MDedge Neurology

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

Physicians are bracing for upcoming changes in reimbursement that may start within a few months. As doctors gear up for another wave of COVID, payment trends may not be the top priority, but some “uh oh” announcements in the fall of 2021 could have far-reaching implications that could affect your future.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a proposed rule in the summer covering key aspects of physician payment. Although the rule contained some small bright lights, the most important changes proposed were far from welcome.

Here’s what could be in store:

1. The highly anticipated Medicare Physician Fee Schedule ruling confirmed a sweeping payment cut. The drive to maintain budget neutrality forced the federal agency to reduce Medicare payments, on average, by nearly 4%. Many physicians are outraged at the proposed cut.

2. More bad news for 2022: Sequestration will be back. Sequestration is the mandatory, pesky, negative 2% adjustment on all Medicare payments. It had been put on hold and is set to return at the beginning of 2022.

Essentially, sequestration reduces what Medicare pays its providers for health services, but Medicare beneficiaries bear no responsibility for the cost difference. To prevent further debt, CMS imposes financially on hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers.

The Health Resources and Services Administration has funds remaining to reimburse for all COVID-related testing, treatment, and vaccines provided to uninsured individuals. You can apply and be reimbursed at Medicare rates for these services when COVID is the primary diagnosis (or secondary in the case of pregnancy). Patients need not be American citizens for you to get paid.

3. Down to a nail-biter: The final ruling is expected in early November. The situation smacks of earlier days when physicians clung to a precipice, waiting in anticipation for a legislative body to save them from the dreaded income plunge. Indeed, we are slipping back to the decade-long period when Congress kept coming to the rescue simply to maintain the status quo.

Many anticipate a last-minute Congressional intervention to save the day, particularly in the midst of another COVID spike. The promises of a stable reimbursement system made possible by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act have been far from realized, and there are signs that the payment landscape is in the midst of a fundamental transformation.

Other changes proposed in the 1,747-page ruling include:
 

Positive:

• More telehealth services will be covered by Medicare, including home visits.
• Tele–mental health services got a big boost; many restrictions were removed so that now the patient’s home is considered a permissible originating site. It also allows for audio-only (no visual required) encounters; the audio-only allowance will extend to opioid use disorder treatment services. Phone treatment is covered.
• Permanent adoption of G2252: The 11- to 20-minute virtual check-in code wasn’t just a one-time payment but will be reimbursed in perpetuity.
• Boosts in reimbursement for chronic care and principal care management codes, which range on the basis of service but indicate a commitment to pay for care coordination.
• Clarification of roles and billing opportunities for split/shared visits, which occur if a physician and advanced practice provider see the same patient on a particular day. Prepare for new coding rules to include a modifier. Previously, the rules for billing were muddled, so transparency helps guide payment opportunities.
• Delay of the appropriate use criteria for advanced imaging for 1 (more) year, a welcome postponement of the ruling that carries a significant administrative burden.
• Physician assistants will be able to bill Medicare directly, and referrals to be made to medical nutrition therapy by a nontreating physician.
• A new approach to patient cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screenings will be phased in. This area has caused problems in the past when the physician identifies a need for additional services (for example, polyp removal by a gastroenterologist during routine colonoscopy).
•  

Not positive:

• Which specialties benefit and which get zapped? The anticipated impact by specialty ranges from hits to interventional radiologists (–9%) and vascular surgeons (–8%), to increases for family practitioners, hand surgeons, endocrinologists, and geriatricians, each estimated to gain a modest 2%. (The exception is portable x-ray supplier, with an estimated increase of 10%.) All other specialties fall in between.
• The proposed conversion factor for 2022 is $33.58, a 3.75% drop from the 2021 conversion factor of $34.89.

The proposed ruling also covered the Quality Payment Program, the overarching program of which the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the main track for participation. The proposal incorporates additional episode-based cost measures as well as updates to quality indicators and improvement activities.

MIPS penalties. The stakes are higher now, with 9% penalties on the table for nonparticipants. The government offers physicians the ability to officially get out of the program in 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby staving off the steep penalty. The option, which is available through the end of the year, requires a simple application that can be completed on behalf of the entire practice. If you want out, now is the time to find and fill out that application.

Exempt from technology requirements. If the proposal is accepted, small practices – defined by CMS as 15 eligible clinicians or fewer – won’t have to file an annual application to reweight the “promoting interoperability” portion of the program. If acknowledged, small practices will automatically be exempt from the program’s technology section. That’s a big plus, as one of the many chief complaints from small practices is the onus of meeting the technology requirements, which include a security risk analysis, bi-directional health information exchange, public health reporting, and patient access to health information. Meeting the requirements is no small feat. That will only affect future years, so be sure to apply in 2021 if applicable for your practice.

Changes in MIPS. MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs) are anticipated for 2023, with the government releasing details about proposed models for heart disease, rheumatology, joint repair, and more. The MVPs are slated to take over the traditional MIPS by 2027.

The program will shift to 30% of your score coming from the “cost” category, which is based on the government’s analysis of a physician’s claims – and, if attributed, the claims of the patients for whom you care. This area is tricky to manage, but recognize that the costs under scrutiny are the expenses paid by Medicare on behalf of its patients.

In essence, Medicare is measuring the cost of your patients as compared with your colleagues’ costs (in the form of specialty-based benchmarks). Therefore, if you’re referring, or ordering, a more costly set of diagnostic tests, assessments, or interventions than your peers, you’ll be dinged.

However, physicians are more likely this year to flat out reject participation in the federal payment program. Payouts have been paltry and dismal to date, and the buzz is that physicians just don’t consider it worth the effort. Of course, clearing the threshold (which is proposed at 70 points next year) is a must to avoid the penalty, but don’t go crazy to get a perfect score as it won’t count for much. 2022 is the final year that there are any monies for exceptional performance.

Considering that the payouts for exceptional performance have been less than 2% for several years now, it’s hard to justify dedicating resources to achieve perfection. Experts believe that even exceptional performance will only be worth pennies in bonus payments.

The fear of the stick, therefore, may be the only motivation. And that is subjective, as physicians weigh the effort required versus just taking the hit on the penalty. But the penalty is substantial, and so even without the incentive, it’s important to participate at least at the threshold.

Fewer cost-sharing waivers. While the federal government’s payment policies have a major impact on reimbursement, other forces may have broader implications. Commercial payers have rolled back cost-sharing waivers, bringing to light the significant financial responsibility that patients have for their health care in the form of deductibles, coinsurance, and so forth.

More than a third of Americans had trouble paying their health care bills before the pandemic; as patients catch up with services that were postponed or delayed because of the pandemic, this may expose challenges for you. Patients with unpaid bills translate into your financial burden.

Virtual-first health plans. Patients may be seeking alternatives to avoid the frustrating cycle of unpaid medical bills. This may be a factor propelling another trend: Lower-cost virtual-first health plans such as Alignment Health have taken hold in the market. As the name implies, insurance coverage features telehealth that extends to in-person services if necessary.

These disruptors may have their hands at least somewhat tied, however. The market may not be able to fully embrace telemedicine until state licensure is addressed. Despite the federal regulatory relaxations, states still control the distribution of medical care through licensure requirements. Many are rolling back their pandemic-based emergency orders and only allowing licensed physicians to see patients in their state, even over telemedicine.

While seemingly frustrating for physicians who want to see patients over state lines, the delays imposed by states may actually have a welcome effect. If licensure migrates to the federal level, there are many implications. For the purposes of this article, the competitive landscape will become incredibly aggressive. You will need to compete with Amazon Care, Walmart, Cigna, and many other well-funded national players that would love nothing more than to launch a campaign to target the entire nation. Investors are eager to capture part of the nearly quarter-trillion-dollar market, with telemedicine at 38 times prepandemic levels and no signs of abating.

Increased competition for insurers. While the proposed drop in Medicare reimbursement is frustrating, keep a pulse on the fact that your patients may soon be lured by vendors like Amazon and others eager to gain access to physician payments. Instead of analyzing Federal Registers in the future, we may be assessing stock prices.

Consider, therefore, how to ensure that your digital front door is at least available, if not wide open, in the meantime. The nature of physician payments is surely changing.

Ms. Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates, Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are bracing for upcoming changes in reimbursement that may start within a few months. As doctors gear up for another wave of COVID, payment trends may not be the top priority, but some “uh oh” announcements in the fall of 2021 could have far-reaching implications that could affect your future.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a proposed rule in the summer covering key aspects of physician payment. Although the rule contained some small bright lights, the most important changes proposed were far from welcome.

Here’s what could be in store:

1. The highly anticipated Medicare Physician Fee Schedule ruling confirmed a sweeping payment cut. The drive to maintain budget neutrality forced the federal agency to reduce Medicare payments, on average, by nearly 4%. Many physicians are outraged at the proposed cut.

2. More bad news for 2022: Sequestration will be back. Sequestration is the mandatory, pesky, negative 2% adjustment on all Medicare payments. It had been put on hold and is set to return at the beginning of 2022.

Essentially, sequestration reduces what Medicare pays its providers for health services, but Medicare beneficiaries bear no responsibility for the cost difference. To prevent further debt, CMS imposes financially on hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers.

The Health Resources and Services Administration has funds remaining to reimburse for all COVID-related testing, treatment, and vaccines provided to uninsured individuals. You can apply and be reimbursed at Medicare rates for these services when COVID is the primary diagnosis (or secondary in the case of pregnancy). Patients need not be American citizens for you to get paid.

3. Down to a nail-biter: The final ruling is expected in early November. The situation smacks of earlier days when physicians clung to a precipice, waiting in anticipation for a legislative body to save them from the dreaded income plunge. Indeed, we are slipping back to the decade-long period when Congress kept coming to the rescue simply to maintain the status quo.

Many anticipate a last-minute Congressional intervention to save the day, particularly in the midst of another COVID spike. The promises of a stable reimbursement system made possible by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act have been far from realized, and there are signs that the payment landscape is in the midst of a fundamental transformation.

Other changes proposed in the 1,747-page ruling include:
 

Positive:

• More telehealth services will be covered by Medicare, including home visits.
• Tele–mental health services got a big boost; many restrictions were removed so that now the patient’s home is considered a permissible originating site. It also allows for audio-only (no visual required) encounters; the audio-only allowance will extend to opioid use disorder treatment services. Phone treatment is covered.
• Permanent adoption of G2252: The 11- to 20-minute virtual check-in code wasn’t just a one-time payment but will be reimbursed in perpetuity.
• Boosts in reimbursement for chronic care and principal care management codes, which range on the basis of service but indicate a commitment to pay for care coordination.
• Clarification of roles and billing opportunities for split/shared visits, which occur if a physician and advanced practice provider see the same patient on a particular day. Prepare for new coding rules to include a modifier. Previously, the rules for billing were muddled, so transparency helps guide payment opportunities.
• Delay of the appropriate use criteria for advanced imaging for 1 (more) year, a welcome postponement of the ruling that carries a significant administrative burden.
• Physician assistants will be able to bill Medicare directly, and referrals to be made to medical nutrition therapy by a nontreating physician.
• A new approach to patient cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screenings will be phased in. This area has caused problems in the past when the physician identifies a need for additional services (for example, polyp removal by a gastroenterologist during routine colonoscopy).
•  

Not positive:

• Which specialties benefit and which get zapped? The anticipated impact by specialty ranges from hits to interventional radiologists (–9%) and vascular surgeons (–8%), to increases for family practitioners, hand surgeons, endocrinologists, and geriatricians, each estimated to gain a modest 2%. (The exception is portable x-ray supplier, with an estimated increase of 10%.) All other specialties fall in between.
• The proposed conversion factor for 2022 is $33.58, a 3.75% drop from the 2021 conversion factor of $34.89.

The proposed ruling also covered the Quality Payment Program, the overarching program of which the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the main track for participation. The proposal incorporates additional episode-based cost measures as well as updates to quality indicators and improvement activities.

MIPS penalties. The stakes are higher now, with 9% penalties on the table for nonparticipants. The government offers physicians the ability to officially get out of the program in 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby staving off the steep penalty. The option, which is available through the end of the year, requires a simple application that can be completed on behalf of the entire practice. If you want out, now is the time to find and fill out that application.

Exempt from technology requirements. If the proposal is accepted, small practices – defined by CMS as 15 eligible clinicians or fewer – won’t have to file an annual application to reweight the “promoting interoperability” portion of the program. If acknowledged, small practices will automatically be exempt from the program’s technology section. That’s a big plus, as one of the many chief complaints from small practices is the onus of meeting the technology requirements, which include a security risk analysis, bi-directional health information exchange, public health reporting, and patient access to health information. Meeting the requirements is no small feat. That will only affect future years, so be sure to apply in 2021 if applicable for your practice.

Changes in MIPS. MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs) are anticipated for 2023, with the government releasing details about proposed models for heart disease, rheumatology, joint repair, and more. The MVPs are slated to take over the traditional MIPS by 2027.

The program will shift to 30% of your score coming from the “cost” category, which is based on the government’s analysis of a physician’s claims – and, if attributed, the claims of the patients for whom you care. This area is tricky to manage, but recognize that the costs under scrutiny are the expenses paid by Medicare on behalf of its patients.

In essence, Medicare is measuring the cost of your patients as compared with your colleagues’ costs (in the form of specialty-based benchmarks). Therefore, if you’re referring, or ordering, a more costly set of diagnostic tests, assessments, or interventions than your peers, you’ll be dinged.

However, physicians are more likely this year to flat out reject participation in the federal payment program. Payouts have been paltry and dismal to date, and the buzz is that physicians just don’t consider it worth the effort. Of course, clearing the threshold (which is proposed at 70 points next year) is a must to avoid the penalty, but don’t go crazy to get a perfect score as it won’t count for much. 2022 is the final year that there are any monies for exceptional performance.

Considering that the payouts for exceptional performance have been less than 2% for several years now, it’s hard to justify dedicating resources to achieve perfection. Experts believe that even exceptional performance will only be worth pennies in bonus payments.

The fear of the stick, therefore, may be the only motivation. And that is subjective, as physicians weigh the effort required versus just taking the hit on the penalty. But the penalty is substantial, and so even without the incentive, it’s important to participate at least at the threshold.

Fewer cost-sharing waivers. While the federal government’s payment policies have a major impact on reimbursement, other forces may have broader implications. Commercial payers have rolled back cost-sharing waivers, bringing to light the significant financial responsibility that patients have for their health care in the form of deductibles, coinsurance, and so forth.

More than a third of Americans had trouble paying their health care bills before the pandemic; as patients catch up with services that were postponed or delayed because of the pandemic, this may expose challenges for you. Patients with unpaid bills translate into your financial burden.

Virtual-first health plans. Patients may be seeking alternatives to avoid the frustrating cycle of unpaid medical bills. This may be a factor propelling another trend: Lower-cost virtual-first health plans such as Alignment Health have taken hold in the market. As the name implies, insurance coverage features telehealth that extends to in-person services if necessary.

These disruptors may have their hands at least somewhat tied, however. The market may not be able to fully embrace telemedicine until state licensure is addressed. Despite the federal regulatory relaxations, states still control the distribution of medical care through licensure requirements. Many are rolling back their pandemic-based emergency orders and only allowing licensed physicians to see patients in their state, even over telemedicine.

While seemingly frustrating for physicians who want to see patients over state lines, the delays imposed by states may actually have a welcome effect. If licensure migrates to the federal level, there are many implications. For the purposes of this article, the competitive landscape will become incredibly aggressive. You will need to compete with Amazon Care, Walmart, Cigna, and many other well-funded national players that would love nothing more than to launch a campaign to target the entire nation. Investors are eager to capture part of the nearly quarter-trillion-dollar market, with telemedicine at 38 times prepandemic levels and no signs of abating.

Increased competition for insurers. While the proposed drop in Medicare reimbursement is frustrating, keep a pulse on the fact that your patients may soon be lured by vendors like Amazon and others eager to gain access to physician payments. Instead of analyzing Federal Registers in the future, we may be assessing stock prices.

Consider, therefore, how to ensure that your digital front door is at least available, if not wide open, in the meantime. The nature of physician payments is surely changing.

Ms. Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates, Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are bracing for upcoming changes in reimbursement that may start within a few months. As doctors gear up for another wave of COVID, payment trends may not be the top priority, but some “uh oh” announcements in the fall of 2021 could have far-reaching implications that could affect your future.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a proposed rule in the summer covering key aspects of physician payment. Although the rule contained some small bright lights, the most important changes proposed were far from welcome.

Here’s what could be in store:

1. The highly anticipated Medicare Physician Fee Schedule ruling confirmed a sweeping payment cut. The drive to maintain budget neutrality forced the federal agency to reduce Medicare payments, on average, by nearly 4%. Many physicians are outraged at the proposed cut.

2. More bad news for 2022: Sequestration will be back. Sequestration is the mandatory, pesky, negative 2% adjustment on all Medicare payments. It had been put on hold and is set to return at the beginning of 2022.

Essentially, sequestration reduces what Medicare pays its providers for health services, but Medicare beneficiaries bear no responsibility for the cost difference. To prevent further debt, CMS imposes financially on hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers.

The Health Resources and Services Administration has funds remaining to reimburse for all COVID-related testing, treatment, and vaccines provided to uninsured individuals. You can apply and be reimbursed at Medicare rates for these services when COVID is the primary diagnosis (or secondary in the case of pregnancy). Patients need not be American citizens for you to get paid.

3. Down to a nail-biter: The final ruling is expected in early November. The situation smacks of earlier days when physicians clung to a precipice, waiting in anticipation for a legislative body to save them from the dreaded income plunge. Indeed, we are slipping back to the decade-long period when Congress kept coming to the rescue simply to maintain the status quo.

Many anticipate a last-minute Congressional intervention to save the day, particularly in the midst of another COVID spike. The promises of a stable reimbursement system made possible by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act have been far from realized, and there are signs that the payment landscape is in the midst of a fundamental transformation.

Other changes proposed in the 1,747-page ruling include:
 

Positive:

• More telehealth services will be covered by Medicare, including home visits.
• Tele–mental health services got a big boost; many restrictions were removed so that now the patient’s home is considered a permissible originating site. It also allows for audio-only (no visual required) encounters; the audio-only allowance will extend to opioid use disorder treatment services. Phone treatment is covered.
• Permanent adoption of G2252: The 11- to 20-minute virtual check-in code wasn’t just a one-time payment but will be reimbursed in perpetuity.
• Boosts in reimbursement for chronic care and principal care management codes, which range on the basis of service but indicate a commitment to pay for care coordination.
• Clarification of roles and billing opportunities for split/shared visits, which occur if a physician and advanced practice provider see the same patient on a particular day. Prepare for new coding rules to include a modifier. Previously, the rules for billing were muddled, so transparency helps guide payment opportunities.
• Delay of the appropriate use criteria for advanced imaging for 1 (more) year, a welcome postponement of the ruling that carries a significant administrative burden.
• Physician assistants will be able to bill Medicare directly, and referrals to be made to medical nutrition therapy by a nontreating physician.
• A new approach to patient cost-sharing for colorectal cancer screenings will be phased in. This area has caused problems in the past when the physician identifies a need for additional services (for example, polyp removal by a gastroenterologist during routine colonoscopy).
•  

Not positive:

• Which specialties benefit and which get zapped? The anticipated impact by specialty ranges from hits to interventional radiologists (–9%) and vascular surgeons (–8%), to increases for family practitioners, hand surgeons, endocrinologists, and geriatricians, each estimated to gain a modest 2%. (The exception is portable x-ray supplier, with an estimated increase of 10%.) All other specialties fall in between.
• The proposed conversion factor for 2022 is $33.58, a 3.75% drop from the 2021 conversion factor of $34.89.

The proposed ruling also covered the Quality Payment Program, the overarching program of which the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the main track for participation. The proposal incorporates additional episode-based cost measures as well as updates to quality indicators and improvement activities.

MIPS penalties. The stakes are higher now, with 9% penalties on the table for nonparticipants. The government offers physicians the ability to officially get out of the program in 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby staving off the steep penalty. The option, which is available through the end of the year, requires a simple application that can be completed on behalf of the entire practice. If you want out, now is the time to find and fill out that application.

Exempt from technology requirements. If the proposal is accepted, small practices – defined by CMS as 15 eligible clinicians or fewer – won’t have to file an annual application to reweight the “promoting interoperability” portion of the program. If acknowledged, small practices will automatically be exempt from the program’s technology section. That’s a big plus, as one of the many chief complaints from small practices is the onus of meeting the technology requirements, which include a security risk analysis, bi-directional health information exchange, public health reporting, and patient access to health information. Meeting the requirements is no small feat. That will only affect future years, so be sure to apply in 2021 if applicable for your practice.

Changes in MIPS. MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs) are anticipated for 2023, with the government releasing details about proposed models for heart disease, rheumatology, joint repair, and more. The MVPs are slated to take over the traditional MIPS by 2027.

The program will shift to 30% of your score coming from the “cost” category, which is based on the government’s analysis of a physician’s claims – and, if attributed, the claims of the patients for whom you care. This area is tricky to manage, but recognize that the costs under scrutiny are the expenses paid by Medicare on behalf of its patients.

In essence, Medicare is measuring the cost of your patients as compared with your colleagues’ costs (in the form of specialty-based benchmarks). Therefore, if you’re referring, or ordering, a more costly set of diagnostic tests, assessments, or interventions than your peers, you’ll be dinged.

However, physicians are more likely this year to flat out reject participation in the federal payment program. Payouts have been paltry and dismal to date, and the buzz is that physicians just don’t consider it worth the effort. Of course, clearing the threshold (which is proposed at 70 points next year) is a must to avoid the penalty, but don’t go crazy to get a perfect score as it won’t count for much. 2022 is the final year that there are any monies for exceptional performance.

Considering that the payouts for exceptional performance have been less than 2% for several years now, it’s hard to justify dedicating resources to achieve perfection. Experts believe that even exceptional performance will only be worth pennies in bonus payments.

The fear of the stick, therefore, may be the only motivation. And that is subjective, as physicians weigh the effort required versus just taking the hit on the penalty. But the penalty is substantial, and so even without the incentive, it’s important to participate at least at the threshold.

Fewer cost-sharing waivers. While the federal government’s payment policies have a major impact on reimbursement, other forces may have broader implications. Commercial payers have rolled back cost-sharing waivers, bringing to light the significant financial responsibility that patients have for their health care in the form of deductibles, coinsurance, and so forth.

More than a third of Americans had trouble paying their health care bills before the pandemic; as patients catch up with services that were postponed or delayed because of the pandemic, this may expose challenges for you. Patients with unpaid bills translate into your financial burden.

Virtual-first health plans. Patients may be seeking alternatives to avoid the frustrating cycle of unpaid medical bills. This may be a factor propelling another trend: Lower-cost virtual-first health plans such as Alignment Health have taken hold in the market. As the name implies, insurance coverage features telehealth that extends to in-person services if necessary.

These disruptors may have their hands at least somewhat tied, however. The market may not be able to fully embrace telemedicine until state licensure is addressed. Despite the federal regulatory relaxations, states still control the distribution of medical care through licensure requirements. Many are rolling back their pandemic-based emergency orders and only allowing licensed physicians to see patients in their state, even over telemedicine.

While seemingly frustrating for physicians who want to see patients over state lines, the delays imposed by states may actually have a welcome effect. If licensure migrates to the federal level, there are many implications. For the purposes of this article, the competitive landscape will become incredibly aggressive. You will need to compete with Amazon Care, Walmart, Cigna, and many other well-funded national players that would love nothing more than to launch a campaign to target the entire nation. Investors are eager to capture part of the nearly quarter-trillion-dollar market, with telemedicine at 38 times prepandemic levels and no signs of abating.

Increased competition for insurers. While the proposed drop in Medicare reimbursement is frustrating, keep a pulse on the fact that your patients may soon be lured by vendors like Amazon and others eager to gain access to physician payments. Instead of analyzing Federal Registers in the future, we may be assessing stock prices.

Consider, therefore, how to ensure that your digital front door is at least available, if not wide open, in the meantime. The nature of physician payments is surely changing.

Ms. Woodcock is president of Woodcock & Associates, Atlanta. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Onions and iodine and COVID, oh my!

As surely as the sun rises, anti-vaxxers will come up with some wacky and dangerous new idea to prevent COVID. While perhaps nothing will top horse medication, gargling iodine (or spraying it into the nose) is also not a great idea.

Yagi-Studio/E+

Multiple social media posts have extolled the virtues of gargling Betadine (povidone iodine), which is a TOPICAL disinfectant commonly used in EDs and operating rooms. One post cited a paper by a Bangladeshi plastic surgeon who hypothesized on the subject, and if that’s not a peer-reviewed, rigorously researched source, we don’t know what is.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, actual medical experts do not recommend using Betadine to prevent COVID. Ingesting it can cause iodine poisoning and plenty of nasty GI side effects; while Betadine does make a diluted product safe for gargling use (used for the treatment of sore throats), it has not shown any effectiveness against viruses or COVID in particular.

A New York ED doctor summed it up best in the Rolling Stone article when he was told anti-vaxxers were gargling iodine: He offered a choice four-letter expletive, then said, “Of course they are.”

But wait! We’ve got a two-for-one deal on dubious COVID cures this week. Health experts in Myanmar (Burma to all the “Seinfeld” fans) and Thailand have been combating social media posts claiming that onion fumes will cure COVID. All you need to do is slice an onion in half, sniff it for a while, then chew on a second onion, and your COVID will be cured!

In what is surely the most radical understatement of the year, a professor in the department of preventive and social medicine at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, said in the AFP article that there is “no solid evidence” to support onion sniffing from “any clinical research.”

We’re just going to assume the expletives that surely followed were kept off the record.
 

Pro-Trump state governor encourages vaccination

Clearly, the politics of COVID-19 have been working against the science of COVID-19. Politicians can’t, or won’t, agree on what to do about it, and many prominent Republicans have been actively resisting vaccine and mask mandates.

Governor Jim Justice / YouTube.com

There is at least one Republican governor who has wholeheartedly encouraged vaccination in his pro-Trump state. We’re talking about Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia, and not for the first time.

The Washington Post has detailed his efforts to promote the COVID vaccine, and we would like to share a couple of examples.

In June he suggested that people who didn’t get vaccinated were “entering the death drawing.” He followed that by saying, “If I knew for certain that there was going to be eight or nine people die by next Tuesday, and I could be one of them if I don’t take the vaccine ... What in the world do you think I would do? I mean, I would run over top of somebody.”

More recently, Gov. Justice took on vaccine conspiracy theories.

“For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the very same people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Nuff said.
 

Jet lag may be a gut feeling

After a week-long vacation halfway around the world, it’s time to go back to your usual routine and time zone. But don’t forget about that free souvenir, jet lag. A disrupted circadian rhythm can be a real bummer, but researchers may have found the fix in your belly.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

In a study funded by the U.S. Navy, researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, looked into how the presence of a prebiotic in one’s diet can have on the disrupted biological clocks. They’re not the same as probiotics, which help you stay regular in another way. Prebiotics work as food to help the good gut bacteria you already have. An earlier study had suggested that prebiotics may have a positive effect on the brain.

To test the theory, the researchers gave one group of rats their regular food while another group received food with two different prebiotics. After manipulating the rats’ light-dark cycle for 8 weeks to give the illusion of traveling to a time zone 12 hours ahead every week, they found that the rats who ate the prebiotics were able to bounce back faster.

The possibility of ingesting something to keep your body clock regular sounds like a dream, but the researchers don’t really advise you to snatch all the supplements you can at your local pharmacy just yet.

“If you know you are going to come into a challenge, you could take a look at some of the prebiotics that are available. Just realize that they are not customized yet, so it might work for you but it won’t work for your neighbor,” said senior author Monika Fleshner.

Until there’s more conclusive research, just be good to your bacteria.
 

How to make stuff up and influence people

You’ve probably heard that we use only 10% of our brain. It’s right up there with “the Earth is flat” and “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

MarkRyanDesigns/Getty Images

The idea that we use only 10% of our brains can probably be traced back to the early 1900s, suggests Discover magazine, when psychologist William James wrote, “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.”

There are many different takes on it, but it is indeed a myth that we use only 10% of our brains. Dale Carnegie, the public speaking teacher, seems to be the one who put the specific number of 10% on James’ idea in his 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“We think that people are excited by this pseudo fact because it’s very optimistic,” neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt told Discover. “Wouldn’t we all love to think our brains had some giant pool of untapped potential that we’re not using?”

The reality is, we do use our whole brain. Functional MRI shows that different parts of the brain are used for different things such as language and memories. “Not all at the same time, of course. But every part of the brain has a job to do,” the Discover article explained.

There are many things we don’t know about how the brain works, but at least you know you use more than 10%. After all, a brain just told you so.

Onions and iodine and COVID, oh my!

As surely as the sun rises, anti-vaxxers will come up with some wacky and dangerous new idea to prevent COVID. While perhaps nothing will top horse medication, gargling iodine (or spraying it into the nose) is also not a great idea.

Yagi-Studio/E+

Multiple social media posts have extolled the virtues of gargling Betadine (povidone iodine), which is a TOPICAL disinfectant commonly used in EDs and operating rooms. One post cited a paper by a Bangladeshi plastic surgeon who hypothesized on the subject, and if that’s not a peer-reviewed, rigorously researched source, we don’t know what is.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, actual medical experts do not recommend using Betadine to prevent COVID. Ingesting it can cause iodine poisoning and plenty of nasty GI side effects; while Betadine does make a diluted product safe for gargling use (used for the treatment of sore throats), it has not shown any effectiveness against viruses or COVID in particular.

A New York ED doctor summed it up best in the Rolling Stone article when he was told anti-vaxxers were gargling iodine: He offered a choice four-letter expletive, then said, “Of course they are.”

But wait! We’ve got a two-for-one deal on dubious COVID cures this week. Health experts in Myanmar (Burma to all the “Seinfeld” fans) and Thailand have been combating social media posts claiming that onion fumes will cure COVID. All you need to do is slice an onion in half, sniff it for a while, then chew on a second onion, and your COVID will be cured!

In what is surely the most radical understatement of the year, a professor in the department of preventive and social medicine at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, said in the AFP article that there is “no solid evidence” to support onion sniffing from “any clinical research.”

We’re just going to assume the expletives that surely followed were kept off the record.
 

Pro-Trump state governor encourages vaccination

Clearly, the politics of COVID-19 have been working against the science of COVID-19. Politicians can’t, or won’t, agree on what to do about it, and many prominent Republicans have been actively resisting vaccine and mask mandates.

Governor Jim Justice / YouTube.com

There is at least one Republican governor who has wholeheartedly encouraged vaccination in his pro-Trump state. We’re talking about Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia, and not for the first time.

The Washington Post has detailed his efforts to promote the COVID vaccine, and we would like to share a couple of examples.

In June he suggested that people who didn’t get vaccinated were “entering the death drawing.” He followed that by saying, “If I knew for certain that there was going to be eight or nine people die by next Tuesday, and I could be one of them if I don’t take the vaccine ... What in the world do you think I would do? I mean, I would run over top of somebody.”

More recently, Gov. Justice took on vaccine conspiracy theories.

“For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the very same people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Nuff said.
 

Jet lag may be a gut feeling

After a week-long vacation halfway around the world, it’s time to go back to your usual routine and time zone. But don’t forget about that free souvenir, jet lag. A disrupted circadian rhythm can be a real bummer, but researchers may have found the fix in your belly.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

In a study funded by the U.S. Navy, researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, looked into how the presence of a prebiotic in one’s diet can have on the disrupted biological clocks. They’re not the same as probiotics, which help you stay regular in another way. Prebiotics work as food to help the good gut bacteria you already have. An earlier study had suggested that prebiotics may have a positive effect on the brain.

To test the theory, the researchers gave one group of rats their regular food while another group received food with two different prebiotics. After manipulating the rats’ light-dark cycle for 8 weeks to give the illusion of traveling to a time zone 12 hours ahead every week, they found that the rats who ate the prebiotics were able to bounce back faster.

The possibility of ingesting something to keep your body clock regular sounds like a dream, but the researchers don’t really advise you to snatch all the supplements you can at your local pharmacy just yet.

“If you know you are going to come into a challenge, you could take a look at some of the prebiotics that are available. Just realize that they are not customized yet, so it might work for you but it won’t work for your neighbor,” said senior author Monika Fleshner.

Until there’s more conclusive research, just be good to your bacteria.
 

How to make stuff up and influence people

You’ve probably heard that we use only 10% of our brain. It’s right up there with “the Earth is flat” and “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

MarkRyanDesigns/Getty Images

The idea that we use only 10% of our brains can probably be traced back to the early 1900s, suggests Discover magazine, when psychologist William James wrote, “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.”

There are many different takes on it, but it is indeed a myth that we use only 10% of our brains. Dale Carnegie, the public speaking teacher, seems to be the one who put the specific number of 10% on James’ idea in his 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“We think that people are excited by this pseudo fact because it’s very optimistic,” neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt told Discover. “Wouldn’t we all love to think our brains had some giant pool of untapped potential that we’re not using?”

The reality is, we do use our whole brain. Functional MRI shows that different parts of the brain are used for different things such as language and memories. “Not all at the same time, of course. But every part of the brain has a job to do,” the Discover article explained.

There are many things we don’t know about how the brain works, but at least you know you use more than 10%. After all, a brain just told you so.

Onions and iodine and COVID, oh my!

As surely as the sun rises, anti-vaxxers will come up with some wacky and dangerous new idea to prevent COVID. While perhaps nothing will top horse medication, gargling iodine (or spraying it into the nose) is also not a great idea.

Yagi-Studio/E+

Multiple social media posts have extolled the virtues of gargling Betadine (povidone iodine), which is a TOPICAL disinfectant commonly used in EDs and operating rooms. One post cited a paper by a Bangladeshi plastic surgeon who hypothesized on the subject, and if that’s not a peer-reviewed, rigorously researched source, we don’t know what is.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, actual medical experts do not recommend using Betadine to prevent COVID. Ingesting it can cause iodine poisoning and plenty of nasty GI side effects; while Betadine does make a diluted product safe for gargling use (used for the treatment of sore throats), it has not shown any effectiveness against viruses or COVID in particular.

A New York ED doctor summed it up best in the Rolling Stone article when he was told anti-vaxxers were gargling iodine: He offered a choice four-letter expletive, then said, “Of course they are.”

But wait! We’ve got a two-for-one deal on dubious COVID cures this week. Health experts in Myanmar (Burma to all the “Seinfeld” fans) and Thailand have been combating social media posts claiming that onion fumes will cure COVID. All you need to do is slice an onion in half, sniff it for a while, then chew on a second onion, and your COVID will be cured!

In what is surely the most radical understatement of the year, a professor in the department of preventive and social medicine at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, said in the AFP article that there is “no solid evidence” to support onion sniffing from “any clinical research.”

We’re just going to assume the expletives that surely followed were kept off the record.
 

Pro-Trump state governor encourages vaccination

Clearly, the politics of COVID-19 have been working against the science of COVID-19. Politicians can’t, or won’t, agree on what to do about it, and many prominent Republicans have been actively resisting vaccine and mask mandates.

Governor Jim Justice / YouTube.com

There is at least one Republican governor who has wholeheartedly encouraged vaccination in his pro-Trump state. We’re talking about Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia, and not for the first time.

The Washington Post has detailed his efforts to promote the COVID vaccine, and we would like to share a couple of examples.

In June he suggested that people who didn’t get vaccinated were “entering the death drawing.” He followed that by saying, “If I knew for certain that there was going to be eight or nine people die by next Tuesday, and I could be one of them if I don’t take the vaccine ... What in the world do you think I would do? I mean, I would run over top of somebody.”

More recently, Gov. Justice took on vaccine conspiracy theories.

“For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the very same people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Nuff said.
 

Jet lag may be a gut feeling

After a week-long vacation halfway around the world, it’s time to go back to your usual routine and time zone. But don’t forget about that free souvenir, jet lag. A disrupted circadian rhythm can be a real bummer, but researchers may have found the fix in your belly.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

In a study funded by the U.S. Navy, researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, looked into how the presence of a prebiotic in one’s diet can have on the disrupted biological clocks. They’re not the same as probiotics, which help you stay regular in another way. Prebiotics work as food to help the good gut bacteria you already have. An earlier study had suggested that prebiotics may have a positive effect on the brain.

To test the theory, the researchers gave one group of rats their regular food while another group received food with two different prebiotics. After manipulating the rats’ light-dark cycle for 8 weeks to give the illusion of traveling to a time zone 12 hours ahead every week, they found that the rats who ate the prebiotics were able to bounce back faster.

The possibility of ingesting something to keep your body clock regular sounds like a dream, but the researchers don’t really advise you to snatch all the supplements you can at your local pharmacy just yet.

“If you know you are going to come into a challenge, you could take a look at some of the prebiotics that are available. Just realize that they are not customized yet, so it might work for you but it won’t work for your neighbor,” said senior author Monika Fleshner.

Until there’s more conclusive research, just be good to your bacteria.
 

How to make stuff up and influence people

You’ve probably heard that we use only 10% of our brain. It’s right up there with “the Earth is flat” and “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

MarkRyanDesigns/Getty Images

The idea that we use only 10% of our brains can probably be traced back to the early 1900s, suggests Discover magazine, when psychologist William James wrote, “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.”

There are many different takes on it, but it is indeed a myth that we use only 10% of our brains. Dale Carnegie, the public speaking teacher, seems to be the one who put the specific number of 10% on James’ idea in his 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“We think that people are excited by this pseudo fact because it’s very optimistic,” neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt told Discover. “Wouldn’t we all love to think our brains had some giant pool of untapped potential that we’re not using?”

The reality is, we do use our whole brain. Functional MRI shows that different parts of the brain are used for different things such as language and memories. “Not all at the same time, of course. But every part of the brain has a job to do,” the Discover article explained.

There are many things we don’t know about how the brain works, but at least you know you use more than 10%. After all, a brain just told you so.

There is a link between ADHD and risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other dementia types, results from a large, multigenerational study show.

“The findings suggest there are common genetic and/or environmental contributions to the association between ADHD and dementia,” study investigator Zheng Chang, PhD, from the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said in a statement.

“There have been few studies previously on the link between ADHD and dementia, all with limited sample size,” Dr. Chang said in an interview.

“This is the first study to look at ADHD and dementia within extended families. It’s a large population-based study including over 2 million individuals and their over 5 million biological relatives,” he noted.

The study was published online Sept. 9, 2021, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Shared familial risk

The researchers identified roughly 2.1 million people born in Sweden between 1980 and 2001. Overall, 3.2% of the cohort had a diagnosis of ADHD. 

Using national registries, they linked these individuals to more than 5 million of their biological relatives including parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts and determined which of these relatives developed dementia over time.

In adjusted analyses, parents of individuals with ADHD had 34% higher risk for any dementia than parents of those without ADHD (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63).

The risk for AD, the most common type of dementia, was 55% higher in parents of individuals with ADHD (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.26-1.89).

Individuals with ADHD were more likely to have parents with early-onset dementia rather than late-onset dementia. However, the absolute risk for dementia was low for the parent cohort: Only 0.17% of the parents were diagnosed with dementia during follow-up.

The association between ADHD and dementia was not as strong for second-degree relatives of individuals with ADHD. For example, grandparents of individuals with ADHD had a 10% increased risk for dementia, compared with grandparents of individuals without ADHD.

The finding of attenuated associations with decreasing genetic relatedness (parents > grandparents and uncles/aunts), points to shared familial risk between ADHD and AD, the researchers said. 

There could be “undiscovered genetic variants that contribute to either traits or family-wide environmental risk factors, such as socioeconomic status, that may have an impact on the association,” Dr. Chang said in the news release.

“There are no direct clinical implications from this study, but research like this could lead to further research with goals for improved detection, prevention, and treatment,” he said in an interview.
 

More questions than answers

Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association that the way different brain diseases are linked “is a question the Alzheimer’s Association is often asked, and it is a part of our funding portfolio to get that question answered.”

This study looking at ADHD and dementia is “intriguing,” Dr. Snyder said, “because, right now, there is limited information available. That said, this is an association study; it shows that two things are somehow connected. Because of how the study was conducted, it does not – and cannot – prove causation,” Dr. Snyder said. “But it is interesting all the same. More research is needed to uncover specifically why and how these two diseases are related. That might eventually give us insight into how to manage risk or even improve treatment.”

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie, the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Stiftelse, and the Karolinska Institutet Research Foundation. Dr. Chang and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a link between ADHD and risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other dementia types, results from a large, multigenerational study show.

“The findings suggest there are common genetic and/or environmental contributions to the association between ADHD and dementia,” study investigator Zheng Chang, PhD, from the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said in a statement.

“There have been few studies previously on the link between ADHD and dementia, all with limited sample size,” Dr. Chang said in an interview.

“This is the first study to look at ADHD and dementia within extended families. It’s a large population-based study including over 2 million individuals and their over 5 million biological relatives,” he noted.

The study was published online Sept. 9, 2021, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Shared familial risk

The researchers identified roughly 2.1 million people born in Sweden between 1980 and 2001. Overall, 3.2% of the cohort had a diagnosis of ADHD. 

Using national registries, they linked these individuals to more than 5 million of their biological relatives including parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts and determined which of these relatives developed dementia over time.

In adjusted analyses, parents of individuals with ADHD had 34% higher risk for any dementia than parents of those without ADHD (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63).

The risk for AD, the most common type of dementia, was 55% higher in parents of individuals with ADHD (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.26-1.89).

Individuals with ADHD were more likely to have parents with early-onset dementia rather than late-onset dementia. However, the absolute risk for dementia was low for the parent cohort: Only 0.17% of the parents were diagnosed with dementia during follow-up.

The association between ADHD and dementia was not as strong for second-degree relatives of individuals with ADHD. For example, grandparents of individuals with ADHD had a 10% increased risk for dementia, compared with grandparents of individuals without ADHD.

The finding of attenuated associations with decreasing genetic relatedness (parents > grandparents and uncles/aunts), points to shared familial risk between ADHD and AD, the researchers said. 

There could be “undiscovered genetic variants that contribute to either traits or family-wide environmental risk factors, such as socioeconomic status, that may have an impact on the association,” Dr. Chang said in the news release.

“There are no direct clinical implications from this study, but research like this could lead to further research with goals for improved detection, prevention, and treatment,” he said in an interview.
 

More questions than answers

Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association that the way different brain diseases are linked “is a question the Alzheimer’s Association is often asked, and it is a part of our funding portfolio to get that question answered.”

This study looking at ADHD and dementia is “intriguing,” Dr. Snyder said, “because, right now, there is limited information available. That said, this is an association study; it shows that two things are somehow connected. Because of how the study was conducted, it does not – and cannot – prove causation,” Dr. Snyder said. “But it is interesting all the same. More research is needed to uncover specifically why and how these two diseases are related. That might eventually give us insight into how to manage risk or even improve treatment.”

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie, the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Stiftelse, and the Karolinska Institutet Research Foundation. Dr. Chang and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a link between ADHD and risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other dementia types, results from a large, multigenerational study show.

“The findings suggest there are common genetic and/or environmental contributions to the association between ADHD and dementia,” study investigator Zheng Chang, PhD, from the department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics at Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said in a statement.

“There have been few studies previously on the link between ADHD and dementia, all with limited sample size,” Dr. Chang said in an interview.

“This is the first study to look at ADHD and dementia within extended families. It’s a large population-based study including over 2 million individuals and their over 5 million biological relatives,” he noted.

The study was published online Sept. 9, 2021, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Shared familial risk

The researchers identified roughly 2.1 million people born in Sweden between 1980 and 2001. Overall, 3.2% of the cohort had a diagnosis of ADHD. 

Using national registries, they linked these individuals to more than 5 million of their biological relatives including parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts and determined which of these relatives developed dementia over time.

In adjusted analyses, parents of individuals with ADHD had 34% higher risk for any dementia than parents of those without ADHD (hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11-1.63).

The risk for AD, the most common type of dementia, was 55% higher in parents of individuals with ADHD (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.26-1.89).

Individuals with ADHD were more likely to have parents with early-onset dementia rather than late-onset dementia. However, the absolute risk for dementia was low for the parent cohort: Only 0.17% of the parents were diagnosed with dementia during follow-up.

The association between ADHD and dementia was not as strong for second-degree relatives of individuals with ADHD. For example, grandparents of individuals with ADHD had a 10% increased risk for dementia, compared with grandparents of individuals without ADHD.

The finding of attenuated associations with decreasing genetic relatedness (parents > grandparents and uncles/aunts), points to shared familial risk between ADHD and AD, the researchers said. 

There could be “undiscovered genetic variants that contribute to either traits or family-wide environmental risk factors, such as socioeconomic status, that may have an impact on the association,” Dr. Chang said in the news release.

“There are no direct clinical implications from this study, but research like this could lead to further research with goals for improved detection, prevention, and treatment,” he said in an interview.
 

More questions than answers

Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association that the way different brain diseases are linked “is a question the Alzheimer’s Association is often asked, and it is a part of our funding portfolio to get that question answered.”

This study looking at ADHD and dementia is “intriguing,” Dr. Snyder said, “because, right now, there is limited information available. That said, this is an association study; it shows that two things are somehow connected. Because of how the study was conducted, it does not – and cannot – prove causation,” Dr. Snyder said. “But it is interesting all the same. More research is needed to uncover specifically why and how these two diseases are related. That might eventually give us insight into how to manage risk or even improve treatment.”

The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Brain Foundation, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie, the Fredrik & Ingrid Thurings Stiftelse, and the Karolinska Institutet Research Foundation. Dr. Chang and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Every day, more than 140,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with COVID-19. But no matter how curious they are about which variant they are fighting, none of them will find out.

Courtesy of Twitter

The country is dotted with labs that sequence the genomes of COVID-19 cases, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracks those results. But federal rules say those results are not allowed to make their way back to patients or doctors.

According to public health and infectious disease experts, this is unlikely to change any time soon.

“I know people want to know – I’ve had a lot of friends or family who’ve asked me how they can find out,” says Aubree Gordon, PhD, an epidemiology specialist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think it’s an interesting thing to find out, for sure. And it would certainly be nice to know. But because it probably isn’t necessary, there is little motivation to change the rules.”

Because the tests that are used have not been approved as diagnostic tools under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments program, which is overseen by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they can only be used for research purposes.

In fact, the scientists doing the sequencing rarely have any patient information, Dr. Gordon says. For example, the Lauring Lab at University of Michigan – run by Adam Lauring, MD – focuses on viral evolution and currently tests for variants. But this is not done for the sake of the patient or the doctors treating the patient.

“The samples come in ... and they’ve been de-identified,”Dr. Gordon says. “This is just for research purposes. Not much patient information is shared with the researchers.”

But as of now, aside from sheer curiosity, there is not a reason to change this, says Timothy Brewer, MD, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at University of California, Los Angeles.

Although there are emerging variants – including the new Mu variant, also known as B.1.621 and recently classified as a “variant of interest” – the Delta variant accounts for about 99% of U.S. cases.

In addition, Dr. Brewer says, treatments are the same for all COVID-19 patients, regardless of the variant.

“There would have to be some clinical significance for there to be a good reason to give this information,” he says. “That would mean we would be doing something different treatment-wise depending on the variant. As of now, that is not the case.”

There is a loophole that allows labs to release variant information: They can develop their own tests. But they then must go through a lengthy validation process that proves their tests are as effective as the gold standard, says Mark Pandori, PhD, director of the Nevada State Public Health Laboratory.

But even with validation, it is too time-consuming and costly to sequence large numbers of cases, he says.

“The reason we’re not doing it routinely is there’s no way to do the genomic analysis on all the positives,” Dr. Pandori says. “It is about $110 dollars to do a sequence. It’s not like a standard PCR test.”

There is a hypothetical situation that may warrant the release of these results, Dr. Brewer says: If a variant emerges that evades vaccines.

“That would be a real public health issue,” he says. “You want to make sure there aren’t variants emerging somewhere that are escaping immunity.”

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

Every day, more than 140,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with COVID-19. But no matter how curious they are about which variant they are fighting, none of them will find out.

Courtesy of Twitter

The country is dotted with labs that sequence the genomes of COVID-19 cases, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracks those results. But federal rules say those results are not allowed to make their way back to patients or doctors.

According to public health and infectious disease experts, this is unlikely to change any time soon.

“I know people want to know – I’ve had a lot of friends or family who’ve asked me how they can find out,” says Aubree Gordon, PhD, an epidemiology specialist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think it’s an interesting thing to find out, for sure. And it would certainly be nice to know. But because it probably isn’t necessary, there is little motivation to change the rules.”

Because the tests that are used have not been approved as diagnostic tools under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments program, which is overseen by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they can only be used for research purposes.

In fact, the scientists doing the sequencing rarely have any patient information, Dr. Gordon says. For example, the Lauring Lab at University of Michigan – run by Adam Lauring, MD – focuses on viral evolution and currently tests for variants. But this is not done for the sake of the patient or the doctors treating the patient.

“The samples come in ... and they’ve been de-identified,”Dr. Gordon says. “This is just for research purposes. Not much patient information is shared with the researchers.”

But as of now, aside from sheer curiosity, there is not a reason to change this, says Timothy Brewer, MD, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at University of California, Los Angeles.

Although there are emerging variants – including the new Mu variant, also known as B.1.621 and recently classified as a “variant of interest” – the Delta variant accounts for about 99% of U.S. cases.

In addition, Dr. Brewer says, treatments are the same for all COVID-19 patients, regardless of the variant.

“There would have to be some clinical significance for there to be a good reason to give this information,” he says. “That would mean we would be doing something different treatment-wise depending on the variant. As of now, that is not the case.”

There is a loophole that allows labs to release variant information: They can develop their own tests. But they then must go through a lengthy validation process that proves their tests are as effective as the gold standard, says Mark Pandori, PhD, director of the Nevada State Public Health Laboratory.

But even with validation, it is too time-consuming and costly to sequence large numbers of cases, he says.

“The reason we’re not doing it routinely is there’s no way to do the genomic analysis on all the positives,” Dr. Pandori says. “It is about $110 dollars to do a sequence. It’s not like a standard PCR test.”

There is a hypothetical situation that may warrant the release of these results, Dr. Brewer says: If a variant emerges that evades vaccines.

“That would be a real public health issue,” he says. “You want to make sure there aren’t variants emerging somewhere that are escaping immunity.”

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

Every day, more than 140,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with COVID-19. But no matter how curious they are about which variant they are fighting, none of them will find out.

Courtesy of Twitter

The country is dotted with labs that sequence the genomes of COVID-19 cases, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracks those results. But federal rules say those results are not allowed to make their way back to patients or doctors.

According to public health and infectious disease experts, this is unlikely to change any time soon.

“I know people want to know – I’ve had a lot of friends or family who’ve asked me how they can find out,” says Aubree Gordon, PhD, an epidemiology specialist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think it’s an interesting thing to find out, for sure. And it would certainly be nice to know. But because it probably isn’t necessary, there is little motivation to change the rules.”

Because the tests that are used have not been approved as diagnostic tools under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments program, which is overseen by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, they can only be used for research purposes.

In fact, the scientists doing the sequencing rarely have any patient information, Dr. Gordon says. For example, the Lauring Lab at University of Michigan – run by Adam Lauring, MD – focuses on viral evolution and currently tests for variants. But this is not done for the sake of the patient or the doctors treating the patient.

“The samples come in ... and they’ve been de-identified,”Dr. Gordon says. “This is just for research purposes. Not much patient information is shared with the researchers.”

But as of now, aside from sheer curiosity, there is not a reason to change this, says Timothy Brewer, MD, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at University of California, Los Angeles.

Although there are emerging variants – including the new Mu variant, also known as B.1.621 and recently classified as a “variant of interest” – the Delta variant accounts for about 99% of U.S. cases.

In addition, Dr. Brewer says, treatments are the same for all COVID-19 patients, regardless of the variant.

“There would have to be some clinical significance for there to be a good reason to give this information,” he says. “That would mean we would be doing something different treatment-wise depending on the variant. As of now, that is not the case.”

There is a loophole that allows labs to release variant information: They can develop their own tests. But they then must go through a lengthy validation process that proves their tests are as effective as the gold standard, says Mark Pandori, PhD, director of the Nevada State Public Health Laboratory.

But even with validation, it is too time-consuming and costly to sequence large numbers of cases, he says.

“The reason we’re not doing it routinely is there’s no way to do the genomic analysis on all the positives,” Dr. Pandori says. “It is about $110 dollars to do a sequence. It’s not like a standard PCR test.”

There is a hypothetical situation that may warrant the release of these results, Dr. Brewer says: If a variant emerges that evades vaccines.

“That would be a real public health issue,” he says. “You want to make sure there aren’t variants emerging somewhere that are escaping immunity.”

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

Elevated levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and apolipoprotein A1 (apoA1) are associated with a reduced risk for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), new research shows.

The study also linked a higher ratio of total cholesterol to HDL with an increased risk for ALS. These findings, investigators noted, point to potential future biomarkers in screening for ALS and perhaps an approach to reduce risk or delay onset of ALS in the longer term.

“They may help build a biochemical picture of what’s going on and who might be at risk of developing ALS in the near future, particularly in people with a genetic predisposition to ALS,” study investigator Alexander G. Thompson, DPhil, Medical Research Council clinician scientist, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, said in an interview.

He emphasized that although the current observational study cannot show cause and effect, such a relationship may exist.

The study was published online September 13 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry.
 

Registry data

ALS is a disorder of progressive degeneration of upper and lower motor neurons. Genetic variants account for fewer than 15% of cases. The factors that are associated with the greatest risk are unclear.

To investigate, the researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort study of persons aged 39-72 years. Participants underwent an initial assessment between March 2006 and October 2010 and were followed for a median of 11.9 years.

In addition to providing demographic and health information, participants provided blood samples for biochemical analysis. This included measurements of total cholesterol, HDL, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, apoA1, apolipoprotein B (apoB), A1c, and creatinine.

Researchers used diagnostic codes in inpatient health records and death certificate information to verify ALS diagnoses.

The analysis included data from 502,409 participants. The mean age of the participants was 58 years, and 54.4% were women. During follow-up, 343 participants were diagnosed with ALS, yielding a crude incidence of 5.85 per 100,000 per year (95% confidence interval, 5.25-6.51).

After controlling for sex and age, results showed that higher HDL (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.96; P = .010) and higher apoA1 (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94, P = .005) were associated with a reduced risk for subsequent ALS.

A higher ratio of total cholesterol to HDL was associated with increased ALS risk.

A rise in neurofilaments and other markers of neuronal loss typically occur within about a year of ALS symptom onset. To ensure that they were capturing participants whose blood samples were taken before the onset of neurodegeneration, the researchers performed a secondary analysis that excluded ALS diagnoses within 5 years of the baseline study visit.

Results of the analysis were largely consistent with models incorporating all participants with regard to magnitude and direction of associations. In addition, the findings persisted in models that controlled for statin use, smoking, and vascular disease.
 

Mechanism unclear

To more closely examine lipid status prior to ALS diagnosis, the researchers performed a nested case-control analysis that involved matching each participant who developed ALS with 20 participants of similar age, sex, and time of enrollment who did not develop the disease.

Linear models showed that levels of LDL and apoB, which are closely correlated, decrease over time in those who developed ALS. This was not the case for HDL and apoA1. “This suggests LDL levels are going down, and we think it’s happening quite some time before symptoms start, even before neurodegeneration starts,” said Dr. Thompson.

How blood lipid levels correlate with ALS risk is unclear. Dr. Thompson noted that LDL is an oxidative stressor and can provoke inflammation, whereas HDL is an antioxidant that is involved in healing. However, given that LDL and HDL don’t cross into the brain in great amounts, “the lipid changes may be a reflection of something else going on that contributes to the risk of ALS,” he said.

More evidence of a causal relationship is needed before any clinical implications can be drawn, including the potential manipulation of lipid levels to prevent ALS, said Dr. Thompson. In addition, even were such a relationship to be established, altering lipid levels in a healthy individual who has no family history of ALS would be unlikely to alter risk.

Dr. Thompson added that among those with a genetic predisposition, lipid changes “may be a marker or clue that something’s going wrong in the nervous system and that ALS might be about to start. That would be the ideal time to treat people at risk of ALS with gene therapy.”
 

Metabolism gone awry

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Goutman, MD, director, Pranger ALS Clinic, associate professor of neurology, Neuromuscular Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, called the study “very interesting.” Of particular note was a trend of decreasing LDL and apoB levels prior to an ALS diagnosis, said Dr. Goutman.

The results are in agreement with several studies that show an alteration in metabolism in individuals with ALS, he said. “These altered metabolic pathways may provide some signal that something has gone awry,” he commented.

He agreed that an “ultimate goal” is to identify factors or biomarkers that can be used to predict whether individuals will develop ALS and to enable intervention to decrease the risk.

This new research highlights the value of population-based registries and large prospective cohorts, said Dr. Goutman. “These help to better define the genetic, environmental, and metabolic factors that increase and predict ALS risk,” he said.

But more work is needed, said Dr. Goutman. He noted that in the study, only 192 participants were diagnosed with ALS more than 5 years after enrollment. “This means additional large cohort studies are needed, especially those that reflect the diversity of the population, for us to solve the mystery of ALS and to prevent it,” he said.

Dr. Thompson and Dr. Goutman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Elevated levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and apolipoprotein A1 (apoA1) are associated with a reduced risk for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), new research shows.

The study also linked a higher ratio of total cholesterol to HDL with an increased risk for ALS. These findings, investigators noted, point to potential future biomarkers in screening for ALS and perhaps an approach to reduce risk or delay onset of ALS in the longer term.

“They may help build a biochemical picture of what’s going on and who might be at risk of developing ALS in the near future, particularly in people with a genetic predisposition to ALS,” study investigator Alexander G. Thompson, DPhil, Medical Research Council clinician scientist, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, said in an interview.

He emphasized that although the current observational study cannot show cause and effect, such a relationship may exist.

The study was published online September 13 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry.
 

Registry data

ALS is a disorder of progressive degeneration of upper and lower motor neurons. Genetic variants account for fewer than 15% of cases. The factors that are associated with the greatest risk are unclear.

To investigate, the researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort study of persons aged 39-72 years. Participants underwent an initial assessment between March 2006 and October 2010 and were followed for a median of 11.9 years.

In addition to providing demographic and health information, participants provided blood samples for biochemical analysis. This included measurements of total cholesterol, HDL, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, apoA1, apolipoprotein B (apoB), A1c, and creatinine.

Researchers used diagnostic codes in inpatient health records and death certificate information to verify ALS diagnoses.

The analysis included data from 502,409 participants. The mean age of the participants was 58 years, and 54.4% were women. During follow-up, 343 participants were diagnosed with ALS, yielding a crude incidence of 5.85 per 100,000 per year (95% confidence interval, 5.25-6.51).

After controlling for sex and age, results showed that higher HDL (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.96; P = .010) and higher apoA1 (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94, P = .005) were associated with a reduced risk for subsequent ALS.

A higher ratio of total cholesterol to HDL was associated with increased ALS risk.

A rise in neurofilaments and other markers of neuronal loss typically occur within about a year of ALS symptom onset. To ensure that they were capturing participants whose blood samples were taken before the onset of neurodegeneration, the researchers performed a secondary analysis that excluded ALS diagnoses within 5 years of the baseline study visit.

Results of the analysis were largely consistent with models incorporating all participants with regard to magnitude and direction of associations. In addition, the findings persisted in models that controlled for statin use, smoking, and vascular disease.
 

Mechanism unclear

To more closely examine lipid status prior to ALS diagnosis, the researchers performed a nested case-control analysis that involved matching each participant who developed ALS with 20 participants of similar age, sex, and time of enrollment who did not develop the disease.

Linear models showed that levels of LDL and apoB, which are closely correlated, decrease over time in those who developed ALS. This was not the case for HDL and apoA1. “This suggests LDL levels are going down, and we think it’s happening quite some time before symptoms start, even before neurodegeneration starts,” said Dr. Thompson.

How blood lipid levels correlate with ALS risk is unclear. Dr. Thompson noted that LDL is an oxidative stressor and can provoke inflammation, whereas HDL is an antioxidant that is involved in healing. However, given that LDL and HDL don’t cross into the brain in great amounts, “the lipid changes may be a reflection of something else going on that contributes to the risk of ALS,” he said.

More evidence of a causal relationship is needed before any clinical implications can be drawn, including the potential manipulation of lipid levels to prevent ALS, said Dr. Thompson. In addition, even were such a relationship to be established, altering lipid levels in a healthy individual who has no family history of ALS would be unlikely to alter risk.

Dr. Thompson added that among those with a genetic predisposition, lipid changes “may be a marker or clue that something’s going wrong in the nervous system and that ALS might be about to start. That would be the ideal time to treat people at risk of ALS with gene therapy.”
 

Metabolism gone awry

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Goutman, MD, director, Pranger ALS Clinic, associate professor of neurology, Neuromuscular Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, called the study “very interesting.” Of particular note was a trend of decreasing LDL and apoB levels prior to an ALS diagnosis, said Dr. Goutman.

The results are in agreement with several studies that show an alteration in metabolism in individuals with ALS, he said. “These altered metabolic pathways may provide some signal that something has gone awry,” he commented.

He agreed that an “ultimate goal” is to identify factors or biomarkers that can be used to predict whether individuals will develop ALS and to enable intervention to decrease the risk.

This new research highlights the value of population-based registries and large prospective cohorts, said Dr. Goutman. “These help to better define the genetic, environmental, and metabolic factors that increase and predict ALS risk,” he said.

But more work is needed, said Dr. Goutman. He noted that in the study, only 192 participants were diagnosed with ALS more than 5 years after enrollment. “This means additional large cohort studies are needed, especially those that reflect the diversity of the population, for us to solve the mystery of ALS and to prevent it,” he said.

Dr. Thompson and Dr. Goutman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Elevated levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and apolipoprotein A1 (apoA1) are associated with a reduced risk for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), new research shows.

The study also linked a higher ratio of total cholesterol to HDL with an increased risk for ALS. These findings, investigators noted, point to potential future biomarkers in screening for ALS and perhaps an approach to reduce risk or delay onset of ALS in the longer term.

“They may help build a biochemical picture of what’s going on and who might be at risk of developing ALS in the near future, particularly in people with a genetic predisposition to ALS,” study investigator Alexander G. Thompson, DPhil, Medical Research Council clinician scientist, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, said in an interview.

He emphasized that although the current observational study cannot show cause and effect, such a relationship may exist.

The study was published online September 13 in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry.
 

Registry data

ALS is a disorder of progressive degeneration of upper and lower motor neurons. Genetic variants account for fewer than 15% of cases. The factors that are associated with the greatest risk are unclear.

To investigate, the researchers used data from the UK Biobank, a prospective cohort study of persons aged 39-72 years. Participants underwent an initial assessment between March 2006 and October 2010 and were followed for a median of 11.9 years.

In addition to providing demographic and health information, participants provided blood samples for biochemical analysis. This included measurements of total cholesterol, HDL, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, apoA1, apolipoprotein B (apoB), A1c, and creatinine.

Researchers used diagnostic codes in inpatient health records and death certificate information to verify ALS diagnoses.

The analysis included data from 502,409 participants. The mean age of the participants was 58 years, and 54.4% were women. During follow-up, 343 participants were diagnosed with ALS, yielding a crude incidence of 5.85 per 100,000 per year (95% confidence interval, 5.25-6.51).

After controlling for sex and age, results showed that higher HDL (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.96; P = .010) and higher apoA1 (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94, P = .005) were associated with a reduced risk for subsequent ALS.

A higher ratio of total cholesterol to HDL was associated with increased ALS risk.

A rise in neurofilaments and other markers of neuronal loss typically occur within about a year of ALS symptom onset. To ensure that they were capturing participants whose blood samples were taken before the onset of neurodegeneration, the researchers performed a secondary analysis that excluded ALS diagnoses within 5 years of the baseline study visit.

Results of the analysis were largely consistent with models incorporating all participants with regard to magnitude and direction of associations. In addition, the findings persisted in models that controlled for statin use, smoking, and vascular disease.
 

Mechanism unclear

To more closely examine lipid status prior to ALS diagnosis, the researchers performed a nested case-control analysis that involved matching each participant who developed ALS with 20 participants of similar age, sex, and time of enrollment who did not develop the disease.

Linear models showed that levels of LDL and apoB, which are closely correlated, decrease over time in those who developed ALS. This was not the case for HDL and apoA1. “This suggests LDL levels are going down, and we think it’s happening quite some time before symptoms start, even before neurodegeneration starts,” said Dr. Thompson.

How blood lipid levels correlate with ALS risk is unclear. Dr. Thompson noted that LDL is an oxidative stressor and can provoke inflammation, whereas HDL is an antioxidant that is involved in healing. However, given that LDL and HDL don’t cross into the brain in great amounts, “the lipid changes may be a reflection of something else going on that contributes to the risk of ALS,” he said.

More evidence of a causal relationship is needed before any clinical implications can be drawn, including the potential manipulation of lipid levels to prevent ALS, said Dr. Thompson. In addition, even were such a relationship to be established, altering lipid levels in a healthy individual who has no family history of ALS would be unlikely to alter risk.

Dr. Thompson added that among those with a genetic predisposition, lipid changes “may be a marker or clue that something’s going wrong in the nervous system and that ALS might be about to start. That would be the ideal time to treat people at risk of ALS with gene therapy.”
 

Metabolism gone awry

Commenting on the findings, Stephen Goutman, MD, director, Pranger ALS Clinic, associate professor of neurology, Neuromuscular Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, called the study “very interesting.” Of particular note was a trend of decreasing LDL and apoB levels prior to an ALS diagnosis, said Dr. Goutman.

The results are in agreement with several studies that show an alteration in metabolism in individuals with ALS, he said. “These altered metabolic pathways may provide some signal that something has gone awry,” he commented.

He agreed that an “ultimate goal” is to identify factors or biomarkers that can be used to predict whether individuals will develop ALS and to enable intervention to decrease the risk.

This new research highlights the value of population-based registries and large prospective cohorts, said Dr. Goutman. “These help to better define the genetic, environmental, and metabolic factors that increase and predict ALS risk,” he said.

But more work is needed, said Dr. Goutman. He noted that in the study, only 192 participants were diagnosed with ALS more than 5 years after enrollment. “This means additional large cohort studies are needed, especially those that reflect the diversity of the population, for us to solve the mystery of ALS and to prevent it,” he said.

Dr. Thompson and Dr. Goutman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

Telehealth can be effective for delivering cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) – and is not inferior to in-person treatment, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 60 adults with insomnia disorder showed no significant between-group difference at 3-month follow-up between those assigned to receive in-person CBT-I and those assigned to telehealth CBT-I in regard to change in score on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI).

In addition, both groups showed significant change compared with a wait-list group, indicating that telehealth was not inferior to the in-person mode of delivery, the investigators note.

Telehealth ‘explosion’

Although CBT-I is the recommended intervention for insomnia, “widespread implementation of CBT-I is limited by the lack of clinicians who are trained in this treatment,” the investigators note. There is a “need for strategies to increase access, particularly for patients in areas with few health care providers.”

Telehealth is a promising technology for providing treatment, without the necessity of having the patient and the practitioner in the same place. There has been an “explosion” in its use because of restrictions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the “rapid deployment of telehealth interventions did not allow time to assess this approach in a controlled manner,” so it is possible that this type of communication might reduce treatment efficacy, the investigators note.

Previous research suggests that telehealth psychotherapeutic treatments in general are not inferior to in-person treatments. One study showed that CBT-I delivered via telehealth was noninferior to in-person delivery. However, that study did not include a control group.

“I have been doing telehealth clinical work for about 10 years – so way before the pandemic pushed everything virtual,” Dr. Gehrman said. “But when I would talk about my telehealth work to other providers, I would frequently get asked whether the advantages of telehealth (greater access to care, reduced travel costs) came at a price of lower efficacy.”

Dr. Gehrman said he suspected that telehealth treatment was just as effective and wanted to formally test this impression to see whether he was correct.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 adults (mean age, 32.72 years; mean ISI score, 17.0; 65% women) with insomnia disorder to in-person CBT-I (n = 20), telehealth-delivered CBT-I (n = 21), or to a wait-list control group (n = 19). For the study, insomnia disorder was determined on the basis of DSM-5 criteria.

Most participants had completed college or postgraduate school (43% and 37%, respectively) and did not have many comorbidities.

The primary outcome was change on the ISI. Other assessments included measures of depression, anxiety, work and social adjustment, fatigue, and medical outcomes. Participants also completed a home unattended sleep study using a portable monitor to screen participants for obstructive sleep apnea.

Both types of CBT-I were delivered over 6 to 8 weekly sessions, with 2-week and 3-month post-treatment follow-ups.

An a priori margin of -3.0 points was used in the noninferiority analysis, and all analyses were conducted using mixed-effects models, the authors explain.
 

Necessary evil?

In the primary noninferiority analyses, the mean change in ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up was -7.8 points for in-person CBT-I, -7.5 points for telehealth, and -1.6 for wait list.

The difference between the CBT-I groups was not statistically significant (t 28 = -0.98, P = .33).

“The lower confidence limit of this between-group difference in the mean ISI changes was greater than the a priori margin of -3.0 points, indicating that telehealth treatment was not inferior to in-person treatment,” the investigators write.

Although there were significant improvements on most secondary outcome measures related to mood/anxiety and daytime functioning, the investigators found no group differences.

The findings suggest that the benefits of telehealth, including increased access and reduced travel time, “do not come with a cost of reduced efficacy,” the researchers write.

The study was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the investigators note. However, the results “underscore that the use of telehealth during the pandemic is not a ‘necessary evil,’ but rather a means of providing high quality care while reducing risks of exposure,” they write.
 

Benefits, fidelity maintained

Commenting on the study, J. Todd Arnedt, PhD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and co-director of the Sleep and Circadian Research Laboratory, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said it is “one of the first studies to clearly demonstrate that the benefits and fidelity of CBT for insomnia, which is most commonly delivered in-person, can be maintained with telehealth delivery.”

Dr. Arnedt is also director of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Program and was not involved in the study. He said the findings “support the use of this modality by providers to expand access to this highly effective but underutilized insomnia treatment.”

Additionally, telehealth delivery of CBT-I “offers a safe and effective alternative to in-person care for improving insomnia and associated daytime consequences and has the potential to reduce health care disparities by increasing availability to underserved communities,” Dr. Arnedt said.

However, the investigators point out that the utility of this approach for underserved communities needs further investigation. A study limitation was that the participants were “generally healthy and well educated.”

In addition, further research is needed to see whether the findings can be generalized to individuals who have “more complicated health or socioeconomic difficulties,” they write.

The study was funded by a grant from the American Sleep Medicine Foundation and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Scientist Development Award. Dr. Gehrman has received research funding from Merck, is a consultant to WW, and serves on the scientific advisory board of Eight Sleep. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Arnedt reports no relevant financial relationships but notes that he was the principal investigator of a similar study run in parallel to this one that was also funded by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation at the same time.

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

Telehealth can be effective for delivering cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) – and is not inferior to in-person treatment, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 60 adults with insomnia disorder showed no significant between-group difference at 3-month follow-up between those assigned to receive in-person CBT-I and those assigned to telehealth CBT-I in regard to change in score on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI).

In addition, both groups showed significant change compared with a wait-list group, indicating that telehealth was not inferior to the in-person mode of delivery, the investigators note.

Telehealth ‘explosion’

Although CBT-I is the recommended intervention for insomnia, “widespread implementation of CBT-I is limited by the lack of clinicians who are trained in this treatment,” the investigators note. There is a “need for strategies to increase access, particularly for patients in areas with few health care providers.”

Telehealth is a promising technology for providing treatment, without the necessity of having the patient and the practitioner in the same place. There has been an “explosion” in its use because of restrictions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the “rapid deployment of telehealth interventions did not allow time to assess this approach in a controlled manner,” so it is possible that this type of communication might reduce treatment efficacy, the investigators note.

Previous research suggests that telehealth psychotherapeutic treatments in general are not inferior to in-person treatments. One study showed that CBT-I delivered via telehealth was noninferior to in-person delivery. However, that study did not include a control group.

“I have been doing telehealth clinical work for about 10 years – so way before the pandemic pushed everything virtual,” Dr. Gehrman said. “But when I would talk about my telehealth work to other providers, I would frequently get asked whether the advantages of telehealth (greater access to care, reduced travel costs) came at a price of lower efficacy.”

Dr. Gehrman said he suspected that telehealth treatment was just as effective and wanted to formally test this impression to see whether he was correct.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 adults (mean age, 32.72 years; mean ISI score, 17.0; 65% women) with insomnia disorder to in-person CBT-I (n = 20), telehealth-delivered CBT-I (n = 21), or to a wait-list control group (n = 19). For the study, insomnia disorder was determined on the basis of DSM-5 criteria.

Most participants had completed college or postgraduate school (43% and 37%, respectively) and did not have many comorbidities.

The primary outcome was change on the ISI. Other assessments included measures of depression, anxiety, work and social adjustment, fatigue, and medical outcomes. Participants also completed a home unattended sleep study using a portable monitor to screen participants for obstructive sleep apnea.

Both types of CBT-I were delivered over 6 to 8 weekly sessions, with 2-week and 3-month post-treatment follow-ups.

An a priori margin of -3.0 points was used in the noninferiority analysis, and all analyses were conducted using mixed-effects models, the authors explain.
 

Necessary evil?

In the primary noninferiority analyses, the mean change in ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up was -7.8 points for in-person CBT-I, -7.5 points for telehealth, and -1.6 for wait list.

The difference between the CBT-I groups was not statistically significant (t 28 = -0.98, P = .33).

“The lower confidence limit of this between-group difference in the mean ISI changes was greater than the a priori margin of -3.0 points, indicating that telehealth treatment was not inferior to in-person treatment,” the investigators write.

Although there were significant improvements on most secondary outcome measures related to mood/anxiety and daytime functioning, the investigators found no group differences.

The findings suggest that the benefits of telehealth, including increased access and reduced travel time, “do not come with a cost of reduced efficacy,” the researchers write.

The study was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the investigators note. However, the results “underscore that the use of telehealth during the pandemic is not a ‘necessary evil,’ but rather a means of providing high quality care while reducing risks of exposure,” they write.
 

Benefits, fidelity maintained

Commenting on the study, J. Todd Arnedt, PhD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and co-director of the Sleep and Circadian Research Laboratory, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said it is “one of the first studies to clearly demonstrate that the benefits and fidelity of CBT for insomnia, which is most commonly delivered in-person, can be maintained with telehealth delivery.”

Dr. Arnedt is also director of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Program and was not involved in the study. He said the findings “support the use of this modality by providers to expand access to this highly effective but underutilized insomnia treatment.”

Additionally, telehealth delivery of CBT-I “offers a safe and effective alternative to in-person care for improving insomnia and associated daytime consequences and has the potential to reduce health care disparities by increasing availability to underserved communities,” Dr. Arnedt said.

However, the investigators point out that the utility of this approach for underserved communities needs further investigation. A study limitation was that the participants were “generally healthy and well educated.”

In addition, further research is needed to see whether the findings can be generalized to individuals who have “more complicated health or socioeconomic difficulties,” they write.

The study was funded by a grant from the American Sleep Medicine Foundation and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Scientist Development Award. Dr. Gehrman has received research funding from Merck, is a consultant to WW, and serves on the scientific advisory board of Eight Sleep. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Arnedt reports no relevant financial relationships but notes that he was the principal investigator of a similar study run in parallel to this one that was also funded by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation at the same time.

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

Telehealth can be effective for delivering cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) – and is not inferior to in-person treatment, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 60 adults with insomnia disorder showed no significant between-group difference at 3-month follow-up between those assigned to receive in-person CBT-I and those assigned to telehealth CBT-I in regard to change in score on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI).

In addition, both groups showed significant change compared with a wait-list group, indicating that telehealth was not inferior to the in-person mode of delivery, the investigators note.

Telehealth ‘explosion’

Although CBT-I is the recommended intervention for insomnia, “widespread implementation of CBT-I is limited by the lack of clinicians who are trained in this treatment,” the investigators note. There is a “need for strategies to increase access, particularly for patients in areas with few health care providers.”

Telehealth is a promising technology for providing treatment, without the necessity of having the patient and the practitioner in the same place. There has been an “explosion” in its use because of restrictions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the “rapid deployment of telehealth interventions did not allow time to assess this approach in a controlled manner,” so it is possible that this type of communication might reduce treatment efficacy, the investigators note.

Previous research suggests that telehealth psychotherapeutic treatments in general are not inferior to in-person treatments. One study showed that CBT-I delivered via telehealth was noninferior to in-person delivery. However, that study did not include a control group.

“I have been doing telehealth clinical work for about 10 years – so way before the pandemic pushed everything virtual,” Dr. Gehrman said. “But when I would talk about my telehealth work to other providers, I would frequently get asked whether the advantages of telehealth (greater access to care, reduced travel costs) came at a price of lower efficacy.”

Dr. Gehrman said he suspected that telehealth treatment was just as effective and wanted to formally test this impression to see whether he was correct.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 adults (mean age, 32.72 years; mean ISI score, 17.0; 65% women) with insomnia disorder to in-person CBT-I (n = 20), telehealth-delivered CBT-I (n = 21), or to a wait-list control group (n = 19). For the study, insomnia disorder was determined on the basis of DSM-5 criteria.

Most participants had completed college or postgraduate school (43% and 37%, respectively) and did not have many comorbidities.

The primary outcome was change on the ISI. Other assessments included measures of depression, anxiety, work and social adjustment, fatigue, and medical outcomes. Participants also completed a home unattended sleep study using a portable monitor to screen participants for obstructive sleep apnea.

Both types of CBT-I were delivered over 6 to 8 weekly sessions, with 2-week and 3-month post-treatment follow-ups.

An a priori margin of -3.0 points was used in the noninferiority analysis, and all analyses were conducted using mixed-effects models, the authors explain.
 

Necessary evil?

In the primary noninferiority analyses, the mean change in ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up was -7.8 points for in-person CBT-I, -7.5 points for telehealth, and -1.6 for wait list.

The difference between the CBT-I groups was not statistically significant (t 28 = -0.98, P = .33).

“The lower confidence limit of this between-group difference in the mean ISI changes was greater than the a priori margin of -3.0 points, indicating that telehealth treatment was not inferior to in-person treatment,” the investigators write.

Although there were significant improvements on most secondary outcome measures related to mood/anxiety and daytime functioning, the investigators found no group differences.

The findings suggest that the benefits of telehealth, including increased access and reduced travel time, “do not come with a cost of reduced efficacy,” the researchers write.

The study was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the investigators note. However, the results “underscore that the use of telehealth during the pandemic is not a ‘necessary evil,’ but rather a means of providing high quality care while reducing risks of exposure,” they write.
 

Benefits, fidelity maintained

Commenting on the study, J. Todd Arnedt, PhD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and co-director of the Sleep and Circadian Research Laboratory, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said it is “one of the first studies to clearly demonstrate that the benefits and fidelity of CBT for insomnia, which is most commonly delivered in-person, can be maintained with telehealth delivery.”

Dr. Arnedt is also director of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Program and was not involved in the study. He said the findings “support the use of this modality by providers to expand access to this highly effective but underutilized insomnia treatment.”

Additionally, telehealth delivery of CBT-I “offers a safe and effective alternative to in-person care for improving insomnia and associated daytime consequences and has the potential to reduce health care disparities by increasing availability to underserved communities,” Dr. Arnedt said.

However, the investigators point out that the utility of this approach for underserved communities needs further investigation. A study limitation was that the participants were “generally healthy and well educated.”

In addition, further research is needed to see whether the findings can be generalized to individuals who have “more complicated health or socioeconomic difficulties,” they write.

The study was funded by a grant from the American Sleep Medicine Foundation and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Scientist Development Award. Dr. Gehrman has received research funding from Merck, is a consultant to WW, and serves on the scientific advisory board of Eight Sleep. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Arnedt reports no relevant financial relationships but notes that he was the principal investigator of a similar study run in parallel to this one that was also funded by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation at the same time.

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

Unlike in adults, seizures, including status epilepticus (SE), may be the first and main manifestation of COVID-19 in children, new research suggests.

Seizures may occur even in children with no history of epilepsy and in the absence of fever or severe COVID-19 illness, necessitating a “high index” of suspicion for the virus to make an early diagnosis and allow for appropriate infection control measures, say the researchers.

“We hope to increase physicians’ awareness of noninfluenza-like presentations of COVID in children. In areas with a high prevalence of COVID, we suggest that children with seizures be tested for COVID,” Tal Gilboa, MD, director of the child neurology unit and codirector of epilepsy, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, told this news organization.

The study was published online August 27 in the journal Seizure.
 

Presenting symptom

Among 175 children diagnosed with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in the emergency department over 10 months in 2020, 11 (6%) presented with seizures. Studies in adults with COVID-19 have reported seizures in 0% to 2% of cases, the investigators note.

The 11 children with seizures (seven boys) ranged in age from 6 months to 17 years (median age, 11.5 years). All of them had seizures as the presenting sign of infection and none had severe COVID-19 requiring ventilatory or hemodynamic support. Six of the 11 children presented with fever.

Seven of the children had a prior history of neurological disorder: Five had epilepsy, one had a single unprovoked seizure 3 years before admission, and one had an intellectual disability. Three of the children had uncontrolled seizures despite appropriate treatment with antiseizure medication.

Nine of the 11 children presented with generalized tonic-clonic seizures. One child with a prior history of uncontrolled epilepsy with multiple seizure types had a focal tonic seizure. The youngest patient, a 5-month-old infant, presented with bilateral asymmetrical tonic-clonic seizure.

Of note, say the investigators, five of the 11 children presented with convulsive SE; none had a history of prior SE, and one had no history of seizures.

Although young age, especially under 12 months, is a known risk factor for SE, four of the five patients with SE were between 5 and 17 years old. All five children with SE responded to treatment with antiseizure medications.

All 11 children made a full recovery while in hospital, although further follow-up is essential to determine long-term outcomes, the researchers report.

“Children with no prior history of epilepsy and those with well-controlled epilepsy who present with breakthrough seizures, regardless of their body temperature, should be considered as potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Gilboa.

“It is possible, however unlikely, that a child, especially with prior epilepsy, may have an unprovoked seizure while being asymptomatically infected by SARS-CoV-2; in any case, infection control measures should be taken,” Dr. Gilboa added.
 

Need for replication

Weighing in on the study, Carl E. Stafstrom, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said it’s important to note that “about half of the children had had epilepsy already, and for whatever reason, had a seizure, which required an ED visit, and then they found COVID.”

“Nevertheless, this article is interesting and surprising in what they found because nobody else has found nearly as frequent a seizure presentation,” said Dr. Stafstrom, director of the John M. Freeman Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine.

“We would want to see some replication from other institutions and other populations,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gilboa and Dr. Stafstrom have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Unlike in adults, seizures, including status epilepticus (SE), may be the first and main manifestation of COVID-19 in children, new research suggests.

Seizures may occur even in children with no history of epilepsy and in the absence of fever or severe COVID-19 illness, necessitating a “high index” of suspicion for the virus to make an early diagnosis and allow for appropriate infection control measures, say the researchers.

“We hope to increase physicians’ awareness of noninfluenza-like presentations of COVID in children. In areas with a high prevalence of COVID, we suggest that children with seizures be tested for COVID,” Tal Gilboa, MD, director of the child neurology unit and codirector of epilepsy, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, told this news organization.

The study was published online August 27 in the journal Seizure.
 

Presenting symptom

Among 175 children diagnosed with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in the emergency department over 10 months in 2020, 11 (6%) presented with seizures. Studies in adults with COVID-19 have reported seizures in 0% to 2% of cases, the investigators note.

The 11 children with seizures (seven boys) ranged in age from 6 months to 17 years (median age, 11.5 years). All of them had seizures as the presenting sign of infection and none had severe COVID-19 requiring ventilatory or hemodynamic support. Six of the 11 children presented with fever.

Seven of the children had a prior history of neurological disorder: Five had epilepsy, one had a single unprovoked seizure 3 years before admission, and one had an intellectual disability. Three of the children had uncontrolled seizures despite appropriate treatment with antiseizure medication.

Nine of the 11 children presented with generalized tonic-clonic seizures. One child with a prior history of uncontrolled epilepsy with multiple seizure types had a focal tonic seizure. The youngest patient, a 5-month-old infant, presented with bilateral asymmetrical tonic-clonic seizure.

Of note, say the investigators, five of the 11 children presented with convulsive SE; none had a history of prior SE, and one had no history of seizures.

Although young age, especially under 12 months, is a known risk factor for SE, four of the five patients with SE were between 5 and 17 years old. All five children with SE responded to treatment with antiseizure medications.

All 11 children made a full recovery while in hospital, although further follow-up is essential to determine long-term outcomes, the researchers report.

“Children with no prior history of epilepsy and those with well-controlled epilepsy who present with breakthrough seizures, regardless of their body temperature, should be considered as potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Gilboa.

“It is possible, however unlikely, that a child, especially with prior epilepsy, may have an unprovoked seizure while being asymptomatically infected by SARS-CoV-2; in any case, infection control measures should be taken,” Dr. Gilboa added.
 

Need for replication

Weighing in on the study, Carl E. Stafstrom, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said it’s important to note that “about half of the children had had epilepsy already, and for whatever reason, had a seizure, which required an ED visit, and then they found COVID.”

“Nevertheless, this article is interesting and surprising in what they found because nobody else has found nearly as frequent a seizure presentation,” said Dr. Stafstrom, director of the John M. Freeman Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine.

“We would want to see some replication from other institutions and other populations,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gilboa and Dr. Stafstrom have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Unlike in adults, seizures, including status epilepticus (SE), may be the first and main manifestation of COVID-19 in children, new research suggests.

Seizures may occur even in children with no history of epilepsy and in the absence of fever or severe COVID-19 illness, necessitating a “high index” of suspicion for the virus to make an early diagnosis and allow for appropriate infection control measures, say the researchers.

“We hope to increase physicians’ awareness of noninfluenza-like presentations of COVID in children. In areas with a high prevalence of COVID, we suggest that children with seizures be tested for COVID,” Tal Gilboa, MD, director of the child neurology unit and codirector of epilepsy, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, told this news organization.

The study was published online August 27 in the journal Seizure.
 

Presenting symptom

Among 175 children diagnosed with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in the emergency department over 10 months in 2020, 11 (6%) presented with seizures. Studies in adults with COVID-19 have reported seizures in 0% to 2% of cases, the investigators note.

The 11 children with seizures (seven boys) ranged in age from 6 months to 17 years (median age, 11.5 years). All of them had seizures as the presenting sign of infection and none had severe COVID-19 requiring ventilatory or hemodynamic support. Six of the 11 children presented with fever.

Seven of the children had a prior history of neurological disorder: Five had epilepsy, one had a single unprovoked seizure 3 years before admission, and one had an intellectual disability. Three of the children had uncontrolled seizures despite appropriate treatment with antiseizure medication.

Nine of the 11 children presented with generalized tonic-clonic seizures. One child with a prior history of uncontrolled epilepsy with multiple seizure types had a focal tonic seizure. The youngest patient, a 5-month-old infant, presented with bilateral asymmetrical tonic-clonic seizure.

Of note, say the investigators, five of the 11 children presented with convulsive SE; none had a history of prior SE, and one had no history of seizures.

Although young age, especially under 12 months, is a known risk factor for SE, four of the five patients with SE were between 5 and 17 years old. All five children with SE responded to treatment with antiseizure medications.

All 11 children made a full recovery while in hospital, although further follow-up is essential to determine long-term outcomes, the researchers report.

“Children with no prior history of epilepsy and those with well-controlled epilepsy who present with breakthrough seizures, regardless of their body temperature, should be considered as potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Gilboa.

“It is possible, however unlikely, that a child, especially with prior epilepsy, may have an unprovoked seizure while being asymptomatically infected by SARS-CoV-2; in any case, infection control measures should be taken,” Dr. Gilboa added.
 

Need for replication

Weighing in on the study, Carl E. Stafstrom, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said it’s important to note that “about half of the children had had epilepsy already, and for whatever reason, had a seizure, which required an ED visit, and then they found COVID.”

“Nevertheless, this article is interesting and surprising in what they found because nobody else has found nearly as frequent a seizure presentation,” said Dr. Stafstrom, director of the John M. Freeman Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine.

“We would want to see some replication from other institutions and other populations,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gilboa and Dr. Stafstrom have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) have shown early promise for refractory childhood epilepsy, but positive media attention, as well as pressure from politicians and marijuana advocacy groups, should not supplant clinical trials and acceptable standards of evidence, according to two leading experts.

In a recent invited review article, Martin Kirkpatrick, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), and Finbar O’Callaghan, MD, PhD, of University College London suggested that childhood epilepsy may be easy terrain for commercial interests to break ground, and from there, build their presence.

“Children with epilepsy are at risk of being used as the ‘Trojan horse’ for the cannabis industry,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan wrote in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology.

They noted that some of the first publicized success stories involving cannabis oil for epilepsy coincided with the rise of the medicinal and recreational cannabis markets, which will constitute an estimated 55-billion-dollar industry by 2027.

“Pediatric neurologists, imbued with the need to practice evidence-based medicine and wary of prescribing unlicensed medicines that had inadequate safety data, suddenly found themselves at odds with an array of vested interests and, most unfortunately, with the families of patients who were keen to try anything that would alleviate the effects of their child’s seizures,” the investigators wrote.

According to the review, fundamental questions about cannabis remain unanswered, including concerns about safety with long-term use, and the medicinal value of various plant components, such as myrcene, a terpene that gives cannabis its characteristic smell.

“A widely discussed issue is whether the terpenes add any therapeutic benefit, contributing to the so-called entourage effect of ‘whole-plant’ medicines,” the investigators wrote. “The concept is that all the constituents of the plant together create ‘the sum of all the parts that leads to the magic or power of cannabis.’ Although commonly referred to, there is little or no robust evidence to support the entourage effect as a credible clinical concept.”

Clinical evidence for treatment of pediatric epilepsy is also lacking, according to Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan.

“Unfortunately, apart from the studies of pure cannabidiol (CBD) in Lennox–Gastaut and Dravet syndromes and tuberous sclerosis complex, level I evidence in the field of CBMPs and refractory epilepsy is lacking,” they wrote.

While other experts have pointed out that lower-level evidence – such as patient-reported outcomes and observational data – have previously been sufficient for drug licensing, Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan noted that such exceptions “almost always” involve conditions without any effective treatments, or drugs that are undeniably effective.

“This is not the scenario with CBMPs,” they wrote, referring to current clinical data as “low-level” evidence “suggesting … possible efficacy.”

They highlighted concerns about placebo effect with open-label epilepsy studies, citing a randomized controlled trial for Dravet syndrome, in which 27% of patients given placebo had a 50% reduction in seizure frequency.

“We need carefully designed, good-quality CBMP studies that produce results on which we can rely,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan concluded. “We can then work with families to choose the best treatments for children and young people with epilepsy. We owe this to them.”
 

A therapy of last resort

Jerzy P. Szaflarski, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed that data are lacking for the use of CBMPs with patients who have epilepsy and other neurologic conditions; however, he also suggested that Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan did not provide adequate real-world clinical context.

“Medical cannabis is not used as a first-, second-, or third-line therapy,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s mostly used as a last resort in the sense that patients have already failed multiple other therapies.” In that respect, patients and parents are desperate to try anything that might work. “We have medical cannabis, and our patients want to try it, and at the point when multiple therapies have failed, it’s a reasonable option.”

While Dr. Szaflarski agreed that more high-quality clinical trials are needed, he also noted the practical challenges involved in such trials, largely because of variations in cannabis plants.

“The content of the cannabis plant changes depending on the day that it’s collected and the exposure to sun and how much water it has and what’s in the soil and many other things,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s hard to get a very good, standardized product, and that’s why there needs to be a good-quality product delivered by the industry, which I have not seen thus far.”

For this reason, Dr. Szaflarski steers parents and patients away from over-the-counter CBMPs and toward Epidiolex, the only FDA-approved form of CBD.

“There is evidence that Epidiolex works,” he said. “I don’t know whether the products that are sold in a local cannabis store have the same high purity as Epidiolex. I tell [parents] that we should try Epidiolex first because it’s the one that is approved. But if it doesn’t work, we can go in that [other] direction.”

For those going the commercial route, Dr. Szaflarski advised close attention to product ingredients, to ensure that CBMPs are “devoid of any impurities, pesticides, fungicides, and other products that could be potentially dangerous.”

Parents considering CBMPs for their children also need to weigh concerns about long-term neurological safety, he added, noting that, on one hand, commercial products lack data, while on the other, epilepsy itself may cause harm.

“They need to consider the potential effects [of CBMPs] on their child’s brain and development versus … the effects of seizures on the brain,” Dr. Szaflarski said.

Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan disclosed an application for a National Institute for Health Research–funded randomized controlled trial on CBMPs and joint authorship of British Paediatric Neurology Association Guidance on the use of CBMPs in children and young people with epilepsy. Dr. Szaflarski disclosed a relationship with Greenwich Biosciences and several other cannabis companies.

Cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) have shown early promise for refractory childhood epilepsy, but positive media attention, as well as pressure from politicians and marijuana advocacy groups, should not supplant clinical trials and acceptable standards of evidence, according to two leading experts.

In a recent invited review article, Martin Kirkpatrick, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), and Finbar O’Callaghan, MD, PhD, of University College London suggested that childhood epilepsy may be easy terrain for commercial interests to break ground, and from there, build their presence.

“Children with epilepsy are at risk of being used as the ‘Trojan horse’ for the cannabis industry,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan wrote in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology.

They noted that some of the first publicized success stories involving cannabis oil for epilepsy coincided with the rise of the medicinal and recreational cannabis markets, which will constitute an estimated 55-billion-dollar industry by 2027.

“Pediatric neurologists, imbued with the need to practice evidence-based medicine and wary of prescribing unlicensed medicines that had inadequate safety data, suddenly found themselves at odds with an array of vested interests and, most unfortunately, with the families of patients who were keen to try anything that would alleviate the effects of their child’s seizures,” the investigators wrote.

According to the review, fundamental questions about cannabis remain unanswered, including concerns about safety with long-term use, and the medicinal value of various plant components, such as myrcene, a terpene that gives cannabis its characteristic smell.

“A widely discussed issue is whether the terpenes add any therapeutic benefit, contributing to the so-called entourage effect of ‘whole-plant’ medicines,” the investigators wrote. “The concept is that all the constituents of the plant together create ‘the sum of all the parts that leads to the magic or power of cannabis.’ Although commonly referred to, there is little or no robust evidence to support the entourage effect as a credible clinical concept.”

Clinical evidence for treatment of pediatric epilepsy is also lacking, according to Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan.

“Unfortunately, apart from the studies of pure cannabidiol (CBD) in Lennox–Gastaut and Dravet syndromes and tuberous sclerosis complex, level I evidence in the field of CBMPs and refractory epilepsy is lacking,” they wrote.

While other experts have pointed out that lower-level evidence – such as patient-reported outcomes and observational data – have previously been sufficient for drug licensing, Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan noted that such exceptions “almost always” involve conditions without any effective treatments, or drugs that are undeniably effective.

“This is not the scenario with CBMPs,” they wrote, referring to current clinical data as “low-level” evidence “suggesting … possible efficacy.”

They highlighted concerns about placebo effect with open-label epilepsy studies, citing a randomized controlled trial for Dravet syndrome, in which 27% of patients given placebo had a 50% reduction in seizure frequency.

“We need carefully designed, good-quality CBMP studies that produce results on which we can rely,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan concluded. “We can then work with families to choose the best treatments for children and young people with epilepsy. We owe this to them.”
 

A therapy of last resort

Jerzy P. Szaflarski, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed that data are lacking for the use of CBMPs with patients who have epilepsy and other neurologic conditions; however, he also suggested that Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan did not provide adequate real-world clinical context.

“Medical cannabis is not used as a first-, second-, or third-line therapy,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s mostly used as a last resort in the sense that patients have already failed multiple other therapies.” In that respect, patients and parents are desperate to try anything that might work. “We have medical cannabis, and our patients want to try it, and at the point when multiple therapies have failed, it’s a reasonable option.”

While Dr. Szaflarski agreed that more high-quality clinical trials are needed, he also noted the practical challenges involved in such trials, largely because of variations in cannabis plants.

“The content of the cannabis plant changes depending on the day that it’s collected and the exposure to sun and how much water it has and what’s in the soil and many other things,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s hard to get a very good, standardized product, and that’s why there needs to be a good-quality product delivered by the industry, which I have not seen thus far.”

For this reason, Dr. Szaflarski steers parents and patients away from over-the-counter CBMPs and toward Epidiolex, the only FDA-approved form of CBD.

“There is evidence that Epidiolex works,” he said. “I don’t know whether the products that are sold in a local cannabis store have the same high purity as Epidiolex. I tell [parents] that we should try Epidiolex first because it’s the one that is approved. But if it doesn’t work, we can go in that [other] direction.”

For those going the commercial route, Dr. Szaflarski advised close attention to product ingredients, to ensure that CBMPs are “devoid of any impurities, pesticides, fungicides, and other products that could be potentially dangerous.”

Parents considering CBMPs for their children also need to weigh concerns about long-term neurological safety, he added, noting that, on one hand, commercial products lack data, while on the other, epilepsy itself may cause harm.

“They need to consider the potential effects [of CBMPs] on their child’s brain and development versus … the effects of seizures on the brain,” Dr. Szaflarski said.

Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan disclosed an application for a National Institute for Health Research–funded randomized controlled trial on CBMPs and joint authorship of British Paediatric Neurology Association Guidance on the use of CBMPs in children and young people with epilepsy. Dr. Szaflarski disclosed a relationship with Greenwich Biosciences and several other cannabis companies.

Cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) have shown early promise for refractory childhood epilepsy, but positive media attention, as well as pressure from politicians and marijuana advocacy groups, should not supplant clinical trials and acceptable standards of evidence, according to two leading experts.

In a recent invited review article, Martin Kirkpatrick, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), and Finbar O’Callaghan, MD, PhD, of University College London suggested that childhood epilepsy may be easy terrain for commercial interests to break ground, and from there, build their presence.

“Children with epilepsy are at risk of being used as the ‘Trojan horse’ for the cannabis industry,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan wrote in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology.

They noted that some of the first publicized success stories involving cannabis oil for epilepsy coincided with the rise of the medicinal and recreational cannabis markets, which will constitute an estimated 55-billion-dollar industry by 2027.

“Pediatric neurologists, imbued with the need to practice evidence-based medicine and wary of prescribing unlicensed medicines that had inadequate safety data, suddenly found themselves at odds with an array of vested interests and, most unfortunately, with the families of patients who were keen to try anything that would alleviate the effects of their child’s seizures,” the investigators wrote.

According to the review, fundamental questions about cannabis remain unanswered, including concerns about safety with long-term use, and the medicinal value of various plant components, such as myrcene, a terpene that gives cannabis its characteristic smell.

“A widely discussed issue is whether the terpenes add any therapeutic benefit, contributing to the so-called entourage effect of ‘whole-plant’ medicines,” the investigators wrote. “The concept is that all the constituents of the plant together create ‘the sum of all the parts that leads to the magic or power of cannabis.’ Although commonly referred to, there is little or no robust evidence to support the entourage effect as a credible clinical concept.”

Clinical evidence for treatment of pediatric epilepsy is also lacking, according to Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan.

“Unfortunately, apart from the studies of pure cannabidiol (CBD) in Lennox–Gastaut and Dravet syndromes and tuberous sclerosis complex, level I evidence in the field of CBMPs and refractory epilepsy is lacking,” they wrote.

While other experts have pointed out that lower-level evidence – such as patient-reported outcomes and observational data – have previously been sufficient for drug licensing, Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan noted that such exceptions “almost always” involve conditions without any effective treatments, or drugs that are undeniably effective.

“This is not the scenario with CBMPs,” they wrote, referring to current clinical data as “low-level” evidence “suggesting … possible efficacy.”

They highlighted concerns about placebo effect with open-label epilepsy studies, citing a randomized controlled trial for Dravet syndrome, in which 27% of patients given placebo had a 50% reduction in seizure frequency.

“We need carefully designed, good-quality CBMP studies that produce results on which we can rely,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan concluded. “We can then work with families to choose the best treatments for children and young people with epilepsy. We owe this to them.”
 

A therapy of last resort

Jerzy P. Szaflarski, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed that data are lacking for the use of CBMPs with patients who have epilepsy and other neurologic conditions; however, he also suggested that Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan did not provide adequate real-world clinical context.

“Medical cannabis is not used as a first-, second-, or third-line therapy,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s mostly used as a last resort in the sense that patients have already failed multiple other therapies.” In that respect, patients and parents are desperate to try anything that might work. “We have medical cannabis, and our patients want to try it, and at the point when multiple therapies have failed, it’s a reasonable option.”

While Dr. Szaflarski agreed that more high-quality clinical trials are needed, he also noted the practical challenges involved in such trials, largely because of variations in cannabis plants.

“The content of the cannabis plant changes depending on the day that it’s collected and the exposure to sun and how much water it has and what’s in the soil and many other things,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s hard to get a very good, standardized product, and that’s why there needs to be a good-quality product delivered by the industry, which I have not seen thus far.”

For this reason, Dr. Szaflarski steers parents and patients away from over-the-counter CBMPs and toward Epidiolex, the only FDA-approved form of CBD.

“There is evidence that Epidiolex works,” he said. “I don’t know whether the products that are sold in a local cannabis store have the same high purity as Epidiolex. I tell [parents] that we should try Epidiolex first because it’s the one that is approved. But if it doesn’t work, we can go in that [other] direction.”

For those going the commercial route, Dr. Szaflarski advised close attention to product ingredients, to ensure that CBMPs are “devoid of any impurities, pesticides, fungicides, and other products that could be potentially dangerous.”

Parents considering CBMPs for their children also need to weigh concerns about long-term neurological safety, he added, noting that, on one hand, commercial products lack data, while on the other, epilepsy itself may cause harm.

“They need to consider the potential effects [of CBMPs] on their child’s brain and development versus … the effects of seizures on the brain,” Dr. Szaflarski said.

Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan disclosed an application for a National Institute for Health Research–funded randomized controlled trial on CBMPs and joint authorship of British Paediatric Neurology Association Guidance on the use of CBMPs in children and young people with epilepsy. Dr. Szaflarski disclosed a relationship with Greenwich Biosciences and several other cannabis companies.