MDedge Neurology

A new blood test that identifies a variant of the protein P53 appears to predict Alzheimer’s disease (AD) progression up to 6 years in advance of a clinical diagnosis, early research suggests.

Analysis of two studies showed the test (AlzoSure Predict), which uses less than 1 ml of blood, had numerous benefits compared with other blood tests that track AD pathology.

“We believe this has the potential to radically improve early stratification and identification of patients for trials 6 years in advance of a diagnosis, which can potentially enable more rapid and efficient approvals of therapies,” Paul Kinnon, CEO of Diadem, the test’s manufacturer, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the 14th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
 

Positive “discovery” results

P53, which is present in both the brain and elsewhere in the body, “is one of the most targeted proteins” for drug development in cancer and other conditions, said Mr. Kinnon.

The current blood test measures a derivative of P53 (U-p53AZ). Previous research suggests this derivative, which affects amyloid and oxidative stress, is also implicated in AD pathogenesis.

Researchers used blood samples from patients aged 60 years and older from the Australia Imaging, Biomarkers, and Lifestyles (AIBL) study who had various levels of cognitive function.

They analyzed samples at multiple timepoints over a 10-year period, “so we know when the marker is most accurate at predicting decline,” Mr. Kinnon said.

The first of two studies was considered a “discovery” study and included blood samples from 224 patients.

Results showed the test predicted decline from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to AD at the end of 6 years, with an area under the curve (AUC) greater than 90%.

These results are “massive,” said Mr. Kinnon. “It’s the most accurate test I’ve seen anywhere for predicting decline of a patient.”

The test can also accurately classify a patient’s stage of cognition, he added. “Not only does it allow us to predict 6 years in advance, it also tells us if the patient has SMC [subjective memory complaints], MCI, or AD with a 95% certainty,” Mr. Kinnon said.

He noted that test sensitivity was higher than results found from traditional methods that are currently being used. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), which were at 90% or more, were “absolutely fantastic,” said Mr. Kinnon.
 

“Better than expected” results

In the second “validation” study, investigators examined samples from a completely different group of 482 patients. The “very compelling” results showed AUCs over 90%, PPVs over 90%, and “very high” NPVs, Mr. Kinnon said.

“These are great data, better than we expected,” he added.

However, he noted the test is “very specific” for decline to AD and not to other dementias.

In addition, Mr. Kinnon noted the test does not monitor levels of amyloid beta or tau, which accumulate at a later stage of AD. “Amyloid and tau tell you you’ve got it. We’re there way before those concentrations become detectable,” he said.

Identifying patients who will progress to AD years before they have symptoms gives them time to make medical decisions. These patients may also try treatments at an earlier stage of the disease, when these therapies are most likely to be helpful, said Mr. Kinnon.

In addition, using the test could speed up the approval of prospective drug treatments for AD. Currently, pharmaceutical companies enroll thousands of patients into a clinical study “and they don’t know which ones will have AD,” Mr. Kinnon noted.

“This test tells you these are the ones who are going to progress and should go into the study, and these are the ones that aren’t. So it makes the studies statistically relevant and accurate,” he said.

Investigators can also use the test to monitor patients during a study instead of relying on expensive PET scans and painful and costly spinal fluid taps, he added.

Previous surveys and market research have shown that neurologists and general practitioners “want a blood test to screen patients early, to help educate and inform patients,” said Mr. Kinnon.

Further results that will include biobank data on more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe are due for completion toward the end of this year.

The company is currently in negotiations to bring the product to North America, Europe, and elsewhere. “Our goal is to have it on the market by the middle of next year in multiple regions,” Mr. Kinnon said.
 

Encouraging, preliminary

Commenting on the findings, Percy Griffin, PhD, MSc, director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said “it’s exciting” to see development of novel ways for detecting or predicting AD.

“There is an urgent need for simple, inexpensive, noninvasive, and accessible early detection tools for Alzheimer’s, such as a blood test,” he said.

However, Dr. Griffin cautioned the test is still in the early stages of development and has not been tested extensively in large, diverse clinical trials.

In addition, although the test predicts whether a person will progress, it does not predict when the person will progress, he added.

“These preliminary results are encouraging, but further validation is needed before this test can be implemented widely,” he said.

Technologies that facilitate the early detection and intervention before significant loss of brain cells from AD “would be game-changing” for individuals, families, and the healthcare system, Dr. Griffin concluded.

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

A new blood test that identifies a variant of the protein P53 appears to predict Alzheimer’s disease (AD) progression up to 6 years in advance of a clinical diagnosis, early research suggests.

Analysis of two studies showed the test (AlzoSure Predict), which uses less than 1 ml of blood, had numerous benefits compared with other blood tests that track AD pathology.

“We believe this has the potential to radically improve early stratification and identification of patients for trials 6 years in advance of a diagnosis, which can potentially enable more rapid and efficient approvals of therapies,” Paul Kinnon, CEO of Diadem, the test’s manufacturer, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the 14th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
 

Positive “discovery” results

P53, which is present in both the brain and elsewhere in the body, “is one of the most targeted proteins” for drug development in cancer and other conditions, said Mr. Kinnon.

The current blood test measures a derivative of P53 (U-p53AZ). Previous research suggests this derivative, which affects amyloid and oxidative stress, is also implicated in AD pathogenesis.

Researchers used blood samples from patients aged 60 years and older from the Australia Imaging, Biomarkers, and Lifestyles (AIBL) study who had various levels of cognitive function.

They analyzed samples at multiple timepoints over a 10-year period, “so we know when the marker is most accurate at predicting decline,” Mr. Kinnon said.

The first of two studies was considered a “discovery” study and included blood samples from 224 patients.

Results showed the test predicted decline from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to AD at the end of 6 years, with an area under the curve (AUC) greater than 90%.

These results are “massive,” said Mr. Kinnon. “It’s the most accurate test I’ve seen anywhere for predicting decline of a patient.”

The test can also accurately classify a patient’s stage of cognition, he added. “Not only does it allow us to predict 6 years in advance, it also tells us if the patient has SMC [subjective memory complaints], MCI, or AD with a 95% certainty,” Mr. Kinnon said.

He noted that test sensitivity was higher than results found from traditional methods that are currently being used. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), which were at 90% or more, were “absolutely fantastic,” said Mr. Kinnon.
 

“Better than expected” results

In the second “validation” study, investigators examined samples from a completely different group of 482 patients. The “very compelling” results showed AUCs over 90%, PPVs over 90%, and “very high” NPVs, Mr. Kinnon said.

“These are great data, better than we expected,” he added.

However, he noted the test is “very specific” for decline to AD and not to other dementias.

In addition, Mr. Kinnon noted the test does not monitor levels of amyloid beta or tau, which accumulate at a later stage of AD. “Amyloid and tau tell you you’ve got it. We’re there way before those concentrations become detectable,” he said.

Identifying patients who will progress to AD years before they have symptoms gives them time to make medical decisions. These patients may also try treatments at an earlier stage of the disease, when these therapies are most likely to be helpful, said Mr. Kinnon.

In addition, using the test could speed up the approval of prospective drug treatments for AD. Currently, pharmaceutical companies enroll thousands of patients into a clinical study “and they don’t know which ones will have AD,” Mr. Kinnon noted.

“This test tells you these are the ones who are going to progress and should go into the study, and these are the ones that aren’t. So it makes the studies statistically relevant and accurate,” he said.

Investigators can also use the test to monitor patients during a study instead of relying on expensive PET scans and painful and costly spinal fluid taps, he added.

Previous surveys and market research have shown that neurologists and general practitioners “want a blood test to screen patients early, to help educate and inform patients,” said Mr. Kinnon.

Further results that will include biobank data on more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe are due for completion toward the end of this year.

The company is currently in negotiations to bring the product to North America, Europe, and elsewhere. “Our goal is to have it on the market by the middle of next year in multiple regions,” Mr. Kinnon said.
 

Encouraging, preliminary

Commenting on the findings, Percy Griffin, PhD, MSc, director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said “it’s exciting” to see development of novel ways for detecting or predicting AD.

“There is an urgent need for simple, inexpensive, noninvasive, and accessible early detection tools for Alzheimer’s, such as a blood test,” he said.

However, Dr. Griffin cautioned the test is still in the early stages of development and has not been tested extensively in large, diverse clinical trials.

In addition, although the test predicts whether a person will progress, it does not predict when the person will progress, he added.

“These preliminary results are encouraging, but further validation is needed before this test can be implemented widely,” he said.

Technologies that facilitate the early detection and intervention before significant loss of brain cells from AD “would be game-changing” for individuals, families, and the healthcare system, Dr. Griffin concluded.

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

A new blood test that identifies a variant of the protein P53 appears to predict Alzheimer’s disease (AD) progression up to 6 years in advance of a clinical diagnosis, early research suggests.

Analysis of two studies showed the test (AlzoSure Predict), which uses less than 1 ml of blood, had numerous benefits compared with other blood tests that track AD pathology.

“We believe this has the potential to radically improve early stratification and identification of patients for trials 6 years in advance of a diagnosis, which can potentially enable more rapid and efficient approvals of therapies,” Paul Kinnon, CEO of Diadem, the test’s manufacturer, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the 14th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference.
 

Positive “discovery” results

P53, which is present in both the brain and elsewhere in the body, “is one of the most targeted proteins” for drug development in cancer and other conditions, said Mr. Kinnon.

The current blood test measures a derivative of P53 (U-p53AZ). Previous research suggests this derivative, which affects amyloid and oxidative stress, is also implicated in AD pathogenesis.

Researchers used blood samples from patients aged 60 years and older from the Australia Imaging, Biomarkers, and Lifestyles (AIBL) study who had various levels of cognitive function.

They analyzed samples at multiple timepoints over a 10-year period, “so we know when the marker is most accurate at predicting decline,” Mr. Kinnon said.

The first of two studies was considered a “discovery” study and included blood samples from 224 patients.

Results showed the test predicted decline from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to AD at the end of 6 years, with an area under the curve (AUC) greater than 90%.

These results are “massive,” said Mr. Kinnon. “It’s the most accurate test I’ve seen anywhere for predicting decline of a patient.”

The test can also accurately classify a patient’s stage of cognition, he added. “Not only does it allow us to predict 6 years in advance, it also tells us if the patient has SMC [subjective memory complaints], MCI, or AD with a 95% certainty,” Mr. Kinnon said.

He noted that test sensitivity was higher than results found from traditional methods that are currently being used. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), which were at 90% or more, were “absolutely fantastic,” said Mr. Kinnon.
 

“Better than expected” results

In the second “validation” study, investigators examined samples from a completely different group of 482 patients. The “very compelling” results showed AUCs over 90%, PPVs over 90%, and “very high” NPVs, Mr. Kinnon said.

“These are great data, better than we expected,” he added.

However, he noted the test is “very specific” for decline to AD and not to other dementias.

In addition, Mr. Kinnon noted the test does not monitor levels of amyloid beta or tau, which accumulate at a later stage of AD. “Amyloid and tau tell you you’ve got it. We’re there way before those concentrations become detectable,” he said.

Identifying patients who will progress to AD years before they have symptoms gives them time to make medical decisions. These patients may also try treatments at an earlier stage of the disease, when these therapies are most likely to be helpful, said Mr. Kinnon.

In addition, using the test could speed up the approval of prospective drug treatments for AD. Currently, pharmaceutical companies enroll thousands of patients into a clinical study “and they don’t know which ones will have AD,” Mr. Kinnon noted.

“This test tells you these are the ones who are going to progress and should go into the study, and these are the ones that aren’t. So it makes the studies statistically relevant and accurate,” he said.

Investigators can also use the test to monitor patients during a study instead of relying on expensive PET scans and painful and costly spinal fluid taps, he added.

Previous surveys and market research have shown that neurologists and general practitioners “want a blood test to screen patients early, to help educate and inform patients,” said Mr. Kinnon.

Further results that will include biobank data on more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe are due for completion toward the end of this year.

The company is currently in negotiations to bring the product to North America, Europe, and elsewhere. “Our goal is to have it on the market by the middle of next year in multiple regions,” Mr. Kinnon said.
 

Encouraging, preliminary

Commenting on the findings, Percy Griffin, PhD, MSc, director of scientific engagement at the Alzheimer’s Association, said “it’s exciting” to see development of novel ways for detecting or predicting AD.

“There is an urgent need for simple, inexpensive, noninvasive, and accessible early detection tools for Alzheimer’s, such as a blood test,” he said.

However, Dr. Griffin cautioned the test is still in the early stages of development and has not been tested extensively in large, diverse clinical trials.

In addition, although the test predicts whether a person will progress, it does not predict when the person will progress, he added.

“These preliminary results are encouraging, but further validation is needed before this test can be implemented widely,” he said.

Technologies that facilitate the early detection and intervention before significant loss of brain cells from AD “would be game-changing” for individuals, families, and the healthcare system, Dr. Griffin concluded.

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

Post–COVID-19 headache is a common and sometimes persistent problem. It may take the form of new-onset headache, or exacerbations of preexisting headache conditions such as migraine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified it as a sentinel symptom of COVID-19 disease. “A lot of the recommendations surrounding post-COVID headache is that if you identify a patient who has headaches associated with fever, and myalgia, and other systemic symptoms, the specificity of a COVID-19 diagnosis goes up. So [COVID-19] is a really important feature to look out for in patients with headache,” Deena Kuruvilla, MD, said during a presentation on post–COVID-19 headache at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.

Estimates of the prevalence of headache in COVID-19 range widely, from 6.5% to 71%, but Dr. Kuruvilla has plenty of personal experience with it. “During my stint on the inpatient neurology service during the peak of COVID, I saw patients with headache being one of the most frequent complaints, [along with] dizziness, stroke, and seizure among many other neurological manifestations,” said Dr. Kuruvilla, director of the Westport (Conn.) Headache Institute.

One meta-analysis showed that 47% of patients with COVID-19 complain of headache within 30 days of diagnosis, and this drops to around 10% at 60-90 days, and around 8% at 180 days.

A survey of 3,458 patients, published in the Journal of Headache Pain, found that migraine is the most common type of post–COVID-19 headache phenotype, and patients reporting anosmia-ageusia were more likely to have post–COVID-19 headache (odds ratio [OR], 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-17.45).

A case-control study of post–COVID-19 headache patients with and without a history of migraine found that those with a history of migraine were more likely to have post–COVID-19 symptoms (OR, 1.70; P < .001) and fatigue (OR, 2.89; P = .008). “Interestingly, they found no difference in headache as post-COVID symptoms in people who had a history of migraine compared with people without a history of migraine,” said Dr. Kuruvilla.
 

Headache and COVID-19: What is the connection?

Several mechanisms have been proposed for direct invasion of the central nervous system, either via infection through the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor, which is expressed in brain regions including the motor cortex, the posterior cingulate cortex, and the olfactory bulb, among other locations. Another potential mechanism is direct entry through the olfactory nerve and the associated olfactory epithelium. There are various potential mechanisms for spread among the peripheral nervous system, and the blood-brain barrier can be compromised by infection of vascular endothelial cells. According to the literature, neuronal damage seems to occur directly from viral damage rather than from the immune response, said Dr. Kuruvilla.

The virus may also gain entry to the CNS indirectly, as a result of hypoxia and metabolic disturbances, as well as dehydration and systematic inflammation. The cytokine storm associated with COVID-19 infection can activate C-reactive protein and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), which plays a key role in migraine pathology. The CGRP receptor antagonist vazegepant is being studied in a phase 2 clinical trial for the treatment of COVID-19–related lung inflammation.
 

Testing and treatment

“If I see patients with new headache, worsening headache from their baseline, or headache with systemic symptoms, I often consider screening them for COVID. If that screening is positive, I proceed with PCR testing. I also consider an MRI of the brain with and without gadolinium just to rule out any secondary causes for headache,” said Dr. Kuruvilla, noting that she has diagnosed patients with venous sinus thrombosis, ischemic stroke, and meningitis following COVID-19.

The existing literature suggests that lumbar puncture in patients with SARS-CoV-2 typically returns normal results, but Dr. Kuruvilla proceeds with it anyway with viral, bacterial, fungal, and autoimmune studies to rule out potential secondary causes for headache.

There are few studies on how to treat post–COVID-19 headache, and the general recommendation is that headache phenotype should drive treatment decisions.

In a case series, three patients with persistent headache following mild COVID-19 infection were treated with onabotulinumtoxinA and amitriptyline. They had daily headaches, along with post–COVID-19 symptoms including fatigue and insomnia. After treatment, each patient converted to episodic headaches.

One retrospective study of 37 patients found that a 5-day course of indomethacin 50 mg twice per day and pantoprazole 40 mg once per day was associated with a 50% or greater improvement in headache on the third day in 36 of the 37 patients. Five patients were free of pain by day 5.
 

A common problem

Neurologists have been involved in the treatment of COVID-19 since the beginning, and post–COVID-19 headache has added another layer. “It’s been a remarkably common clinical problem. And the fact that it’s actually reached the level of headache specialist actually shows that in some cases, it’s really quite a significant problem, in both its severity and persistence. So I think it’s a very, very significant issue,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program.

Dr. Kuruvilla also discussed the question of whether neurological damage is due to direct damage from the virus, or indirect damage from an immune response. This was debated during the Q&A session following Dr. Kuruvilla’s talk, and it was pointed out that headache is a frequent side effect of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It’s a huge open question about how much is direct invasion or damage or not even damage, but just change in function with the viral infection, as opposed to inflammation. The fact that very often the response to the vaccine is similar to what you see with COVID suggests that at least some component of it is inflammation. I wouldn’t commit to one mechanism or the other, but I’d say that it’s possible that it’s really both,” said Dr. Charles.

Dr. Kuruvilla has consulted for Cefaly, Neurolief, Theranica, Now What Media, and KX advisors. She has been on the speakers bureau for Abbvie/Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, and Lilly. She has been on advisory boards for Abbvie/Allergan, Lilly, Theranica, and Amgen/Novartis. Dr. Charles has no relevant financial disclosures.

Post–COVID-19 headache is a common and sometimes persistent problem. It may take the form of new-onset headache, or exacerbations of preexisting headache conditions such as migraine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified it as a sentinel symptom of COVID-19 disease. “A lot of the recommendations surrounding post-COVID headache is that if you identify a patient who has headaches associated with fever, and myalgia, and other systemic symptoms, the specificity of a COVID-19 diagnosis goes up. So [COVID-19] is a really important feature to look out for in patients with headache,” Deena Kuruvilla, MD, said during a presentation on post–COVID-19 headache at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.

Estimates of the prevalence of headache in COVID-19 range widely, from 6.5% to 71%, but Dr. Kuruvilla has plenty of personal experience with it. “During my stint on the inpatient neurology service during the peak of COVID, I saw patients with headache being one of the most frequent complaints, [along with] dizziness, stroke, and seizure among many other neurological manifestations,” said Dr. Kuruvilla, director of the Westport (Conn.) Headache Institute.

One meta-analysis showed that 47% of patients with COVID-19 complain of headache within 30 days of diagnosis, and this drops to around 10% at 60-90 days, and around 8% at 180 days.

A survey of 3,458 patients, published in the Journal of Headache Pain, found that migraine is the most common type of post–COVID-19 headache phenotype, and patients reporting anosmia-ageusia were more likely to have post–COVID-19 headache (odds ratio [OR], 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-17.45).

A case-control study of post–COVID-19 headache patients with and without a history of migraine found that those with a history of migraine were more likely to have post–COVID-19 symptoms (OR, 1.70; P < .001) and fatigue (OR, 2.89; P = .008). “Interestingly, they found no difference in headache as post-COVID symptoms in people who had a history of migraine compared with people without a history of migraine,” said Dr. Kuruvilla.
 

Headache and COVID-19: What is the connection?

Several mechanisms have been proposed for direct invasion of the central nervous system, either via infection through the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor, which is expressed in brain regions including the motor cortex, the posterior cingulate cortex, and the olfactory bulb, among other locations. Another potential mechanism is direct entry through the olfactory nerve and the associated olfactory epithelium. There are various potential mechanisms for spread among the peripheral nervous system, and the blood-brain barrier can be compromised by infection of vascular endothelial cells. According to the literature, neuronal damage seems to occur directly from viral damage rather than from the immune response, said Dr. Kuruvilla.

The virus may also gain entry to the CNS indirectly, as a result of hypoxia and metabolic disturbances, as well as dehydration and systematic inflammation. The cytokine storm associated with COVID-19 infection can activate C-reactive protein and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), which plays a key role in migraine pathology. The CGRP receptor antagonist vazegepant is being studied in a phase 2 clinical trial for the treatment of COVID-19–related lung inflammation.
 

Testing and treatment

“If I see patients with new headache, worsening headache from their baseline, or headache with systemic symptoms, I often consider screening them for COVID. If that screening is positive, I proceed with PCR testing. I also consider an MRI of the brain with and without gadolinium just to rule out any secondary causes for headache,” said Dr. Kuruvilla, noting that she has diagnosed patients with venous sinus thrombosis, ischemic stroke, and meningitis following COVID-19.

The existing literature suggests that lumbar puncture in patients with SARS-CoV-2 typically returns normal results, but Dr. Kuruvilla proceeds with it anyway with viral, bacterial, fungal, and autoimmune studies to rule out potential secondary causes for headache.

There are few studies on how to treat post–COVID-19 headache, and the general recommendation is that headache phenotype should drive treatment decisions.

In a case series, three patients with persistent headache following mild COVID-19 infection were treated with onabotulinumtoxinA and amitriptyline. They had daily headaches, along with post–COVID-19 symptoms including fatigue and insomnia. After treatment, each patient converted to episodic headaches.

One retrospective study of 37 patients found that a 5-day course of indomethacin 50 mg twice per day and pantoprazole 40 mg once per day was associated with a 50% or greater improvement in headache on the third day in 36 of the 37 patients. Five patients were free of pain by day 5.
 

A common problem

Neurologists have been involved in the treatment of COVID-19 since the beginning, and post–COVID-19 headache has added another layer. “It’s been a remarkably common clinical problem. And the fact that it’s actually reached the level of headache specialist actually shows that in some cases, it’s really quite a significant problem, in both its severity and persistence. So I think it’s a very, very significant issue,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program.

Dr. Kuruvilla also discussed the question of whether neurological damage is due to direct damage from the virus, or indirect damage from an immune response. This was debated during the Q&A session following Dr. Kuruvilla’s talk, and it was pointed out that headache is a frequent side effect of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It’s a huge open question about how much is direct invasion or damage or not even damage, but just change in function with the viral infection, as opposed to inflammation. The fact that very often the response to the vaccine is similar to what you see with COVID suggests that at least some component of it is inflammation. I wouldn’t commit to one mechanism or the other, but I’d say that it’s possible that it’s really both,” said Dr. Charles.

Dr. Kuruvilla has consulted for Cefaly, Neurolief, Theranica, Now What Media, and KX advisors. She has been on the speakers bureau for Abbvie/Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, and Lilly. She has been on advisory boards for Abbvie/Allergan, Lilly, Theranica, and Amgen/Novartis. Dr. Charles has no relevant financial disclosures.

Post–COVID-19 headache is a common and sometimes persistent problem. It may take the form of new-onset headache, or exacerbations of preexisting headache conditions such as migraine.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified it as a sentinel symptom of COVID-19 disease. “A lot of the recommendations surrounding post-COVID headache is that if you identify a patient who has headaches associated with fever, and myalgia, and other systemic symptoms, the specificity of a COVID-19 diagnosis goes up. So [COVID-19] is a really important feature to look out for in patients with headache,” Deena Kuruvilla, MD, said during a presentation on post–COVID-19 headache at the 2021 Scottsdale Headache Symposium.

Estimates of the prevalence of headache in COVID-19 range widely, from 6.5% to 71%, but Dr. Kuruvilla has plenty of personal experience with it. “During my stint on the inpatient neurology service during the peak of COVID, I saw patients with headache being one of the most frequent complaints, [along with] dizziness, stroke, and seizure among many other neurological manifestations,” said Dr. Kuruvilla, director of the Westport (Conn.) Headache Institute.

One meta-analysis showed that 47% of patients with COVID-19 complain of headache within 30 days of diagnosis, and this drops to around 10% at 60-90 days, and around 8% at 180 days.

A survey of 3,458 patients, published in the Journal of Headache Pain, found that migraine is the most common type of post–COVID-19 headache phenotype, and patients reporting anosmia-ageusia were more likely to have post–COVID-19 headache (odds ratio [OR], 5.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-17.45).

A case-control study of post–COVID-19 headache patients with and without a history of migraine found that those with a history of migraine were more likely to have post–COVID-19 symptoms (OR, 1.70; P < .001) and fatigue (OR, 2.89; P = .008). “Interestingly, they found no difference in headache as post-COVID symptoms in people who had a history of migraine compared with people without a history of migraine,” said Dr. Kuruvilla.
 

Headache and COVID-19: What is the connection?

Several mechanisms have been proposed for direct invasion of the central nervous system, either via infection through the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) receptor, which is expressed in brain regions including the motor cortex, the posterior cingulate cortex, and the olfactory bulb, among other locations. Another potential mechanism is direct entry through the olfactory nerve and the associated olfactory epithelium. There are various potential mechanisms for spread among the peripheral nervous system, and the blood-brain barrier can be compromised by infection of vascular endothelial cells. According to the literature, neuronal damage seems to occur directly from viral damage rather than from the immune response, said Dr. Kuruvilla.

The virus may also gain entry to the CNS indirectly, as a result of hypoxia and metabolic disturbances, as well as dehydration and systematic inflammation. The cytokine storm associated with COVID-19 infection can activate C-reactive protein and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), which plays a key role in migraine pathology. The CGRP receptor antagonist vazegepant is being studied in a phase 2 clinical trial for the treatment of COVID-19–related lung inflammation.
 

Testing and treatment

“If I see patients with new headache, worsening headache from their baseline, or headache with systemic symptoms, I often consider screening them for COVID. If that screening is positive, I proceed with PCR testing. I also consider an MRI of the brain with and without gadolinium just to rule out any secondary causes for headache,” said Dr. Kuruvilla, noting that she has diagnosed patients with venous sinus thrombosis, ischemic stroke, and meningitis following COVID-19.

The existing literature suggests that lumbar puncture in patients with SARS-CoV-2 typically returns normal results, but Dr. Kuruvilla proceeds with it anyway with viral, bacterial, fungal, and autoimmune studies to rule out potential secondary causes for headache.

There are few studies on how to treat post–COVID-19 headache, and the general recommendation is that headache phenotype should drive treatment decisions.

In a case series, three patients with persistent headache following mild COVID-19 infection were treated with onabotulinumtoxinA and amitriptyline. They had daily headaches, along with post–COVID-19 symptoms including fatigue and insomnia. After treatment, each patient converted to episodic headaches.

One retrospective study of 37 patients found that a 5-day course of indomethacin 50 mg twice per day and pantoprazole 40 mg once per day was associated with a 50% or greater improvement in headache on the third day in 36 of the 37 patients. Five patients were free of pain by day 5.
 

A common problem

Neurologists have been involved in the treatment of COVID-19 since the beginning, and post–COVID-19 headache has added another layer. “It’s been a remarkably common clinical problem. And the fact that it’s actually reached the level of headache specialist actually shows that in some cases, it’s really quite a significant problem, in both its severity and persistence. So I think it’s a very, very significant issue,” said Andrew Charles, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Goldberg Migraine Program.

Dr. Kuruvilla also discussed the question of whether neurological damage is due to direct damage from the virus, or indirect damage from an immune response. This was debated during the Q&A session following Dr. Kuruvilla’s talk, and it was pointed out that headache is a frequent side effect of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It’s a huge open question about how much is direct invasion or damage or not even damage, but just change in function with the viral infection, as opposed to inflammation. The fact that very often the response to the vaccine is similar to what you see with COVID suggests that at least some component of it is inflammation. I wouldn’t commit to one mechanism or the other, but I’d say that it’s possible that it’s really both,” said Dr. Charles.

Dr. Kuruvilla has consulted for Cefaly, Neurolief, Theranica, Now What Media, and KX advisors. She has been on the speakers bureau for Abbvie/Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, and Lilly. She has been on advisory boards for Abbvie/Allergan, Lilly, Theranica, and Amgen/Novartis. Dr. Charles has no relevant financial disclosures.

A newly released position statement from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) provides guidance to neurologists about counseling  patients with Alzheimer’s disease and their families about the controversial drug aducanumab (Aduhelm).

The statement includes ethical considerations and recommendations for informed consent, and the AAN notes that neurologists should ensure that patients understand all of the issues and uncertainties surrounding the use of aducanumab.

“Neurologists and other clinicians want to provide the best care to patients and families, particularly for a disease that is as challenging as Alzheimer’s. We hope that this statement can be a guide for clinicians in communicating with patients and families in order to carefully consider decisions about the use of aducanumab,” said lead author Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, University of California San Francisco Memory and Aging Center, and a member of the AAN’s Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee.

The statement was published online Nov. 17 in Neurology.
 

Open, honest communication

The Food and Drug Administration approved the antiamyloid agent aducanumab based on two studies that were both stopped prematurely for futility. In subsequent post hoc analyses of the available data, one of those studies indicated a statistically significant, albeit small, benefit with high-dose aducanumab, while the other study continued to show no benefit.

The clinical importance of the small statistical benefit in the single trial for daily function is unclear, and aducanumab was also associated with brain inflammation and brain bleeds in more than one-third of patients who received the FDA-approved dose, which requires regular brain MRI monitoring.

All of this should be communicated to patients, the AAN advises.

Patients should know that while aducanumab reduces beta-amyloid plaques in the brain that are markers of Alzheimer’s disease, it remains unclear whether this provides any meaningful benefit.

The AAN adds that it is equally important to tell patients and families that aducanumab does not restore cognitive function and that there is insufficient data to offer it to people with moderate or advanced dementia or to those without evidence of beta-amyloid plaques.

It’s important to note that very few participants in the aducanumab trials were Hispanic, Black, or Indigenous. 

“Informed consent conversations with patients of populations underrepresented in clinical trials should include disclosure about the absence of safety and efficacy data in these groups,” the authors noted.
 

‘New territory’ for neurologists

“There are two aspects of aducanumab that are relatively new territory for us as neurologists,” Dr. Chiong said. One is the controversy about the evidence for the drug. “In the statement, we’ve tried to help clinicians communicate the uncertainty over aducanumab’s risks and potential benefits,” Dr. Chiong said. The other is the high cost of the drug and how it will be covered.

Aducanumab has a price tag of $56,000 per year, which does not include the cost of infusing the drug, required repeat imaging, and medical management.

The AAN estimates annual costs of prescribing aducanumab may top $100,000 per year. With Medicare generally covering 80%, patients and families must be told that the full costs of treatment may not be covered.

“Regarding cost, we probably don’t think often enough about what prescribing a drug means for an individual patient’s finances and for the health system,” said Dr. Chiong. “In particular, when patients are in Medicare we might assume their health care costs will be sufficiently covered, but because aducanumab is so expensive its use is likely to impose very significant costs on individual patients as well as to the Medicare program,” Dr. Chiong said.

“It is understandable why a new drug for Alzheimer’s disease generates so much interest, because while its approval has been controversial, it still offers a glimmer of hope to patients and their families,” AAN President Orly Avitzur, MD, said in a news release. “By using ethical principles to create this position statement, the American Academy of Neurology aims to help neurologists and other physicians transparently counsel patients and their families with a goal of providing the highest quality patient-centered care,” Dr. Avitzur said.

This statement was approved by the Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee, a joint committee of the AAN, American Neurological Association, and Child Neurology Society.

This research had no targeted funding. Dr. Chiong has received personal compensation for serving on the Neuroethics Working Group of the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, and his institution has received research support from the National Institutes of Health. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

A newly released position statement from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) provides guidance to neurologists about counseling  patients with Alzheimer’s disease and their families about the controversial drug aducanumab (Aduhelm).

The statement includes ethical considerations and recommendations for informed consent, and the AAN notes that neurologists should ensure that patients understand all of the issues and uncertainties surrounding the use of aducanumab.

“Neurologists and other clinicians want to provide the best care to patients and families, particularly for a disease that is as challenging as Alzheimer’s. We hope that this statement can be a guide for clinicians in communicating with patients and families in order to carefully consider decisions about the use of aducanumab,” said lead author Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, University of California San Francisco Memory and Aging Center, and a member of the AAN’s Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee.

The statement was published online Nov. 17 in Neurology.
 

Open, honest communication

The Food and Drug Administration approved the antiamyloid agent aducanumab based on two studies that were both stopped prematurely for futility. In subsequent post hoc analyses of the available data, one of those studies indicated a statistically significant, albeit small, benefit with high-dose aducanumab, while the other study continued to show no benefit.

The clinical importance of the small statistical benefit in the single trial for daily function is unclear, and aducanumab was also associated with brain inflammation and brain bleeds in more than one-third of patients who received the FDA-approved dose, which requires regular brain MRI monitoring.

All of this should be communicated to patients, the AAN advises.

Patients should know that while aducanumab reduces beta-amyloid plaques in the brain that are markers of Alzheimer’s disease, it remains unclear whether this provides any meaningful benefit.

The AAN adds that it is equally important to tell patients and families that aducanumab does not restore cognitive function and that there is insufficient data to offer it to people with moderate or advanced dementia or to those without evidence of beta-amyloid plaques.

It’s important to note that very few participants in the aducanumab trials were Hispanic, Black, or Indigenous. 

“Informed consent conversations with patients of populations underrepresented in clinical trials should include disclosure about the absence of safety and efficacy data in these groups,” the authors noted.
 

‘New territory’ for neurologists

“There are two aspects of aducanumab that are relatively new territory for us as neurologists,” Dr. Chiong said. One is the controversy about the evidence for the drug. “In the statement, we’ve tried to help clinicians communicate the uncertainty over aducanumab’s risks and potential benefits,” Dr. Chiong said. The other is the high cost of the drug and how it will be covered.

Aducanumab has a price tag of $56,000 per year, which does not include the cost of infusing the drug, required repeat imaging, and medical management.

The AAN estimates annual costs of prescribing aducanumab may top $100,000 per year. With Medicare generally covering 80%, patients and families must be told that the full costs of treatment may not be covered.

“Regarding cost, we probably don’t think often enough about what prescribing a drug means for an individual patient’s finances and for the health system,” said Dr. Chiong. “In particular, when patients are in Medicare we might assume their health care costs will be sufficiently covered, but because aducanumab is so expensive its use is likely to impose very significant costs on individual patients as well as to the Medicare program,” Dr. Chiong said.

“It is understandable why a new drug for Alzheimer’s disease generates so much interest, because while its approval has been controversial, it still offers a glimmer of hope to patients and their families,” AAN President Orly Avitzur, MD, said in a news release. “By using ethical principles to create this position statement, the American Academy of Neurology aims to help neurologists and other physicians transparently counsel patients and their families with a goal of providing the highest quality patient-centered care,” Dr. Avitzur said.

This statement was approved by the Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee, a joint committee of the AAN, American Neurological Association, and Child Neurology Society.

This research had no targeted funding. Dr. Chiong has received personal compensation for serving on the Neuroethics Working Group of the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, and his institution has received research support from the National Institutes of Health. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

A newly released position statement from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) provides guidance to neurologists about counseling  patients with Alzheimer’s disease and their families about the controversial drug aducanumab (Aduhelm).

The statement includes ethical considerations and recommendations for informed consent, and the AAN notes that neurologists should ensure that patients understand all of the issues and uncertainties surrounding the use of aducanumab.

“Neurologists and other clinicians want to provide the best care to patients and families, particularly for a disease that is as challenging as Alzheimer’s. We hope that this statement can be a guide for clinicians in communicating with patients and families in order to carefully consider decisions about the use of aducanumab,” said lead author Winston Chiong, MD, PhD, University of California San Francisco Memory and Aging Center, and a member of the AAN’s Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee.

The statement was published online Nov. 17 in Neurology.
 

Open, honest communication

The Food and Drug Administration approved the antiamyloid agent aducanumab based on two studies that were both stopped prematurely for futility. In subsequent post hoc analyses of the available data, one of those studies indicated a statistically significant, albeit small, benefit with high-dose aducanumab, while the other study continued to show no benefit.

The clinical importance of the small statistical benefit in the single trial for daily function is unclear, and aducanumab was also associated with brain inflammation and brain bleeds in more than one-third of patients who received the FDA-approved dose, which requires regular brain MRI monitoring.

All of this should be communicated to patients, the AAN advises.

Patients should know that while aducanumab reduces beta-amyloid plaques in the brain that are markers of Alzheimer’s disease, it remains unclear whether this provides any meaningful benefit.

The AAN adds that it is equally important to tell patients and families that aducanumab does not restore cognitive function and that there is insufficient data to offer it to people with moderate or advanced dementia or to those without evidence of beta-amyloid plaques.

It’s important to note that very few participants in the aducanumab trials were Hispanic, Black, or Indigenous. 

“Informed consent conversations with patients of populations underrepresented in clinical trials should include disclosure about the absence of safety and efficacy data in these groups,” the authors noted.
 

‘New territory’ for neurologists

“There are two aspects of aducanumab that are relatively new territory for us as neurologists,” Dr. Chiong said. One is the controversy about the evidence for the drug. “In the statement, we’ve tried to help clinicians communicate the uncertainty over aducanumab’s risks and potential benefits,” Dr. Chiong said. The other is the high cost of the drug and how it will be covered.

Aducanumab has a price tag of $56,000 per year, which does not include the cost of infusing the drug, required repeat imaging, and medical management.

The AAN estimates annual costs of prescribing aducanumab may top $100,000 per year. With Medicare generally covering 80%, patients and families must be told that the full costs of treatment may not be covered.

“Regarding cost, we probably don’t think often enough about what prescribing a drug means for an individual patient’s finances and for the health system,” said Dr. Chiong. “In particular, when patients are in Medicare we might assume their health care costs will be sufficiently covered, but because aducanumab is so expensive its use is likely to impose very significant costs on individual patients as well as to the Medicare program,” Dr. Chiong said.

“It is understandable why a new drug for Alzheimer’s disease generates so much interest, because while its approval has been controversial, it still offers a glimmer of hope to patients and their families,” AAN President Orly Avitzur, MD, said in a news release. “By using ethical principles to create this position statement, the American Academy of Neurology aims to help neurologists and other physicians transparently counsel patients and their families with a goal of providing the highest quality patient-centered care,” Dr. Avitzur said.

This statement was approved by the Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee, a joint committee of the AAN, American Neurological Association, and Child Neurology Society.

This research had no targeted funding. Dr. Chiong has received personal compensation for serving on the Neuroethics Working Group of the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative, and his institution has received research support from the National Institutes of Health. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Treatment with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose significantly improved symptoms in restless legs syndrome (RLS) patients with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), data from 29 adults show.

RLS occurs among individuals with normal iron but is at least six times higher among individuals with IDA, Hyoeun Bae, MD, of Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have explored iron treatments for RLS patients with IDA, however, guidelines for treatment have not yet been published.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers randomized 29 RLS patients with IDA to either 1,500 mg IV ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) or placebo for a short-term period of 6 weeks, followed by a phase 2 study for responders that lasted for 52 weeks. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, iron parameters, and sleep and mood scales were similar between the groups.

At 6 weeks, patients in the FCM group showed significant improvement in RLS symptom severity based on changes from baseline International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group scale (IRLS) scores, compared with placebo patients (–13.47 vs. 1.36, P < .001). A secondary outcome of sleep quality also improved significantly in the FCM group, compared with the placebo group.

After 6 weeks, 11 of the 14 patients in the placebo group also received 1,500 mg FCM for an open-label study. These patients also showed significant improvement in IRLS scores from baseline to 6 weeks.

All 23 responders from the short-term studies (13 who received FCM initially and 10 from the postplacebo group) enrolled in a phase 2 long-term study that lasted for 52 weeks; 14 of these completed the full 52-week study period.

Overall, 61% of participants in phase 2 of the study remained off their RLS medications at 52 weeks, and no serious adverse events were reported during the study period. Of these, 10 received one additional dose of FCM and 4 received more than one additional dose. The median change in IRLS score at 4 weeks after treatment was –4.00, compared with the score prior to treatment.

The study is the first of its design to show benefits of intravenous iron therapy for RLS in patients with IDA, the researchers said, noting that the findings of improved, but not cured, RLS symptoms might suggest that more than 1,500 mg of iron is needed to fully treat RLS in this patient population. “A second interpretation is that the RLS and IDA were separate events: a patient with idiopathic RLS who subsequently developed anemia,” they said. “Treating the IDA might improve symptoms but may not eliminate the symptoms.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small study population and inability to know the time frame for the development of IDA, the researchers noted. However, the results support the use of intravenous iron therapy for relief of RLS in IDA patients.

“Since IDA could result in epigenetic changes leading to irreversible state of RLS, then urgent and adequate management of the IDA in RLS patients would seem a very prudent and important clinical approach to this specific clinical condition,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no disclosures.

Treatment with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose significantly improved symptoms in restless legs syndrome (RLS) patients with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), data from 29 adults show.

RLS occurs among individuals with normal iron but is at least six times higher among individuals with IDA, Hyoeun Bae, MD, of Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have explored iron treatments for RLS patients with IDA, however, guidelines for treatment have not yet been published.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers randomized 29 RLS patients with IDA to either 1,500 mg IV ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) or placebo for a short-term period of 6 weeks, followed by a phase 2 study for responders that lasted for 52 weeks. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, iron parameters, and sleep and mood scales were similar between the groups.

At 6 weeks, patients in the FCM group showed significant improvement in RLS symptom severity based on changes from baseline International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group scale (IRLS) scores, compared with placebo patients (–13.47 vs. 1.36, P < .001). A secondary outcome of sleep quality also improved significantly in the FCM group, compared with the placebo group.

After 6 weeks, 11 of the 14 patients in the placebo group also received 1,500 mg FCM for an open-label study. These patients also showed significant improvement in IRLS scores from baseline to 6 weeks.

All 23 responders from the short-term studies (13 who received FCM initially and 10 from the postplacebo group) enrolled in a phase 2 long-term study that lasted for 52 weeks; 14 of these completed the full 52-week study period.

Overall, 61% of participants in phase 2 of the study remained off their RLS medications at 52 weeks, and no serious adverse events were reported during the study period. Of these, 10 received one additional dose of FCM and 4 received more than one additional dose. The median change in IRLS score at 4 weeks after treatment was –4.00, compared with the score prior to treatment.

The study is the first of its design to show benefits of intravenous iron therapy for RLS in patients with IDA, the researchers said, noting that the findings of improved, but not cured, RLS symptoms might suggest that more than 1,500 mg of iron is needed to fully treat RLS in this patient population. “A second interpretation is that the RLS and IDA were separate events: a patient with idiopathic RLS who subsequently developed anemia,” they said. “Treating the IDA might improve symptoms but may not eliminate the symptoms.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small study population and inability to know the time frame for the development of IDA, the researchers noted. However, the results support the use of intravenous iron therapy for relief of RLS in IDA patients.

“Since IDA could result in epigenetic changes leading to irreversible state of RLS, then urgent and adequate management of the IDA in RLS patients would seem a very prudent and important clinical approach to this specific clinical condition,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no disclosures.

Treatment with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose significantly improved symptoms in restless legs syndrome (RLS) patients with iron-deficiency anemia (IDA), data from 29 adults show.

RLS occurs among individuals with normal iron but is at least six times higher among individuals with IDA, Hyoeun Bae, MD, of Keimyung University, Daegu, South Korea, and colleagues wrote. Previous studies have explored iron treatments for RLS patients with IDA, however, guidelines for treatment have not yet been published.

In a study published in Sleep Medicine, the researchers randomized 29 RLS patients with IDA to either 1,500 mg IV ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) or placebo for a short-term period of 6 weeks, followed by a phase 2 study for responders that lasted for 52 weeks. Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, iron parameters, and sleep and mood scales were similar between the groups.

At 6 weeks, patients in the FCM group showed significant improvement in RLS symptom severity based on changes from baseline International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group scale (IRLS) scores, compared with placebo patients (–13.47 vs. 1.36, P < .001). A secondary outcome of sleep quality also improved significantly in the FCM group, compared with the placebo group.

After 6 weeks, 11 of the 14 patients in the placebo group also received 1,500 mg FCM for an open-label study. These patients also showed significant improvement in IRLS scores from baseline to 6 weeks.

All 23 responders from the short-term studies (13 who received FCM initially and 10 from the postplacebo group) enrolled in a phase 2 long-term study that lasted for 52 weeks; 14 of these completed the full 52-week study period.

Overall, 61% of participants in phase 2 of the study remained off their RLS medications at 52 weeks, and no serious adverse events were reported during the study period. Of these, 10 received one additional dose of FCM and 4 received more than one additional dose. The median change in IRLS score at 4 weeks after treatment was –4.00, compared with the score prior to treatment.

The study is the first of its design to show benefits of intravenous iron therapy for RLS in patients with IDA, the researchers said, noting that the findings of improved, but not cured, RLS symptoms might suggest that more than 1,500 mg of iron is needed to fully treat RLS in this patient population. “A second interpretation is that the RLS and IDA were separate events: a patient with idiopathic RLS who subsequently developed anemia,” they said. “Treating the IDA might improve symptoms but may not eliminate the symptoms.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small study population and inability to know the time frame for the development of IDA, the researchers noted. However, the results support the use of intravenous iron therapy for relief of RLS in IDA patients.

“Since IDA could result in epigenetic changes leading to irreversible state of RLS, then urgent and adequate management of the IDA in RLS patients would seem a very prudent and important clinical approach to this specific clinical condition,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no disclosures.

Now we’re in the final sprint.

Thanksgiving week is the first pause. I’m lucky. I have more things to be grateful for than I can count. I try to keep that in mind and instill it in my kids.

The second pause comes in December. I always close my office for the last 2 weeks of the year, since most patients are too busy during that time to see me. That means, in a little less than a month from now, my 2021 will be (from a practice point of view) pretty much over.

Of course, it’s really not. Just because the office is closed doesn’t mean there isn’t stuff to do. Patients will call in with pressing issues; refills have to be sent; test results come in and need to be handled correctly.

And that’s just the clinical part. The business part is there, too. It’s time to start wrapping up the corporate year, doing quarterly 941 forms, and preparing stuff for my accountant to file my taxes in the new year. Sifting through receipts, bills, and Quickbooks to get things ready.

But it’s still a relaxing time. My kids will all be home. We’ll have family dinners again for a few weeks. My hot tub will (hopefully) be up and running. I’ll have more time for walks, or talks, or naps (the last one usually with a dog sprawled out on the bed). For 2 weeks I can sleep in.

It also brings reflection. As I close out the paperwork on 2021, I can’t help but think about what went well, what didn’t, and what I can do to make 2022 better. The same applies to personal thoughts: What can I do in the coming year to be a better person and a better doctor?

Two weeks off never seems like long enough, but it’s a good time to pause and think about my little world, and what I can change to make it better for all involved.

That kind of perspective should always be kept in mind, but in the day-to-day hectic world, often it isn’t. It’s important to put it back in place when I can.

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

Now we’re in the final sprint.

Thanksgiving week is the first pause. I’m lucky. I have more things to be grateful for than I can count. I try to keep that in mind and instill it in my kids.

The second pause comes in December. I always close my office for the last 2 weeks of the year, since most patients are too busy during that time to see me. That means, in a little less than a month from now, my 2021 will be (from a practice point of view) pretty much over.

Of course, it’s really not. Just because the office is closed doesn’t mean there isn’t stuff to do. Patients will call in with pressing issues; refills have to be sent; test results come in and need to be handled correctly.

And that’s just the clinical part. The business part is there, too. It’s time to start wrapping up the corporate year, doing quarterly 941 forms, and preparing stuff for my accountant to file my taxes in the new year. Sifting through receipts, bills, and Quickbooks to get things ready.

But it’s still a relaxing time. My kids will all be home. We’ll have family dinners again for a few weeks. My hot tub will (hopefully) be up and running. I’ll have more time for walks, or talks, or naps (the last one usually with a dog sprawled out on the bed). For 2 weeks I can sleep in.

It also brings reflection. As I close out the paperwork on 2021, I can’t help but think about what went well, what didn’t, and what I can do to make 2022 better. The same applies to personal thoughts: What can I do in the coming year to be a better person and a better doctor?

Two weeks off never seems like long enough, but it’s a good time to pause and think about my little world, and what I can change to make it better for all involved.

That kind of perspective should always be kept in mind, but in the day-to-day hectic world, often it isn’t. It’s important to put it back in place when I can.

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

Now we’re in the final sprint.

Thanksgiving week is the first pause. I’m lucky. I have more things to be grateful for than I can count. I try to keep that in mind and instill it in my kids.

The second pause comes in December. I always close my office for the last 2 weeks of the year, since most patients are too busy during that time to see me. That means, in a little less than a month from now, my 2021 will be (from a practice point of view) pretty much over.

Of course, it’s really not. Just because the office is closed doesn’t mean there isn’t stuff to do. Patients will call in with pressing issues; refills have to be sent; test results come in and need to be handled correctly.

And that’s just the clinical part. The business part is there, too. It’s time to start wrapping up the corporate year, doing quarterly 941 forms, and preparing stuff for my accountant to file my taxes in the new year. Sifting through receipts, bills, and Quickbooks to get things ready.

But it’s still a relaxing time. My kids will all be home. We’ll have family dinners again for a few weeks. My hot tub will (hopefully) be up and running. I’ll have more time for walks, or talks, or naps (the last one usually with a dog sprawled out on the bed). For 2 weeks I can sleep in.

It also brings reflection. As I close out the paperwork on 2021, I can’t help but think about what went well, what didn’t, and what I can do to make 2022 better. The same applies to personal thoughts: What can I do in the coming year to be a better person and a better doctor?

Two weeks off never seems like long enough, but it’s a good time to pause and think about my little world, and what I can change to make it better for all involved.

That kind of perspective should always be kept in mind, but in the day-to-day hectic world, often it isn’t. It’s important to put it back in place when I can.

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

Women whose ovaries were surgically removed before the age of 46 had a higher risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) around 30 years later, compared with those who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, according to a population-based linkage study published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings suggest that “physicians treating women with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy need to be aware of their patients’ risk of cognitive impairment or MCI and should consider implementing treatment-monitoring plans,” noted lead author Walter A. Rocca, MD, MPH, from the division of epidemiology, department of quantitative health sciences, at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. and colleagues.

The results may particularly “help women at mean risk levels of ovarian cancer to better evaluate the risk-to-benefit ratio of undergoing bilateral oophorectomy prior to spontaneous menopause for the prevention of ovarian cancer,” they emphasized.

While the link between premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy and higher risk of cognitive impairment has been previously suggested, this new study “contributes valuable new data to a major public health importance issue and addresses a number of important shortcomings of existing literature,” Marios K. Georgakis, MD, PhD, and Eleni T. Petridou, MD, PhD, noted in an accompanying commentary.

“As bilateral oophorectomy is still a common procedure at least in well-resourced countries, the results of these studies should alert clinicians about its potential public health consequences. Given that the abrupt cessation of ovarian hormones might be accompanied by previously underestimated long-term adverse effects, treating physicians proposing the operation should weigh its benefits against potential long-term harmful effects, especially among women without an absolute indication,” noted Dr. Georgakis and Dr. Petridou, respectively from the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

The case-control cross-sectional study used data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), a prospective, population-based study examining risk factors for, as well as prevalence and incidence of cognitive decline and MCI among a representative sample of women in Olmsted County, Minn. It included 2,732 women aged 50-89 years who participated in the MCSA study from 2004 to 2019 and underwent a clinical evaluation and comprehensive cognitive testing including nine tests covering four cognitive domains. Almost all of the subjects (98.4%) were White. The mean age of cognitive evaluation was 74 years – at which time 283 women (10.4%) were diagnosed with MCI (197 with amnestic and 86 with nonamnestic MCI). Data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system showed a total of 625 women (22.9%) had a history of bilateral oophorectomy. Among this group, 161 women underwent the procedure both before age 46, and before menopause, with 46 (28.6%) receiving oral conjugated equine estrogen (unopposed) and the remaining 95 (59.0%) receiving no estrogen therapy.

The study found that, compared with women who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, those who did so before age 46, but not after this age, had statistically significantly increased odds of MCI (adjusted odds ratio, 2.21; P < .001). When type of MCI was examined, the risk was statistically significant for nonamnestic MCI (aOR, 2.96; P < .001), and amnestic (aOR, 1.87; P =.03). The study also found no evidence that estrogen therapy was associated with decreased risk of MCI among women aged less than 46 years, with an aOR of 2.56 in those who received estrogen therapy and 2.05 in those who did not (P = .01 for both).

Finally, in women who had bilateral oophorectomy before menopause and before age 50, surgical indication for the procedure affected the association with MCI. Indications of either cancer or “no ovarian condition” (i.e., performed at the time of hysterectomy) were associated with no increased risk, whereas there was a statistically significantly increased risk associated with benign indications such as an adnexal mass, cyst or endometriosis (aOR, 2.43; P = .003). “This is important,” noted the commentators, “because in many of those cases removal of both ovaries could be avoided.”

The study also found that, compared with women who had not undergone bilateral oophorectomy, those who had also had increased frequency of cardiovascular risk factors, heart disease, and stroke at the time of their cognitive evaluation. “Additional research is needed to clarify the biological explanation of the association,” the investigators said.

The prevailing hypothesis for why premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy is associated with cognitive decline “is that the abrupt endocrine cessation of exposure to ovarian hormones accelerates the aging process,” the commentators noted. “Most important from a clinical perspective is whether these women would benefit from specific hormone replacement therapy schemes. Observational studies cannot reliably answer this question, and possibly it is time to rethink designing trials in specific groups of women who underwent bilateral oophorectomy before 46 years of age starting treatment immediately thereafter.”

In an interview Dr. Georgakis elaborated on this point, saying that, while the Women’s Health Study clearly showed no benefit of hormone replacement therapy for preventing dementia, it recruited women who were aged 65 years or older and had therefore undergone menopause more than 10-15 years earlier. “A hypothesis suggests that a critical vulnerability window exists shortly after menopause during which hormone replacement therapy might be needed to ameliorate any elevated risk,” he said. “Thus, it might make sense to reconsider a trial focused on this group of premenopausal women, who need to undergo oophorectomy at a young age (<46 years). Early initiation would be important. Unfortunately, such a trial would be difficult to conduct, because these women would need to be followed up for very long periods, as cognitive decline usually does not occur before the age of 65.”

Asked to comment on the study, Meadow Good, DO, an ob.gyn., female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeon, and physician adviser for Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women & Babies in Orlando, said this study adds credibility to previous studies showing the cognitive risk associated with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy. “The literature is now pointing to a need to refrain from elective bilateral oophorectomy in women less than 60,” she said in an interview. “It should not be common that a women receives a bilateral oophorectomy before 60 for benign reasons.”

She added that cognition is not the only think at stake. “Bilateral oophorectomy before the age of 60 has a higher risk of incident heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and total cancers,” she said, citing a prospective cohort study within the Nurses’ Health Study.

Dr. Rocca reported financial support from the Mayo Clinic Research Committee during the conduct of the study. One coauthor reported unrestricted grants from Biogen and consulting fees from Brain Protection outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported from the authors. Dr. Georgakis, Dr. Petridou, and Dr. Good reported no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. It also used resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system, which is supported by the NIA, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and user fees. Dr. Rocca was partly funded by the Ralph S. and Beverley E. Caulkins Professorship of Neurodegenerative Diseases Research of the Mayo Clinic.

Women whose ovaries were surgically removed before the age of 46 had a higher risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) around 30 years later, compared with those who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, according to a population-based linkage study published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings suggest that “physicians treating women with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy need to be aware of their patients’ risk of cognitive impairment or MCI and should consider implementing treatment-monitoring plans,” noted lead author Walter A. Rocca, MD, MPH, from the division of epidemiology, department of quantitative health sciences, at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. and colleagues.

The results may particularly “help women at mean risk levels of ovarian cancer to better evaluate the risk-to-benefit ratio of undergoing bilateral oophorectomy prior to spontaneous menopause for the prevention of ovarian cancer,” they emphasized.

While the link between premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy and higher risk of cognitive impairment has been previously suggested, this new study “contributes valuable new data to a major public health importance issue and addresses a number of important shortcomings of existing literature,” Marios K. Georgakis, MD, PhD, and Eleni T. Petridou, MD, PhD, noted in an accompanying commentary.

“As bilateral oophorectomy is still a common procedure at least in well-resourced countries, the results of these studies should alert clinicians about its potential public health consequences. Given that the abrupt cessation of ovarian hormones might be accompanied by previously underestimated long-term adverse effects, treating physicians proposing the operation should weigh its benefits against potential long-term harmful effects, especially among women without an absolute indication,” noted Dr. Georgakis and Dr. Petridou, respectively from the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

The case-control cross-sectional study used data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), a prospective, population-based study examining risk factors for, as well as prevalence and incidence of cognitive decline and MCI among a representative sample of women in Olmsted County, Minn. It included 2,732 women aged 50-89 years who participated in the MCSA study from 2004 to 2019 and underwent a clinical evaluation and comprehensive cognitive testing including nine tests covering four cognitive domains. Almost all of the subjects (98.4%) were White. The mean age of cognitive evaluation was 74 years – at which time 283 women (10.4%) were diagnosed with MCI (197 with amnestic and 86 with nonamnestic MCI). Data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system showed a total of 625 women (22.9%) had a history of bilateral oophorectomy. Among this group, 161 women underwent the procedure both before age 46, and before menopause, with 46 (28.6%) receiving oral conjugated equine estrogen (unopposed) and the remaining 95 (59.0%) receiving no estrogen therapy.

The study found that, compared with women who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, those who did so before age 46, but not after this age, had statistically significantly increased odds of MCI (adjusted odds ratio, 2.21; P < .001). When type of MCI was examined, the risk was statistically significant for nonamnestic MCI (aOR, 2.96; P < .001), and amnestic (aOR, 1.87; P =.03). The study also found no evidence that estrogen therapy was associated with decreased risk of MCI among women aged less than 46 years, with an aOR of 2.56 in those who received estrogen therapy and 2.05 in those who did not (P = .01 for both).

Finally, in women who had bilateral oophorectomy before menopause and before age 50, surgical indication for the procedure affected the association with MCI. Indications of either cancer or “no ovarian condition” (i.e., performed at the time of hysterectomy) were associated with no increased risk, whereas there was a statistically significantly increased risk associated with benign indications such as an adnexal mass, cyst or endometriosis (aOR, 2.43; P = .003). “This is important,” noted the commentators, “because in many of those cases removal of both ovaries could be avoided.”

The study also found that, compared with women who had not undergone bilateral oophorectomy, those who had also had increased frequency of cardiovascular risk factors, heart disease, and stroke at the time of their cognitive evaluation. “Additional research is needed to clarify the biological explanation of the association,” the investigators said.

The prevailing hypothesis for why premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy is associated with cognitive decline “is that the abrupt endocrine cessation of exposure to ovarian hormones accelerates the aging process,” the commentators noted. “Most important from a clinical perspective is whether these women would benefit from specific hormone replacement therapy schemes. Observational studies cannot reliably answer this question, and possibly it is time to rethink designing trials in specific groups of women who underwent bilateral oophorectomy before 46 years of age starting treatment immediately thereafter.”

In an interview Dr. Georgakis elaborated on this point, saying that, while the Women’s Health Study clearly showed no benefit of hormone replacement therapy for preventing dementia, it recruited women who were aged 65 years or older and had therefore undergone menopause more than 10-15 years earlier. “A hypothesis suggests that a critical vulnerability window exists shortly after menopause during which hormone replacement therapy might be needed to ameliorate any elevated risk,” he said. “Thus, it might make sense to reconsider a trial focused on this group of premenopausal women, who need to undergo oophorectomy at a young age (<46 years). Early initiation would be important. Unfortunately, such a trial would be difficult to conduct, because these women would need to be followed up for very long periods, as cognitive decline usually does not occur before the age of 65.”

Asked to comment on the study, Meadow Good, DO, an ob.gyn., female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeon, and physician adviser for Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women & Babies in Orlando, said this study adds credibility to previous studies showing the cognitive risk associated with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy. “The literature is now pointing to a need to refrain from elective bilateral oophorectomy in women less than 60,” she said in an interview. “It should not be common that a women receives a bilateral oophorectomy before 60 for benign reasons.”

She added that cognition is not the only think at stake. “Bilateral oophorectomy before the age of 60 has a higher risk of incident heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and total cancers,” she said, citing a prospective cohort study within the Nurses’ Health Study.

Dr. Rocca reported financial support from the Mayo Clinic Research Committee during the conduct of the study. One coauthor reported unrestricted grants from Biogen and consulting fees from Brain Protection outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported from the authors. Dr. Georgakis, Dr. Petridou, and Dr. Good reported no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. It also used resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system, which is supported by the NIA, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and user fees. Dr. Rocca was partly funded by the Ralph S. and Beverley E. Caulkins Professorship of Neurodegenerative Diseases Research of the Mayo Clinic.

Women whose ovaries were surgically removed before the age of 46 had a higher risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) around 30 years later, compared with those who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, according to a population-based linkage study published in JAMA Network Open.

The findings suggest that “physicians treating women with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy need to be aware of their patients’ risk of cognitive impairment or MCI and should consider implementing treatment-monitoring plans,” noted lead author Walter A. Rocca, MD, MPH, from the division of epidemiology, department of quantitative health sciences, at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. and colleagues.

The results may particularly “help women at mean risk levels of ovarian cancer to better evaluate the risk-to-benefit ratio of undergoing bilateral oophorectomy prior to spontaneous menopause for the prevention of ovarian cancer,” they emphasized.

While the link between premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy and higher risk of cognitive impairment has been previously suggested, this new study “contributes valuable new data to a major public health importance issue and addresses a number of important shortcomings of existing literature,” Marios K. Georgakis, MD, PhD, and Eleni T. Petridou, MD, PhD, noted in an accompanying commentary.

“As bilateral oophorectomy is still a common procedure at least in well-resourced countries, the results of these studies should alert clinicians about its potential public health consequences. Given that the abrupt cessation of ovarian hormones might be accompanied by previously underestimated long-term adverse effects, treating physicians proposing the operation should weigh its benefits against potential long-term harmful effects, especially among women without an absolute indication,” noted Dr. Georgakis and Dr. Petridou, respectively from the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

The case-control cross-sectional study used data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), a prospective, population-based study examining risk factors for, as well as prevalence and incidence of cognitive decline and MCI among a representative sample of women in Olmsted County, Minn. It included 2,732 women aged 50-89 years who participated in the MCSA study from 2004 to 2019 and underwent a clinical evaluation and comprehensive cognitive testing including nine tests covering four cognitive domains. Almost all of the subjects (98.4%) were White. The mean age of cognitive evaluation was 74 years – at which time 283 women (10.4%) were diagnosed with MCI (197 with amnestic and 86 with nonamnestic MCI). Data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system showed a total of 625 women (22.9%) had a history of bilateral oophorectomy. Among this group, 161 women underwent the procedure both before age 46, and before menopause, with 46 (28.6%) receiving oral conjugated equine estrogen (unopposed) and the remaining 95 (59.0%) receiving no estrogen therapy.

The study found that, compared with women who did not undergo bilateral oophorectomy, those who did so before age 46, but not after this age, had statistically significantly increased odds of MCI (adjusted odds ratio, 2.21; P < .001). When type of MCI was examined, the risk was statistically significant for nonamnestic MCI (aOR, 2.96; P < .001), and amnestic (aOR, 1.87; P =.03). The study also found no evidence that estrogen therapy was associated with decreased risk of MCI among women aged less than 46 years, with an aOR of 2.56 in those who received estrogen therapy and 2.05 in those who did not (P = .01 for both).

Finally, in women who had bilateral oophorectomy before menopause and before age 50, surgical indication for the procedure affected the association with MCI. Indications of either cancer or “no ovarian condition” (i.e., performed at the time of hysterectomy) were associated with no increased risk, whereas there was a statistically significantly increased risk associated with benign indications such as an adnexal mass, cyst or endometriosis (aOR, 2.43; P = .003). “This is important,” noted the commentators, “because in many of those cases removal of both ovaries could be avoided.”

The study also found that, compared with women who had not undergone bilateral oophorectomy, those who had also had increased frequency of cardiovascular risk factors, heart disease, and stroke at the time of their cognitive evaluation. “Additional research is needed to clarify the biological explanation of the association,” the investigators said.

The prevailing hypothesis for why premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy is associated with cognitive decline “is that the abrupt endocrine cessation of exposure to ovarian hormones accelerates the aging process,” the commentators noted. “Most important from a clinical perspective is whether these women would benefit from specific hormone replacement therapy schemes. Observational studies cannot reliably answer this question, and possibly it is time to rethink designing trials in specific groups of women who underwent bilateral oophorectomy before 46 years of age starting treatment immediately thereafter.”

In an interview Dr. Georgakis elaborated on this point, saying that, while the Women’s Health Study clearly showed no benefit of hormone replacement therapy for preventing dementia, it recruited women who were aged 65 years or older and had therefore undergone menopause more than 10-15 years earlier. “A hypothesis suggests that a critical vulnerability window exists shortly after menopause during which hormone replacement therapy might be needed to ameliorate any elevated risk,” he said. “Thus, it might make sense to reconsider a trial focused on this group of premenopausal women, who need to undergo oophorectomy at a young age (<46 years). Early initiation would be important. Unfortunately, such a trial would be difficult to conduct, because these women would need to be followed up for very long periods, as cognitive decline usually does not occur before the age of 65.”

Asked to comment on the study, Meadow Good, DO, an ob.gyn., female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeon, and physician adviser for Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women & Babies in Orlando, said this study adds credibility to previous studies showing the cognitive risk associated with premenopausal bilateral oophorectomy. “The literature is now pointing to a need to refrain from elective bilateral oophorectomy in women less than 60,” she said in an interview. “It should not be common that a women receives a bilateral oophorectomy before 60 for benign reasons.”

She added that cognition is not the only think at stake. “Bilateral oophorectomy before the age of 60 has a higher risk of incident heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and total cancers,” she said, citing a prospective cohort study within the Nurses’ Health Study.

Dr. Rocca reported financial support from the Mayo Clinic Research Committee during the conduct of the study. One coauthor reported unrestricted grants from Biogen and consulting fees from Brain Protection outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported from the authors. Dr. Georgakis, Dr. Petridou, and Dr. Good reported no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. It also used resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical record–linkage system, which is supported by the NIA, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and user fees. Dr. Rocca was partly funded by the Ralph S. and Beverley E. Caulkins Professorship of Neurodegenerative Diseases Research of the Mayo Clinic.

A federal jury found William R. Bauer, 84, of Port Clinton, Ohio, guilty of prescribing powerful controlled substances, including opioids, to patients without medical necessity and outside the usual course of medical practice.

Dr. Bauer, a neurologist with over 50 years of experience, was convicted of 76 counts of distribution of controlled substances and 25 counts of healthcare fraud. According to television station WTOL, a federal indictment from 2019 listed 270 charges against the physician.

Federal officials claim that through his practice in Bellevue, Ohio, Dr. Bauer repeatedly prescribed controlled substances, including oxycodone, fentanyl, morphine, and tramadol, outside the usual course of professional practice and without legitimate medical purpose. The charges focused on 14 of his patients, to whom he prescribed high doses of opioids and other controlled substances without medical necessity. He also prescribed dangerous drug combinations. He ignored patients’ signs of addiction and abuse, such as early requests for refills, claims that medications had been lost, and claims that family members were stealing pills.

Dr. Bauer was also convicted of healthcare fraud for regularly administering epidural injections and trigger-point injections without medical necessity. Because these injections failed to meet the procedural requirements, they were rendered ineffective and were fraudulently billed to insurers. Dr. Bauer’s illegal prescriptions resulted in insurers paying for these medically unnecessary controlled substances.

Evidence at trial indicated that between January 2007 and August 16, 2019, Dr. Bauer prescribed controlled substances outside the usual course of medical practice and for illegitimate medical purposes. Insurers paid for these medically unnecessary controlled substances as well.

He will be sentenced at a later date.
 

Lab pays $1.2 million to resolve allegations of false claims for drug testing

Bluewater Toxicology, LLC, a clinical laboratory in Mount Washington, Ky., has agreed to pay $1.2 million to resolve civil allegations that it violated the False Claims Act.

The U.S. Department of Justice alleged three issues relating to claims for urine drug testing services that Bluewater submitted to Medicare, Kentucky Medicaid, Indiana Medicaid, TRICARE, and CHAMPVA. First, Bluewater submitted claims in which it misrepresented the number of drug classes it tested. Bluewater claimed it conducted definitive urine drug tests of 22 or more drug classes. In truth, Bluewater tested for fewer than 22 drug classes and secured reimbursement for drug tests that it did not conduct.

Second, Bluewater submitted certain claims without sufficient documentation to support the physician’s intent to order the test that was billed. In this way Bluewater obtained further unwarranted reimbursements.

Finally, Bluewater billed Medicare for specimen validity testing, a quality control process used to analyze a urine specimen to ensure that it has not been diluted or adulterated. Since January 2014, Medicare’s guidance has stated that specimen validity testing should not be separately billed to Medicare, but Bluewater did so anyway.
 

Home care company owner pays $1 million in Medicare fraud restitution

Richard Wennerberg, 72, of Grantham, N.H., pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two counts of class B felony Medicaid fraud, according to the New Hampshire Department of Justice.

Mr. Wennerberg is the owner of Alternative Care @ Home, LLC, a company licensed to provide in-home personal care services to Medicaid beneficiaries. He also pleaded guilty to a third charge of Medicaid fraud, through which Alternative Care @ Home, LLC, will be excluded from future participation in federal healthcare programs.

According to New Hampshire officials, Mr. Wennerberg submitted claims for reimbursement for in-home, personal care services that were never provided. Wennerberg billed Medicaid up to the maximum hours allowed under certain clients’ service authorizations, knowing that his employees did not provide care for all of those hours. He would use the difference to reimburse some caregivers for mileage.

Mr. Wennerberg will serve 1 year in state prison and will pay $1 million in restitution.
 

North Carolina wins two “Operation Root Canal” settlements

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein announced two separate civil settlements with ProHealth Dental Inc and Henry W. Davis, Jr, DDS, as part of Operation Root Canal, an ongoing effort to find and stop healthcare fraud among dental practitioners. The settlements, totaling $75,000, resolve allegations of the submission of false claims to the North Carolina Medicaid program.

In Operation Root Canal, the state Medicaid investigations department reviews billing practices for a wide variety of dental services, including dental cleanings, use of nitrous oxide, repetitive restorations on the same tooth, palliative care, and upcoding of patient examinations. In total, the operation has netted more than $7 million for the state.

The recent settlement relates to a prior criminal plea the attorney general’s Medicaid Investigations Division obtained involving Mr. Christian Ekberg, of Maryland, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison for healthcare fraud and was ordered to pay $173,870.12 to the North Carolina Medicaid Fund in restitution. Ekberg was an officer and minority shareholder of ProHealth Dental, a company that entered into a practice management agreement with Henry W. Davis, Jr, DDS., a North Carolina dentist and Medicaid practitioner who provided dental services to patients living in skilled nursing facilities throughout North Carolina. ProHealth Dental would provide professional management services to Dr. Davis, including submitting Medicaid claims. The company submitted claims for dental services that Dr. Davis did not perform on Medicaid recipients.

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

A federal jury found William R. Bauer, 84, of Port Clinton, Ohio, guilty of prescribing powerful controlled substances, including opioids, to patients without medical necessity and outside the usual course of medical practice.

Dr. Bauer, a neurologist with over 50 years of experience, was convicted of 76 counts of distribution of controlled substances and 25 counts of healthcare fraud. According to television station WTOL, a federal indictment from 2019 listed 270 charges against the physician.

Federal officials claim that through his practice in Bellevue, Ohio, Dr. Bauer repeatedly prescribed controlled substances, including oxycodone, fentanyl, morphine, and tramadol, outside the usual course of professional practice and without legitimate medical purpose. The charges focused on 14 of his patients, to whom he prescribed high doses of opioids and other controlled substances without medical necessity. He also prescribed dangerous drug combinations. He ignored patients’ signs of addiction and abuse, such as early requests for refills, claims that medications had been lost, and claims that family members were stealing pills.

Dr. Bauer was also convicted of healthcare fraud for regularly administering epidural injections and trigger-point injections without medical necessity. Because these injections failed to meet the procedural requirements, they were rendered ineffective and were fraudulently billed to insurers. Dr. Bauer’s illegal prescriptions resulted in insurers paying for these medically unnecessary controlled substances.

Evidence at trial indicated that between January 2007 and August 16, 2019, Dr. Bauer prescribed controlled substances outside the usual course of medical practice and for illegitimate medical purposes. Insurers paid for these medically unnecessary controlled substances as well.

He will be sentenced at a later date.
 

Lab pays $1.2 million to resolve allegations of false claims for drug testing

Bluewater Toxicology, LLC, a clinical laboratory in Mount Washington, Ky., has agreed to pay $1.2 million to resolve civil allegations that it violated the False Claims Act.

The U.S. Department of Justice alleged three issues relating to claims for urine drug testing services that Bluewater submitted to Medicare, Kentucky Medicaid, Indiana Medicaid, TRICARE, and CHAMPVA. First, Bluewater submitted claims in which it misrepresented the number of drug classes it tested. Bluewater claimed it conducted definitive urine drug tests of 22 or more drug classes. In truth, Bluewater tested for fewer than 22 drug classes and secured reimbursement for drug tests that it did not conduct.

Second, Bluewater submitted certain claims without sufficient documentation to support the physician’s intent to order the test that was billed. In this way Bluewater obtained further unwarranted reimbursements.

Finally, Bluewater billed Medicare for specimen validity testing, a quality control process used to analyze a urine specimen to ensure that it has not been diluted or adulterated. Since January 2014, Medicare’s guidance has stated that specimen validity testing should not be separately billed to Medicare, but Bluewater did so anyway.
 

Home care company owner pays $1 million in Medicare fraud restitution

Richard Wennerberg, 72, of Grantham, N.H., pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two counts of class B felony Medicaid fraud, according to the New Hampshire Department of Justice.

Mr. Wennerberg is the owner of Alternative Care @ Home, LLC, a company licensed to provide in-home personal care services to Medicaid beneficiaries. He also pleaded guilty to a third charge of Medicaid fraud, through which Alternative Care @ Home, LLC, will be excluded from future participation in federal healthcare programs.

According to New Hampshire officials, Mr. Wennerberg submitted claims for reimbursement for in-home, personal care services that were never provided. Wennerberg billed Medicaid up to the maximum hours allowed under certain clients’ service authorizations, knowing that his employees did not provide care for all of those hours. He would use the difference to reimburse some caregivers for mileage.

Mr. Wennerberg will serve 1 year in state prison and will pay $1 million in restitution.
 

North Carolina wins two “Operation Root Canal” settlements

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein announced two separate civil settlements with ProHealth Dental Inc and Henry W. Davis, Jr, DDS, as part of Operation Root Canal, an ongoing effort to find and stop healthcare fraud among dental practitioners. The settlements, totaling $75,000, resolve allegations of the submission of false claims to the North Carolina Medicaid program.

In Operation Root Canal, the state Medicaid investigations department reviews billing practices for a wide variety of dental services, including dental cleanings, use of nitrous oxide, repetitive restorations on the same tooth, palliative care, and upcoding of patient examinations. In total, the operation has netted more than $7 million for the state.

The recent settlement relates to a prior criminal plea the attorney general’s Medicaid Investigations Division obtained involving Mr. Christian Ekberg, of Maryland, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison for healthcare fraud and was ordered to pay $173,870.12 to the North Carolina Medicaid Fund in restitution. Ekberg was an officer and minority shareholder of ProHealth Dental, a company that entered into a practice management agreement with Henry W. Davis, Jr, DDS., a North Carolina dentist and Medicaid practitioner who provided dental services to patients living in skilled nursing facilities throughout North Carolina. ProHealth Dental would provide professional management services to Dr. Davis, including submitting Medicaid claims. The company submitted claims for dental services that Dr. Davis did not perform on Medicaid recipients.

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

A federal jury found William R. Bauer, 84, of Port Clinton, Ohio, guilty of prescribing powerful controlled substances, including opioids, to patients without medical necessity and outside the usual course of medical practice.

Dr. Bauer, a neurologist with over 50 years of experience, was convicted of 76 counts of distribution of controlled substances and 25 counts of healthcare fraud. According to television station WTOL, a federal indictment from 2019 listed 270 charges against the physician.

Federal officials claim that through his practice in Bellevue, Ohio, Dr. Bauer repeatedly prescribed controlled substances, including oxycodone, fentanyl, morphine, and tramadol, outside the usual course of professional practice and without legitimate medical purpose. The charges focused on 14 of his patients, to whom he prescribed high doses of opioids and other controlled substances without medical necessity. He also prescribed dangerous drug combinations. He ignored patients’ signs of addiction and abuse, such as early requests for refills, claims that medications had been lost, and claims that family members were stealing pills.

Dr. Bauer was also convicted of healthcare fraud for regularly administering epidural injections and trigger-point injections without medical necessity. Because these injections failed to meet the procedural requirements, they were rendered ineffective and were fraudulently billed to insurers. Dr. Bauer’s illegal prescriptions resulted in insurers paying for these medically unnecessary controlled substances.

Evidence at trial indicated that between January 2007 and August 16, 2019, Dr. Bauer prescribed controlled substances outside the usual course of medical practice and for illegitimate medical purposes. Insurers paid for these medically unnecessary controlled substances as well.

He will be sentenced at a later date.
 

Lab pays $1.2 million to resolve allegations of false claims for drug testing

Bluewater Toxicology, LLC, a clinical laboratory in Mount Washington, Ky., has agreed to pay $1.2 million to resolve civil allegations that it violated the False Claims Act.

The U.S. Department of Justice alleged three issues relating to claims for urine drug testing services that Bluewater submitted to Medicare, Kentucky Medicaid, Indiana Medicaid, TRICARE, and CHAMPVA. First, Bluewater submitted claims in which it misrepresented the number of drug classes it tested. Bluewater claimed it conducted definitive urine drug tests of 22 or more drug classes. In truth, Bluewater tested for fewer than 22 drug classes and secured reimbursement for drug tests that it did not conduct.

Second, Bluewater submitted certain claims without sufficient documentation to support the physician’s intent to order the test that was billed. In this way Bluewater obtained further unwarranted reimbursements.

Finally, Bluewater billed Medicare for specimen validity testing, a quality control process used to analyze a urine specimen to ensure that it has not been diluted or adulterated. Since January 2014, Medicare’s guidance has stated that specimen validity testing should not be separately billed to Medicare, but Bluewater did so anyway.
 

Home care company owner pays $1 million in Medicare fraud restitution

Richard Wennerberg, 72, of Grantham, N.H., pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two counts of class B felony Medicaid fraud, according to the New Hampshire Department of Justice.

Mr. Wennerberg is the owner of Alternative Care @ Home, LLC, a company licensed to provide in-home personal care services to Medicaid beneficiaries. He also pleaded guilty to a third charge of Medicaid fraud, through which Alternative Care @ Home, LLC, will be excluded from future participation in federal healthcare programs.

According to New Hampshire officials, Mr. Wennerberg submitted claims for reimbursement for in-home, personal care services that were never provided. Wennerberg billed Medicaid up to the maximum hours allowed under certain clients’ service authorizations, knowing that his employees did not provide care for all of those hours. He would use the difference to reimburse some caregivers for mileage.

Mr. Wennerberg will serve 1 year in state prison and will pay $1 million in restitution.
 

North Carolina wins two “Operation Root Canal” settlements

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein announced two separate civil settlements with ProHealth Dental Inc and Henry W. Davis, Jr, DDS, as part of Operation Root Canal, an ongoing effort to find and stop healthcare fraud among dental practitioners. The settlements, totaling $75,000, resolve allegations of the submission of false claims to the North Carolina Medicaid program.

In Operation Root Canal, the state Medicaid investigations department reviews billing practices for a wide variety of dental services, including dental cleanings, use of nitrous oxide, repetitive restorations on the same tooth, palliative care, and upcoding of patient examinations. In total, the operation has netted more than $7 million for the state.

The recent settlement relates to a prior criminal plea the attorney general’s Medicaid Investigations Division obtained involving Mr. Christian Ekberg, of Maryland, who was sentenced to 18 months in prison for healthcare fraud and was ordered to pay $173,870.12 to the North Carolina Medicaid Fund in restitution. Ekberg was an officer and minority shareholder of ProHealth Dental, a company that entered into a practice management agreement with Henry W. Davis, Jr, DDS., a North Carolina dentist and Medicaid practitioner who provided dental services to patients living in skilled nursing facilities throughout North Carolina. ProHealth Dental would provide professional management services to Dr. Davis, including submitting Medicaid claims. The company submitted claims for dental services that Dr. Davis did not perform on Medicaid recipients.

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

Health experts are warning the United States could be headed for another COVID-19 surge just as we enter the holiday season, following a massive new wave of infections in Europe – a troubling pattern seen throughout the pandemic.

Eighteen months into the global health crisis that has killed 5.1 million people worldwide including more than 767,000 Americans, Europe has become the epicenter of the global health crisis once again.

And some infectious disease specialists say the United States may be next.

“It’s déjà vu, yet again,” says Eric Topol, M.D., founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. In a new analysis published in The Guardian, the professor of molecular medicine argues that it’s “wishful thinking” for U.S. authorities to believe the nation is “immune” to what’s happening in Europe.

Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, MDedge’s sister site for medical professionals.

Three times over the past 18 months coronavirus surges in the United States followed similar spikes in Europe, where COVID-19 deaths grew by 10% this month.

Dr. Topol argues another wave may be in store for the states, as European countries implement new lockdowns. COVID-19 spikes are hitting some regions of the continent hard, including areas with high vaccination rates and strict control measures.

Eastern Europe and Russia, where vaccination rates are low, have experienced the worst of it. But even western countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, are reporting some of the highest daily infection figures in the world today.

Countries are responding in increasingly drastic ways.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin ordered tens of thousands of workers to stay home earlier this month.

In the Dutch city of Utrecht, traditional Christmas celebrations have been canceled as the country is headed for a partial lockdown.

Austria announced a 20-day lockdown beginning Nov. 22 and on Nov. 19 leaders there announced that all 9 million residents will be required to be vaccinated by February. Leaders there are telling unvaccinated individuals to stay at home and out of restaurants, cafes, and other shops in hard-hit regions of the country.

And in Germany, where daily new-infection rates now stand at 50,000, officials have introduced stricter mask mandates and made proof of vaccination or past infection mandatory for entry to many venues. Berlin is also eyeing proposals to shut down the city’s traditional Christmas markets while authorities in Cologne have already called off holiday celebrations, after the ceremonial head of festivities tested positive for COVID-19. Bavaria canceled its popular Christmas markets and will order lockdowns in particularly vulnerable districts, while unvaccinated people will face serious restrictions on where they can go.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, says what’s happening across the European continent is troubling.

But he also believes it’s possible the United States may be better prepared to head off a similar surge this time around, with increased testing, vaccination and new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, and antiviral therapeutics.

“Germany’s challenges are [a] caution to [the] world, the COVID pandemic isn’t over globally, won’t be for long time,” he says. “But [the] U.S. is further along than many other countries, in part because we already suffered more spread, in part because we’re making progress on vaccines, therapeutics, testing.”

Other experts agree the United States may not be as vulnerable to another wave of COVID-19 in coming weeks but have stopped short of suggesting we’re out of the woods.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in Europe necessarily means that we’re in for a huge surge of serious illness and death the way that we saw last year here in the states,” says David Dowdy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a general internist with Baltimore Medical Services.

“But I think anyone who says that they can predict the course of the pandemic for the next few months or few years has been proven wrong in the past and will probably be proven wrong in the future,” Dr. Dowdy says. “None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness.”
 

Looking back, and forward

What’s happening in Europe today mirrors past COVID-19 spikes that presaged big upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.

When the pandemic first hit Europe in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the virus despite the warnings of his own advisors and independent public health experts who said COVID-19 could have dire impacts without an aggressive federal action plan.

By late spring the United States had become the epicenter of the pandemic, when case totals eclipsed those of other countries and New York City became a hot zone, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Over the summer, spread of the disease slowed in New York, after tough control measures were instituted, but steadily increased in other states.

Then, later in the year, the Alpha variant of the virus took hold in the United Kingdom and the United States was again unprepared. By winter, the number of cases accelerated in every state in a major second surge that kept millions of Americans from traveling and gathering for the winter holidays.

With the rollout of COVID vaccines last December, cases in the United States – and in many parts of the world – began to fall. Some experts even suggested we’d turned a corner on the pandemic.

But then, last spring and summer, the Delta variant popped up in India and spread to the United Kingdom in a third major wave of COVID. Once again, the United States was unprepared, with 4 in 10 Americans refusing the vaccine and even some vaccinated individuals succumbing to breakthrough Delta infections.

The resulting Delta surge swept the country, preventing many businesses and schools from fully reopening and stressing hospitals in some areas of the country – particularly southern states – with new influxes of COVID-19 patients.

Now, Europe is facing another rise in COVID, with about 350 cases per 100,000 people and many countries hitting new record highs.
 

What’s driving the European resurgence?

So, what’s behind the new COVID-19 wave in Europe and what might it mean for the United States?

Shaun Truelove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist and faculty member of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says experts are examining several likely factors:

Waning immunity from the vaccines. Data from Johns Hopkins shows infections rising in nations with lower vaccination rates.

The impact of the Delta variant, which is three times more transmissible than the original virus and can even sicken some vaccinated individuals.

The spread of COVID-19 among teens and children; the easing of precautions (such as masking and social distancing); differences in the types of vaccines used in European nations and the United States.

“These are all possibilities,” says Dr. Truelove. “There are so many factors and so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s driving it and what effect each of those things might be having.”

As a result, it’s difficult to predict and prepare for what might lie ahead for the United States, he says.

“There’s a ton of uncertainty and we’re trying to understand what’s going to happen here over the next 6 months,” he says.

Even so, Dr. Truelove adds that what’s happening overseas might not be “super predictive” of a new wave of COVID in the United States.

For one thing, he says, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the two mRNA vaccines used predominantly in the United States, are far more effective – 94-95% – than the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID shot (63%) widely administered across Europe.

Secondly, European countries have imposed much stronger and stricter control measures throughout the pandemic than the United States. That might actually be driving the new surges because fewer unvaccinated people have been exposed to the virus, which means they have lower “natural immunity” from prior COVID infection.

Dr. Truelove explains: “Stronger and stricter control measures … have the consequence of leaving a lot more susceptible individuals in the population, [because] the stronger the controls, the fewer people get infected. And so, you have more individuals remaining in the population who are more susceptible and at risk of getting infected in the future.”

By contrast, he notes, a “large chunk” of the United States has not put strict lockdowns in place.

“So, what we’ve seen over the past couple months with the Delta wave is that in a lot of those states with lower vaccination coverage and lower controls this virus has really burned through a lot of the susceptible population. As a result, we’re seeing the curves coming down and what really looks like a lot of the built-up immunity in these states, especially southern states.”

But whether these differences will be enough for the United States to dodge another COVID-19 bullet this winter is uncertain.

“I don’t want to say that the [Europe] surge is NOT a predictor of what might come in the U.S., because I think that it very well could be,” Dr. Truelove says. “And so, people need to be aware of that, and be cautious and be sure get their vaccines and everything else.

“But I’m hopeful that because of some of the differences that maybe we’ll have a little bit of a different situation.”
 

The takeaway: How best to prepare?

Dr. Dowdy agrees that Europe’s current troubles might not necessarily mean a major new winter surge in the United States.

But he also points out that cases are beginning to head up again in New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country that are just experiencing the first chill of winter.

“After reaching a low point about 3 weeks ago, cases due to COVID-19 have started to rise again in the United States,” he says. “Cases were falling consistently until mid-October, but over the last 3 weeks, cases have started to rise again in most states.

“Cases in Eastern and Central Europe have more than doubled during that time, meaning that the possibility of a winter surge here is very real.”

Even so, Dr. Dowdy believes the rising rates of vaccination could limit the number of Americans who will be hospitalized with severe disease or die this winter.

Still, he warns against being too optimistic, as Americans travel and get together for the winter holidays.

None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness, Dr. Dowdy says.”

The upshot?

“People need to realize that it’s not quite over,” Dr. Truelove says. “We still have a substantial amount of infection in our country. We’re still above 200 cases per million [and] 500,000 incident cases per week or so. That’s a lot of death and a lot of hospitalizations. So, we still have to be concerned and do our best to reduce transmission … by wearing masks, getting vaccinated, getting a booster shot, and getting your children vaccinated.”

Johns Hopkins social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, MPH, adds that while COVID vaccines have been a “game changer” in the pandemic, more than a third of Americans have yet to receive one.

“That’s really what we need to be messaging around -- that people can still get COVID, there can still be breakthrough infections,” says Dr. Limaye, a health communications scholar. “But the great news is if you have been vaccinated, you are very much less likely, I think it’s 12 times, to be hospitalized or have severe COVID compared to those that are un-vaccinated.”

Dr. Topol agrees, adding: “Now is the time for the U.S. to heed the European signal for the first time, to pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates ...

“Instead of succumbing to yet another major rise in cases and their sequelae, this is a chance for America to finally rise to the occasion, showing an ability to lead and execute.”

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

Health experts are warning the United States could be headed for another COVID-19 surge just as we enter the holiday season, following a massive new wave of infections in Europe – a troubling pattern seen throughout the pandemic.

Eighteen months into the global health crisis that has killed 5.1 million people worldwide including more than 767,000 Americans, Europe has become the epicenter of the global health crisis once again.

And some infectious disease specialists say the United States may be next.

“It’s déjà vu, yet again,” says Eric Topol, M.D., founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. In a new analysis published in The Guardian, the professor of molecular medicine argues that it’s “wishful thinking” for U.S. authorities to believe the nation is “immune” to what’s happening in Europe.

Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, MDedge’s sister site for medical professionals.

Three times over the past 18 months coronavirus surges in the United States followed similar spikes in Europe, where COVID-19 deaths grew by 10% this month.

Dr. Topol argues another wave may be in store for the states, as European countries implement new lockdowns. COVID-19 spikes are hitting some regions of the continent hard, including areas with high vaccination rates and strict control measures.

Eastern Europe and Russia, where vaccination rates are low, have experienced the worst of it. But even western countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, are reporting some of the highest daily infection figures in the world today.

Countries are responding in increasingly drastic ways.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin ordered tens of thousands of workers to stay home earlier this month.

In the Dutch city of Utrecht, traditional Christmas celebrations have been canceled as the country is headed for a partial lockdown.

Austria announced a 20-day lockdown beginning Nov. 22 and on Nov. 19 leaders there announced that all 9 million residents will be required to be vaccinated by February. Leaders there are telling unvaccinated individuals to stay at home and out of restaurants, cafes, and other shops in hard-hit regions of the country.

And in Germany, where daily new-infection rates now stand at 50,000, officials have introduced stricter mask mandates and made proof of vaccination or past infection mandatory for entry to many venues. Berlin is also eyeing proposals to shut down the city’s traditional Christmas markets while authorities in Cologne have already called off holiday celebrations, after the ceremonial head of festivities tested positive for COVID-19. Bavaria canceled its popular Christmas markets and will order lockdowns in particularly vulnerable districts, while unvaccinated people will face serious restrictions on where they can go.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, says what’s happening across the European continent is troubling.

But he also believes it’s possible the United States may be better prepared to head off a similar surge this time around, with increased testing, vaccination and new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, and antiviral therapeutics.

“Germany’s challenges are [a] caution to [the] world, the COVID pandemic isn’t over globally, won’t be for long time,” he says. “But [the] U.S. is further along than many other countries, in part because we already suffered more spread, in part because we’re making progress on vaccines, therapeutics, testing.”

Other experts agree the United States may not be as vulnerable to another wave of COVID-19 in coming weeks but have stopped short of suggesting we’re out of the woods.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in Europe necessarily means that we’re in for a huge surge of serious illness and death the way that we saw last year here in the states,” says David Dowdy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a general internist with Baltimore Medical Services.

“But I think anyone who says that they can predict the course of the pandemic for the next few months or few years has been proven wrong in the past and will probably be proven wrong in the future,” Dr. Dowdy says. “None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness.”
 

Looking back, and forward

What’s happening in Europe today mirrors past COVID-19 spikes that presaged big upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.

When the pandemic first hit Europe in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the virus despite the warnings of his own advisors and independent public health experts who said COVID-19 could have dire impacts without an aggressive federal action plan.

By late spring the United States had become the epicenter of the pandemic, when case totals eclipsed those of other countries and New York City became a hot zone, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Over the summer, spread of the disease slowed in New York, after tough control measures were instituted, but steadily increased in other states.

Then, later in the year, the Alpha variant of the virus took hold in the United Kingdom and the United States was again unprepared. By winter, the number of cases accelerated in every state in a major second surge that kept millions of Americans from traveling and gathering for the winter holidays.

With the rollout of COVID vaccines last December, cases in the United States – and in many parts of the world – began to fall. Some experts even suggested we’d turned a corner on the pandemic.

But then, last spring and summer, the Delta variant popped up in India and spread to the United Kingdom in a third major wave of COVID. Once again, the United States was unprepared, with 4 in 10 Americans refusing the vaccine and even some vaccinated individuals succumbing to breakthrough Delta infections.

The resulting Delta surge swept the country, preventing many businesses and schools from fully reopening and stressing hospitals in some areas of the country – particularly southern states – with new influxes of COVID-19 patients.

Now, Europe is facing another rise in COVID, with about 350 cases per 100,000 people and many countries hitting new record highs.
 

What’s driving the European resurgence?

So, what’s behind the new COVID-19 wave in Europe and what might it mean for the United States?

Shaun Truelove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist and faculty member of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says experts are examining several likely factors:

Waning immunity from the vaccines. Data from Johns Hopkins shows infections rising in nations with lower vaccination rates.

The impact of the Delta variant, which is three times more transmissible than the original virus and can even sicken some vaccinated individuals.

The spread of COVID-19 among teens and children; the easing of precautions (such as masking and social distancing); differences in the types of vaccines used in European nations and the United States.

“These are all possibilities,” says Dr. Truelove. “There are so many factors and so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s driving it and what effect each of those things might be having.”

As a result, it’s difficult to predict and prepare for what might lie ahead for the United States, he says.

“There’s a ton of uncertainty and we’re trying to understand what’s going to happen here over the next 6 months,” he says.

Even so, Dr. Truelove adds that what’s happening overseas might not be “super predictive” of a new wave of COVID in the United States.

For one thing, he says, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the two mRNA vaccines used predominantly in the United States, are far more effective – 94-95% – than the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID shot (63%) widely administered across Europe.

Secondly, European countries have imposed much stronger and stricter control measures throughout the pandemic than the United States. That might actually be driving the new surges because fewer unvaccinated people have been exposed to the virus, which means they have lower “natural immunity” from prior COVID infection.

Dr. Truelove explains: “Stronger and stricter control measures … have the consequence of leaving a lot more susceptible individuals in the population, [because] the stronger the controls, the fewer people get infected. And so, you have more individuals remaining in the population who are more susceptible and at risk of getting infected in the future.”

By contrast, he notes, a “large chunk” of the United States has not put strict lockdowns in place.

“So, what we’ve seen over the past couple months with the Delta wave is that in a lot of those states with lower vaccination coverage and lower controls this virus has really burned through a lot of the susceptible population. As a result, we’re seeing the curves coming down and what really looks like a lot of the built-up immunity in these states, especially southern states.”

But whether these differences will be enough for the United States to dodge another COVID-19 bullet this winter is uncertain.

“I don’t want to say that the [Europe] surge is NOT a predictor of what might come in the U.S., because I think that it very well could be,” Dr. Truelove says. “And so, people need to be aware of that, and be cautious and be sure get their vaccines and everything else.

“But I’m hopeful that because of some of the differences that maybe we’ll have a little bit of a different situation.”
 

The takeaway: How best to prepare?

Dr. Dowdy agrees that Europe’s current troubles might not necessarily mean a major new winter surge in the United States.

But he also points out that cases are beginning to head up again in New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country that are just experiencing the first chill of winter.

“After reaching a low point about 3 weeks ago, cases due to COVID-19 have started to rise again in the United States,” he says. “Cases were falling consistently until mid-October, but over the last 3 weeks, cases have started to rise again in most states.

“Cases in Eastern and Central Europe have more than doubled during that time, meaning that the possibility of a winter surge here is very real.”

Even so, Dr. Dowdy believes the rising rates of vaccination could limit the number of Americans who will be hospitalized with severe disease or die this winter.

Still, he warns against being too optimistic, as Americans travel and get together for the winter holidays.

None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness, Dr. Dowdy says.”

The upshot?

“People need to realize that it’s not quite over,” Dr. Truelove says. “We still have a substantial amount of infection in our country. We’re still above 200 cases per million [and] 500,000 incident cases per week or so. That’s a lot of death and a lot of hospitalizations. So, we still have to be concerned and do our best to reduce transmission … by wearing masks, getting vaccinated, getting a booster shot, and getting your children vaccinated.”

Johns Hopkins social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, MPH, adds that while COVID vaccines have been a “game changer” in the pandemic, more than a third of Americans have yet to receive one.

“That’s really what we need to be messaging around -- that people can still get COVID, there can still be breakthrough infections,” says Dr. Limaye, a health communications scholar. “But the great news is if you have been vaccinated, you are very much less likely, I think it’s 12 times, to be hospitalized or have severe COVID compared to those that are un-vaccinated.”

Dr. Topol agrees, adding: “Now is the time for the U.S. to heed the European signal for the first time, to pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates ...

“Instead of succumbing to yet another major rise in cases and their sequelae, this is a chance for America to finally rise to the occasion, showing an ability to lead and execute.”

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

Health experts are warning the United States could be headed for another COVID-19 surge just as we enter the holiday season, following a massive new wave of infections in Europe – a troubling pattern seen throughout the pandemic.

Eighteen months into the global health crisis that has killed 5.1 million people worldwide including more than 767,000 Americans, Europe has become the epicenter of the global health crisis once again.

And some infectious disease specialists say the United States may be next.

“It’s déjà vu, yet again,” says Eric Topol, M.D., founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. In a new analysis published in The Guardian, the professor of molecular medicine argues that it’s “wishful thinking” for U.S. authorities to believe the nation is “immune” to what’s happening in Europe.

Dr. Topol is also editor-in-chief of Medscape, MDedge’s sister site for medical professionals.

Three times over the past 18 months coronavirus surges in the United States followed similar spikes in Europe, where COVID-19 deaths grew by 10% this month.

Dr. Topol argues another wave may be in store for the states, as European countries implement new lockdowns. COVID-19 spikes are hitting some regions of the continent hard, including areas with high vaccination rates and strict control measures.

Eastern Europe and Russia, where vaccination rates are low, have experienced the worst of it. But even western countries, such as Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom, are reporting some of the highest daily infection figures in the world today.

Countries are responding in increasingly drastic ways.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin ordered tens of thousands of workers to stay home earlier this month.

In the Dutch city of Utrecht, traditional Christmas celebrations have been canceled as the country is headed for a partial lockdown.

Austria announced a 20-day lockdown beginning Nov. 22 and on Nov. 19 leaders there announced that all 9 million residents will be required to be vaccinated by February. Leaders there are telling unvaccinated individuals to stay at home and out of restaurants, cafes, and other shops in hard-hit regions of the country.

And in Germany, where daily new-infection rates now stand at 50,000, officials have introduced stricter mask mandates and made proof of vaccination or past infection mandatory for entry to many venues. Berlin is also eyeing proposals to shut down the city’s traditional Christmas markets while authorities in Cologne have already called off holiday celebrations, after the ceremonial head of festivities tested positive for COVID-19. Bavaria canceled its popular Christmas markets and will order lockdowns in particularly vulnerable districts, while unvaccinated people will face serious restrictions on where they can go.

Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, says what’s happening across the European continent is troubling.

But he also believes it’s possible the United States may be better prepared to head off a similar surge this time around, with increased testing, vaccination and new therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, and antiviral therapeutics.

“Germany’s challenges are [a] caution to [the] world, the COVID pandemic isn’t over globally, won’t be for long time,” he says. “But [the] U.S. is further along than many other countries, in part because we already suffered more spread, in part because we’re making progress on vaccines, therapeutics, testing.”

Other experts agree the United States may not be as vulnerable to another wave of COVID-19 in coming weeks but have stopped short of suggesting we’re out of the woods.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in Europe necessarily means that we’re in for a huge surge of serious illness and death the way that we saw last year here in the states,” says David Dowdy, MD, PhD, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a general internist with Baltimore Medical Services.

“But I think anyone who says that they can predict the course of the pandemic for the next few months or few years has been proven wrong in the past and will probably be proven wrong in the future,” Dr. Dowdy says. “None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness.”
 

Looking back, and forward

What’s happening in Europe today mirrors past COVID-19 spikes that presaged big upticks in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States.

When the pandemic first hit Europe in March 2020, then-President Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the virus despite the warnings of his own advisors and independent public health experts who said COVID-19 could have dire impacts without an aggressive federal action plan.

By late spring the United States had become the epicenter of the pandemic, when case totals eclipsed those of other countries and New York City became a hot zone, according to data compiled by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. Over the summer, spread of the disease slowed in New York, after tough control measures were instituted, but steadily increased in other states.

Then, later in the year, the Alpha variant of the virus took hold in the United Kingdom and the United States was again unprepared. By winter, the number of cases accelerated in every state in a major second surge that kept millions of Americans from traveling and gathering for the winter holidays.

With the rollout of COVID vaccines last December, cases in the United States – and in many parts of the world – began to fall. Some experts even suggested we’d turned a corner on the pandemic.

But then, last spring and summer, the Delta variant popped up in India and spread to the United Kingdom in a third major wave of COVID. Once again, the United States was unprepared, with 4 in 10 Americans refusing the vaccine and even some vaccinated individuals succumbing to breakthrough Delta infections.

The resulting Delta surge swept the country, preventing many businesses and schools from fully reopening and stressing hospitals in some areas of the country – particularly southern states – with new influxes of COVID-19 patients.

Now, Europe is facing another rise in COVID, with about 350 cases per 100,000 people and many countries hitting new record highs.
 

What’s driving the European resurgence?

So, what’s behind the new COVID-19 wave in Europe and what might it mean for the United States?

Shaun Truelove, PhD, an infectious disease epidemiologist and faculty member of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, says experts are examining several likely factors:

Waning immunity from the vaccines. Data from Johns Hopkins shows infections rising in nations with lower vaccination rates.

The impact of the Delta variant, which is three times more transmissible than the original virus and can even sicken some vaccinated individuals.

The spread of COVID-19 among teens and children; the easing of precautions (such as masking and social distancing); differences in the types of vaccines used in European nations and the United States.

“These are all possibilities,” says Dr. Truelove. “There are so many factors and so it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s driving it and what effect each of those things might be having.”

As a result, it’s difficult to predict and prepare for what might lie ahead for the United States, he says.

“There’s a ton of uncertainty and we’re trying to understand what’s going to happen here over the next 6 months,” he says.

Even so, Dr. Truelove adds that what’s happening overseas might not be “super predictive” of a new wave of COVID in the United States.

For one thing, he says, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the two mRNA vaccines used predominantly in the United States, are far more effective – 94-95% – than the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID shot (63%) widely administered across Europe.

Secondly, European countries have imposed much stronger and stricter control measures throughout the pandemic than the United States. That might actually be driving the new surges because fewer unvaccinated people have been exposed to the virus, which means they have lower “natural immunity” from prior COVID infection.

Dr. Truelove explains: “Stronger and stricter control measures … have the consequence of leaving a lot more susceptible individuals in the population, [because] the stronger the controls, the fewer people get infected. And so, you have more individuals remaining in the population who are more susceptible and at risk of getting infected in the future.”

By contrast, he notes, a “large chunk” of the United States has not put strict lockdowns in place.

“So, what we’ve seen over the past couple months with the Delta wave is that in a lot of those states with lower vaccination coverage and lower controls this virus has really burned through a lot of the susceptible population. As a result, we’re seeing the curves coming down and what really looks like a lot of the built-up immunity in these states, especially southern states.”

But whether these differences will be enough for the United States to dodge another COVID-19 bullet this winter is uncertain.

“I don’t want to say that the [Europe] surge is NOT a predictor of what might come in the U.S., because I think that it very well could be,” Dr. Truelove says. “And so, people need to be aware of that, and be cautious and be sure get their vaccines and everything else.

“But I’m hopeful that because of some of the differences that maybe we’ll have a little bit of a different situation.”
 

The takeaway: How best to prepare?

Dr. Dowdy agrees that Europe’s current troubles might not necessarily mean a major new winter surge in the United States.

But he also points out that cases are beginning to head up again in New England, the Midwest, and other regions of the country that are just experiencing the first chill of winter.

“After reaching a low point about 3 weeks ago, cases due to COVID-19 have started to rise again in the United States,” he says. “Cases were falling consistently until mid-October, but over the last 3 weeks, cases have started to rise again in most states.

“Cases in Eastern and Central Europe have more than doubled during that time, meaning that the possibility of a winter surge here is very real.”

Even so, Dr. Dowdy believes the rising rates of vaccination could limit the number of Americans who will be hospitalized with severe disease or die this winter.

Still, he warns against being too optimistic, as Americans travel and get together for the winter holidays.

None of us knows the future of this pandemic, but I do think that we are in for an increase of cases, not necessarily of deaths and serious illness, Dr. Dowdy says.”

The upshot?

“People need to realize that it’s not quite over,” Dr. Truelove says. “We still have a substantial amount of infection in our country. We’re still above 200 cases per million [and] 500,000 incident cases per week or so. That’s a lot of death and a lot of hospitalizations. So, we still have to be concerned and do our best to reduce transmission … by wearing masks, getting vaccinated, getting a booster shot, and getting your children vaccinated.”

Johns Hopkins social and behavioral scientist Rupali Limaye, PhD, MPH, adds that while COVID vaccines have been a “game changer” in the pandemic, more than a third of Americans have yet to receive one.

“That’s really what we need to be messaging around -- that people can still get COVID, there can still be breakthrough infections,” says Dr. Limaye, a health communications scholar. “But the great news is if you have been vaccinated, you are very much less likely, I think it’s 12 times, to be hospitalized or have severe COVID compared to those that are un-vaccinated.”

Dr. Topol agrees, adding: “Now is the time for the U.S. to heed the European signal for the first time, to pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates ...

“Instead of succumbing to yet another major rise in cases and their sequelae, this is a chance for America to finally rise to the occasion, showing an ability to lead and execute.”

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

Smartphones are part and parcel to everyday life, including medicine. Here’s how to handle that.

Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.

Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.

With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?

These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.

The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.

In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”

While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”

It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.

“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”

Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”

The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.” 

There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
 

The age of video and telehealth

What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.

Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”

He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”

Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”

In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”

COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
 

How taping can help patients

Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.

“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”

Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.

This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
 

For better or worse

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”

Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”

To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”

In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”

Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?” 

More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the  record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”

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

Smartphones are part and parcel to everyday life, including medicine. Here’s how to handle that.

Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.

Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.

With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?

These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.

The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.

In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”

While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”

It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.

“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”

Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”

The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.” 

There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
 

The age of video and telehealth

What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.

Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”

He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”

Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”

In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”

COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
 

How taping can help patients

Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.

“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”

Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.

This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
 

For better or worse

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”

Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”

To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”

In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”

Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?” 

More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the  record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”

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

Smartphones are part and parcel to everyday life, including medicine. Here’s how to handle that.

Joe Lindsey, a 48-year old Colorado-based journalist, has dealt with complex hearing loss for about 15 years. which has led to countless doctor’s visits, treatments, and even surgery in hopes of finding improvement. As time went on and Mr. Lindsey’s hearing deteriorated, he began recording his appointments in order to retain important information.

Mr. Lindsey had positive intentions, but not every patient does.

With smartphones everywhere, recording medical appointments can be fraught with downsides too. While there are clear-cut reasons for recording doctor visits, patients’ goals and how they carry out the taping are key. Audio only? Or also video? With the physician’s knowledge and permission, or without?

These are the legal and ethical weeds doctors find themselves in today, so it’s important to understand all sides of the issue.

The medical world is divided on its sentiments about patients recording their visits. The American Medical Association, in fact, failed to make progress on a recent policy (resolution 007) proposal to encourage that any “audio or video recording made during a medical encounter should require both physician and patient notification and consent.” Rather than voting on the resolution, the AMA house of delegates tabled it and chose to gather more information on the issue.

In most cases, patients are recording their visits in good faith, says Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD, the CEO and founder of Medical Justice, a risk mitigation and reputation management firm for healthcare clinicians. “When it comes to ‘Team, let’s record this,’ I’m a fan,” he says. “The most common reason patients record visits is that there’s a lot of information transferred from the doctor to the patient, and there’s just not enough time to absorb it all.”

While the option is there for patients to take notes, in the give-and-take nature of conversation, this can get difficult. “If they record the visit, they can then digest it all down the road,” says Dr. Segal. “A compliant patient is one who understands what’s expected. That’s the charitable explanation for recording, and I support it.”

It’s that question of good intent, however, that concerns some physicians in today’s highly litigious society. “The worry is that there’s a small subset of patients with an ulterior motive,” says Dr. Segal.

“Some patients do record in case of an event down the road,” he adds. “They want the recording to potentially talk to a lawyer, or to file a board complaint.”

Laws in the United States surrounding recordings are confusing, with variations from state to state. Currently, 39 U.S. states allow for one-party consent — meaning a patient can record a visit without consenting with the physician.

Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, professor and chair of rehabilitation medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio, resides in Texas, which is one of the 39 one-consent states. “Physicians must be aware of this fact and consider how it might be used against them,” she says. “A good practice is to set expectations with the patient from the start. Also, know your hospital’s policy — some may have boundaries surrounding recordings.”

The first step is to know what type of state you practice in. Regardless of whether you are in a one- or two-party consent state — but especially a one-party state — it’s a smart move to add a sign at your office saying that you support the recording of visits, provided the patient is open and transparent about it. “Let the patient know that if they plan to record, they should ask your permission,” says Dr. Segal. “Let them know it’s not appropriate if they haven’t received your permission.” 

There are, of course, the occasional horror stories involving surreptitious recordings. “I remember a case where a patient left a phone actively recording in his bag of clothing, which went into the OR with him,” he says. “The background conversation was not flattering to the patient, who happened to be an employee of the hospital. When he came to and listened to the recording, he sued, winning his case.”
 

The age of video and telehealth

What about the rare situation when a patient pulls out a phone and begins to videotape a conversation? It can be a big slippery slope. “Patients can abuse a video recording with editing, and the recording becomes one-dimensional, which is unfair to the physician,” adds Dr. Segal.

Patients sometimes have other motives as well. “I’m aware of occasions where a doctor/patient visit got heated and the patient took out the phone to video record, sharing it to social media,” says Dr. Segal. “Once someone uses a phone to take video, just stop the conversation. Tell the patient, ‘We’re having a disagreement,’ and that it’s time to put an end to it.”

He adds that from the physician side, a video can be a protagonist in a conversation. “Frankly, a camera on your face changes the nature of things,” Dr. Segal says. “It’s much easier to have the phone sitting in a corner, quietly recording.”

Other scenarios might involve a patient’s family member accompanying the patient and bringing out their phone to record. “Doctors should consider how this might be used against them — it can blow up,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “Draw boundaries on this behavior, using your hospital’s policy if it has one.”

In today’s pandemic landscape, this is particularly important, she adds. “There’s generally more mistrust in the medical system right now,” says Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “People are getting misinformation from sources that aren’t credible, and then want to record their visits because they aren’t receiving the treatment they want, for instance.”

COVID has also added the tricky element of telehealth, which has exploded since 2020. “You don’t know what a patient is doing on the other side of the screen,” Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez explains. “Face-to-face, you might see them with their phones out, but anything goes with telehealth. You have to be open and communicative with your patients about your policies from the start to avoid any negative connotations.”
 

How taping can help patients

Mr. Lindsey, the Colorado journalist, is far from alone in his desire to use visit recordings in order to retain valuable information — and with good reason. According to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice’s Open Recordings Project, at least 1 in 10 patients records their doctor’s visits.

“I realized I was missing things and in a medical setting, that matters,” Mr. Lindsey says. “Last year, once COVID hit and we all began wearing masks, I lost my ability to read lips, one of my coping mechanisms. It became even more important that I had a backup recording to ensure I understood everything.”

Even if a patient doesn’t have hearing loss like Mr. Lindsey, having an audio record of a visit can be useful. According to a 2018 study on patient recall of key information 1 week out from their visits, 49% of decisions and recommendations were recalled accurately without prompting; 36% recalled with a prompt; and 15% recalled erroneously or not at all.

This squares with the personal experiences of Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez. “I even see this with my mom, who doesn’t remember many details of her doctor’s visits when I ask her,” she says. “This can definitely impact treatment.”
 

For better or worse

Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez says that often it comes down to how a patient learns best. “I teach my residents to keep this in mind and to ask the patient in advance what works best for them,” she says. “If a patient is a visual learner, they might want to take notes or have access to the appointment notes after the visit. If they will learn and retain the information best with an audio recording, then offer that option.”

Mr. Lindsey makes it a habit to inform his physicians that he will be making an audio recording of his visits. “I always let them know that I’m recording for accuracy and not to catch them in some sort of falsehood,” he says. “I can get the doctor’s notes, but those are often short and to the point; I can get more information by going back over the recording.”

To date, Mr. Lindsey hasn’t experienced any pushback from his physicians. “No one has balked at the idea or acted surprised that I want to do it,” he explains. “I think most doctors appreciate that we have a tool we can make use of for better care.”

In past coverage of the topic, some healthcare providers weighed in with support for recordings, usually citing personal reasons. “I am so very grateful for the physicians that allowed me to record the medical appointments that I attended with my parents,” said one. “As their adult daughter, I was painfully aware that my parents struggled to process and understand all of the new information coming their way.”

Another expressed support as well, stating that as a patient, he prefers recordings to notes, because the latter “bears little resemblance to the content of the meeting and discussion with the physician. If the patient straightforwardly asks for permission to record, then why not honor the good intent expressed thereby?” 

More often than not, patients have good intentions when they decide to hit the  record button in a medical visit. A little preparation goes a long way, however, says Dr. Segal: “Assume you’re being recorded, and act accordingly.”

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

Federal health officials have outlined a five-part plan to improve and protect the mental health and well-being of America’s health care workers (HCWs) and create sustainable change for the next generation of HCWs.

“It’s long past time for us to care for the people who care for all of us and address burnout in our health care workers,” U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, said during a webinar hosted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“My hope is that, going forward, we will be able to embark on this journey together to create a health care system, a health care environment, a country where we can not only provide extraordinary care to all those who need it, but where we can take good care of those who have sacrificed so much and make sure that they are well,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Burnout is not selective

There are 20 million HCWs in the United States, and no one is immune from burnout, said NIOSH Director John Howard, MD.

He noted that from June through Sept. of 2020 – the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – 93% of HCWs experienced some degree of stress, with 22% reporting moderate depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Looking at subsets of HCWs, a recent survey showed that one in five nurses contemplated leaving the profession because of insufficient staffing, intensity of workload, emotional and physical toll of the job, and lack of support, Dr. Howard noted.

Physician burnout was a significant issue even before the pandemic, with about 79% of physicians reporting burnout. In the fall of 2020, 69% reported depression and “a very alarming figure” of 13% reported having thoughts of suicide, Dr. Howard said.

Women in health care jobs are especially vulnerable to burnout; 76% of health care jobs are held by women and 64% of physicians that feel burned-out are women, according to federal data. 

“We have significant work to do in shoring up the safety and health of women in health care,” Dr. Howard said.

Mental health is also suffering among local and state public health workers. In a recent CDC survey of 26,000 of these workers, 53% reported symptoms of at least one mental health condition in the past 2 weeks.

“That is really an alarming proportion of public health workers who are as vital and essential as nurses and doctors are in our health care system,” Dr. Howard said.
 

Primary prevention approach

To tackle the burnout crisis, NIOSH plans to:

• Take a deep dive into understanding the personal, social, and economic burdens HCWs face on a daily basis.
• Assimilate the evidence and create a repository of best practices, resources, and interventions.
• Partner with key stakeholders, including the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the Joint Commission.
• Identify and adapt tools for the health care workplace that emphasize stress reduction.

NIOSH also plans to “generate awareness through a national, multidimensional social marketing campaign to get the word out about stress so health care workers don’t feel so alone,” Dr. Howard said.

This five-part plan takes a primary prevention approach to identifying and eliminating risk factors for burnout and stress, he added.

Secondary prevention, “when damage has already been done and you’re trying to save a health care worker who is suffering from a mental health issue, that’s a lot harder than taking a good look at what you can do to organizational practices that lead to health care workers’ stress and burnout,” Dr. Howard said.

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

Federal health officials have outlined a five-part plan to improve and protect the mental health and well-being of America’s health care workers (HCWs) and create sustainable change for the next generation of HCWs.

“It’s long past time for us to care for the people who care for all of us and address burnout in our health care workers,” U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, said during a webinar hosted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“My hope is that, going forward, we will be able to embark on this journey together to create a health care system, a health care environment, a country where we can not only provide extraordinary care to all those who need it, but where we can take good care of those who have sacrificed so much and make sure that they are well,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Burnout is not selective

There are 20 million HCWs in the United States, and no one is immune from burnout, said NIOSH Director John Howard, MD.

He noted that from June through Sept. of 2020 – the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – 93% of HCWs experienced some degree of stress, with 22% reporting moderate depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Looking at subsets of HCWs, a recent survey showed that one in five nurses contemplated leaving the profession because of insufficient staffing, intensity of workload, emotional and physical toll of the job, and lack of support, Dr. Howard noted.

Physician burnout was a significant issue even before the pandemic, with about 79% of physicians reporting burnout. In the fall of 2020, 69% reported depression and “a very alarming figure” of 13% reported having thoughts of suicide, Dr. Howard said.

Women in health care jobs are especially vulnerable to burnout; 76% of health care jobs are held by women and 64% of physicians that feel burned-out are women, according to federal data. 

“We have significant work to do in shoring up the safety and health of women in health care,” Dr. Howard said.

Mental health is also suffering among local and state public health workers. In a recent CDC survey of 26,000 of these workers, 53% reported symptoms of at least one mental health condition in the past 2 weeks.

“That is really an alarming proportion of public health workers who are as vital and essential as nurses and doctors are in our health care system,” Dr. Howard said.
 

Primary prevention approach

To tackle the burnout crisis, NIOSH plans to:

• Take a deep dive into understanding the personal, social, and economic burdens HCWs face on a daily basis.
• Assimilate the evidence and create a repository of best practices, resources, and interventions.
• Partner with key stakeholders, including the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the Joint Commission.
• Identify and adapt tools for the health care workplace that emphasize stress reduction.

NIOSH also plans to “generate awareness through a national, multidimensional social marketing campaign to get the word out about stress so health care workers don’t feel so alone,” Dr. Howard said.

This five-part plan takes a primary prevention approach to identifying and eliminating risk factors for burnout and stress, he added.

Secondary prevention, “when damage has already been done and you’re trying to save a health care worker who is suffering from a mental health issue, that’s a lot harder than taking a good look at what you can do to organizational practices that lead to health care workers’ stress and burnout,” Dr. Howard said.

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

Federal health officials have outlined a five-part plan to improve and protect the mental health and well-being of America’s health care workers (HCWs) and create sustainable change for the next generation of HCWs.

“It’s long past time for us to care for the people who care for all of us and address burnout in our health care workers,” U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, said during a webinar hosted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“My hope is that, going forward, we will be able to embark on this journey together to create a health care system, a health care environment, a country where we can not only provide extraordinary care to all those who need it, but where we can take good care of those who have sacrificed so much and make sure that they are well,” Dr. Murthy said.
 

Burnout is not selective

There are 20 million HCWs in the United States, and no one is immune from burnout, said NIOSH Director John Howard, MD.

He noted that from June through Sept. of 2020 – the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – 93% of HCWs experienced some degree of stress, with 22% reporting moderate depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Looking at subsets of HCWs, a recent survey showed that one in five nurses contemplated leaving the profession because of insufficient staffing, intensity of workload, emotional and physical toll of the job, and lack of support, Dr. Howard noted.

Physician burnout was a significant issue even before the pandemic, with about 79% of physicians reporting burnout. In the fall of 2020, 69% reported depression and “a very alarming figure” of 13% reported having thoughts of suicide, Dr. Howard said.

Women in health care jobs are especially vulnerable to burnout; 76% of health care jobs are held by women and 64% of physicians that feel burned-out are women, according to federal data. 

“We have significant work to do in shoring up the safety and health of women in health care,” Dr. Howard said.

Mental health is also suffering among local and state public health workers. In a recent CDC survey of 26,000 of these workers, 53% reported symptoms of at least one mental health condition in the past 2 weeks.

“That is really an alarming proportion of public health workers who are as vital and essential as nurses and doctors are in our health care system,” Dr. Howard said.
 

Primary prevention approach

To tackle the burnout crisis, NIOSH plans to:

• Take a deep dive into understanding the personal, social, and economic burdens HCWs face on a daily basis.
• Assimilate the evidence and create a repository of best practices, resources, and interventions.
• Partner with key stakeholders, including the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the Joint Commission.
• Identify and adapt tools for the health care workplace that emphasize stress reduction.

NIOSH also plans to “generate awareness through a national, multidimensional social marketing campaign to get the word out about stress so health care workers don’t feel so alone,” Dr. Howard said.

This five-part plan takes a primary prevention approach to identifying and eliminating risk factors for burnout and stress, he added.

Secondary prevention, “when damage has already been done and you’re trying to save a health care worker who is suffering from a mental health issue, that’s a lot harder than taking a good look at what you can do to organizational practices that lead to health care workers’ stress and burnout,” Dr. Howard said.

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