User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
As Omicron surges, hospital beds fill, but ICUs less affected
So far, hospitalizations caused by the Omicron variant appear to be milder than in previous waves.
“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” Rahul Sharma, MD, emergency physician-in-chief for New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times.
“We’re not sending as many patients to the ICU, we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged,” he said.
Most Omicron patients in ICUs are unvaccinated or have severely compromised immune systems, doctors told the newspaper.
Currently, about 113,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, according to the latest data from the Department of Health & Human Services. About 76% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, with about 16% of inpatient beds in use for COVID-19.
Early data suggests that the Omicron variant may cause less severe disease. But it’s easier to catch the variant, so more people are getting the virus, including people who have some immunity through prior infection or vaccination, which is driving up hospitalization numbers.
In New York, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalizations have surpassed the peak of last winter’s surge, the newspaper reported. In addition, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on Jan. 4, noting that the state had more hospitalized COVID-19 patients than at any other time during the pandemic.
“We’re in truly crushed mode,” Gabe Kelen, MD, chair of the department of emergency medicine for the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Times.
Earlier in the pandemic, hospitals faced challenges with stockpiling ventilators and personal protective equipment, doctors told the newspaper. Now they’re dealing with limits on hospital beds and staffing as health care workers test positive. The increase in COVID-19 cases has also come along with a rise in hospitalizations for other conditions such as heart attacks and strokes.
In response, some hospitals are considering cutting elective surgeries because of staff shortages and limited bed capacity, the newspaper reported. In the meantime, hospital staff and administrators are watching case numbers to see how high hospitalizations may soar because of the Omicron variant.
“How high will it go? Can’t tell you. Don’t know,” James Musser, MD, chair of pathology and genomic medicine at Houston Methodist, told the Times. “We’re all watching it, obviously, very, very closely.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
So far, hospitalizations caused by the Omicron variant appear to be milder than in previous waves.
“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” Rahul Sharma, MD, emergency physician-in-chief for New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times.
“We’re not sending as many patients to the ICU, we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged,” he said.
Most Omicron patients in ICUs are unvaccinated or have severely compromised immune systems, doctors told the newspaper.
Currently, about 113,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, according to the latest data from the Department of Health & Human Services. About 76% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, with about 16% of inpatient beds in use for COVID-19.
Early data suggests that the Omicron variant may cause less severe disease. But it’s easier to catch the variant, so more people are getting the virus, including people who have some immunity through prior infection or vaccination, which is driving up hospitalization numbers.
In New York, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalizations have surpassed the peak of last winter’s surge, the newspaper reported. In addition, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on Jan. 4, noting that the state had more hospitalized COVID-19 patients than at any other time during the pandemic.
“We’re in truly crushed mode,” Gabe Kelen, MD, chair of the department of emergency medicine for the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Times.
Earlier in the pandemic, hospitals faced challenges with stockpiling ventilators and personal protective equipment, doctors told the newspaper. Now they’re dealing with limits on hospital beds and staffing as health care workers test positive. The increase in COVID-19 cases has also come along with a rise in hospitalizations for other conditions such as heart attacks and strokes.
In response, some hospitals are considering cutting elective surgeries because of staff shortages and limited bed capacity, the newspaper reported. In the meantime, hospital staff and administrators are watching case numbers to see how high hospitalizations may soar because of the Omicron variant.
“How high will it go? Can’t tell you. Don’t know,” James Musser, MD, chair of pathology and genomic medicine at Houston Methodist, told the Times. “We’re all watching it, obviously, very, very closely.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
So far, hospitalizations caused by the Omicron variant appear to be milder than in previous waves.
“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” Rahul Sharma, MD, emergency physician-in-chief for New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times.
“We’re not sending as many patients to the ICU, we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged,” he said.
Most Omicron patients in ICUs are unvaccinated or have severely compromised immune systems, doctors told the newspaper.
Currently, about 113,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, according to the latest data from the Department of Health & Human Services. About 76% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, with about 16% of inpatient beds in use for COVID-19.
Early data suggests that the Omicron variant may cause less severe disease. But it’s easier to catch the variant, so more people are getting the virus, including people who have some immunity through prior infection or vaccination, which is driving up hospitalization numbers.
In New York, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalizations have surpassed the peak of last winter’s surge, the newspaper reported. In addition, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on Jan. 4, noting that the state had more hospitalized COVID-19 patients than at any other time during the pandemic.
“We’re in truly crushed mode,” Gabe Kelen, MD, chair of the department of emergency medicine for the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Times.
Earlier in the pandemic, hospitals faced challenges with stockpiling ventilators and personal protective equipment, doctors told the newspaper. Now they’re dealing with limits on hospital beds and staffing as health care workers test positive. The increase in COVID-19 cases has also come along with a rise in hospitalizations for other conditions such as heart attacks and strokes.
In response, some hospitals are considering cutting elective surgeries because of staff shortages and limited bed capacity, the newspaper reported. In the meantime, hospital staff and administrators are watching case numbers to see how high hospitalizations may soar because of the Omicron variant.
“How high will it go? Can’t tell you. Don’t know,” James Musser, MD, chair of pathology and genomic medicine at Houston Methodist, told the Times. “We’re all watching it, obviously, very, very closely.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
CDC panel recommends Pfizer COVID-19 boosters for ages 12-15
The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.
The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.
The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.
The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.
The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.
The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.
The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”
Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”
She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.
“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.
Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.
Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.
“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.
Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.
She noted the soaring Omicron cases.
“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.
Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.
“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.
“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”
Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.
Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.
The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.
The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.
The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.
The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.
The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.
The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”
Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”
She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.
“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.
Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.
Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.
“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.
Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.
She noted the soaring Omicron cases.
“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.
Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.
“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.
“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”
Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.
Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.
The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.
The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.
The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.
The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.
The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.
The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”
Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”
She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.
“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.
Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.
Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.
“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.
Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.
She noted the soaring Omicron cases.
“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.
Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.
“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.
“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”
Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.
Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Who needs self-driving cars when we’ve got goldfish?
If a fish can drive …
Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.
In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?
No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.
So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”
The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.
That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!
So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?
English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.
The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.
The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.
But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?
It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come
The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?
People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?
Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.
First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.
“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.
And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.
Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.
Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.
If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
To be or not to be … seen
Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.
A recent study from Washington State University looked at two groups of people who Zoomed on a regular basis: employees and students. Individuals who made the change to remote work/learning were surveyed in the summer and fall of 2020. They completed assessments with questions on their work/classes and their level of self-consciousness.
Those with low self-esteem did not enjoy having to see themselves on camera, and those with higher self-esteem actually enjoyed it more. “Most people believe that seeing yourself during virtual meetings contributes to making the overall experience worse, but that’s not what showed up in my data,” said Kristine Kuhn, PhD, the study’s author.
Dr. Kuhn found that having the choice of whether to have the camera on made a big difference in how the participants felt. Having that control made it a more positive experience. Most professors/bosses would probably like to see the faces of those in the Zoom meetings, but it might be better to let people choose for themselves. The unbrushed-hair club would certainly agree.
If a fish can drive …
Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.
In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?
No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.
So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”
The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.
That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!
So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?
English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.
The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.
The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.
But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?
It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come
The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?
People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?
Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.
First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.
“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.
And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.
Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.
Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.
If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
To be or not to be … seen
Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.
A recent study from Washington State University looked at two groups of people who Zoomed on a regular basis: employees and students. Individuals who made the change to remote work/learning were surveyed in the summer and fall of 2020. They completed assessments with questions on their work/classes and their level of self-consciousness.
Those with low self-esteem did not enjoy having to see themselves on camera, and those with higher self-esteem actually enjoyed it more. “Most people believe that seeing yourself during virtual meetings contributes to making the overall experience worse, but that’s not what showed up in my data,” said Kristine Kuhn, PhD, the study’s author.
Dr. Kuhn found that having the choice of whether to have the camera on made a big difference in how the participants felt. Having that control made it a more positive experience. Most professors/bosses would probably like to see the faces of those in the Zoom meetings, but it might be better to let people choose for themselves. The unbrushed-hair club would certainly agree.
If a fish can drive …
Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.
In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?
No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.
So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”
The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.
That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!
So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?
English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.
The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.
The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.
But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?
It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come
The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?
People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?
Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.
First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.
“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.
And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.
Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.
Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.
If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
To be or not to be … seen
Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.
A recent study from Washington State University looked at two groups of people who Zoomed on a regular basis: employees and students. Individuals who made the change to remote work/learning were surveyed in the summer and fall of 2020. They completed assessments with questions on their work/classes and their level of self-consciousness.
Those with low self-esteem did not enjoy having to see themselves on camera, and those with higher self-esteem actually enjoyed it more. “Most people believe that seeing yourself during virtual meetings contributes to making the overall experience worse, but that’s not what showed up in my data,” said Kristine Kuhn, PhD, the study’s author.
Dr. Kuhn found that having the choice of whether to have the camera on made a big difference in how the participants felt. Having that control made it a more positive experience. Most professors/bosses would probably like to see the faces of those in the Zoom meetings, but it might be better to let people choose for themselves. The unbrushed-hair club would certainly agree.
Gene mutations may drive sudden unexplained deaths in children
, researchers have found.
Previous studies have found de novo genetic variants – those not found in either parent but which occur for the first time in their offspring – that increase the risk of cardiac and seizure disorders, but research on sudden unexplained deaths in children (SUDC) is limited, according to Matthew Halvorsen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues. Most cases of SUDC occur in children aged 1-4 years, and a lack of standardized investigation systems likely leads to misclassification of these deaths, they said.
Compared with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), which occurs in approximately 1,400 children in the United States each year, approximately 400 children aged 1 year and older die from SUDC annually. A major obstacle to studying these cases is that so-called molecular autopsies – which incorporate genetic analysis into the postmortem examination – typically do not assess the parents’ genetic information and thus limit the ability to identify de novo mutations, they added.
In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Halvorsen’s group obtained whole exome sequence data from 124 “trios,” meaning a dead child and two living parents. They tested for excessive de novo mutations for different genes involved in conditions that included cardiac arrhythmias and epilepsy. The average age at the time of death for the children was 34.2 months; 54% were male, and 82% were White.
Children who died of SUDC were nearly 10 times as likely to have de novo mutations in genes associated with cardiac and seizure disorders as were unrelated healthy controls (odds ratio, 9.76). Most pathogenic variants were de novo, which highlights the importance of trio studies, the researchers noted.
The researchers identified 11 variants associated with increased risk of SUDC, 7 of which were de novo. Three of the 124 cases carried mutations (two for RYR2 and 1 for TNNI3) affecting genes in the CardiacEpilepsy dataset proposed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, strengthening the connection to seizure disorders.
Another notable finding was the identification of six de novo mutations involved in altering calcium-related regulation, which suggests a cardiac susceptibility to sudden death.
The data support “novel genetic causes of pediatric sudden deaths that could be discovered with larger cohorts,” the researchers noted. Taken together, they say, the gene mutations could play a role in approximately 9% of SUDC cases.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including lack of population-based case ascertainment, exclusive focus on unexplained deaths, potentially missed mutations, and use of DNA from blood as opposed to organs, the researchers noted.
However, they concluded, “the data indicate that deleterious de novo mutations are significant genetic risk factors for childhood sudden unexplained death, and that their identification may lead to medical intervention that ultimately saves lives.”
Findings highlight impact of SUDC
“This study is important because SUDC is a much more pressing medical need than most people realize,” said Richard Tsien, PhD, of New York University Langone Medical Center, and the corresponding author of the study.
Although SUDC is less common than SIDS, SUDC has essentially no targeted research funding, Dr. Tsien said. Study coauthor Laura Gould, MA, a researcher and mother who lost a young child to SUDC, worked with Orrin Devinsky, MD, to create a registry for families with cases of SUDC. This registry was instrumental in allowing the researchers to “do the molecular detective work we need to do” to see whether a genetic basis exists for SUDC, Dr. Tsien said.
“The detective work comes up with a consistent story,” he said. “More than half of the genes that we found are involved in the normal function of the heart and brain,” performing such functions as delivering calcium ions to the inside of the heart cells and nerve cells.
The study “is the first of its kind,” given the difficulty of acquiring DNA from the child and two parents in SUDC cases, Dr. Tsien said.
Overall, approximately 10% of the cases have a compelling explanation based on the coding of DNA, Dr. Tsien said. From a clinical standpoint, that information might affect what a clinician says to a parent.
A key takeaway is that most of the genetic mutations are spontaneous and are not inherited from the parents, Dr. Tsien said. The study findings indicate that parents who suffer an SUDC loss need not be discouraged from having children, he added.
For the long term, “the more we understand about these disorders, the more information we can offer to families,” he said. Eventually, clinicians might be able to use genetics to identify signs of when SUDC might be more likely. “For example, if a child shows a very mild seizure, this would alert them that there might be potential for a more drastic outcome.”
Meanwhile, families with SUDC cases may find support and benefit in signing up for the registry and knowing that other families have been through a similar experience, Dr. Tsien said.
Genetic studies create opportunities
A significant portion of pediatric mortality remains unexplained, according to Richard D. Goldstein, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital. One reason is the lack of a formal diagnostic code to identify these deaths.
Research to date has suggested links between SUDC and a family history of febrile seizures, as well as differences in brain structure associated with epilepsy, Dr. Goldstein said.
“An important hypothesis is that these deaths are part of a continuum that also includes stillbirths, SIDS, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy [SUDEP],” Dr. Goldstein said. “By mandate, investigations of these deaths occur under the jurisdiction of medical examiners and coroners and have, for the most part, been insulated from developments in modern medicine like genomics and proteomics, elements of what are referred to as the molecular autopsy, and studies such as the current study bring attention to what is being missed.”
Dr. Goldstein said the new study buttresses the “conventional clinical suspicion” about the likely causes of SUDC, “but also strengthens the association between sudden unexpected death in pediatrics (SUDP) and SUDEP that we and others have been positing. I think the researchers very nicely make the point that epilepsy and cardiac arrhythmia genes are not as separated in their effects as many would believe.”
As for the clinical applicability of the findings, Dr. Goldstein said medicine needs to offer parents more: “Pediatric deaths without explanation deserve more than a forensic investigation that concerns itself mostly with whether there has been foul play,” he said. “We need to figure out how to engage families, at an incredibly vulnerable time, in helping find the cause of the child’s death and also contributing to needed research. Most of the reported variants were de novo, which means that parent participation is needed to figure out these genetic factors but also that we can offer reassurance to families that other children are not at risk.”
The study was supported by the SUDC Foundation and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (New York University). Dr. Tsien disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from FACES. Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, researchers have found.
Previous studies have found de novo genetic variants – those not found in either parent but which occur for the first time in their offspring – that increase the risk of cardiac and seizure disorders, but research on sudden unexplained deaths in children (SUDC) is limited, according to Matthew Halvorsen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues. Most cases of SUDC occur in children aged 1-4 years, and a lack of standardized investigation systems likely leads to misclassification of these deaths, they said.
Compared with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), which occurs in approximately 1,400 children in the United States each year, approximately 400 children aged 1 year and older die from SUDC annually. A major obstacle to studying these cases is that so-called molecular autopsies – which incorporate genetic analysis into the postmortem examination – typically do not assess the parents’ genetic information and thus limit the ability to identify de novo mutations, they added.
In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Halvorsen’s group obtained whole exome sequence data from 124 “trios,” meaning a dead child and two living parents. They tested for excessive de novo mutations for different genes involved in conditions that included cardiac arrhythmias and epilepsy. The average age at the time of death for the children was 34.2 months; 54% were male, and 82% were White.
Children who died of SUDC were nearly 10 times as likely to have de novo mutations in genes associated with cardiac and seizure disorders as were unrelated healthy controls (odds ratio, 9.76). Most pathogenic variants were de novo, which highlights the importance of trio studies, the researchers noted.
The researchers identified 11 variants associated with increased risk of SUDC, 7 of which were de novo. Three of the 124 cases carried mutations (two for RYR2 and 1 for TNNI3) affecting genes in the CardiacEpilepsy dataset proposed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, strengthening the connection to seizure disorders.
Another notable finding was the identification of six de novo mutations involved in altering calcium-related regulation, which suggests a cardiac susceptibility to sudden death.
The data support “novel genetic causes of pediatric sudden deaths that could be discovered with larger cohorts,” the researchers noted. Taken together, they say, the gene mutations could play a role in approximately 9% of SUDC cases.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including lack of population-based case ascertainment, exclusive focus on unexplained deaths, potentially missed mutations, and use of DNA from blood as opposed to organs, the researchers noted.
However, they concluded, “the data indicate that deleterious de novo mutations are significant genetic risk factors for childhood sudden unexplained death, and that their identification may lead to medical intervention that ultimately saves lives.”
Findings highlight impact of SUDC
“This study is important because SUDC is a much more pressing medical need than most people realize,” said Richard Tsien, PhD, of New York University Langone Medical Center, and the corresponding author of the study.
Although SUDC is less common than SIDS, SUDC has essentially no targeted research funding, Dr. Tsien said. Study coauthor Laura Gould, MA, a researcher and mother who lost a young child to SUDC, worked with Orrin Devinsky, MD, to create a registry for families with cases of SUDC. This registry was instrumental in allowing the researchers to “do the molecular detective work we need to do” to see whether a genetic basis exists for SUDC, Dr. Tsien said.
“The detective work comes up with a consistent story,” he said. “More than half of the genes that we found are involved in the normal function of the heart and brain,” performing such functions as delivering calcium ions to the inside of the heart cells and nerve cells.
The study “is the first of its kind,” given the difficulty of acquiring DNA from the child and two parents in SUDC cases, Dr. Tsien said.
Overall, approximately 10% of the cases have a compelling explanation based on the coding of DNA, Dr. Tsien said. From a clinical standpoint, that information might affect what a clinician says to a parent.
A key takeaway is that most of the genetic mutations are spontaneous and are not inherited from the parents, Dr. Tsien said. The study findings indicate that parents who suffer an SUDC loss need not be discouraged from having children, he added.
For the long term, “the more we understand about these disorders, the more information we can offer to families,” he said. Eventually, clinicians might be able to use genetics to identify signs of when SUDC might be more likely. “For example, if a child shows a very mild seizure, this would alert them that there might be potential for a more drastic outcome.”
Meanwhile, families with SUDC cases may find support and benefit in signing up for the registry and knowing that other families have been through a similar experience, Dr. Tsien said.
Genetic studies create opportunities
A significant portion of pediatric mortality remains unexplained, according to Richard D. Goldstein, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital. One reason is the lack of a formal diagnostic code to identify these deaths.
Research to date has suggested links between SUDC and a family history of febrile seizures, as well as differences in brain structure associated with epilepsy, Dr. Goldstein said.
“An important hypothesis is that these deaths are part of a continuum that also includes stillbirths, SIDS, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy [SUDEP],” Dr. Goldstein said. “By mandate, investigations of these deaths occur under the jurisdiction of medical examiners and coroners and have, for the most part, been insulated from developments in modern medicine like genomics and proteomics, elements of what are referred to as the molecular autopsy, and studies such as the current study bring attention to what is being missed.”
Dr. Goldstein said the new study buttresses the “conventional clinical suspicion” about the likely causes of SUDC, “but also strengthens the association between sudden unexpected death in pediatrics (SUDP) and SUDEP that we and others have been positing. I think the researchers very nicely make the point that epilepsy and cardiac arrhythmia genes are not as separated in their effects as many would believe.”
As for the clinical applicability of the findings, Dr. Goldstein said medicine needs to offer parents more: “Pediatric deaths without explanation deserve more than a forensic investigation that concerns itself mostly with whether there has been foul play,” he said. “We need to figure out how to engage families, at an incredibly vulnerable time, in helping find the cause of the child’s death and also contributing to needed research. Most of the reported variants were de novo, which means that parent participation is needed to figure out these genetic factors but also that we can offer reassurance to families that other children are not at risk.”
The study was supported by the SUDC Foundation and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (New York University). Dr. Tsien disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from FACES. Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, researchers have found.
Previous studies have found de novo genetic variants – those not found in either parent but which occur for the first time in their offspring – that increase the risk of cardiac and seizure disorders, but research on sudden unexplained deaths in children (SUDC) is limited, according to Matthew Halvorsen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues. Most cases of SUDC occur in children aged 1-4 years, and a lack of standardized investigation systems likely leads to misclassification of these deaths, they said.
Compared with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), which occurs in approximately 1,400 children in the United States each year, approximately 400 children aged 1 year and older die from SUDC annually. A major obstacle to studying these cases is that so-called molecular autopsies – which incorporate genetic analysis into the postmortem examination – typically do not assess the parents’ genetic information and thus limit the ability to identify de novo mutations, they added.
In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Halvorsen’s group obtained whole exome sequence data from 124 “trios,” meaning a dead child and two living parents. They tested for excessive de novo mutations for different genes involved in conditions that included cardiac arrhythmias and epilepsy. The average age at the time of death for the children was 34.2 months; 54% were male, and 82% were White.
Children who died of SUDC were nearly 10 times as likely to have de novo mutations in genes associated with cardiac and seizure disorders as were unrelated healthy controls (odds ratio, 9.76). Most pathogenic variants were de novo, which highlights the importance of trio studies, the researchers noted.
The researchers identified 11 variants associated with increased risk of SUDC, 7 of which were de novo. Three of the 124 cases carried mutations (two for RYR2 and 1 for TNNI3) affecting genes in the CardiacEpilepsy dataset proposed by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, strengthening the connection to seizure disorders.
Another notable finding was the identification of six de novo mutations involved in altering calcium-related regulation, which suggests a cardiac susceptibility to sudden death.
The data support “novel genetic causes of pediatric sudden deaths that could be discovered with larger cohorts,” the researchers noted. Taken together, they say, the gene mutations could play a role in approximately 9% of SUDC cases.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including lack of population-based case ascertainment, exclusive focus on unexplained deaths, potentially missed mutations, and use of DNA from blood as opposed to organs, the researchers noted.
However, they concluded, “the data indicate that deleterious de novo mutations are significant genetic risk factors for childhood sudden unexplained death, and that their identification may lead to medical intervention that ultimately saves lives.”
Findings highlight impact of SUDC
“This study is important because SUDC is a much more pressing medical need than most people realize,” said Richard Tsien, PhD, of New York University Langone Medical Center, and the corresponding author of the study.
Although SUDC is less common than SIDS, SUDC has essentially no targeted research funding, Dr. Tsien said. Study coauthor Laura Gould, MA, a researcher and mother who lost a young child to SUDC, worked with Orrin Devinsky, MD, to create a registry for families with cases of SUDC. This registry was instrumental in allowing the researchers to “do the molecular detective work we need to do” to see whether a genetic basis exists for SUDC, Dr. Tsien said.
“The detective work comes up with a consistent story,” he said. “More than half of the genes that we found are involved in the normal function of the heart and brain,” performing such functions as delivering calcium ions to the inside of the heart cells and nerve cells.
The study “is the first of its kind,” given the difficulty of acquiring DNA from the child and two parents in SUDC cases, Dr. Tsien said.
Overall, approximately 10% of the cases have a compelling explanation based on the coding of DNA, Dr. Tsien said. From a clinical standpoint, that information might affect what a clinician says to a parent.
A key takeaway is that most of the genetic mutations are spontaneous and are not inherited from the parents, Dr. Tsien said. The study findings indicate that parents who suffer an SUDC loss need not be discouraged from having children, he added.
For the long term, “the more we understand about these disorders, the more information we can offer to families,” he said. Eventually, clinicians might be able to use genetics to identify signs of when SUDC might be more likely. “For example, if a child shows a very mild seizure, this would alert them that there might be potential for a more drastic outcome.”
Meanwhile, families with SUDC cases may find support and benefit in signing up for the registry and knowing that other families have been through a similar experience, Dr. Tsien said.
Genetic studies create opportunities
A significant portion of pediatric mortality remains unexplained, according to Richard D. Goldstein, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital. One reason is the lack of a formal diagnostic code to identify these deaths.
Research to date has suggested links between SUDC and a family history of febrile seizures, as well as differences in brain structure associated with epilepsy, Dr. Goldstein said.
“An important hypothesis is that these deaths are part of a continuum that also includes stillbirths, SIDS, and sudden unexpected death in epilepsy [SUDEP],” Dr. Goldstein said. “By mandate, investigations of these deaths occur under the jurisdiction of medical examiners and coroners and have, for the most part, been insulated from developments in modern medicine like genomics and proteomics, elements of what are referred to as the molecular autopsy, and studies such as the current study bring attention to what is being missed.”
Dr. Goldstein said the new study buttresses the “conventional clinical suspicion” about the likely causes of SUDC, “but also strengthens the association between sudden unexpected death in pediatrics (SUDP) and SUDEP that we and others have been positing. I think the researchers very nicely make the point that epilepsy and cardiac arrhythmia genes are not as separated in their effects as many would believe.”
As for the clinical applicability of the findings, Dr. Goldstein said medicine needs to offer parents more: “Pediatric deaths without explanation deserve more than a forensic investigation that concerns itself mostly with whether there has been foul play,” he said. “We need to figure out how to engage families, at an incredibly vulnerable time, in helping find the cause of the child’s death and also contributing to needed research. Most of the reported variants were de novo, which means that parent participation is needed to figure out these genetic factors but also that we can offer reassurance to families that other children are not at risk.”
The study was supported by the SUDC Foundation and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy and Seizures (New York University). Dr. Tsien disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health and a grant from FACES. Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
No link between mother’s pill use and CNS tumors in offspring
The study was based on population-based registry data and included 1.1 million children age 19 or younger born in Denmark between 1996 and 2014.
The study, by Marie Hargreave, PhD, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, and colleagues, was published online Jan. 4 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Exposure to sex hormones in utero is a recognized cause of cancer in affected offspring, note the authors. Also, the incidence of CNS tumors, among the most common and lethal childhood cancer types, appears to be increasing. Hence, they sought to investigate if there may be a relationship between the two.
During a mean follow-up of 12.9 years, the team found that 725 children were diagnosed with a CNS tumor (47.2% female). Mean age at diagnosis was 7 years. The team noted that 11.5%, 65.7%, and 22.8% of diagnosed children were born to mothers with recent, previous, or no use of hormonal contraception, respectively.
The adjusted incidence rate of CNS tumors was 5.0 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with recent hormonal contraception use (hazard ratio, 0.95), 4.5 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with previous use (HR, 0.86), and 5.3 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with no use.
While recent use of implants (HR, 0.9) and intrauterine devices (HR, 1.5) showed no statistically significant associations for the subgroups of nonoral progestin-only hormonal contraception assessed, the team found that progestin-only injections were significantly associated with an increased risk compared with no use (HR, 6.7). Also, in all post hoc sensitivity analyses, recent use of the main group of nonoral progestin-only products was significantly associated with CNS tumors.
The authors observe that an association between maternal use of injectable contraceptives and increased risk of chromosomal anomalies and major malformations in children has previously been reported. Those results for injections, however, were based on a small number of cases, the result of the likelihood test was null, and adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made. Even if the results for this subgroup are confirmed, the authors point out, because CNS tumors in children are uncommon, the high relative risk estimates would translate to low absolute risk increases.
Although the large number of person-years and cancers increases the statistical precision, and the population-based nationwide design increases the generalizability of the results, the authors caution that uncommonness of CNS tumors in children and the small number of cases in the studied cohort limit subgroup analyses and the statistical precision of certain estimates.
In an accompanying editorial, Logan G. Spector, PhD, and Christopher L. Moertel, MD, from the University of Minnesota Medical School, and H. Irene Su, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, echo the authors’ conclusions, and state: “Thus, women should be reassured about the use of hormonal contraception, including progestin-only injections, and the lack of any increased risk of CNS tumors in their offspring.”
The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Research Foundation, the Arvid Nilssons Foundation, the Gangsted Foundation, the Harboe Foundation, and the Johannes Clemmesens Foundation. Co-author Lina S. Mørch, PhD, reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk as an employee from 2017 to 2019 and grants from Novo Nordisk for a collaborative research project outside the submitted work. Editorialist Christopher Moertel, MD, reported receiving personal fees from OX2 Therapeutics, a spin-off of the University of Minnesota that is involved in the development of brain tumor therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study was based on population-based registry data and included 1.1 million children age 19 or younger born in Denmark between 1996 and 2014.
The study, by Marie Hargreave, PhD, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, and colleagues, was published online Jan. 4 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Exposure to sex hormones in utero is a recognized cause of cancer in affected offspring, note the authors. Also, the incidence of CNS tumors, among the most common and lethal childhood cancer types, appears to be increasing. Hence, they sought to investigate if there may be a relationship between the two.
During a mean follow-up of 12.9 years, the team found that 725 children were diagnosed with a CNS tumor (47.2% female). Mean age at diagnosis was 7 years. The team noted that 11.5%, 65.7%, and 22.8% of diagnosed children were born to mothers with recent, previous, or no use of hormonal contraception, respectively.
The adjusted incidence rate of CNS tumors was 5.0 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with recent hormonal contraception use (hazard ratio, 0.95), 4.5 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with previous use (HR, 0.86), and 5.3 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with no use.
While recent use of implants (HR, 0.9) and intrauterine devices (HR, 1.5) showed no statistically significant associations for the subgroups of nonoral progestin-only hormonal contraception assessed, the team found that progestin-only injections were significantly associated with an increased risk compared with no use (HR, 6.7). Also, in all post hoc sensitivity analyses, recent use of the main group of nonoral progestin-only products was significantly associated with CNS tumors.
The authors observe that an association between maternal use of injectable contraceptives and increased risk of chromosomal anomalies and major malformations in children has previously been reported. Those results for injections, however, were based on a small number of cases, the result of the likelihood test was null, and adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made. Even if the results for this subgroup are confirmed, the authors point out, because CNS tumors in children are uncommon, the high relative risk estimates would translate to low absolute risk increases.
Although the large number of person-years and cancers increases the statistical precision, and the population-based nationwide design increases the generalizability of the results, the authors caution that uncommonness of CNS tumors in children and the small number of cases in the studied cohort limit subgroup analyses and the statistical precision of certain estimates.
In an accompanying editorial, Logan G. Spector, PhD, and Christopher L. Moertel, MD, from the University of Minnesota Medical School, and H. Irene Su, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, echo the authors’ conclusions, and state: “Thus, women should be reassured about the use of hormonal contraception, including progestin-only injections, and the lack of any increased risk of CNS tumors in their offspring.”
The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Research Foundation, the Arvid Nilssons Foundation, the Gangsted Foundation, the Harboe Foundation, and the Johannes Clemmesens Foundation. Co-author Lina S. Mørch, PhD, reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk as an employee from 2017 to 2019 and grants from Novo Nordisk for a collaborative research project outside the submitted work. Editorialist Christopher Moertel, MD, reported receiving personal fees from OX2 Therapeutics, a spin-off of the University of Minnesota that is involved in the development of brain tumor therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The study was based on population-based registry data and included 1.1 million children age 19 or younger born in Denmark between 1996 and 2014.
The study, by Marie Hargreave, PhD, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, and colleagues, was published online Jan. 4 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Exposure to sex hormones in utero is a recognized cause of cancer in affected offspring, note the authors. Also, the incidence of CNS tumors, among the most common and lethal childhood cancer types, appears to be increasing. Hence, they sought to investigate if there may be a relationship between the two.
During a mean follow-up of 12.9 years, the team found that 725 children were diagnosed with a CNS tumor (47.2% female). Mean age at diagnosis was 7 years. The team noted that 11.5%, 65.7%, and 22.8% of diagnosed children were born to mothers with recent, previous, or no use of hormonal contraception, respectively.
The adjusted incidence rate of CNS tumors was 5.0 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with recent hormonal contraception use (hazard ratio, 0.95), 4.5 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with previous use (HR, 0.86), and 5.3 per 100,000 person-years for children born to mothers with no use.
While recent use of implants (HR, 0.9) and intrauterine devices (HR, 1.5) showed no statistically significant associations for the subgroups of nonoral progestin-only hormonal contraception assessed, the team found that progestin-only injections were significantly associated with an increased risk compared with no use (HR, 6.7). Also, in all post hoc sensitivity analyses, recent use of the main group of nonoral progestin-only products was significantly associated with CNS tumors.
The authors observe that an association between maternal use of injectable contraceptives and increased risk of chromosomal anomalies and major malformations in children has previously been reported. Those results for injections, however, were based on a small number of cases, the result of the likelihood test was null, and adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made. Even if the results for this subgroup are confirmed, the authors point out, because CNS tumors in children are uncommon, the high relative risk estimates would translate to low absolute risk increases.
Although the large number of person-years and cancers increases the statistical precision, and the population-based nationwide design increases the generalizability of the results, the authors caution that uncommonness of CNS tumors in children and the small number of cases in the studied cohort limit subgroup analyses and the statistical precision of certain estimates.
In an accompanying editorial, Logan G. Spector, PhD, and Christopher L. Moertel, MD, from the University of Minnesota Medical School, and H. Irene Su, MD, from the University of California, San Diego, echo the authors’ conclusions, and state: “Thus, women should be reassured about the use of hormonal contraception, including progestin-only injections, and the lack of any increased risk of CNS tumors in their offspring.”
The study was supported by the Danish Cancer Research Foundation, the Arvid Nilssons Foundation, the Gangsted Foundation, the Harboe Foundation, and the Johannes Clemmesens Foundation. Co-author Lina S. Mørch, PhD, reported receiving personal fees from Novo Nordisk as an employee from 2017 to 2019 and grants from Novo Nordisk for a collaborative research project outside the submitted work. Editorialist Christopher Moertel, MD, reported receiving personal fees from OX2 Therapeutics, a spin-off of the University of Minnesota that is involved in the development of brain tumor therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study finds sharp drop in opioid scripts among most specialties
The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.
In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.
The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.
For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.
(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)
The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.
‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’
The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.
Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.
In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.
“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.
Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).
Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.
Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.
Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.
However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.
Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.
Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.
“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.
What’s missing
Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids
“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”
CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.
An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.
Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).
The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.
SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.
At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.
“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”
But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.
“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”
The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.
In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.
The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.
For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.
(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)
The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.
‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’
The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.
Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.
In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.
“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.
Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).
Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.
Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.
Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.
However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.
Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.
Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.
“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.
What’s missing
Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids
“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”
CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.
An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.
Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).
The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.
SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.
At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.
“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”
But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.
“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”
The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.
In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.
The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.
For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.
(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)
The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.
‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’
The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.
Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.
In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.
“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.
Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).
Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.
Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.
Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.
However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.
Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.
Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.
“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.
What’s missing
Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids
“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”
CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.
An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.
Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).
The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.
SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.
At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.
“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”
But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.
“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”
The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC defends new COVID guidance as doctors raise concerns
, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.
Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.
Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.
“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”
“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.
But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.
“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”
About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.
“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”
Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.
“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.
Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.
“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.
He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”
Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.
Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.
“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.
Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.
Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.
“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”
“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.
But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.
“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”
About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.
“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”
Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.
“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.
Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.
“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.
He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”
Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.
Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.
“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.
Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.
Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.
“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”
“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.
But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.
“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”
About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.
“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”
Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.
“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.
Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.
“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.
He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”
Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.
Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.
“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
AAN updates treatment guidance on painful diabetic neuropathy
Painful diabetic neuropathy is very common and can greatly affect an individual’s quality of life, guideline author Brian Callaghan, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted in a news release.
“This guideline aims to help neurologists and other doctors provide the highest quality patient care based on the latest evidence,” Dr. Callaghan said.
The recommendations update the 2011 AAN guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The new guidance was published online Dec. 27, 2021, in Neurology and has been endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
Multiple options
To update the guideline, an expert panel reviewed data from more than 100 randomized controlled trials published from January 2008 to April 2020.
The panel noted that more than 16% of individuals with diabetes experience painful diabetic neuropathy, but it often goes unrecognized and untreated. The guideline recommends clinicians assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain and its effect on their function and quality of life.
Before prescribing treatment, health providers should determine if the patient also has mood or sleep problems as both can influence pain perception.
The guideline recommends offering one of four classes of oral medications found to be effective for neuropathic pain: tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or imipramine; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine; gabapentinoids such as gabapentin or pregabalin; and/or sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or lacosamide.
All four classes of medications have “comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size” (standardized median difference, 0.5), the panel noted.
In addition, “new studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline,” said Dr. Callaghan.
When an initial medication fails to provide meaningful improvement in pain, or produces significant side effects, a trial of another medication from a different class is recommended.
Pain reduction, not elimination
Opioids are not recommended for painful diabetic neuropathy. Not only do they come with risks, there is also no strong evidence they are effective for painful diabetic neuropathy in the long term, the panel wrote. Tramadol and tapentadol are also not recommended for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.
“Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed,” Dr. Callaghan said.
For patients interested in trying topical, nontraditional, or nondrug interventions to reduce pain, the guideline recommends a number of options including capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, and Citrullus colocynthis. Ginkgo biloba, exercise, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and tai chi are also suggested.
“It is important to note that the recommended drugs and topical treatments in this guideline may not eliminate pain, but they have been shown to reduce pain,” Dr. Callaghan said. “The good news is there are many treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy, so a treatment plan can be tailored specifically to each person living with this condition.”
Along with the updated guideline, the AAN has also published a new Polyneuropathy Quality Measurement Set to assist neurologists and other health care providers in treating patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.
The updated guideline was developed with financial support from the AAN.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Painful diabetic neuropathy is very common and can greatly affect an individual’s quality of life, guideline author Brian Callaghan, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted in a news release.
“This guideline aims to help neurologists and other doctors provide the highest quality patient care based on the latest evidence,” Dr. Callaghan said.
The recommendations update the 2011 AAN guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The new guidance was published online Dec. 27, 2021, in Neurology and has been endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
Multiple options
To update the guideline, an expert panel reviewed data from more than 100 randomized controlled trials published from January 2008 to April 2020.
The panel noted that more than 16% of individuals with diabetes experience painful diabetic neuropathy, but it often goes unrecognized and untreated. The guideline recommends clinicians assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain and its effect on their function and quality of life.
Before prescribing treatment, health providers should determine if the patient also has mood or sleep problems as both can influence pain perception.
The guideline recommends offering one of four classes of oral medications found to be effective for neuropathic pain: tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or imipramine; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine; gabapentinoids such as gabapentin or pregabalin; and/or sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or lacosamide.
All four classes of medications have “comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size” (standardized median difference, 0.5), the panel noted.
In addition, “new studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline,” said Dr. Callaghan.
When an initial medication fails to provide meaningful improvement in pain, or produces significant side effects, a trial of another medication from a different class is recommended.
Pain reduction, not elimination
Opioids are not recommended for painful diabetic neuropathy. Not only do they come with risks, there is also no strong evidence they are effective for painful diabetic neuropathy in the long term, the panel wrote. Tramadol and tapentadol are also not recommended for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.
“Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed,” Dr. Callaghan said.
For patients interested in trying topical, nontraditional, or nondrug interventions to reduce pain, the guideline recommends a number of options including capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, and Citrullus colocynthis. Ginkgo biloba, exercise, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and tai chi are also suggested.
“It is important to note that the recommended drugs and topical treatments in this guideline may not eliminate pain, but they have been shown to reduce pain,” Dr. Callaghan said. “The good news is there are many treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy, so a treatment plan can be tailored specifically to each person living with this condition.”
Along with the updated guideline, the AAN has also published a new Polyneuropathy Quality Measurement Set to assist neurologists and other health care providers in treating patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.
The updated guideline was developed with financial support from the AAN.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Painful diabetic neuropathy is very common and can greatly affect an individual’s quality of life, guideline author Brian Callaghan, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted in a news release.
“This guideline aims to help neurologists and other doctors provide the highest quality patient care based on the latest evidence,” Dr. Callaghan said.
The recommendations update the 2011 AAN guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The new guidance was published online Dec. 27, 2021, in Neurology and has been endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
Multiple options
To update the guideline, an expert panel reviewed data from more than 100 randomized controlled trials published from January 2008 to April 2020.
The panel noted that more than 16% of individuals with diabetes experience painful diabetic neuropathy, but it often goes unrecognized and untreated. The guideline recommends clinicians assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain and its effect on their function and quality of life.
Before prescribing treatment, health providers should determine if the patient also has mood or sleep problems as both can influence pain perception.
The guideline recommends offering one of four classes of oral medications found to be effective for neuropathic pain: tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or imipramine; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine; gabapentinoids such as gabapentin or pregabalin; and/or sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or lacosamide.
All four classes of medications have “comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size” (standardized median difference, 0.5), the panel noted.
In addition, “new studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline,” said Dr. Callaghan.
When an initial medication fails to provide meaningful improvement in pain, or produces significant side effects, a trial of another medication from a different class is recommended.
Pain reduction, not elimination
Opioids are not recommended for painful diabetic neuropathy. Not only do they come with risks, there is also no strong evidence they are effective for painful diabetic neuropathy in the long term, the panel wrote. Tramadol and tapentadol are also not recommended for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.
“Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed,” Dr. Callaghan said.
For patients interested in trying topical, nontraditional, or nondrug interventions to reduce pain, the guideline recommends a number of options including capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, and Citrullus colocynthis. Ginkgo biloba, exercise, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and tai chi are also suggested.
“It is important to note that the recommended drugs and topical treatments in this guideline may not eliminate pain, but they have been shown to reduce pain,” Dr. Callaghan said. “The good news is there are many treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy, so a treatment plan can be tailored specifically to each person living with this condition.”
Along with the updated guideline, the AAN has also published a new Polyneuropathy Quality Measurement Set to assist neurologists and other health care providers in treating patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.
The updated guideline was developed with financial support from the AAN.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Posttraumatic epilepsy is common, even after ‘mild’ TBI
, new research suggests.
Results from a multicenter, prospective cohort study showed 2.7% of nearly 1,500 participants with TBI reported also having posttraumatic epilepsy, and these patients had significantly worse outcomes than those without posttraumatic epilepsy.
“Posttraumatic epilepsy is common even in so-called mild TBI, and we should be on the lookout for patients reporting these kinds of spells,” said coinvestigator Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the TBI Clinical Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said he dislikes the term “mild TBI” because many of these injuries have “pretty substantial consequences.”
The findings were published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Network Open.
Novel study
Seizures can occur after TBI, most commonly after a severe brain injury, such as those leading to coma or bleeding in the brain or requiring surgical intervention. However, there have been “hints” that some patients with milder brain injuries are also at increased risk for epilepsy, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
To investigate, the researchers assessed data from the large, multicenter Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) database. Participants with TBI, defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-15, had presented to a level I trauma center within 24 hours of a head trauma needing evaluation with a CT scan.
The study included patients with relatively mild TBI (GCS score, 13-15), which is a “novel feature” of the study, the authors noted. Most prior studies of posttraumatic epilepsy focused on moderate to severe TBI.
The researchers included two sex- and age-matched control groups. The orthopedic trauma control (OTC) group consisted of patients with isolated trauma to the limbs, pelvis, and/or ribs. The “friend” or peer control group had backgrounds and lifestyles similar to those with TBI but had no history of TBI, concussion, or traumatic injury in the previous year.
The analysis included 1,885 participants (mean age, 41.3 years; 65.8% men). Of these, 1,493 had TBI, 182 were in the OTC group, and 210 were in the friends group. At 6- and 12-month follow-ups, investigators administered the Epilepsy Screening Questionnaire (ESQ), developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).
Confirmatory data
Participants were asked about experiencing uncontrolled movements, unexplained changes in mental state, and repeated unusual attacks or convulsions, and whether they had been told they had epilepsy or seizures. If they answered yes to any of these questions, they received second-level screening, which asked about seizures.
Patients were deemed to have posttraumatic epilepsy if they answered affirmatively to any first-level screening item, experienced seizures 7 days after injury, and were diagnosed with epilepsy.
The primary outcome was rate of positive posttraumatic epilepsy diagnoses. At 12 months, 2.7% of those with TBI reported a posttraumatic epilepsy diagnosis compared with none of either of the control groups (P < .001).
This rate is consistent with prior literature and is “pretty close to what we expected,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
Among those with TBI and posttraumatic epilepsy, 12.2% had GCS scores of 3-8 (severe), 5.3% had scores of 9-12 (moderate), and 0.9% had scores of 13-15 (mild). That figure for mild TBI is not insignificant, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
“Probably 90% of all those coming to the emergency room with a brain injury are diagnosed with mild TBI not requiring admission,” he noted.
The risk for posttraumatic epilepsy was higher the more severe the head injury, and among those with hemorrhage on head CT imaging. In patients with mild TBI, hemorrhage was associated with a two- to threefold risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy.
“This prospective observational study confirms the epidemiologic data that even after mild brain injury, there is an increased risk for epilepsy,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
Universal screening?
The researchers also looked at whether seizures worsen other outcomes. Compared with those who had TBI but not posttraumatic epilepsy, those with posttraumatic epilepsy had significantly lower Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) scores (mean, 4.7 vs. 6.1; P < .001), higher Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) scores (58.6 vs. 50.2; P = .02), and higher Rivermead Cognitive Metric (RCM) scores (5.3 vs. 3.1; P = .002) at 12 months after adjustment for age, initial GCS score, and imaging findings.
Higher GOSE and RCM scores reflect better outcomes, but a higher score on the BSI, which assesses overall mood, reflects a worse outcome, the investigators noted.
Previous evidence suggests prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs in patients with TBI does not reduce risks. These drugs “are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia. Some studies showed that certain agents actually worsen outcomes, he added.
What the field needs instead are antiepileptogenic drugs – those that interfere with the maladaptive synaptic plasticity that ends up in an epileptic circuit, he noted.
The new results suggest screening for posttraumatic epilepsy using the NINDS-ESQ “should be done pretty much routinely as a follow-up for all brain injuries,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.
The investigators plan to have study participants assessed by an epileptologist later. A significant number of people with TBI, he noted, won’t develop posttraumatic epilepsy until 1-5 years after their injury – and even later in some cases.
A limitation of the study was that some patients reporting posttraumatic epilepsy may have had psychogenic nonepileptiform seizures, which are common in TBI patients, the investigators noted.
The study was supported by grants from One Mind, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS, and Department of Defence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia reported receiving grants from the NIH, NINDS, and DOD during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
Results from a multicenter, prospective cohort study showed 2.7% of nearly 1,500 participants with TBI reported also having posttraumatic epilepsy, and these patients had significantly worse outcomes than those without posttraumatic epilepsy.
“Posttraumatic epilepsy is common even in so-called mild TBI, and we should be on the lookout for patients reporting these kinds of spells,” said coinvestigator Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the TBI Clinical Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said he dislikes the term “mild TBI” because many of these injuries have “pretty substantial consequences.”
The findings were published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Network Open.
Novel study
Seizures can occur after TBI, most commonly after a severe brain injury, such as those leading to coma or bleeding in the brain or requiring surgical intervention. However, there have been “hints” that some patients with milder brain injuries are also at increased risk for epilepsy, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
To investigate, the researchers assessed data from the large, multicenter Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) database. Participants with TBI, defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-15, had presented to a level I trauma center within 24 hours of a head trauma needing evaluation with a CT scan.
The study included patients with relatively mild TBI (GCS score, 13-15), which is a “novel feature” of the study, the authors noted. Most prior studies of posttraumatic epilepsy focused on moderate to severe TBI.
The researchers included two sex- and age-matched control groups. The orthopedic trauma control (OTC) group consisted of patients with isolated trauma to the limbs, pelvis, and/or ribs. The “friend” or peer control group had backgrounds and lifestyles similar to those with TBI but had no history of TBI, concussion, or traumatic injury in the previous year.
The analysis included 1,885 participants (mean age, 41.3 years; 65.8% men). Of these, 1,493 had TBI, 182 were in the OTC group, and 210 were in the friends group. At 6- and 12-month follow-ups, investigators administered the Epilepsy Screening Questionnaire (ESQ), developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).
Confirmatory data
Participants were asked about experiencing uncontrolled movements, unexplained changes in mental state, and repeated unusual attacks or convulsions, and whether they had been told they had epilepsy or seizures. If they answered yes to any of these questions, they received second-level screening, which asked about seizures.
Patients were deemed to have posttraumatic epilepsy if they answered affirmatively to any first-level screening item, experienced seizures 7 days after injury, and were diagnosed with epilepsy.
The primary outcome was rate of positive posttraumatic epilepsy diagnoses. At 12 months, 2.7% of those with TBI reported a posttraumatic epilepsy diagnosis compared with none of either of the control groups (P < .001).
This rate is consistent with prior literature and is “pretty close to what we expected,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
Among those with TBI and posttraumatic epilepsy, 12.2% had GCS scores of 3-8 (severe), 5.3% had scores of 9-12 (moderate), and 0.9% had scores of 13-15 (mild). That figure for mild TBI is not insignificant, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
“Probably 90% of all those coming to the emergency room with a brain injury are diagnosed with mild TBI not requiring admission,” he noted.
The risk for posttraumatic epilepsy was higher the more severe the head injury, and among those with hemorrhage on head CT imaging. In patients with mild TBI, hemorrhage was associated with a two- to threefold risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy.
“This prospective observational study confirms the epidemiologic data that even after mild brain injury, there is an increased risk for epilepsy,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
Universal screening?
The researchers also looked at whether seizures worsen other outcomes. Compared with those who had TBI but not posttraumatic epilepsy, those with posttraumatic epilepsy had significantly lower Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) scores (mean, 4.7 vs. 6.1; P < .001), higher Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) scores (58.6 vs. 50.2; P = .02), and higher Rivermead Cognitive Metric (RCM) scores (5.3 vs. 3.1; P = .002) at 12 months after adjustment for age, initial GCS score, and imaging findings.
Higher GOSE and RCM scores reflect better outcomes, but a higher score on the BSI, which assesses overall mood, reflects a worse outcome, the investigators noted.
Previous evidence suggests prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs in patients with TBI does not reduce risks. These drugs “are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia. Some studies showed that certain agents actually worsen outcomes, he added.
What the field needs instead are antiepileptogenic drugs – those that interfere with the maladaptive synaptic plasticity that ends up in an epileptic circuit, he noted.
The new results suggest screening for posttraumatic epilepsy using the NINDS-ESQ “should be done pretty much routinely as a follow-up for all brain injuries,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.
The investigators plan to have study participants assessed by an epileptologist later. A significant number of people with TBI, he noted, won’t develop posttraumatic epilepsy until 1-5 years after their injury – and even later in some cases.
A limitation of the study was that some patients reporting posttraumatic epilepsy may have had psychogenic nonepileptiform seizures, which are common in TBI patients, the investigators noted.
The study was supported by grants from One Mind, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS, and Department of Defence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia reported receiving grants from the NIH, NINDS, and DOD during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research suggests.
Results from a multicenter, prospective cohort study showed 2.7% of nearly 1,500 participants with TBI reported also having posttraumatic epilepsy, and these patients had significantly worse outcomes than those without posttraumatic epilepsy.
“Posttraumatic epilepsy is common even in so-called mild TBI, and we should be on the lookout for patients reporting these kinds of spells,” said coinvestigator Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the TBI Clinical Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said he dislikes the term “mild TBI” because many of these injuries have “pretty substantial consequences.”
The findings were published online Dec. 29 in JAMA Network Open.
Novel study
Seizures can occur after TBI, most commonly after a severe brain injury, such as those leading to coma or bleeding in the brain or requiring surgical intervention. However, there have been “hints” that some patients with milder brain injuries are also at increased risk for epilepsy, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
To investigate, the researchers assessed data from the large, multicenter Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) database. Participants with TBI, defined as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 3-15, had presented to a level I trauma center within 24 hours of a head trauma needing evaluation with a CT scan.
The study included patients with relatively mild TBI (GCS score, 13-15), which is a “novel feature” of the study, the authors noted. Most prior studies of posttraumatic epilepsy focused on moderate to severe TBI.
The researchers included two sex- and age-matched control groups. The orthopedic trauma control (OTC) group consisted of patients with isolated trauma to the limbs, pelvis, and/or ribs. The “friend” or peer control group had backgrounds and lifestyles similar to those with TBI but had no history of TBI, concussion, or traumatic injury in the previous year.
The analysis included 1,885 participants (mean age, 41.3 years; 65.8% men). Of these, 1,493 had TBI, 182 were in the OTC group, and 210 were in the friends group. At 6- and 12-month follow-ups, investigators administered the Epilepsy Screening Questionnaire (ESQ), developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS).
Confirmatory data
Participants were asked about experiencing uncontrolled movements, unexplained changes in mental state, and repeated unusual attacks or convulsions, and whether they had been told they had epilepsy or seizures. If they answered yes to any of these questions, they received second-level screening, which asked about seizures.
Patients were deemed to have posttraumatic epilepsy if they answered affirmatively to any first-level screening item, experienced seizures 7 days after injury, and were diagnosed with epilepsy.
The primary outcome was rate of positive posttraumatic epilepsy diagnoses. At 12 months, 2.7% of those with TBI reported a posttraumatic epilepsy diagnosis compared with none of either of the control groups (P < .001).
This rate is consistent with prior literature and is “pretty close to what we expected,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
Among those with TBI and posttraumatic epilepsy, 12.2% had GCS scores of 3-8 (severe), 5.3% had scores of 9-12 (moderate), and 0.9% had scores of 13-15 (mild). That figure for mild TBI is not insignificant, said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
“Probably 90% of all those coming to the emergency room with a brain injury are diagnosed with mild TBI not requiring admission,” he noted.
The risk for posttraumatic epilepsy was higher the more severe the head injury, and among those with hemorrhage on head CT imaging. In patients with mild TBI, hemorrhage was associated with a two- to threefold risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy.
“This prospective observational study confirms the epidemiologic data that even after mild brain injury, there is an increased risk for epilepsy,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia.
Universal screening?
The researchers also looked at whether seizures worsen other outcomes. Compared with those who had TBI but not posttraumatic epilepsy, those with posttraumatic epilepsy had significantly lower Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) scores (mean, 4.7 vs. 6.1; P < .001), higher Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) scores (58.6 vs. 50.2; P = .02), and higher Rivermead Cognitive Metric (RCM) scores (5.3 vs. 3.1; P = .002) at 12 months after adjustment for age, initial GCS score, and imaging findings.
Higher GOSE and RCM scores reflect better outcomes, but a higher score on the BSI, which assesses overall mood, reflects a worse outcome, the investigators noted.
Previous evidence suggests prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs in patients with TBI does not reduce risks. These drugs “are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective,” said Dr. Diaz-Arrastia. Some studies showed that certain agents actually worsen outcomes, he added.
What the field needs instead are antiepileptogenic drugs – those that interfere with the maladaptive synaptic plasticity that ends up in an epileptic circuit, he noted.
The new results suggest screening for posttraumatic epilepsy using the NINDS-ESQ “should be done pretty much routinely as a follow-up for all brain injuries,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.
The investigators plan to have study participants assessed by an epileptologist later. A significant number of people with TBI, he noted, won’t develop posttraumatic epilepsy until 1-5 years after their injury – and even later in some cases.
A limitation of the study was that some patients reporting posttraumatic epilepsy may have had psychogenic nonepileptiform seizures, which are common in TBI patients, the investigators noted.
The study was supported by grants from One Mind, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS, and Department of Defence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia reported receiving grants from the NIH, NINDS, and DOD during the conduct of the study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID affects executive functioning in young to middle-age adults: Study
than people in the general population with no such infection, according to new data published on the preprint server medRxiv.
Researchers, led by Peter A. Hall, PhD, with the University of Waterloo (Ont.), found that COVID infection is associated with executive dysfunction among young and middle-aged adults, including for those not exposed to intubation or hospitalization.
The findings have not been peer reviewed.
The study included a representative cohort of 1,958 community-dwelling young and middle-aged adults. It used a balanced proportion of infected and uninfected people to estimate the link between SARS-CoV-2 infection and cognitive/executive dysfunction.
The authors noted that the survey was conducted from Sept. 28 to Oct. 21, 2021, when the primary variant in Canada was Delta.
The research was a cross-sectional observational study with data from the ongoing Canadian COVID-19 Experiences Survey. It included equal representation of vaccinated and vaccine-hesitant adults aged 18-54 years. COVID-19 symptoms ranged from negligible to life-threatening cases requiring hospitalization.
Half in the cohort (50.2%) received two vaccine shots; 43.3% had received no shots; and 5.5% received one shot, but were not intending to receive a second shot.
Dose-response relationship
According to the paper, those with prior COVID-19 infection, regardless of symptom severity, reported a significantly higher number of symptoms of executive dysfunction than their noninfected counterparts (mechanical adjustment, 1.63, standard error, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.80; P = .001).
The researchers also found a dose-response relationship between COVID-19 symptom severity and cognitive dysfunction. Those with moderate and very/extremely severe COVID-19 symptoms were linked with significantly greater dysfunction.
“This reinforces what we’re hearing about – that COVID is not ‘one and done.’ It can have lasting and quite subtle and damaging effects on the human body,” William Schaffner, MD, infectious disease specialist with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.
Measuring executive functioning – including the ability to make sound decisions – is something other studies haven’t typically addressed, he said.
Men were likely to report more cognitive dysfunction symptoms than women (beta, 0.15; P < .001). Younger adults (25-39 years) were more likely to experience cognitive dysfunction than those age 40-54 (beta, 0.30; P < .001).
Dr. Schaffner said it was troubling that young people are more likely to experience the dysfunction.
“When we think of ‘brain fog’ we think of older persons who are already predisposed to have more memory lapses as they get older,” he said.
The link between cognitive dysfunction and COVID-19 infection has been shown in other studies, but many have not used representative samples and have not compared results with noninfected controls in the general population, the authors wrote.
Executive dysfunction was measured using four questions from the Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale. Respondents were asked how often they have experienced these scenarios in the past 6 months:
- “I am unable to inhibit my reactions or responses to events or to other people.”
- “I make impulsive comments to others.”
- “I am likely to do things without considering the consequences for doing them.”
- “I act without thinking.”
“This makes it even more important that we talk about vaccination,” Dr. Schaffner said, “because clearly the more seriously ill you are, the more likely this sort of thing is likely to happen and vaccines have been shown time and again to avert hospitalizations and more serious illness. It also makes more important the monoclonal antibody treatments we have and the antivirals, which will prevent the evolution of mild disease into something more serious.”
This research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Institute for Population and Public Health. The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
than people in the general population with no such infection, according to new data published on the preprint server medRxiv.
Researchers, led by Peter A. Hall, PhD, with the University of Waterloo (Ont.), found that COVID infection is associated with executive dysfunction among young and middle-aged adults, including for those not exposed to intubation or hospitalization.
The findings have not been peer reviewed.
The study included a representative cohort of 1,958 community-dwelling young and middle-aged adults. It used a balanced proportion of infected and uninfected people to estimate the link between SARS-CoV-2 infection and cognitive/executive dysfunction.
The authors noted that the survey was conducted from Sept. 28 to Oct. 21, 2021, when the primary variant in Canada was Delta.
The research was a cross-sectional observational study with data from the ongoing Canadian COVID-19 Experiences Survey. It included equal representation of vaccinated and vaccine-hesitant adults aged 18-54 years. COVID-19 symptoms ranged from negligible to life-threatening cases requiring hospitalization.
Half in the cohort (50.2%) received two vaccine shots; 43.3% had received no shots; and 5.5% received one shot, but were not intending to receive a second shot.
Dose-response relationship
According to the paper, those with prior COVID-19 infection, regardless of symptom severity, reported a significantly higher number of symptoms of executive dysfunction than their noninfected counterparts (mechanical adjustment, 1.63, standard error, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.80; P = .001).
The researchers also found a dose-response relationship between COVID-19 symptom severity and cognitive dysfunction. Those with moderate and very/extremely severe COVID-19 symptoms were linked with significantly greater dysfunction.
“This reinforces what we’re hearing about – that COVID is not ‘one and done.’ It can have lasting and quite subtle and damaging effects on the human body,” William Schaffner, MD, infectious disease specialist with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.
Measuring executive functioning – including the ability to make sound decisions – is something other studies haven’t typically addressed, he said.
Men were likely to report more cognitive dysfunction symptoms than women (beta, 0.15; P < .001). Younger adults (25-39 years) were more likely to experience cognitive dysfunction than those age 40-54 (beta, 0.30; P < .001).
Dr. Schaffner said it was troubling that young people are more likely to experience the dysfunction.
“When we think of ‘brain fog’ we think of older persons who are already predisposed to have more memory lapses as they get older,” he said.
The link between cognitive dysfunction and COVID-19 infection has been shown in other studies, but many have not used representative samples and have not compared results with noninfected controls in the general population, the authors wrote.
Executive dysfunction was measured using four questions from the Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale. Respondents were asked how often they have experienced these scenarios in the past 6 months:
- “I am unable to inhibit my reactions or responses to events or to other people.”
- “I make impulsive comments to others.”
- “I am likely to do things without considering the consequences for doing them.”
- “I act without thinking.”
“This makes it even more important that we talk about vaccination,” Dr. Schaffner said, “because clearly the more seriously ill you are, the more likely this sort of thing is likely to happen and vaccines have been shown time and again to avert hospitalizations and more serious illness. It also makes more important the monoclonal antibody treatments we have and the antivirals, which will prevent the evolution of mild disease into something more serious.”
This research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Institute for Population and Public Health. The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
than people in the general population with no such infection, according to new data published on the preprint server medRxiv.
Researchers, led by Peter A. Hall, PhD, with the University of Waterloo (Ont.), found that COVID infection is associated with executive dysfunction among young and middle-aged adults, including for those not exposed to intubation or hospitalization.
The findings have not been peer reviewed.
The study included a representative cohort of 1,958 community-dwelling young and middle-aged adults. It used a balanced proportion of infected and uninfected people to estimate the link between SARS-CoV-2 infection and cognitive/executive dysfunction.
The authors noted that the survey was conducted from Sept. 28 to Oct. 21, 2021, when the primary variant in Canada was Delta.
The research was a cross-sectional observational study with data from the ongoing Canadian COVID-19 Experiences Survey. It included equal representation of vaccinated and vaccine-hesitant adults aged 18-54 years. COVID-19 symptoms ranged from negligible to life-threatening cases requiring hospitalization.
Half in the cohort (50.2%) received two vaccine shots; 43.3% had received no shots; and 5.5% received one shot, but were not intending to receive a second shot.
Dose-response relationship
According to the paper, those with prior COVID-19 infection, regardless of symptom severity, reported a significantly higher number of symptoms of executive dysfunction than their noninfected counterparts (mechanical adjustment, 1.63, standard error, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.80; P = .001).
The researchers also found a dose-response relationship between COVID-19 symptom severity and cognitive dysfunction. Those with moderate and very/extremely severe COVID-19 symptoms were linked with significantly greater dysfunction.
“This reinforces what we’re hearing about – that COVID is not ‘one and done.’ It can have lasting and quite subtle and damaging effects on the human body,” William Schaffner, MD, infectious disease specialist with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.
Measuring executive functioning – including the ability to make sound decisions – is something other studies haven’t typically addressed, he said.
Men were likely to report more cognitive dysfunction symptoms than women (beta, 0.15; P < .001). Younger adults (25-39 years) were more likely to experience cognitive dysfunction than those age 40-54 (beta, 0.30; P < .001).
Dr. Schaffner said it was troubling that young people are more likely to experience the dysfunction.
“When we think of ‘brain fog’ we think of older persons who are already predisposed to have more memory lapses as they get older,” he said.
The link between cognitive dysfunction and COVID-19 infection has been shown in other studies, but many have not used representative samples and have not compared results with noninfected controls in the general population, the authors wrote.
Executive dysfunction was measured using four questions from the Deficits in Executive Functioning Scale. Respondents were asked how often they have experienced these scenarios in the past 6 months:
- “I am unable to inhibit my reactions or responses to events or to other people.”
- “I make impulsive comments to others.”
- “I am likely to do things without considering the consequences for doing them.”
- “I act without thinking.”
“This makes it even more important that we talk about vaccination,” Dr. Schaffner said, “because clearly the more seriously ill you are, the more likely this sort of thing is likely to happen and vaccines have been shown time and again to avert hospitalizations and more serious illness. It also makes more important the monoclonal antibody treatments we have and the antivirals, which will prevent the evolution of mild disease into something more serious.”
This research was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Institute for Population and Public Health. The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM MEDRXIV