s hard for me to relax and “do nothing” anymore. I don’t know if that’s just me, or if it’s part of the personality of being a doctor, or both.

If I’m not at my desk working, I feel like I’m not doing anything. Do other doctors feel that way? Have I become a workaholic in my middle age?

Is this a bad thing?

It probably is, and I should look to the beginning of a new year to make some changes. Maybe I should go back to running (or, at this point in my life, walking) or finding some humor books I enjoy and reading them. The old standby of going on a vacation is kind of limited right now.

I’ve been an attending physician for 24 years now, which is still hard to believe. My retirement isn’t (hopefully) anytime soon, but is coming up faster than it seems. If I don’t relearn to relax by then, when will I?
 

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

During my usual 2 weeks off over the holidays I did my usual stuff – taxes, read journals, do CME, review legal cases that have come in, hang out with my family, nap with my dogs.

Somewhere in that stretch of time off. I run out of things to do, and that’s when I have to confront an odd truth: I’ve forgotten how to relax.

In medical school and residency I certainly could enjoy the rare weekend time off. I’d watch sports, go running, do things with friends.

But now it’s a different world. My friends, while still people I enjoy, are on the other end of a computer, far away. My interest in sports and movies waned years ago, and I avoid televisions as part of my aversion to the news. Even the books I used to enjoy, such as the late Clive Cussler’s, don’t hold my attention anymore. If I’m going to read anything it’s going to be humor, because the medical field is serious enough as it is.

The bottom line is that it’s hard for me to relax and “do nothing” anymore. I don’t know if that’s just me, or if it’s part of the personality of being a doctor, or both.

If I’m not at my desk working, I feel like I’m not doing anything. Do other doctors feel that way? Have I become a workaholic in my middle age?

Is this a bad thing?

It probably is, and I should look to the beginning of a new year to make some changes. Maybe I should go back to running (or, at this point in my life, walking) or finding some humor books I enjoy and reading them. The old standby of going on a vacation is kind of limited right now.

I’ve been an attending physician for 24 years now, which is still hard to believe. My retirement isn’t (hopefully) anytime soon, but is coming up faster than it seems. If I don’t relearn to relax by then, when will I?
 

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

During my usual 2 weeks off over the holidays I did my usual stuff – taxes, read journals, do CME, review legal cases that have come in, hang out with my family, nap with my dogs.

Somewhere in that stretch of time off. I run out of things to do, and that’s when I have to confront an odd truth: I’ve forgotten how to relax.

In medical school and residency I certainly could enjoy the rare weekend time off. I’d watch sports, go running, do things with friends.

But now it’s a different world. My friends, while still people I enjoy, are on the other end of a computer, far away. My interest in sports and movies waned years ago, and I avoid televisions as part of my aversion to the news. Even the books I used to enjoy, such as the late Clive Cussler’s, don’t hold my attention anymore. If I’m going to read anything it’s going to be humor, because the medical field is serious enough as it is.

The bottom line is that it’s hard for me to relax and “do nothing” anymore. I don’t know if that’s just me, or if it’s part of the personality of being a doctor, or both.

If I’m not at my desk working, I feel like I’m not doing anything. Do other doctors feel that way? Have I become a workaholic in my middle age?

Is this a bad thing?

It probably is, and I should look to the beginning of a new year to make some changes. Maybe I should go back to running (or, at this point in my life, walking) or finding some humor books I enjoy and reading them. The old standby of going on a vacation is kind of limited right now.

I’ve been an attending physician for 24 years now, which is still hard to believe. My retirement isn’t (hopefully) anytime soon, but is coming up faster than it seems. If I don’t relearn to relax by then, when will I?
 

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

Inpatient and outpatient treatments of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor ischemic stroke (mIS) yield comparable safety outcomes, new research suggests. In a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 patients with TIA or mIS, risk for subsequent stroke within 90 days was 2.1% for those treated in a TIA clinic versus 2.8% for patients treated in inpatient settings, which was not significantly different. The risk for patients treated in an emergency department was higher, at 3.5%.

“The message is that if you do the correct risk stratification and then triage patients based on their risk profile, you can safely discharge and have a timely follow-up for the patients who have low risk for a subsequent event,” said coinvestigator Ramin Zand, MD, vascular neurologist and stroke attending physician at Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Higher risk in EDs

There is currently no consensus on the care protocol for patients with TIA or mIS, and the rate at which these patients are hospitalized varies by region, hospital, and practitioner, the investigators noted.

Previous studies have indicated that outpatient management of certain individuals with TIA can be safe and cost-effective.

The current researchers searched for retrospective and prospective studies of adult patients that provided information about ischemic stroke after TIA or mIS. Studies that used time- and tissue-based definitions of TIA were included, as well as studies that used various definitions of mIS.

The investigators examined care provided at TIA clinics, inpatient settings (such as medical-surgical units, stroke units, or observation units), EDs, and unspecified settings. Their main aim was to compare outcomes between TIA clinics and inpatient settings.

In all, 226,683 patients (recruited between 1981 and 2018) from 71 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The studies examined 101 cohorts, 24 of which were studied prospectively. Among the 5,636 patients who received care in TIA clinics, the mean age was 65.7 years, and 50.8% of this group were men. Among the 130,139 inpatients, the mean age was 78.3 years, and 61.6% of the group were women.

Results showed no significant difference in risk for subsequent stroke between patients treated in the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Among patients treated in a TIA clinic, risk for subsequent stroke following a TIA or mIS was 0.3% within 2 days, 1.0% within 7 days, 1.3% within 30 days, and 2.1% within 90 days. Among those treated as inpatients, risk for subsequent stroke was 0.5% within 2 days, 1.2% within 7 days, 1.6% within 30 days, and 2.8% within 90 days.

Risk for subsequent stroke was higher among patients treated in the ED and in unspecified settings. At the EDs, the risk was 1.9% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 3.5% within 30 days, and 3.5% within 90 days. Among those treated in unspecified settings, the risk was 2.2% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 4.2% within 30 days, and 6.0% within 90 days.

Patients treated in the ED also had a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2 and 7 days, compared with those treated in inpatient settings and a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2, 7, and 90 days, compared with those treated in TIA clinics.
 

‘Most comprehensive look’

“This is the most comprehensive look at all the studies to try and answer this research question,” said Dr. Zand. The results were similar to what was expected, he added.

The infrastructure and resources differed among the sites at which the various studies were conducted, and the investigators adjusted for these differences as much as possible, Dr. Zand noted. A certain amount of selection bias may remain, but it does not affect the overall conclusion, he added.

“Timely outpatient care among low-risk TIA patients is both feasible and safe,” he said.

Dr. Zand noted that the findings have implications not only for patient management but also for the management of the health system. “It’s not feasible nor desirable to admit all the TIA patients, especially with the lessons that we learned from COVID, the burden on the health systems, and the fact that many hospitals are operating at full capacity right now,” he said.

The recommendation is to hospitalize high-risk patients and provide outpatient evaluation and workup to low-risk patients, he added. “This is exactly what we saw in this study,” Dr. Zand said.
 

Selection bias?

Commenting on the research, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that evaluation of patients with TIA or mIS “can be done very well as an outpatient” if clinicians have experienced personnel, the outpatient facilities to do the studies necessary, and criteria in place for deciding who to admit or not admit.

However, the decision on whether to choose an inpatient or outpatient approach for a particular patient is complicated, said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.

Clinicians must consider factors such as whether the patient is mobile, has a car, or has a significant other. The patient’s symptoms and past illnesses also influence the decision, he added.

Dr. Caplan noted that in the meta-analysis, far fewer patients were seen in the TIA clinics than were seen in the inpatient setting. In addition, none of the studies used uniform criteria to determine which patients should undergo workup as outpatients and which as inpatients. “There was a lot of selection bias that may have had nothing to do with how sick the person was,” Dr. Caplan said.

In addition, few hospitals in the United States have an outpatient TIA clinic, he noted. Most of the studies of TIA clinics that the researchers examined were conducted in Europe. “It’s easier to do [that] in Europe because of their socialized medicine,” said Dr. Caplan.

But TIA clinics should be more widespread in the U.S., he added. “Insurance companies should be willing to pay for comparable facilities, inpatient and outpatient,” he said.

The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Zand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan was an investigator for TIAregistry.org, which analyzed the outcomes of treatment in TIA clinics in Europe.

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

Inpatient and outpatient treatments of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor ischemic stroke (mIS) yield comparable safety outcomes, new research suggests. In a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 patients with TIA or mIS, risk for subsequent stroke within 90 days was 2.1% for those treated in a TIA clinic versus 2.8% for patients treated in inpatient settings, which was not significantly different. The risk for patients treated in an emergency department was higher, at 3.5%.

“The message is that if you do the correct risk stratification and then triage patients based on their risk profile, you can safely discharge and have a timely follow-up for the patients who have low risk for a subsequent event,” said coinvestigator Ramin Zand, MD, vascular neurologist and stroke attending physician at Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Higher risk in EDs

There is currently no consensus on the care protocol for patients with TIA or mIS, and the rate at which these patients are hospitalized varies by region, hospital, and practitioner, the investigators noted.

Previous studies have indicated that outpatient management of certain individuals with TIA can be safe and cost-effective.

The current researchers searched for retrospective and prospective studies of adult patients that provided information about ischemic stroke after TIA or mIS. Studies that used time- and tissue-based definitions of TIA were included, as well as studies that used various definitions of mIS.

The investigators examined care provided at TIA clinics, inpatient settings (such as medical-surgical units, stroke units, or observation units), EDs, and unspecified settings. Their main aim was to compare outcomes between TIA clinics and inpatient settings.

In all, 226,683 patients (recruited between 1981 and 2018) from 71 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The studies examined 101 cohorts, 24 of which were studied prospectively. Among the 5,636 patients who received care in TIA clinics, the mean age was 65.7 years, and 50.8% of this group were men. Among the 130,139 inpatients, the mean age was 78.3 years, and 61.6% of the group were women.

Results showed no significant difference in risk for subsequent stroke between patients treated in the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Among patients treated in a TIA clinic, risk for subsequent stroke following a TIA or mIS was 0.3% within 2 days, 1.0% within 7 days, 1.3% within 30 days, and 2.1% within 90 days. Among those treated as inpatients, risk for subsequent stroke was 0.5% within 2 days, 1.2% within 7 days, 1.6% within 30 days, and 2.8% within 90 days.

Risk for subsequent stroke was higher among patients treated in the ED and in unspecified settings. At the EDs, the risk was 1.9% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 3.5% within 30 days, and 3.5% within 90 days. Among those treated in unspecified settings, the risk was 2.2% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 4.2% within 30 days, and 6.0% within 90 days.

Patients treated in the ED also had a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2 and 7 days, compared with those treated in inpatient settings and a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2, 7, and 90 days, compared with those treated in TIA clinics.
 

‘Most comprehensive look’

“This is the most comprehensive look at all the studies to try and answer this research question,” said Dr. Zand. The results were similar to what was expected, he added.

The infrastructure and resources differed among the sites at which the various studies were conducted, and the investigators adjusted for these differences as much as possible, Dr. Zand noted. A certain amount of selection bias may remain, but it does not affect the overall conclusion, he added.

“Timely outpatient care among low-risk TIA patients is both feasible and safe,” he said.

Dr. Zand noted that the findings have implications not only for patient management but also for the management of the health system. “It’s not feasible nor desirable to admit all the TIA patients, especially with the lessons that we learned from COVID, the burden on the health systems, and the fact that many hospitals are operating at full capacity right now,” he said.

The recommendation is to hospitalize high-risk patients and provide outpatient evaluation and workup to low-risk patients, he added. “This is exactly what we saw in this study,” Dr. Zand said.
 

Selection bias?

Commenting on the research, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that evaluation of patients with TIA or mIS “can be done very well as an outpatient” if clinicians have experienced personnel, the outpatient facilities to do the studies necessary, and criteria in place for deciding who to admit or not admit.

However, the decision on whether to choose an inpatient or outpatient approach for a particular patient is complicated, said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.

Clinicians must consider factors such as whether the patient is mobile, has a car, or has a significant other. The patient’s symptoms and past illnesses also influence the decision, he added.

Dr. Caplan noted that in the meta-analysis, far fewer patients were seen in the TIA clinics than were seen in the inpatient setting. In addition, none of the studies used uniform criteria to determine which patients should undergo workup as outpatients and which as inpatients. “There was a lot of selection bias that may have had nothing to do with how sick the person was,” Dr. Caplan said.

In addition, few hospitals in the United States have an outpatient TIA clinic, he noted. Most of the studies of TIA clinics that the researchers examined were conducted in Europe. “It’s easier to do [that] in Europe because of their socialized medicine,” said Dr. Caplan.

But TIA clinics should be more widespread in the U.S., he added. “Insurance companies should be willing to pay for comparable facilities, inpatient and outpatient,” he said.

The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Zand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan was an investigator for TIAregistry.org, which analyzed the outcomes of treatment in TIA clinics in Europe.

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

Inpatient and outpatient treatments of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor ischemic stroke (mIS) yield comparable safety outcomes, new research suggests. In a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 patients with TIA or mIS, risk for subsequent stroke within 90 days was 2.1% for those treated in a TIA clinic versus 2.8% for patients treated in inpatient settings, which was not significantly different. The risk for patients treated in an emergency department was higher, at 3.5%.

“The message is that if you do the correct risk stratification and then triage patients based on their risk profile, you can safely discharge and have a timely follow-up for the patients who have low risk for a subsequent event,” said coinvestigator Ramin Zand, MD, vascular neurologist and stroke attending physician at Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Higher risk in EDs

There is currently no consensus on the care protocol for patients with TIA or mIS, and the rate at which these patients are hospitalized varies by region, hospital, and practitioner, the investigators noted.

Previous studies have indicated that outpatient management of certain individuals with TIA can be safe and cost-effective.

The current researchers searched for retrospective and prospective studies of adult patients that provided information about ischemic stroke after TIA or mIS. Studies that used time- and tissue-based definitions of TIA were included, as well as studies that used various definitions of mIS.

The investigators examined care provided at TIA clinics, inpatient settings (such as medical-surgical units, stroke units, or observation units), EDs, and unspecified settings. Their main aim was to compare outcomes between TIA clinics and inpatient settings.

In all, 226,683 patients (recruited between 1981 and 2018) from 71 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The studies examined 101 cohorts, 24 of which were studied prospectively. Among the 5,636 patients who received care in TIA clinics, the mean age was 65.7 years, and 50.8% of this group were men. Among the 130,139 inpatients, the mean age was 78.3 years, and 61.6% of the group were women.

Results showed no significant difference in risk for subsequent stroke between patients treated in the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Among patients treated in a TIA clinic, risk for subsequent stroke following a TIA or mIS was 0.3% within 2 days, 1.0% within 7 days, 1.3% within 30 days, and 2.1% within 90 days. Among those treated as inpatients, risk for subsequent stroke was 0.5% within 2 days, 1.2% within 7 days, 1.6% within 30 days, and 2.8% within 90 days.

Risk for subsequent stroke was higher among patients treated in the ED and in unspecified settings. At the EDs, the risk was 1.9% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 3.5% within 30 days, and 3.5% within 90 days. Among those treated in unspecified settings, the risk was 2.2% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 4.2% within 30 days, and 6.0% within 90 days.

Patients treated in the ED also had a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2 and 7 days, compared with those treated in inpatient settings and a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2, 7, and 90 days, compared with those treated in TIA clinics.
 

‘Most comprehensive look’

“This is the most comprehensive look at all the studies to try and answer this research question,” said Dr. Zand. The results were similar to what was expected, he added.

The infrastructure and resources differed among the sites at which the various studies were conducted, and the investigators adjusted for these differences as much as possible, Dr. Zand noted. A certain amount of selection bias may remain, but it does not affect the overall conclusion, he added.

“Timely outpatient care among low-risk TIA patients is both feasible and safe,” he said.

Dr. Zand noted that the findings have implications not only for patient management but also for the management of the health system. “It’s not feasible nor desirable to admit all the TIA patients, especially with the lessons that we learned from COVID, the burden on the health systems, and the fact that many hospitals are operating at full capacity right now,” he said.

The recommendation is to hospitalize high-risk patients and provide outpatient evaluation and workup to low-risk patients, he added. “This is exactly what we saw in this study,” Dr. Zand said.
 

Selection bias?

Commenting on the research, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that evaluation of patients with TIA or mIS “can be done very well as an outpatient” if clinicians have experienced personnel, the outpatient facilities to do the studies necessary, and criteria in place for deciding who to admit or not admit.

However, the decision on whether to choose an inpatient or outpatient approach for a particular patient is complicated, said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.

Clinicians must consider factors such as whether the patient is mobile, has a car, or has a significant other. The patient’s symptoms and past illnesses also influence the decision, he added.

Dr. Caplan noted that in the meta-analysis, far fewer patients were seen in the TIA clinics than were seen in the inpatient setting. In addition, none of the studies used uniform criteria to determine which patients should undergo workup as outpatients and which as inpatients. “There was a lot of selection bias that may have had nothing to do with how sick the person was,” Dr. Caplan said.

In addition, few hospitals in the United States have an outpatient TIA clinic, he noted. Most of the studies of TIA clinics that the researchers examined were conducted in Europe. “It’s easier to do [that] in Europe because of their socialized medicine,” said Dr. Caplan.

But TIA clinics should be more widespread in the U.S., he added. “Insurance companies should be willing to pay for comparable facilities, inpatient and outpatient,” he said.

The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Zand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan was an investigator for TIAregistry.org, which analyzed the outcomes of treatment in TIA clinics in Europe.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual orexin receptor antagonist daridorexant (Quviviq) for the treatment of insomnia in adults, the drug’s manufacturer, Idorsia, has announced.

The FDA’s decision was based partly on a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate to severe insomnia who were randomly assigned to receive 25 or 50 mg of daridorexant or matching placebo. Daridorexant was associated with dose-dependent improvements in wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, and latency to persistent sleep.

Whereas the overall results are very positive, the improvements in daytime functioning are especially “exciting,” Thomas Roth, PhD, director of the Sleep Disorders and Research Center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, said in an interview.

“That’s sort of a big deal. For me, that’s the biggest deal there is,” said Dr. Roth, who was a consultant on the design of the phase 3 trial and on the interpretation of the data.

The drug will be available in doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, and the FDA has recommended that it be classified as a controlled substance. After it is scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, daridorexant is expected to be made available in May.
 

Favorable safety profile

Insomnia is a common disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep and by early-morning awakenings. Patients with insomnia often report fatigue, irritability, and difficulty with concentration. The condition can also result in significant problems with work and social activities, thus contributing to anxiety or depression.

As with other dual orexin receptor antagonists, daridorexant competitively binds with both orexin receptors in the lateral hypothalamus to block the activity of orexin in a reversible way. This approach decreases the downstream action of the wake-promoting neurotransmitters that are overactive in patients with insomnia.

The phase 3 trial measured daytime functioning using the new Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a patient-reported outcome instrument. Daridorexant was associated with significant improvements in daytime function, particularly in sleepiness and mood.

Previous trials of other dual orexin receptor antagonists did not use the IDSIQ as an outcome, so it is not possible to compare daridorexant with those drugs in this respect, Dr. Roth noted. Researchers also have not conducted head-to-head trials of the drug with other dual orexin receptor antagonists.

Daridorexant also had a favorable safety profile and was not associated with rebound insomnia or withdrawal effects. The most common adverse events were headache and somnolence or fatigue.

“They had no effect on sleep stage distribution [and] they had no significant effects on sleep and breathing in people with mild to moderate sleep apnea,” said Dr. Roth, who presented the phase 3 findings at SLEEP 2020. 

In addition to serving as a consultant for Idorsia on the trial design and interpretation of results, Dr. Roth has also served as a consultant for other companies that develop sleep agents.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual orexin receptor antagonist daridorexant (Quviviq) for the treatment of insomnia in adults, the drug’s manufacturer, Idorsia, has announced.

The FDA’s decision was based partly on a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate to severe insomnia who were randomly assigned to receive 25 or 50 mg of daridorexant or matching placebo. Daridorexant was associated with dose-dependent improvements in wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, and latency to persistent sleep.

Whereas the overall results are very positive, the improvements in daytime functioning are especially “exciting,” Thomas Roth, PhD, director of the Sleep Disorders and Research Center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, said in an interview.

“That’s sort of a big deal. For me, that’s the biggest deal there is,” said Dr. Roth, who was a consultant on the design of the phase 3 trial and on the interpretation of the data.

The drug will be available in doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, and the FDA has recommended that it be classified as a controlled substance. After it is scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, daridorexant is expected to be made available in May.
 

Favorable safety profile

Insomnia is a common disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep and by early-morning awakenings. Patients with insomnia often report fatigue, irritability, and difficulty with concentration. The condition can also result in significant problems with work and social activities, thus contributing to anxiety or depression.

As with other dual orexin receptor antagonists, daridorexant competitively binds with both orexin receptors in the lateral hypothalamus to block the activity of orexin in a reversible way. This approach decreases the downstream action of the wake-promoting neurotransmitters that are overactive in patients with insomnia.

The phase 3 trial measured daytime functioning using the new Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a patient-reported outcome instrument. Daridorexant was associated with significant improvements in daytime function, particularly in sleepiness and mood.

Previous trials of other dual orexin receptor antagonists did not use the IDSIQ as an outcome, so it is not possible to compare daridorexant with those drugs in this respect, Dr. Roth noted. Researchers also have not conducted head-to-head trials of the drug with other dual orexin receptor antagonists.

Daridorexant also had a favorable safety profile and was not associated with rebound insomnia or withdrawal effects. The most common adverse events were headache and somnolence or fatigue.

“They had no effect on sleep stage distribution [and] they had no significant effects on sleep and breathing in people with mild to moderate sleep apnea,” said Dr. Roth, who presented the phase 3 findings at SLEEP 2020. 

In addition to serving as a consultant for Idorsia on the trial design and interpretation of results, Dr. Roth has also served as a consultant for other companies that develop sleep agents.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual orexin receptor antagonist daridorexant (Quviviq) for the treatment of insomnia in adults, the drug’s manufacturer, Idorsia, has announced.

The FDA’s decision was based partly on a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate to severe insomnia who were randomly assigned to receive 25 or 50 mg of daridorexant or matching placebo. Daridorexant was associated with dose-dependent improvements in wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, and latency to persistent sleep.

Whereas the overall results are very positive, the improvements in daytime functioning are especially “exciting,” Thomas Roth, PhD, director of the Sleep Disorders and Research Center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, said in an interview.

“That’s sort of a big deal. For me, that’s the biggest deal there is,” said Dr. Roth, who was a consultant on the design of the phase 3 trial and on the interpretation of the data.

The drug will be available in doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, and the FDA has recommended that it be classified as a controlled substance. After it is scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, daridorexant is expected to be made available in May.
 

Favorable safety profile

Insomnia is a common disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep and by early-morning awakenings. Patients with insomnia often report fatigue, irritability, and difficulty with concentration. The condition can also result in significant problems with work and social activities, thus contributing to anxiety or depression.

As with other dual orexin receptor antagonists, daridorexant competitively binds with both orexin receptors in the lateral hypothalamus to block the activity of orexin in a reversible way. This approach decreases the downstream action of the wake-promoting neurotransmitters that are overactive in patients with insomnia.

The phase 3 trial measured daytime functioning using the new Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a patient-reported outcome instrument. Daridorexant was associated with significant improvements in daytime function, particularly in sleepiness and mood.

Previous trials of other dual orexin receptor antagonists did not use the IDSIQ as an outcome, so it is not possible to compare daridorexant with those drugs in this respect, Dr. Roth noted. Researchers also have not conducted head-to-head trials of the drug with other dual orexin receptor antagonists.

Daridorexant also had a favorable safety profile and was not associated with rebound insomnia or withdrawal effects. The most common adverse events were headache and somnolence or fatigue.

“They had no effect on sleep stage distribution [and] they had no significant effects on sleep and breathing in people with mild to moderate sleep apnea,” said Dr. Roth, who presented the phase 3 findings at SLEEP 2020. 

In addition to serving as a consultant for Idorsia on the trial design and interpretation of results, Dr. Roth has also served as a consultant for other companies that develop sleep agents.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

Even though men in midlife have more cardiovascular (CV) conditions and risk factors than women of the same age, women are more affected by these conditions in terms of cognitive decline, new research suggests.

Analyses of almost 1,400 participants in the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging showed that diabetes, dyslipidemia, and coronary heart disease (CHD) all had stronger associations with global cognitive decline in women than in men.

“All men and women should be treated for cardiovascular risk factors and conditions, but this study really highlights the importance of very early and perhaps more aggressive treatment in women with these conditions,” co-investigator Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in Neurology.
 

Assessing sex differences

Most previous studies in this area have focused on CV risk factors in midlife in relation to late-life dementia (after age 75) or on late-life vascular risk factors and late-life dementia, Dr. Mielke noted.

However, a few recent studies have suggested vascular risk factors can affect cognition even in midlife. The current investigators sought to determine whether there are sex differences in these associations.

They assessed 1,857 nondemented participants aged 50 to 69 years from the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. The mean education level was 14.9 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.7.

Among the participants, 78.9% had at least one CV condition or risk factor, and the proportion was higher in men than women (83.4% vs. 74.5%; P < .0001).

Frequency of each individual CV condition or risk factor was also higher in men than women, and they had more years of education and higher BMI but took fewer medications.

Every 15 months, participants had an in-person interview and physical examination that included a neurologic assessment and short test of memory.

The neuropsychological battery included nine tests across four domains: memory, language, executive function, and visuospatial skills. Researchers calculated z-scores for these domains and for global cognition.
 

Multiple cognitive domains

Whereas this study evaluated multiple cognitive domains, most previous research has focused on global cognitive decline and/or decline in only one or two cognitive domains, the investigators note.

They collected information from medical records on CV conditions such as CHD, arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and stroke; and CV risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking status, and BMI.

Because of the small number of patients with stroke and PVD, these were classified as “other cardiovascular conditions” in the statistical analysis.

Researchers adjusted for sex, age, years of education, depressive symptoms, comorbidities, medications, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping. The mean follow-up was 3 years and did not differ by sex.

As some participants didn’t have a follow-up visit, the current analysis included 1,394 individuals. Those without follow-up visits were younger, had less education and more comorbidities, and took more medications compared with those with a follow-up.

Results showed most CV conditions were more strongly associated with cognitive function among women than men. For example, CHD was associated with global decline only in women (P < .05).

CHD, diabetes, and dyslipidemia were associated with language decline in women only (all, P < .05), but congestive heart failure was significantly associated with language decline in men only.

Dr. Mielke cautioned about reading too much into the language results for women.

“It’s an intriguing finding and definitely we need to follow up on it,” she said. However, “more studies are needed to examine sex differences before we start saying it only has an effect on language.”
 

‘Treat aggressively and right away’

The researchers were somewhat surprised by the study findings. Because there is a higher prevalence of CV conditions and risk factors in men, they presumed men would be more affected by these conditions, said Dr. Mielke.

“But that’s not what we saw; we saw the reverse. It was actually the women who were affected more by these cardiovascular risk factors and conditions,” she said.

As midlife is when women enter menopause, fluctuating estrogen levels may help explain the differential impact on cognition among women. But Dr. Mielke said she wants to “move beyond” just looking at hormones.

She pointed out there are a variety of psychosocial factors that may also contribute to an imbalance in the cognitive impact of CV conditions on women.

“Midlife is when many women are still taking care of their children at home, are also taking care of their adult parents, and may be undergoing more stress while continuing to do a job,” Dr. Miekle said.

Structural brain development and genetics may also contribute to the greater effect on cognition in women, the investigators note.

Dr. Mielke stressed that the current study only identifies associations. “The next steps are to understand what some of the underlying mechanisms for this are,” she said.

In the meantime, these new results suggest middle-aged women with high blood pressure, cholesterol, or glucose measures “should be treated aggressively and right away” said Dr. Mielke.

“For example, for women who are just starting to become hypertensive, clinicians should treat them right away and not watch and wait.”

Study limitations cited include that its sample was limited to Olmsted County, Minnesota – so results may not be generalized to other populations. Also, as researchers combined PVD and stroke into one group, larger sample sizes are needed, especially for stroke. Another limitation was the study did not have information on duration of all CV conditions or risk factors.
 

Helpful for tailoring interventions?

Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director, Memory and Cognition Program, Geisinger Health Clinic, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the results are important.

“The more we understand about risk factors for the development of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, the better we understand how we can reduce the risks,” said Dr. Finney, who was not involved with the research.

Awareness that CV conditions are major risk factors in midlife has been “definitely rising,” said Dr. Finney. “Many studies originally were looking at late life and are now looking more at earlier in the disease process, and I think that’s important.”

Understanding how sex, ethnicity, and other demographic variables affect risks can help to “tailor interventions” for individual patients, he said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the GHR Foundation, and the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Dr. Mielke is a consultant for Biogen and Brain Protection Company and is on the editorial boards of Neurology and Alzheimer’s and Dementia. Dr. Finney has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Even though men in midlife have more cardiovascular (CV) conditions and risk factors than women of the same age, women are more affected by these conditions in terms of cognitive decline, new research suggests.

Analyses of almost 1,400 participants in the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging showed that diabetes, dyslipidemia, and coronary heart disease (CHD) all had stronger associations with global cognitive decline in women than in men.

“All men and women should be treated for cardiovascular risk factors and conditions, but this study really highlights the importance of very early and perhaps more aggressive treatment in women with these conditions,” co-investigator Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in Neurology.
 

Assessing sex differences

Most previous studies in this area have focused on CV risk factors in midlife in relation to late-life dementia (after age 75) or on late-life vascular risk factors and late-life dementia, Dr. Mielke noted.

However, a few recent studies have suggested vascular risk factors can affect cognition even in midlife. The current investigators sought to determine whether there are sex differences in these associations.

They assessed 1,857 nondemented participants aged 50 to 69 years from the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. The mean education level was 14.9 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.7.

Among the participants, 78.9% had at least one CV condition or risk factor, and the proportion was higher in men than women (83.4% vs. 74.5%; P < .0001).

Frequency of each individual CV condition or risk factor was also higher in men than women, and they had more years of education and higher BMI but took fewer medications.

Every 15 months, participants had an in-person interview and physical examination that included a neurologic assessment and short test of memory.

The neuropsychological battery included nine tests across four domains: memory, language, executive function, and visuospatial skills. Researchers calculated z-scores for these domains and for global cognition.
 

Multiple cognitive domains

Whereas this study evaluated multiple cognitive domains, most previous research has focused on global cognitive decline and/or decline in only one or two cognitive domains, the investigators note.

They collected information from medical records on CV conditions such as CHD, arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and stroke; and CV risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking status, and BMI.

Because of the small number of patients with stroke and PVD, these were classified as “other cardiovascular conditions” in the statistical analysis.

Researchers adjusted for sex, age, years of education, depressive symptoms, comorbidities, medications, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping. The mean follow-up was 3 years and did not differ by sex.

As some participants didn’t have a follow-up visit, the current analysis included 1,394 individuals. Those without follow-up visits were younger, had less education and more comorbidities, and took more medications compared with those with a follow-up.

Results showed most CV conditions were more strongly associated with cognitive function among women than men. For example, CHD was associated with global decline only in women (P < .05).

CHD, diabetes, and dyslipidemia were associated with language decline in women only (all, P < .05), but congestive heart failure was significantly associated with language decline in men only.

Dr. Mielke cautioned about reading too much into the language results for women.

“It’s an intriguing finding and definitely we need to follow up on it,” she said. However, “more studies are needed to examine sex differences before we start saying it only has an effect on language.”
 

‘Treat aggressively and right away’

The researchers were somewhat surprised by the study findings. Because there is a higher prevalence of CV conditions and risk factors in men, they presumed men would be more affected by these conditions, said Dr. Mielke.

“But that’s not what we saw; we saw the reverse. It was actually the women who were affected more by these cardiovascular risk factors and conditions,” she said.

As midlife is when women enter menopause, fluctuating estrogen levels may help explain the differential impact on cognition among women. But Dr. Mielke said she wants to “move beyond” just looking at hormones.

She pointed out there are a variety of psychosocial factors that may also contribute to an imbalance in the cognitive impact of CV conditions on women.

“Midlife is when many women are still taking care of their children at home, are also taking care of their adult parents, and may be undergoing more stress while continuing to do a job,” Dr. Miekle said.

Structural brain development and genetics may also contribute to the greater effect on cognition in women, the investigators note.

Dr. Mielke stressed that the current study only identifies associations. “The next steps are to understand what some of the underlying mechanisms for this are,” she said.

In the meantime, these new results suggest middle-aged women with high blood pressure, cholesterol, or glucose measures “should be treated aggressively and right away” said Dr. Mielke.

“For example, for women who are just starting to become hypertensive, clinicians should treat them right away and not watch and wait.”

Study limitations cited include that its sample was limited to Olmsted County, Minnesota – so results may not be generalized to other populations. Also, as researchers combined PVD and stroke into one group, larger sample sizes are needed, especially for stroke. Another limitation was the study did not have information on duration of all CV conditions or risk factors.
 

Helpful for tailoring interventions?

Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director, Memory and Cognition Program, Geisinger Health Clinic, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the results are important.

“The more we understand about risk factors for the development of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, the better we understand how we can reduce the risks,” said Dr. Finney, who was not involved with the research.

Awareness that CV conditions are major risk factors in midlife has been “definitely rising,” said Dr. Finney. “Many studies originally were looking at late life and are now looking more at earlier in the disease process, and I think that’s important.”

Understanding how sex, ethnicity, and other demographic variables affect risks can help to “tailor interventions” for individual patients, he said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the GHR Foundation, and the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Dr. Mielke is a consultant for Biogen and Brain Protection Company and is on the editorial boards of Neurology and Alzheimer’s and Dementia. Dr. Finney has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Even though men in midlife have more cardiovascular (CV) conditions and risk factors than women of the same age, women are more affected by these conditions in terms of cognitive decline, new research suggests.

Analyses of almost 1,400 participants in the population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging showed that diabetes, dyslipidemia, and coronary heart disease (CHD) all had stronger associations with global cognitive decline in women than in men.

“All men and women should be treated for cardiovascular risk factors and conditions, but this study really highlights the importance of very early and perhaps more aggressive treatment in women with these conditions,” co-investigator Michelle M. Mielke, PhD, professor of epidemiology and neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in Neurology.
 

Assessing sex differences

Most previous studies in this area have focused on CV risk factors in midlife in relation to late-life dementia (after age 75) or on late-life vascular risk factors and late-life dementia, Dr. Mielke noted.

However, a few recent studies have suggested vascular risk factors can affect cognition even in midlife. The current investigators sought to determine whether there are sex differences in these associations.

They assessed 1,857 nondemented participants aged 50 to 69 years from the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. The mean education level was 14.9 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.7.

Among the participants, 78.9% had at least one CV condition or risk factor, and the proportion was higher in men than women (83.4% vs. 74.5%; P < .0001).

Frequency of each individual CV condition or risk factor was also higher in men than women, and they had more years of education and higher BMI but took fewer medications.

Every 15 months, participants had an in-person interview and physical examination that included a neurologic assessment and short test of memory.

The neuropsychological battery included nine tests across four domains: memory, language, executive function, and visuospatial skills. Researchers calculated z-scores for these domains and for global cognition.
 

Multiple cognitive domains

Whereas this study evaluated multiple cognitive domains, most previous research has focused on global cognitive decline and/or decline in only one or two cognitive domains, the investigators note.

They collected information from medical records on CV conditions such as CHD, arrhythmias, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and stroke; and CV risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking status, and BMI.

Because of the small number of patients with stroke and PVD, these were classified as “other cardiovascular conditions” in the statistical analysis.

Researchers adjusted for sex, age, years of education, depressive symptoms, comorbidities, medications, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping. The mean follow-up was 3 years and did not differ by sex.

As some participants didn’t have a follow-up visit, the current analysis included 1,394 individuals. Those without follow-up visits were younger, had less education and more comorbidities, and took more medications compared with those with a follow-up.

Results showed most CV conditions were more strongly associated with cognitive function among women than men. For example, CHD was associated with global decline only in women (P < .05).

CHD, diabetes, and dyslipidemia were associated with language decline in women only (all, P < .05), but congestive heart failure was significantly associated with language decline in men only.

Dr. Mielke cautioned about reading too much into the language results for women.

“It’s an intriguing finding and definitely we need to follow up on it,” she said. However, “more studies are needed to examine sex differences before we start saying it only has an effect on language.”
 

‘Treat aggressively and right away’

The researchers were somewhat surprised by the study findings. Because there is a higher prevalence of CV conditions and risk factors in men, they presumed men would be more affected by these conditions, said Dr. Mielke.

“But that’s not what we saw; we saw the reverse. It was actually the women who were affected more by these cardiovascular risk factors and conditions,” she said.

As midlife is when women enter menopause, fluctuating estrogen levels may help explain the differential impact on cognition among women. But Dr. Mielke said she wants to “move beyond” just looking at hormones.

She pointed out there are a variety of psychosocial factors that may also contribute to an imbalance in the cognitive impact of CV conditions on women.

“Midlife is when many women are still taking care of their children at home, are also taking care of their adult parents, and may be undergoing more stress while continuing to do a job,” Dr. Miekle said.

Structural brain development and genetics may also contribute to the greater effect on cognition in women, the investigators note.

Dr. Mielke stressed that the current study only identifies associations. “The next steps are to understand what some of the underlying mechanisms for this are,” she said.

In the meantime, these new results suggest middle-aged women with high blood pressure, cholesterol, or glucose measures “should be treated aggressively and right away” said Dr. Mielke.

“For example, for women who are just starting to become hypertensive, clinicians should treat them right away and not watch and wait.”

Study limitations cited include that its sample was limited to Olmsted County, Minnesota – so results may not be generalized to other populations. Also, as researchers combined PVD and stroke into one group, larger sample sizes are needed, especially for stroke. Another limitation was the study did not have information on duration of all CV conditions or risk factors.
 

Helpful for tailoring interventions?

Commenting on the study, Glen R. Finney, MD, director, Memory and Cognition Program, Geisinger Health Clinic, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the results are important.

“The more we understand about risk factors for the development of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, the better we understand how we can reduce the risks,” said Dr. Finney, who was not involved with the research.

Awareness that CV conditions are major risk factors in midlife has been “definitely rising,” said Dr. Finney. “Many studies originally were looking at late life and are now looking more at earlier in the disease process, and I think that’s important.”

Understanding how sex, ethnicity, and other demographic variables affect risks can help to “tailor interventions” for individual patients, he said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the GHR Foundation, and the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Dr. Mielke is a consultant for Biogen and Brain Protection Company and is on the editorial boards of Neurology and Alzheimer’s and Dementia. Dr. Finney has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A distinct pattern of frontal-temporal atrophy discernible on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may flag chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in living patients, new research suggests.

“These new results offer some hope for clinicians who are really struggling to confidently diagnose or detect CTE during life,” said lead author Michael L. Alosco, PhD, associate professor of neurology, codirector of the Boston University Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, and investigator at the Boston University CTE Center.

The findings were published online Dec. 7, 2021, in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.
 

A new way to diagnose?

CTE is a neurodegenerative disease associated with exposure to repetitive blows to the head, such as those sustained playing contact sports. Currently, the condition can only be reliably diagnosed at autopsy using neuropathological diagnostic criteria.

There are four pathological stages of CTE, ranging from mild to severe. Each progressive stage reflects mounting accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau).

The study included 55 male brain donors with confirmed CTE, all with a history of repetitive head injury. Most (n = 52) played football, but two played ice hockey and one had military and combat exposure. The analysis also included 31 men with normal cognition (NC). Of these, some were living and some were deceased.

The study sample was restricted to participants age 60 and older and to those who had an MRI obtained through a medical record request.

Most referrals for MRI in the CTE group were related to dementia or neurodegenerative disease (65%). In the NC group, MRI indications were mostly related to cerebrovascular causes (22.6%), memory complaints (16.1%), or vertigo (9.7%).

From MRIs, neuroradiologists visually rated patterns of shrinkage in the brain, microvascular disease, and presence of cavum septum pellucidum (CSP) – a large hole in the tissue separating ventricles of the brain.
 

More atrophy

Results showed that compared with the NC group, the CTE group had significantly greater atrophy in several brain regions, including the orbital-frontal cortex, dorsolateral frontal cortex, superior frontal cortex, anterior temporal lobes, and medial temporal lobe.

The dorsolateral frontal cortex showed the largest group difference (estimated marginal mean difference, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, .42-2.19; false discovery rate-adjusted P = .01).

Previous research has shown early p-tau involvement in this area among CTE patients. Although the hippocampus is also affected in CTE, this occurs later in the disease course, the investigators noted.

The unique pattern, type, and distribution of p-tau pathology in CTE is different from Alzheimer’s disease. CTE is also distinct from Alzheimer’s disease in that there is no accumulation of beta-amyloid plaque.

The new results add to “converging evidence” for frontotemporal and medial temporal lobe atrophy in CTE “that might be able to be visualized on MRI,” the investigators noted.

Almost two-thirds of the CTE group had an additional neurodegenerative disease. Furthermore, the effect sizes remained similar in analyses that excluded CTE donors with frontotemporal lobar degeneration or Alzheimer’s disease.

“This suggests to us that these other diseases were not accounting for the atrophy,” Dr. Alosco said.

Individuals with CTE were 6.7 times more likely to have a CSP versus those with NC (odds ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.5-50.1; P = .049).

Although previous research suggested an association between CSP and repetitive concussion, CSP is also frequently found in the general adult population. However, when combined with data on frontal lobe shrinkage, it may be a supportive differential diagnostic feature for CTE, Dr. Alosco said.
 

An important first step

The investigators also examined ventricle size. The lateral ventricles in the CTE group were significantly larger (mean difference, 1.72; 95% CI, .62-2.82; P = .01), as was the third ventricle (mean difference, .80; 95% CI, .26-1.35; P = .01).

When neuropathologists rated tau severity and atrophy at autopsy, they found that more severe p-tau pathology was associated with greater atrophy among those with CTE (beta = .68; P < .01).

Dr. Alosco called the finding “exciting,” noting that it suggests “this tau is a precipitant for neurodegeneration.”

He noted that, although some researchers have used positron emission tomography (PET) tau tracers to uncover a CTE pattern, MRI is relatively inexpensive and routinely used as part of dementia assessment.

While the new study is “an important first step” in using MRI to diagnose CTE, larger sample sizes are needed, Dr. Alosco said. “We also need to look at other disease groups and really nail down the difference with CTE in terms of patterns” (vs. Alzheimer’s disease and vs. frontotemporal lobar degeneration), he added.

“Once those differences are cleared, we will be ready to be more confident when we interpret these images.”.
 

‘Not unexpected’

Commenting on the research, neurologist and concussion expert Francis X. Conidi, DO, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie, said that, although the study was “well thought out and interesting,” the results were “not completely unexpected.”

Frontal and anterior temporal lobe atrophy and prominent third ventricles are very common in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), which is “a prerequisite to develop CTE,” said Dr. Conidi, who was not involved with the research.

The current study’s findings mirror observations found in a National Football League cohort he and his colleagues are following – and in his patients with TBI in general.

Dr. Conidi noted that there is a “significant subjective component” to the study results because they relied on the opinion of neuroradiologists. He is not convinced MRI findings of frontotemporal and medial temporal lobe atrophy necessarily represent CTE and not TBI. In fact, he noted that patients with TBI have a significantly greater chance of not developing a neurodegenerative disorder.

Dr. Conidi added that he doesn’t think MRI will ever be the gold standard for diagnosing or even assessing risk of developing CTE. “That lies in tau PET imaging,” he said.
 

Overstated conclusion?

Also commenting on the research findings, Kristen Dams-O’Connor, PhD, professor, vice chair of research, and director, Brain Injury Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said the sensitivity analyses, particularly those designed to clarify contributions of Alzheimer’s disease and other neuropathological contributions to associations between p-tau and atrophy, “increase our confidence” in the findings.

“What’s exciting about this paper is that it provides very preliminary support for adding another tool to our arsenal as we try to establish a constellation of in vivo diagnostic markers that, together, will help us rule in a post-traumatic neurodegenerative process and rule out other brain diseases.”

A possible study limitation is that the MRI scans were from low-field strength magnets, although that makes the study more “ecologically valid”, said Dr. Dams-O’Connor. “Many clinical scanners are built around a 1.5T magnet, so what the researchers see in this study is what a radiologist may see in the clinic.”

The conclusion that frontal-temporal atrophy is an MRI marker of CTE is “an overstatement” as this pattern of atrophy is not specific to CTE, said Dr. Dams-O’Connor. “The association of p-tau with atrophy is unsurprising and doesn’t bring us much closer to understanding how, or whether, the patterns of p-tau accumulation observed in CTE contribute to the clinical expression of symptoms.”

Dr. Alosco and Dr. Conidi report no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original journal article. The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Aging Boston University AD Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Merit Award, the Nick and Lynn Buoniconti Foundation, and BU-CTSI.

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

A distinct pattern of frontal-temporal atrophy discernible on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may flag chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in living patients, new research suggests.

“These new results offer some hope for clinicians who are really struggling to confidently diagnose or detect CTE during life,” said lead author Michael L. Alosco, PhD, associate professor of neurology, codirector of the Boston University Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, and investigator at the Boston University CTE Center.

The findings were published online Dec. 7, 2021, in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.
 

A new way to diagnose?

CTE is a neurodegenerative disease associated with exposure to repetitive blows to the head, such as those sustained playing contact sports. Currently, the condition can only be reliably diagnosed at autopsy using neuropathological diagnostic criteria.

There are four pathological stages of CTE, ranging from mild to severe. Each progressive stage reflects mounting accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau).

The study included 55 male brain donors with confirmed CTE, all with a history of repetitive head injury. Most (n = 52) played football, but two played ice hockey and one had military and combat exposure. The analysis also included 31 men with normal cognition (NC). Of these, some were living and some were deceased.

The study sample was restricted to participants age 60 and older and to those who had an MRI obtained through a medical record request.

Most referrals for MRI in the CTE group were related to dementia or neurodegenerative disease (65%). In the NC group, MRI indications were mostly related to cerebrovascular causes (22.6%), memory complaints (16.1%), or vertigo (9.7%).

From MRIs, neuroradiologists visually rated patterns of shrinkage in the brain, microvascular disease, and presence of cavum septum pellucidum (CSP) – a large hole in the tissue separating ventricles of the brain.
 

More atrophy

Results showed that compared with the NC group, the CTE group had significantly greater atrophy in several brain regions, including the orbital-frontal cortex, dorsolateral frontal cortex, superior frontal cortex, anterior temporal lobes, and medial temporal lobe.

The dorsolateral frontal cortex showed the largest group difference (estimated marginal mean difference, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, .42-2.19; false discovery rate-adjusted P = .01).

Previous research has shown early p-tau involvement in this area among CTE patients. Although the hippocampus is also affected in CTE, this occurs later in the disease course, the investigators noted.

The unique pattern, type, and distribution of p-tau pathology in CTE is different from Alzheimer’s disease. CTE is also distinct from Alzheimer’s disease in that there is no accumulation of beta-amyloid plaque.

The new results add to “converging evidence” for frontotemporal and medial temporal lobe atrophy in CTE “that might be able to be visualized on MRI,” the investigators noted.

Almost two-thirds of the CTE group had an additional neurodegenerative disease. Furthermore, the effect sizes remained similar in analyses that excluded CTE donors with frontotemporal lobar degeneration or Alzheimer’s disease.

“This suggests to us that these other diseases were not accounting for the atrophy,” Dr. Alosco said.

Individuals with CTE were 6.7 times more likely to have a CSP versus those with NC (odds ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.5-50.1; P = .049).

Although previous research suggested an association between CSP and repetitive concussion, CSP is also frequently found in the general adult population. However, when combined with data on frontal lobe shrinkage, it may be a supportive differential diagnostic feature for CTE, Dr. Alosco said.
 

An important first step

The investigators also examined ventricle size. The lateral ventricles in the CTE group were significantly larger (mean difference, 1.72; 95% CI, .62-2.82; P = .01), as was the third ventricle (mean difference, .80; 95% CI, .26-1.35; P = .01).

When neuropathologists rated tau severity and atrophy at autopsy, they found that more severe p-tau pathology was associated with greater atrophy among those with CTE (beta = .68; P < .01).

Dr. Alosco called the finding “exciting,” noting that it suggests “this tau is a precipitant for neurodegeneration.”

He noted that, although some researchers have used positron emission tomography (PET) tau tracers to uncover a CTE pattern, MRI is relatively inexpensive and routinely used as part of dementia assessment.

While the new study is “an important first step” in using MRI to diagnose CTE, larger sample sizes are needed, Dr. Alosco said. “We also need to look at other disease groups and really nail down the difference with CTE in terms of patterns” (vs. Alzheimer’s disease and vs. frontotemporal lobar degeneration), he added.

“Once those differences are cleared, we will be ready to be more confident when we interpret these images.”.
 

‘Not unexpected’

Commenting on the research, neurologist and concussion expert Francis X. Conidi, DO, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie, said that, although the study was “well thought out and interesting,” the results were “not completely unexpected.”

Frontal and anterior temporal lobe atrophy and prominent third ventricles are very common in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), which is “a prerequisite to develop CTE,” said Dr. Conidi, who was not involved with the research.

The current study’s findings mirror observations found in a National Football League cohort he and his colleagues are following – and in his patients with TBI in general.

Dr. Conidi noted that there is a “significant subjective component” to the study results because they relied on the opinion of neuroradiologists. He is not convinced MRI findings of frontotemporal and medial temporal lobe atrophy necessarily represent CTE and not TBI. In fact, he noted that patients with TBI have a significantly greater chance of not developing a neurodegenerative disorder.

Dr. Conidi added that he doesn’t think MRI will ever be the gold standard for diagnosing or even assessing risk of developing CTE. “That lies in tau PET imaging,” he said.
 

Overstated conclusion?

Also commenting on the research findings, Kristen Dams-O’Connor, PhD, professor, vice chair of research, and director, Brain Injury Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said the sensitivity analyses, particularly those designed to clarify contributions of Alzheimer’s disease and other neuropathological contributions to associations between p-tau and atrophy, “increase our confidence” in the findings.

“What’s exciting about this paper is that it provides very preliminary support for adding another tool to our arsenal as we try to establish a constellation of in vivo diagnostic markers that, together, will help us rule in a post-traumatic neurodegenerative process and rule out other brain diseases.”

A possible study limitation is that the MRI scans were from low-field strength magnets, although that makes the study more “ecologically valid”, said Dr. Dams-O’Connor. “Many clinical scanners are built around a 1.5T magnet, so what the researchers see in this study is what a radiologist may see in the clinic.”

The conclusion that frontal-temporal atrophy is an MRI marker of CTE is “an overstatement” as this pattern of atrophy is not specific to CTE, said Dr. Dams-O’Connor. “The association of p-tau with atrophy is unsurprising and doesn’t bring us much closer to understanding how, or whether, the patterns of p-tau accumulation observed in CTE contribute to the clinical expression of symptoms.”

Dr. Alosco and Dr. Conidi report no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original journal article. The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Aging Boston University AD Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Merit Award, the Nick and Lynn Buoniconti Foundation, and BU-CTSI.

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

A distinct pattern of frontal-temporal atrophy discernible on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may flag chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in living patients, new research suggests.

“These new results offer some hope for clinicians who are really struggling to confidently diagnose or detect CTE during life,” said lead author Michael L. Alosco, PhD, associate professor of neurology, codirector of the Boston University Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, and investigator at the Boston University CTE Center.

The findings were published online Dec. 7, 2021, in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.
 

A new way to diagnose?

CTE is a neurodegenerative disease associated with exposure to repetitive blows to the head, such as those sustained playing contact sports. Currently, the condition can only be reliably diagnosed at autopsy using neuropathological diagnostic criteria.

There are four pathological stages of CTE, ranging from mild to severe. Each progressive stage reflects mounting accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau).

The study included 55 male brain donors with confirmed CTE, all with a history of repetitive head injury. Most (n = 52) played football, but two played ice hockey and one had military and combat exposure. The analysis also included 31 men with normal cognition (NC). Of these, some were living and some were deceased.

The study sample was restricted to participants age 60 and older and to those who had an MRI obtained through a medical record request.

Most referrals for MRI in the CTE group were related to dementia or neurodegenerative disease (65%). In the NC group, MRI indications were mostly related to cerebrovascular causes (22.6%), memory complaints (16.1%), or vertigo (9.7%).

From MRIs, neuroradiologists visually rated patterns of shrinkage in the brain, microvascular disease, and presence of cavum septum pellucidum (CSP) – a large hole in the tissue separating ventricles of the brain.
 

More atrophy

Results showed that compared with the NC group, the CTE group had significantly greater atrophy in several brain regions, including the orbital-frontal cortex, dorsolateral frontal cortex, superior frontal cortex, anterior temporal lobes, and medial temporal lobe.

The dorsolateral frontal cortex showed the largest group difference (estimated marginal mean difference, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, .42-2.19; false discovery rate-adjusted P = .01).

Previous research has shown early p-tau involvement in this area among CTE patients. Although the hippocampus is also affected in CTE, this occurs later in the disease course, the investigators noted.

The unique pattern, type, and distribution of p-tau pathology in CTE is different from Alzheimer’s disease. CTE is also distinct from Alzheimer’s disease in that there is no accumulation of beta-amyloid plaque.

The new results add to “converging evidence” for frontotemporal and medial temporal lobe atrophy in CTE “that might be able to be visualized on MRI,” the investigators noted.

Almost two-thirds of the CTE group had an additional neurodegenerative disease. Furthermore, the effect sizes remained similar in analyses that excluded CTE donors with frontotemporal lobar degeneration or Alzheimer’s disease.

“This suggests to us that these other diseases were not accounting for the atrophy,” Dr. Alosco said.

Individuals with CTE were 6.7 times more likely to have a CSP versus those with NC (odds ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.5-50.1; P = .049).

Although previous research suggested an association between CSP and repetitive concussion, CSP is also frequently found in the general adult population. However, when combined with data on frontal lobe shrinkage, it may be a supportive differential diagnostic feature for CTE, Dr. Alosco said.
 

An important first step

The investigators also examined ventricle size. The lateral ventricles in the CTE group were significantly larger (mean difference, 1.72; 95% CI, .62-2.82; P = .01), as was the third ventricle (mean difference, .80; 95% CI, .26-1.35; P = .01).

When neuropathologists rated tau severity and atrophy at autopsy, they found that more severe p-tau pathology was associated with greater atrophy among those with CTE (beta = .68; P < .01).

Dr. Alosco called the finding “exciting,” noting that it suggests “this tau is a precipitant for neurodegeneration.”

He noted that, although some researchers have used positron emission tomography (PET) tau tracers to uncover a CTE pattern, MRI is relatively inexpensive and routinely used as part of dementia assessment.

While the new study is “an important first step” in using MRI to diagnose CTE, larger sample sizes are needed, Dr. Alosco said. “We also need to look at other disease groups and really nail down the difference with CTE in terms of patterns” (vs. Alzheimer’s disease and vs. frontotemporal lobar degeneration), he added.

“Once those differences are cleared, we will be ready to be more confident when we interpret these images.”.
 

‘Not unexpected’

Commenting on the research, neurologist and concussion expert Francis X. Conidi, DO, director, Florida Center for Headache and Sports Neurology, Port St. Lucie, said that, although the study was “well thought out and interesting,” the results were “not completely unexpected.”

Frontal and anterior temporal lobe atrophy and prominent third ventricles are very common in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), which is “a prerequisite to develop CTE,” said Dr. Conidi, who was not involved with the research.

The current study’s findings mirror observations found in a National Football League cohort he and his colleagues are following – and in his patients with TBI in general.

Dr. Conidi noted that there is a “significant subjective component” to the study results because they relied on the opinion of neuroradiologists. He is not convinced MRI findings of frontotemporal and medial temporal lobe atrophy necessarily represent CTE and not TBI. In fact, he noted that patients with TBI have a significantly greater chance of not developing a neurodegenerative disorder.

Dr. Conidi added that he doesn’t think MRI will ever be the gold standard for diagnosing or even assessing risk of developing CTE. “That lies in tau PET imaging,” he said.
 

Overstated conclusion?

Also commenting on the research findings, Kristen Dams-O’Connor, PhD, professor, vice chair of research, and director, Brain Injury Research Center, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said the sensitivity analyses, particularly those designed to clarify contributions of Alzheimer’s disease and other neuropathological contributions to associations between p-tau and atrophy, “increase our confidence” in the findings.

“What’s exciting about this paper is that it provides very preliminary support for adding another tool to our arsenal as we try to establish a constellation of in vivo diagnostic markers that, together, will help us rule in a post-traumatic neurodegenerative process and rule out other brain diseases.”

A possible study limitation is that the MRI scans were from low-field strength magnets, although that makes the study more “ecologically valid”, said Dr. Dams-O’Connor. “Many clinical scanners are built around a 1.5T magnet, so what the researchers see in this study is what a radiologist may see in the clinic.”

The conclusion that frontal-temporal atrophy is an MRI marker of CTE is “an overstatement” as this pattern of atrophy is not specific to CTE, said Dr. Dams-O’Connor. “The association of p-tau with atrophy is unsurprising and doesn’t bring us much closer to understanding how, or whether, the patterns of p-tau accumulation observed in CTE contribute to the clinical expression of symptoms.”

Dr. Alosco and Dr. Conidi report no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other study authors are listed in the original journal article. The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Aging Boston University AD Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Merit Award, the Nick and Lynn Buoniconti Foundation, and BU-CTSI.

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

The record-setting surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide – including more than one million new infections reported on Jan. 3 – raises questions about whether the higher Omicron variant transmissibility will accelerate a transition from pandemic to endemic disease.

Furthermore, does the steep increase in number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 mean the United States could finally be achieving a meaningful level of “herd immunity”?

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

Whether the current surge will mean the predicted switch to endemic COVID-19 will come sooner “is very hard to predict,” Michael Lin, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“It’s an open question,” he said, “if another highly transmissible variant will emerge.”

On a positive note, “at this point many more people have received their vaccinations or been infected. And over time, repeated infections have led to milder symptoms,” added Dr. Lin, hospital epidemiologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“It could end up being a seasonal variant,” he said.

COVID-19 going endemic is “a real possibility, but unfortunately ... it doesn’t seem necessarily that we’re going to have the same predictable pattern we have with the flu,” said Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, chief of infectious diseases for Lifespan and its affiliates at Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in Providence.

“We have a number of other viruses that don’t follow the same annual pattern,” he said.  

Unknowns include how long individuals’ immune responses, including T-cell defenses, will last going forward.

A transition from pandemic to endemic is “not a light switch, and there are no metrics associated with what endemic means for COVID-19,” said Syra Madad, DHSc., MSc, MCP, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston.

“Instead, we should continue to focus on decreasing transmission rates and preventing our hospitals from getting overwhelmed,” she said.
 

A hastening to herd immunity?

“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Lin said when asked if the increased transmissibility and increased cases linked to the Omicron surge could get the U.S. closer to herd immunity.

“The twist in this whole story,” he said, “is the virus mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. That is why we are seeing breakthrough infections, even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

“The concept of herd immunity with a rapidly evolving virus is very difficult” to address, he said.

One reason is the number of unknown factors, Dr. Mylonakis said. He predicted a clearer picture will emerge after the Omicrons surge subsides. Also, with so many people infected by the Omicron variant, immune protection should peak.

“People will have boosted immunity. Not everybody, unfortunately, because there are people who cannot really mount [a full immune response] because of age, because of immunosuppression, etc.,” said Dr. Mylonakis, who is also professor of infectious diseases at Brown University.

“But the majority of the population will be exposed and will mount some degree of immunity.”

Dr. Madad agreed. “The omicron variant will add much more immunity into our population by both the preferred pathway – which is through vaccination – as well as through those that are unvaccinated and get infected with omicron,” she said.

“The pathway to gain immunity from vaccination is the safest option, and already over 1 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are going into arms per day – this includes first, second, and additional doses like boosters,” added Dr. Madad, who is also senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at New York City Health and Hospitals.
 

A shorter, more intense surge?

The United Kingdom’s experience with COVID-19 has often served as a bellwether of what is likely to happen in the U.S. If that is the case with the Omicron surge, the peak should last about 4 weeks, Dr. Mylonakis said.

In other words, the accelerated spread of Omicron could mean this surge passes more quickly than Delta.

Furthermore, some evidence suggests neutralizing antibodies produced by Omicron infection remain effective against the Delta variant – thereby reducing the risk of Delta reinfections over time.

The ability to neutralize the Delta variant increased more than fourfold after a median 14 days, according to data from a preprint study posted Dec. 27 on MedRxiv.

At the same time, neutralization of the Omicron variant increased 14-fold as participants mounted an antibody response. The study was conducted in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by Omicron in South Africa shortly after symptoms started. It has yet to be peer reviewed.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, described the results as “especially good news” in a tweet.

The current surge could also mean enhanced protection in the future.

“As we look at getting to the other side of this Omicron wave, we will end up with more immunity,” Dr. Madad said. “And with more immunity means we’ll be better guarded against the next emerging variant.”

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

The record-setting surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide – including more than one million new infections reported on Jan. 3 – raises questions about whether the higher Omicron variant transmissibility will accelerate a transition from pandemic to endemic disease.

Furthermore, does the steep increase in number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 mean the United States could finally be achieving a meaningful level of “herd immunity”?

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

Whether the current surge will mean the predicted switch to endemic COVID-19 will come sooner “is very hard to predict,” Michael Lin, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“It’s an open question,” he said, “if another highly transmissible variant will emerge.”

On a positive note, “at this point many more people have received their vaccinations or been infected. And over time, repeated infections have led to milder symptoms,” added Dr. Lin, hospital epidemiologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“It could end up being a seasonal variant,” he said.

COVID-19 going endemic is “a real possibility, but unfortunately ... it doesn’t seem necessarily that we’re going to have the same predictable pattern we have with the flu,” said Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, chief of infectious diseases for Lifespan and its affiliates at Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in Providence.

“We have a number of other viruses that don’t follow the same annual pattern,” he said.  

Unknowns include how long individuals’ immune responses, including T-cell defenses, will last going forward.

A transition from pandemic to endemic is “not a light switch, and there are no metrics associated with what endemic means for COVID-19,” said Syra Madad, DHSc., MSc, MCP, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston.

“Instead, we should continue to focus on decreasing transmission rates and preventing our hospitals from getting overwhelmed,” she said.
 

A hastening to herd immunity?

“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Lin said when asked if the increased transmissibility and increased cases linked to the Omicron surge could get the U.S. closer to herd immunity.

“The twist in this whole story,” he said, “is the virus mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. That is why we are seeing breakthrough infections, even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

“The concept of herd immunity with a rapidly evolving virus is very difficult” to address, he said.

One reason is the number of unknown factors, Dr. Mylonakis said. He predicted a clearer picture will emerge after the Omicrons surge subsides. Also, with so many people infected by the Omicron variant, immune protection should peak.

“People will have boosted immunity. Not everybody, unfortunately, because there are people who cannot really mount [a full immune response] because of age, because of immunosuppression, etc.,” said Dr. Mylonakis, who is also professor of infectious diseases at Brown University.

“But the majority of the population will be exposed and will mount some degree of immunity.”

Dr. Madad agreed. “The omicron variant will add much more immunity into our population by both the preferred pathway – which is through vaccination – as well as through those that are unvaccinated and get infected with omicron,” she said.

“The pathway to gain immunity from vaccination is the safest option, and already over 1 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are going into arms per day – this includes first, second, and additional doses like boosters,” added Dr. Madad, who is also senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at New York City Health and Hospitals.
 

A shorter, more intense surge?

The United Kingdom’s experience with COVID-19 has often served as a bellwether of what is likely to happen in the U.S. If that is the case with the Omicron surge, the peak should last about 4 weeks, Dr. Mylonakis said.

In other words, the accelerated spread of Omicron could mean this surge passes more quickly than Delta.

Furthermore, some evidence suggests neutralizing antibodies produced by Omicron infection remain effective against the Delta variant – thereby reducing the risk of Delta reinfections over time.

The ability to neutralize the Delta variant increased more than fourfold after a median 14 days, according to data from a preprint study posted Dec. 27 on MedRxiv.

At the same time, neutralization of the Omicron variant increased 14-fold as participants mounted an antibody response. The study was conducted in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by Omicron in South Africa shortly after symptoms started. It has yet to be peer reviewed.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, described the results as “especially good news” in a tweet.

The current surge could also mean enhanced protection in the future.

“As we look at getting to the other side of this Omicron wave, we will end up with more immunity,” Dr. Madad said. “And with more immunity means we’ll be better guarded against the next emerging variant.”

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

The record-setting surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide – including more than one million new infections reported on Jan. 3 – raises questions about whether the higher Omicron variant transmissibility will accelerate a transition from pandemic to endemic disease.

Furthermore, does the steep increase in number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 mean the United States could finally be achieving a meaningful level of “herd immunity”?

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

Whether the current surge will mean the predicted switch to endemic COVID-19 will come sooner “is very hard to predict,” Michael Lin, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“It’s an open question,” he said, “if another highly transmissible variant will emerge.”

On a positive note, “at this point many more people have received their vaccinations or been infected. And over time, repeated infections have led to milder symptoms,” added Dr. Lin, hospital epidemiologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“It could end up being a seasonal variant,” he said.

COVID-19 going endemic is “a real possibility, but unfortunately ... it doesn’t seem necessarily that we’re going to have the same predictable pattern we have with the flu,” said Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, chief of infectious diseases for Lifespan and its affiliates at Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in Providence.

“We have a number of other viruses that don’t follow the same annual pattern,” he said.  

Unknowns include how long individuals’ immune responses, including T-cell defenses, will last going forward.

A transition from pandemic to endemic is “not a light switch, and there are no metrics associated with what endemic means for COVID-19,” said Syra Madad, DHSc., MSc, MCP, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston.

“Instead, we should continue to focus on decreasing transmission rates and preventing our hospitals from getting overwhelmed,” she said.
 

A hastening to herd immunity?

“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Lin said when asked if the increased transmissibility and increased cases linked to the Omicron surge could get the U.S. closer to herd immunity.

“The twist in this whole story,” he said, “is the virus mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. That is why we are seeing breakthrough infections, even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

“The concept of herd immunity with a rapidly evolving virus is very difficult” to address, he said.

One reason is the number of unknown factors, Dr. Mylonakis said. He predicted a clearer picture will emerge after the Omicrons surge subsides. Also, with so many people infected by the Omicron variant, immune protection should peak.

“People will have boosted immunity. Not everybody, unfortunately, because there are people who cannot really mount [a full immune response] because of age, because of immunosuppression, etc.,” said Dr. Mylonakis, who is also professor of infectious diseases at Brown University.

“But the majority of the population will be exposed and will mount some degree of immunity.”

Dr. Madad agreed. “The omicron variant will add much more immunity into our population by both the preferred pathway – which is through vaccination – as well as through those that are unvaccinated and get infected with omicron,” she said.

“The pathway to gain immunity from vaccination is the safest option, and already over 1 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are going into arms per day – this includes first, second, and additional doses like boosters,” added Dr. Madad, who is also senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at New York City Health and Hospitals.
 

A shorter, more intense surge?

The United Kingdom’s experience with COVID-19 has often served as a bellwether of what is likely to happen in the U.S. If that is the case with the Omicron surge, the peak should last about 4 weeks, Dr. Mylonakis said.

In other words, the accelerated spread of Omicron could mean this surge passes more quickly than Delta.

Furthermore, some evidence suggests neutralizing antibodies produced by Omicron infection remain effective against the Delta variant – thereby reducing the risk of Delta reinfections over time.

The ability to neutralize the Delta variant increased more than fourfold after a median 14 days, according to data from a preprint study posted Dec. 27 on MedRxiv.

At the same time, neutralization of the Omicron variant increased 14-fold as participants mounted an antibody response. The study was conducted in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by Omicron in South Africa shortly after symptoms started. It has yet to be peer reviewed.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, described the results as “especially good news” in a tweet.

The current surge could also mean enhanced protection in the future.

“As we look at getting to the other side of this Omicron wave, we will end up with more immunity,” Dr. Madad said. “And with more immunity means we’ll be better guarded against the next emerging variant.”

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