MDedge Neurology

Most U.S. adults (77%) ages 50 and older in the United States rated their overall health as good, very good, or excellent in an online survey conducted by WebMD and Capital Caring Health (CCH), a nonprofit hospice/advanced illness care organization based in Virginia.

Among the respondents, 41% said their health was very good or excellent.

However, the ratings differed largely by race, employment status, and income.

Employment status was also associated with a significant difference in the way people viewed their health at the top tier and bottom tier.

The middle tier (“good” health) was reported similarly (from 33% to 37%) whether a person was employed, retired, or not employed. However, employed respondents were much more likely to report they had “excellent” or “very good” health (51% vs. 44% for retirees and 21% for the not employed).

Conversely, those who were not employed were far more likely to report “fair” or “poor” health (45%) than those who were employed (13%) or retired (20%).

Similarly, respondents with incomes of less than $50,000 were three times more likely to report their health as “fair” or “poor” than were those with incomes of more than $100,000 (36% vs. 12%).

WebMD/CCH surveyed 3,464 U.S. residents ages 50 and older between Aug. 13 and Nov. 9, 2020.  WebMD.com readers were randomly invited to take a 10-minute online survey.
 

Aging at home a priority

The survey also highlighted a strong preference for aging in place, says Steve Cone, chief of communications and philanthropy at CCH.

“More now than ever before, thanks to the COVID experience, baby boomers and their children really believe that’s the holy grail,” he says.

Mr. Cone notes that the quick spread of COVID-19 through some nursing homes early in the pandemic likely has strengthened people’s resolve to live out their lives in their own homes.

The survey indicated that 85% of people aged 50+ who are living in their own home, a family member’s home, or a loved one’s home responded that it is “very important” or “important” to stay in their home as they age.

When asked what services they would need to continue their living situation, the most common responses were housekeeping, home repair services, and transportation (listed as needs by 35% to 45% of respondents). Regarding changes they would have to make to feel safe in their home as they age, installing grab bars and/or safety rails in the bath/shower was the most popular answer (50%).
 

Use of telemedicine

Respondents were also asked about their acceptance of telemedicine, and 62% said they would be likely or very likely to engage in virtual visits with a doctor it in the future.

However, the likelihood varied by income level. Specifically, respondents with incomes over $100,000 were significantly more likely to say they would use telemedicine in the future than were those with incomes below $50,000 (74% vs. 60%).  They were also more likely to already have used telemedicine.

Although respondents generally embraced telemedicine, they are less confident about some types of monitoring, according to Mr. Cone.

Emergency response (64%) was the leading type of remote monitoring respondents ages 50 and older would allow. Only a minority of respondents would allow the other types of monitoring asked about in the survey.

Close to one-quarter of respondents would not allow any type of monitoring.

Fewer than one-third would allow tracking of medication compliance, refrigerator use, sleep habits, or bathroom use.

People see monitoring of some movements as “Orwellian,” Mr. Cone says.
 

Knowledge of hospice

The survey findings support the need for more widespread use of hospice so people can stay in their homes as they age, Mr. Cone says.

When illness gets severe, “There’s no reason you have to get rushed to the emergency room or wind up in a hospital,” Mr. Cone says.

He notes that hospice and palliative care can come to patients wherever they reside – in their home, an assisted living center, a nursing home, or even a hospital room.

“That doesn’t mean the physician isn’t involved,” he says. “But working as a team, we can keep them in their homes and their lifestyle intact.”

Patients whose doctors attest that they are likely to live a maximum 6 months are eligible for hospice. But most families wait too long to long to start hospice or palliative care for a patient, Mr. Cone says, and may not be aware of what these services typically cover, including meal preparation and pet care.

In the survey, nearly one-third of respondents said they did not know that palliative care is something that “can be given at any stage of a serious illness” or “provides non-medical services (e.g., patient/family communication, help with insurance issues, scheduling appointments, arranging transportation).”

He notes palliative care and hospice are covered by Medicare and Medicaid and also by most private insurance plans or by individual companies providing the service.

However, health care providers may have to overcome a general reluctance to discuss hospice when sharing options for those severely ill.

The survey showed that while 51% of those 50 and older are at least “slightly interested” in learning more about hospice, a nearly equal number say they are “not at all interested” (49%).
 

Most using hospice are White

More than 90% of those surveyed reported that aspects of hospice care, including “comfort and relief from pain at the end of patients’ lives,” providing a dedicated care team, and an alternative to other care settings, are “very important” or “important.”

However, national hospice use rates are extremely low for minorities and the LGBTQ community, according to Mr. Cone. Among Medicare hospice recipients, 82% were white, 8.2% Black, 6.7% Hispanic, and 1.8% Asian or Pacific Islander, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

Those numbers signal a need for outreach to those communities with information on what services are available and how to access them, he says.
 

Health costs top concern

The survey also asked about level of concern regarding matters including family, health, financials, and end-of-life directives and found adults aged 50 and older expressed the greatest amount of concern for health care costs that are not covered by insurance.

More than half (56%) said they were concerned or very concerned about those costs, which was higher than the percentage concerned about losing a spouse (49%).

Respondents were less concerned (“slightly concerned” or “not at all concerned”) about their children living far away, planning end-of life-directives, and falling or having reduced mobility.

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

Most U.S. adults (77%) ages 50 and older in the United States rated their overall health as good, very good, or excellent in an online survey conducted by WebMD and Capital Caring Health (CCH), a nonprofit hospice/advanced illness care organization based in Virginia.

Among the respondents, 41% said their health was very good or excellent.

However, the ratings differed largely by race, employment status, and income.

Employment status was also associated with a significant difference in the way people viewed their health at the top tier and bottom tier.

The middle tier (“good” health) was reported similarly (from 33% to 37%) whether a person was employed, retired, or not employed. However, employed respondents were much more likely to report they had “excellent” or “very good” health (51% vs. 44% for retirees and 21% for the not employed).

Conversely, those who were not employed were far more likely to report “fair” or “poor” health (45%) than those who were employed (13%) or retired (20%).

Similarly, respondents with incomes of less than $50,000 were three times more likely to report their health as “fair” or “poor” than were those with incomes of more than $100,000 (36% vs. 12%).

WebMD/CCH surveyed 3,464 U.S. residents ages 50 and older between Aug. 13 and Nov. 9, 2020.  WebMD.com readers were randomly invited to take a 10-minute online survey.
 

Aging at home a priority

The survey also highlighted a strong preference for aging in place, says Steve Cone, chief of communications and philanthropy at CCH.

“More now than ever before, thanks to the COVID experience, baby boomers and their children really believe that’s the holy grail,” he says.

Mr. Cone notes that the quick spread of COVID-19 through some nursing homes early in the pandemic likely has strengthened people’s resolve to live out their lives in their own homes.

The survey indicated that 85% of people aged 50+ who are living in their own home, a family member’s home, or a loved one’s home responded that it is “very important” or “important” to stay in their home as they age.

When asked what services they would need to continue their living situation, the most common responses were housekeeping, home repair services, and transportation (listed as needs by 35% to 45% of respondents). Regarding changes they would have to make to feel safe in their home as they age, installing grab bars and/or safety rails in the bath/shower was the most popular answer (50%).
 

Use of telemedicine

Respondents were also asked about their acceptance of telemedicine, and 62% said they would be likely or very likely to engage in virtual visits with a doctor it in the future.

However, the likelihood varied by income level. Specifically, respondents with incomes over $100,000 were significantly more likely to say they would use telemedicine in the future than were those with incomes below $50,000 (74% vs. 60%).  They were also more likely to already have used telemedicine.

Although respondents generally embraced telemedicine, they are less confident about some types of monitoring, according to Mr. Cone.

Emergency response (64%) was the leading type of remote monitoring respondents ages 50 and older would allow. Only a minority of respondents would allow the other types of monitoring asked about in the survey.

Close to one-quarter of respondents would not allow any type of monitoring.

Fewer than one-third would allow tracking of medication compliance, refrigerator use, sleep habits, or bathroom use.

People see monitoring of some movements as “Orwellian,” Mr. Cone says.
 

Knowledge of hospice

The survey findings support the need for more widespread use of hospice so people can stay in their homes as they age, Mr. Cone says.

When illness gets severe, “There’s no reason you have to get rushed to the emergency room or wind up in a hospital,” Mr. Cone says.

He notes that hospice and palliative care can come to patients wherever they reside – in their home, an assisted living center, a nursing home, or even a hospital room.

“That doesn’t mean the physician isn’t involved,” he says. “But working as a team, we can keep them in their homes and their lifestyle intact.”

Patients whose doctors attest that they are likely to live a maximum 6 months are eligible for hospice. But most families wait too long to long to start hospice or palliative care for a patient, Mr. Cone says, and may not be aware of what these services typically cover, including meal preparation and pet care.

In the survey, nearly one-third of respondents said they did not know that palliative care is something that “can be given at any stage of a serious illness” or “provides non-medical services (e.g., patient/family communication, help with insurance issues, scheduling appointments, arranging transportation).”

He notes palliative care and hospice are covered by Medicare and Medicaid and also by most private insurance plans or by individual companies providing the service.

However, health care providers may have to overcome a general reluctance to discuss hospice when sharing options for those severely ill.

The survey showed that while 51% of those 50 and older are at least “slightly interested” in learning more about hospice, a nearly equal number say they are “not at all interested” (49%).
 

Most using hospice are White

More than 90% of those surveyed reported that aspects of hospice care, including “comfort and relief from pain at the end of patients’ lives,” providing a dedicated care team, and an alternative to other care settings, are “very important” or “important.”

However, national hospice use rates are extremely low for minorities and the LGBTQ community, according to Mr. Cone. Among Medicare hospice recipients, 82% were white, 8.2% Black, 6.7% Hispanic, and 1.8% Asian or Pacific Islander, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

Those numbers signal a need for outreach to those communities with information on what services are available and how to access them, he says.
 

Health costs top concern

The survey also asked about level of concern regarding matters including family, health, financials, and end-of-life directives and found adults aged 50 and older expressed the greatest amount of concern for health care costs that are not covered by insurance.

More than half (56%) said they were concerned or very concerned about those costs, which was higher than the percentage concerned about losing a spouse (49%).

Respondents were less concerned (“slightly concerned” or “not at all concerned”) about their children living far away, planning end-of life-directives, and falling or having reduced mobility.

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

Most U.S. adults (77%) ages 50 and older in the United States rated their overall health as good, very good, or excellent in an online survey conducted by WebMD and Capital Caring Health (CCH), a nonprofit hospice/advanced illness care organization based in Virginia.

Among the respondents, 41% said their health was very good or excellent.

However, the ratings differed largely by race, employment status, and income.

Employment status was also associated with a significant difference in the way people viewed their health at the top tier and bottom tier.

The middle tier (“good” health) was reported similarly (from 33% to 37%) whether a person was employed, retired, or not employed. However, employed respondents were much more likely to report they had “excellent” or “very good” health (51% vs. 44% for retirees and 21% for the not employed).

Conversely, those who were not employed were far more likely to report “fair” or “poor” health (45%) than those who were employed (13%) or retired (20%).

Similarly, respondents with incomes of less than $50,000 were three times more likely to report their health as “fair” or “poor” than were those with incomes of more than $100,000 (36% vs. 12%).

WebMD/CCH surveyed 3,464 U.S. residents ages 50 and older between Aug. 13 and Nov. 9, 2020.  WebMD.com readers were randomly invited to take a 10-minute online survey.
 

Aging at home a priority

The survey also highlighted a strong preference for aging in place, says Steve Cone, chief of communications and philanthropy at CCH.

“More now than ever before, thanks to the COVID experience, baby boomers and their children really believe that’s the holy grail,” he says.

Mr. Cone notes that the quick spread of COVID-19 through some nursing homes early in the pandemic likely has strengthened people’s resolve to live out their lives in their own homes.

The survey indicated that 85% of people aged 50+ who are living in their own home, a family member’s home, or a loved one’s home responded that it is “very important” or “important” to stay in their home as they age.

When asked what services they would need to continue their living situation, the most common responses were housekeeping, home repair services, and transportation (listed as needs by 35% to 45% of respondents). Regarding changes they would have to make to feel safe in their home as they age, installing grab bars and/or safety rails in the bath/shower was the most popular answer (50%).
 

Use of telemedicine

Respondents were also asked about their acceptance of telemedicine, and 62% said they would be likely or very likely to engage in virtual visits with a doctor it in the future.

However, the likelihood varied by income level. Specifically, respondents with incomes over $100,000 were significantly more likely to say they would use telemedicine in the future than were those with incomes below $50,000 (74% vs. 60%).  They were also more likely to already have used telemedicine.

Although respondents generally embraced telemedicine, they are less confident about some types of monitoring, according to Mr. Cone.

Emergency response (64%) was the leading type of remote monitoring respondents ages 50 and older would allow. Only a minority of respondents would allow the other types of monitoring asked about in the survey.

Close to one-quarter of respondents would not allow any type of monitoring.

Fewer than one-third would allow tracking of medication compliance, refrigerator use, sleep habits, or bathroom use.

People see monitoring of some movements as “Orwellian,” Mr. Cone says.
 

Knowledge of hospice

The survey findings support the need for more widespread use of hospice so people can stay in their homes as they age, Mr. Cone says.

When illness gets severe, “There’s no reason you have to get rushed to the emergency room or wind up in a hospital,” Mr. Cone says.

He notes that hospice and palliative care can come to patients wherever they reside – in their home, an assisted living center, a nursing home, or even a hospital room.

“That doesn’t mean the physician isn’t involved,” he says. “But working as a team, we can keep them in their homes and their lifestyle intact.”

Patients whose doctors attest that they are likely to live a maximum 6 months are eligible for hospice. But most families wait too long to long to start hospice or palliative care for a patient, Mr. Cone says, and may not be aware of what these services typically cover, including meal preparation and pet care.

In the survey, nearly one-third of respondents said they did not know that palliative care is something that “can be given at any stage of a serious illness” or “provides non-medical services (e.g., patient/family communication, help with insurance issues, scheduling appointments, arranging transportation).”

He notes palliative care and hospice are covered by Medicare and Medicaid and also by most private insurance plans or by individual companies providing the service.

However, health care providers may have to overcome a general reluctance to discuss hospice when sharing options for those severely ill.

The survey showed that while 51% of those 50 and older are at least “slightly interested” in learning more about hospice, a nearly equal number say they are “not at all interested” (49%).
 

Most using hospice are White

More than 90% of those surveyed reported that aspects of hospice care, including “comfort and relief from pain at the end of patients’ lives,” providing a dedicated care team, and an alternative to other care settings, are “very important” or “important.”

However, national hospice use rates are extremely low for minorities and the LGBTQ community, according to Mr. Cone. Among Medicare hospice recipients, 82% were white, 8.2% Black, 6.7% Hispanic, and 1.8% Asian or Pacific Islander, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

Those numbers signal a need for outreach to those communities with information on what services are available and how to access them, he says.
 

Health costs top concern

The survey also asked about level of concern regarding matters including family, health, financials, and end-of-life directives and found adults aged 50 and older expressed the greatest amount of concern for health care costs that are not covered by insurance.

More than half (56%) said they were concerned or very concerned about those costs, which was higher than the percentage concerned about losing a spouse (49%).

Respondents were less concerned (“slightly concerned” or “not at all concerned”) about their children living far away, planning end-of life-directives, and falling or having reduced mobility.

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

After several weeks of outcry and heated debate over the Food and Drug Administration’s controversial approval of the Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm), the head of the agency is now calling for a federal investigation into its own approval proceedings.

Janet Woodcock, MD, the FDA’s acting commissioner, sent a letter to the Office of the Inspector General on July 9, she announced in a tweet.

Dr. Woodcock is asking for an investigation into questionable meetings and other interactions between Biogen and FDA staff members prior to the drug’s approval that “may have occurred outside of the formal correspondence process.”

The letter explains that concerns around these issues “could undermine the public’s confidence in the FDA’s decision.” Therefore, an independent investigation is needed to determine whether anything occurred that was “inconsistent with FDA policies and procedures.”

Dr. Woodcock noted that she has “tremendous confidence in the integrity of the staff and leadership of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research” involved in the review process.

However, “FDA is dedicated to scientific integrity, to reviewing data without bias, and to basing its regulatory decisions on data,” she wrote. “You have my personal commitment that the Agency will fully cooperate should your office undertake a review.”

Dr. Woodcock concluded by urging that a review be conducted as soon as possible, noting that “should such a review result in actionable items, you also have my commitment to addressing these issues.”

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

After several weeks of outcry and heated debate over the Food and Drug Administration’s controversial approval of the Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm), the head of the agency is now calling for a federal investigation into its own approval proceedings.

Janet Woodcock, MD, the FDA’s acting commissioner, sent a letter to the Office of the Inspector General on July 9, she announced in a tweet.

Dr. Woodcock is asking for an investigation into questionable meetings and other interactions between Biogen and FDA staff members prior to the drug’s approval that “may have occurred outside of the formal correspondence process.”

The letter explains that concerns around these issues “could undermine the public’s confidence in the FDA’s decision.” Therefore, an independent investigation is needed to determine whether anything occurred that was “inconsistent with FDA policies and procedures.”

Dr. Woodcock noted that she has “tremendous confidence in the integrity of the staff and leadership of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research” involved in the review process.

However, “FDA is dedicated to scientific integrity, to reviewing data without bias, and to basing its regulatory decisions on data,” she wrote. “You have my personal commitment that the Agency will fully cooperate should your office undertake a review.”

Dr. Woodcock concluded by urging that a review be conducted as soon as possible, noting that “should such a review result in actionable items, you also have my commitment to addressing these issues.”

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

After several weeks of outcry and heated debate over the Food and Drug Administration’s controversial approval of the Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm), the head of the agency is now calling for a federal investigation into its own approval proceedings.

Janet Woodcock, MD, the FDA’s acting commissioner, sent a letter to the Office of the Inspector General on July 9, she announced in a tweet.

Dr. Woodcock is asking for an investigation into questionable meetings and other interactions between Biogen and FDA staff members prior to the drug’s approval that “may have occurred outside of the formal correspondence process.”

The letter explains that concerns around these issues “could undermine the public’s confidence in the FDA’s decision.” Therefore, an independent investigation is needed to determine whether anything occurred that was “inconsistent with FDA policies and procedures.”

Dr. Woodcock noted that she has “tremendous confidence in the integrity of the staff and leadership of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research” involved in the review process.

However, “FDA is dedicated to scientific integrity, to reviewing data without bias, and to basing its regulatory decisions on data,” she wrote. “You have my personal commitment that the Agency will fully cooperate should your office undertake a review.”

Dr. Woodcock concluded by urging that a review be conducted as soon as possible, noting that “should such a review result in actionable items, you also have my commitment to addressing these issues.”

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

Adults with limited English skills receive far less health care than do those proficient in English, according to a new study in Health Affairs.

Jessica Himmelstein, MD, a Harvard research fellow and primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., led a study of more than 120,000 adults published July 6, 2021. The study population included 17,776 Hispanic adults with limited English proficiency, 14,936 Hispanic adults proficient in English and 87,834 non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults.

Researchers compared several measures of care usage from information in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2018.

They found that, in adjusted analyses, total use of care per capita from 2014-2018, measured by health care expenditures, was $1,463 lower (98% confidence interval, $1,030-$1,897), or 35% lower for primary-Spanish speakers than for Hispanic adults who were English proficient and $2,802 lower (98% CI, $2,356-$3,247), or 42% lower versus non-Hispanic adults who were English proficient.

Spanish speakers also had 36% fewer outpatient visits and 48% fewer prescription medications than non-Hispanic adults, and 35% fewer outpatient visits and 37% fewer prescription medications than English-proficient Hispanic adults.

Even when accounting for differences in health, age, sex, income and insurance, adults with language barriers fared worse.
 

Gaps span all types of care

The services that those with limited English skills are missing are “the types of care people need to lead a healthy life,” from routine visits and medications to urgent or emergency care, Dr. Himmelstein said in an interview.

She said the gaps were greater in outpatient care and in medication use, compared with emergency department visits and inpatient care, but the inequities were present in all the categories she and her coinvestigators studied.

Underlying causes for having less care may include that people who struggle with English may not feel comfortable accessing the health system or may feel unwelcome or discriminated against.

“An undercurrent of biases, including racism, could also be contributing,” she said.

The data show that, despite several federal policy changes aimed at promoting language services in hospitals and clinics, several language-based disparities have not improved over 2 decades.

Some of the changes have included an executive order in 2000 requiring interpreters to be available in federally funded health facilities. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act enhanced the definition of meaningful access to language services and setting standards for qualified interpreters.
 

Gap widened over 2 decades

The adjusted gap in annual health care expenditures per capita between adults with limited English skills and non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults widened by $1,596 (98% CI, $837-$2,356) between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, after accounting for inflation.

Dr. Himmelstein said that though this study period predated COVID-19, its findings may help explain the disproportionate burden the pandemic placed on the Hispanic population.

“This is a community that traditionally wasn’t getting access to care and then suddenly something like COVID-19 comes and they were even more devastated,” she noted.

Telehealth, which proved an important way to access care during the pandemic, also added a degree of communication difficulty for those with fewer English skills, she said.

Many of the telehealth changes are here to stay, and it will be important to ask: “Are we ensuring equity in telehealth use for individuals who face language barriers?” Dr. Himmelstein said.

Olga Garcia-Bedoya, MD, an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of medicine and medical director of UIC’s Institute for Minority Health Research, said having access to interpreters with high accuracy is key to narrowing the gaps.

“The literature is very clear that access to professional medical interpreters is associated with decreased health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency,” she said.

More cultural training for clinicians is needed surrounding beliefs about illness and that some care may be declined not because of a person’s limited English proficiency, but because their beliefs may keep them from getting care, Dr. Garcia-Bedoya added. When it comes to getting a flu shot, for example, sometimes belief systems, rather than English proficiency, keep people from accessing care.
 

What can be done?

Addressing barriers caused by lack of English proficiency will likely take change in policies, including one related reimbursement for medical interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Currently, only 15 states’ Medicaid programs or Children’s Health Insurance Programs reimburse providers for language services, the paper notes, and neither Medicare nor private insurers routinely pay for those services.

Recruiting bilingual providers and staff at health care facilities and in medical and nursing schools will also be important to narrow the gaps, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Strengthening standards for interpreters also will help. “Currently such standards vary by state or by institution and are not necessarily enforced,” she explained.

It will also be important to make sure patients know that they are entitled by law to care, free of discriminatory practices and to have certain language services including qualified interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Dr. Garcia-Bedoya said changes need to come from health systems working in combination with clinicians, providing resources so that quality interpreters can be accessed and making sure that equipment supports clear communication in telehealth. Patients’ language preferences should also be noted as soon as they make the appointment.

The findings of the study may have large significance as one in seven people in the United States speak Spanish at home, and 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency, the authors noted.

Dr. Himmelstein receives funding support from an Institutional National Research Service Award. Dr. Garcia-Bedoya reports no relevant financial relationships.

Adults with limited English skills receive far less health care than do those proficient in English, according to a new study in Health Affairs.

Jessica Himmelstein, MD, a Harvard research fellow and primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., led a study of more than 120,000 adults published July 6, 2021. The study population included 17,776 Hispanic adults with limited English proficiency, 14,936 Hispanic adults proficient in English and 87,834 non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults.

Researchers compared several measures of care usage from information in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2018.

They found that, in adjusted analyses, total use of care per capita from 2014-2018, measured by health care expenditures, was $1,463 lower (98% confidence interval, $1,030-$1,897), or 35% lower for primary-Spanish speakers than for Hispanic adults who were English proficient and $2,802 lower (98% CI, $2,356-$3,247), or 42% lower versus non-Hispanic adults who were English proficient.

Spanish speakers also had 36% fewer outpatient visits and 48% fewer prescription medications than non-Hispanic adults, and 35% fewer outpatient visits and 37% fewer prescription medications than English-proficient Hispanic adults.

Even when accounting for differences in health, age, sex, income and insurance, adults with language barriers fared worse.
 

Gaps span all types of care

The services that those with limited English skills are missing are “the types of care people need to lead a healthy life,” from routine visits and medications to urgent or emergency care, Dr. Himmelstein said in an interview.

She said the gaps were greater in outpatient care and in medication use, compared with emergency department visits and inpatient care, but the inequities were present in all the categories she and her coinvestigators studied.

Underlying causes for having less care may include that people who struggle with English may not feel comfortable accessing the health system or may feel unwelcome or discriminated against.

“An undercurrent of biases, including racism, could also be contributing,” she said.

The data show that, despite several federal policy changes aimed at promoting language services in hospitals and clinics, several language-based disparities have not improved over 2 decades.

Some of the changes have included an executive order in 2000 requiring interpreters to be available in federally funded health facilities. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act enhanced the definition of meaningful access to language services and setting standards for qualified interpreters.
 

Gap widened over 2 decades

The adjusted gap in annual health care expenditures per capita between adults with limited English skills and non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults widened by $1,596 (98% CI, $837-$2,356) between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, after accounting for inflation.

Dr. Himmelstein said that though this study period predated COVID-19, its findings may help explain the disproportionate burden the pandemic placed on the Hispanic population.

“This is a community that traditionally wasn’t getting access to care and then suddenly something like COVID-19 comes and they were even more devastated,” she noted.

Telehealth, which proved an important way to access care during the pandemic, also added a degree of communication difficulty for those with fewer English skills, she said.

Many of the telehealth changes are here to stay, and it will be important to ask: “Are we ensuring equity in telehealth use for individuals who face language barriers?” Dr. Himmelstein said.

Olga Garcia-Bedoya, MD, an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of medicine and medical director of UIC’s Institute for Minority Health Research, said having access to interpreters with high accuracy is key to narrowing the gaps.

“The literature is very clear that access to professional medical interpreters is associated with decreased health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency,” she said.

More cultural training for clinicians is needed surrounding beliefs about illness and that some care may be declined not because of a person’s limited English proficiency, but because their beliefs may keep them from getting care, Dr. Garcia-Bedoya added. When it comes to getting a flu shot, for example, sometimes belief systems, rather than English proficiency, keep people from accessing care.
 

What can be done?

Addressing barriers caused by lack of English proficiency will likely take change in policies, including one related reimbursement for medical interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Currently, only 15 states’ Medicaid programs or Children’s Health Insurance Programs reimburse providers for language services, the paper notes, and neither Medicare nor private insurers routinely pay for those services.

Recruiting bilingual providers and staff at health care facilities and in medical and nursing schools will also be important to narrow the gaps, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Strengthening standards for interpreters also will help. “Currently such standards vary by state or by institution and are not necessarily enforced,” she explained.

It will also be important to make sure patients know that they are entitled by law to care, free of discriminatory practices and to have certain language services including qualified interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Dr. Garcia-Bedoya said changes need to come from health systems working in combination with clinicians, providing resources so that quality interpreters can be accessed and making sure that equipment supports clear communication in telehealth. Patients’ language preferences should also be noted as soon as they make the appointment.

The findings of the study may have large significance as one in seven people in the United States speak Spanish at home, and 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency, the authors noted.

Dr. Himmelstein receives funding support from an Institutional National Research Service Award. Dr. Garcia-Bedoya reports no relevant financial relationships.

Adults with limited English skills receive far less health care than do those proficient in English, according to a new study in Health Affairs.

Jessica Himmelstein, MD, a Harvard research fellow and primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., led a study of more than 120,000 adults published July 6, 2021. The study population included 17,776 Hispanic adults with limited English proficiency, 14,936 Hispanic adults proficient in English and 87,834 non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults.

Researchers compared several measures of care usage from information in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 1998 to 2018.

They found that, in adjusted analyses, total use of care per capita from 2014-2018, measured by health care expenditures, was $1,463 lower (98% confidence interval, $1,030-$1,897), or 35% lower for primary-Spanish speakers than for Hispanic adults who were English proficient and $2,802 lower (98% CI, $2,356-$3,247), or 42% lower versus non-Hispanic adults who were English proficient.

Spanish speakers also had 36% fewer outpatient visits and 48% fewer prescription medications than non-Hispanic adults, and 35% fewer outpatient visits and 37% fewer prescription medications than English-proficient Hispanic adults.

Even when accounting for differences in health, age, sex, income and insurance, adults with language barriers fared worse.
 

Gaps span all types of care

The services that those with limited English skills are missing are “the types of care people need to lead a healthy life,” from routine visits and medications to urgent or emergency care, Dr. Himmelstein said in an interview.

She said the gaps were greater in outpatient care and in medication use, compared with emergency department visits and inpatient care, but the inequities were present in all the categories she and her coinvestigators studied.

Underlying causes for having less care may include that people who struggle with English may not feel comfortable accessing the health system or may feel unwelcome or discriminated against.

“An undercurrent of biases, including racism, could also be contributing,” she said.

The data show that, despite several federal policy changes aimed at promoting language services in hospitals and clinics, several language-based disparities have not improved over 2 decades.

Some of the changes have included an executive order in 2000 requiring interpreters to be available in federally funded health facilities. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act enhanced the definition of meaningful access to language services and setting standards for qualified interpreters.
 

Gap widened over 2 decades

The adjusted gap in annual health care expenditures per capita between adults with limited English skills and non-Hispanic, English-proficient adults widened by $1,596 (98% CI, $837-$2,356) between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, after accounting for inflation.

Dr. Himmelstein said that though this study period predated COVID-19, its findings may help explain the disproportionate burden the pandemic placed on the Hispanic population.

“This is a community that traditionally wasn’t getting access to care and then suddenly something like COVID-19 comes and they were even more devastated,” she noted.

Telehealth, which proved an important way to access care during the pandemic, also added a degree of communication difficulty for those with fewer English skills, she said.

Many of the telehealth changes are here to stay, and it will be important to ask: “Are we ensuring equity in telehealth use for individuals who face language barriers?” Dr. Himmelstein said.

Olga Garcia-Bedoya, MD, an associate professor at University of Illinois at Chicago’s department of medicine and medical director of UIC’s Institute for Minority Health Research, said having access to interpreters with high accuracy is key to narrowing the gaps.

“The literature is very clear that access to professional medical interpreters is associated with decreased health disparities for patients with limited English proficiency,” she said.

More cultural training for clinicians is needed surrounding beliefs about illness and that some care may be declined not because of a person’s limited English proficiency, but because their beliefs may keep them from getting care, Dr. Garcia-Bedoya added. When it comes to getting a flu shot, for example, sometimes belief systems, rather than English proficiency, keep people from accessing care.
 

What can be done?

Addressing barriers caused by lack of English proficiency will likely take change in policies, including one related reimbursement for medical interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Currently, only 15 states’ Medicaid programs or Children’s Health Insurance Programs reimburse providers for language services, the paper notes, and neither Medicare nor private insurers routinely pay for those services.

Recruiting bilingual providers and staff at health care facilities and in medical and nursing schools will also be important to narrow the gaps, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Strengthening standards for interpreters also will help. “Currently such standards vary by state or by institution and are not necessarily enforced,” she explained.

It will also be important to make sure patients know that they are entitled by law to care, free of discriminatory practices and to have certain language services including qualified interpreters, Dr. Himmelstein said.

Dr. Garcia-Bedoya said changes need to come from health systems working in combination with clinicians, providing resources so that quality interpreters can be accessed and making sure that equipment supports clear communication in telehealth. Patients’ language preferences should also be noted as soon as they make the appointment.

The findings of the study may have large significance as one in seven people in the United States speak Spanish at home, and 25 million people in the United States have limited English proficiency, the authors noted.

Dr. Himmelstein receives funding support from an Institutional National Research Service Award. Dr. Garcia-Bedoya reports no relevant financial relationships.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved an updated label for the controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm), emphasizing that the drug should only be used in patients with the earliest stages of disease – the group studied in the clinical trials.

The FDA approved aducanumab in early June amid significant controversy and disregarding the recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug. The original prescribing information implied that the drug – which is administered intravenously and costs around $56,000 a year – could be used for treatment of any patient with Alzheimer’s disease.

The updated label now states that aducanumab should be initiated only in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia stage of disease – the population in which treatment was initiated in the clinical trials leading to approval of the anti-amyloid drug.

The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug based on data from clinical trials showing a reduction in amyloid beta plaques observed in patients with MCI or mild dementia stage of disease.

“Continued approval for the indication may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s),” the label states. It emphasizes that there are no safety or effectiveness data on starting aducanumab treatment at earlier or later stages of the disease than were studied.

“Based on our ongoing conversations with prescribing physicians, FDA, and patient advocates, we submitted this label update with the goal to further clarify the patient population that was studied across the three Aduhelm clinical trials that supported approval,” Alfred Sandrock Jr., MD, PhD, Biogen’s head of research and development, said in a statement announcing the label update.   

“We are committed to continue to listen to the community’s needs as clinical practice adapts to this important, first-in-class treatment option,” said Dr. Sandrock.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved an updated label for the controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm), emphasizing that the drug should only be used in patients with the earliest stages of disease – the group studied in the clinical trials.

The FDA approved aducanumab in early June amid significant controversy and disregarding the recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug. The original prescribing information implied that the drug – which is administered intravenously and costs around $56,000 a year – could be used for treatment of any patient with Alzheimer’s disease.

The updated label now states that aducanumab should be initiated only in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia stage of disease – the population in which treatment was initiated in the clinical trials leading to approval of the anti-amyloid drug.

The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug based on data from clinical trials showing a reduction in amyloid beta plaques observed in patients with MCI or mild dementia stage of disease.

“Continued approval for the indication may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s),” the label states. It emphasizes that there are no safety or effectiveness data on starting aducanumab treatment at earlier or later stages of the disease than were studied.

“Based on our ongoing conversations with prescribing physicians, FDA, and patient advocates, we submitted this label update with the goal to further clarify the patient population that was studied across the three Aduhelm clinical trials that supported approval,” Alfred Sandrock Jr., MD, PhD, Biogen’s head of research and development, said in a statement announcing the label update.   

“We are committed to continue to listen to the community’s needs as clinical practice adapts to this important, first-in-class treatment option,” said Dr. Sandrock.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved an updated label for the controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm), emphasizing that the drug should only be used in patients with the earliest stages of disease – the group studied in the clinical trials.

The FDA approved aducanumab in early June amid significant controversy and disregarding the recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug. The original prescribing information implied that the drug – which is administered intravenously and costs around $56,000 a year – could be used for treatment of any patient with Alzheimer’s disease.

The updated label now states that aducanumab should be initiated only in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia stage of disease – the population in which treatment was initiated in the clinical trials leading to approval of the anti-amyloid drug.

The FDA granted accelerated approval of the drug based on data from clinical trials showing a reduction in amyloid beta plaques observed in patients with MCI or mild dementia stage of disease.

“Continued approval for the indication may be contingent upon verification of clinical benefit in confirmatory trial(s),” the label states. It emphasizes that there are no safety or effectiveness data on starting aducanumab treatment at earlier or later stages of the disease than were studied.

“Based on our ongoing conversations with prescribing physicians, FDA, and patient advocates, we submitted this label update with the goal to further clarify the patient population that was studied across the three Aduhelm clinical trials that supported approval,” Alfred Sandrock Jr., MD, PhD, Biogen’s head of research and development, said in a statement announcing the label update.   

“We are committed to continue to listen to the community’s needs as clinical practice adapts to this important, first-in-class treatment option,” said Dr. Sandrock.

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

Insert clove A into nostril B

Just when you start wondering what crazy and potentially dangerous thing people can do to themselves next, comes a crazy and potentially dangerous new trend. The good folks at TikTok have provided patients a new treatment for stuffed up sinuses.

Dangerous? Well, that’s what doctors say, anyway.

“We typically do not recommend putting anything into the nostril for the obvious fact that it could get dislodged or lodged up into the nasal cavity,” Anthony Del Signore, MD, of Mount Sinai Union Square, New York, told TODAY.

“Not only does it have the potential to rot or cause a nasal obstruction, it can induce an episode of sinusitis,” Omid Mehdizadeh, MD, of Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., explained to Shape.

But who doesn't want to breathe easier and keep blood-sucking vampires at bay?

Max Pixel

Seeing faces in random places?

Ever look up at the clouds, at a fast-moving train, or into your morning bowl of cereal and see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth looking back at you? You may shake it off and think you’re imagining something, but it's actually your brain doing what it’s built to do and researchers know why.

The phenomenon is called face pareidolia, and it’s technically an error function of the human brain. Evolution has molded our brains to rapidly identify faces, according to David Alais, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study.

“But the system plays ‘fast and loose’ by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth. Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response,” he said in a separate statement. But not only are we seeing faces, our brains go one step further and seemingly give those faces feelings.

University of Sydney

Corporate dream manipulation

Advertisements are quite literally everywhere. On billboards, in commercials, in videos, in movies; the list goes on and on. Still, at least you can shut your eyes and be mercifully free of corporate interference inside your own head, right? Right?

Early in 2021, Coors launched an ad campaign that seemed to be a b bit of a gimmick, if not a joke. Coors claimed that if people watched an ad before bed, and played an 8-hour soundscape while sleeping, their dreams would be filled with crisp mountains and cold, thirst-quenching beverages. While, the Coors campaign didn’t go viral, someone was paying attention. A group of 35 leading researchers published an open letter on the subject of corporate dream manipulation, in the journal Dream Engineering.

"Multiple marketing studies are openly testing new ways to alter and motivate purchasing behavior through dream and sleep hacking. The commercial, for-profit use of dream incubation is rapidly becoming a reality," wrote the investigators. "As sleep and dream researchers, we are deeply concerned about marketing plans aimed at generating profits at the cost of interfering with our natural nocturnal memory processing."

People have tried to manipulate their dreams for countless years, but only in recent years have scientists attempted to target or manipulate behavior through dreams. In a 2014 study, smokers exposed to tobacco smoke and rotten egg smell while sleeping reduced their cigarette consumption by 30%.

Free-Photos/Pixabay

Got breast milk?

As we know, breast milk has endless benefits for newbords and babies, but many things can stand in the way of a mother’s ability to breastfeed. Baby formula has served as a good enough substitute. But now, there might be something that’s even better.

A start-up company called BIOMILQ created a product that could be groundbreaking. Using “breakthrough mammary biotechnology,” BIOMILQ created cell-cultured breast milk.

Focus_on_Nature/Getty Images

Insert clove A into nostril B

Just when you start wondering what crazy and potentially dangerous thing people can do to themselves next, comes a crazy and potentially dangerous new trend. The good folks at TikTok have provided patients a new treatment for stuffed up sinuses.

Dangerous? Well, that’s what doctors say, anyway.

“We typically do not recommend putting anything into the nostril for the obvious fact that it could get dislodged or lodged up into the nasal cavity,” Anthony Del Signore, MD, of Mount Sinai Union Square, New York, told TODAY.

“Not only does it have the potential to rot or cause a nasal obstruction, it can induce an episode of sinusitis,” Omid Mehdizadeh, MD, of Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., explained to Shape.

But who doesn't want to breathe easier and keep blood-sucking vampires at bay?

Max Pixel

Seeing faces in random places?

Ever look up at the clouds, at a fast-moving train, or into your morning bowl of cereal and see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth looking back at you? You may shake it off and think you’re imagining something, but it's actually your brain doing what it’s built to do and researchers know why.

The phenomenon is called face pareidolia, and it’s technically an error function of the human brain. Evolution has molded our brains to rapidly identify faces, according to David Alais, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study.

“But the system plays ‘fast and loose’ by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth. Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response,” he said in a separate statement. But not only are we seeing faces, our brains go one step further and seemingly give those faces feelings.

University of Sydney

Corporate dream manipulation

Advertisements are quite literally everywhere. On billboards, in commercials, in videos, in movies; the list goes on and on. Still, at least you can shut your eyes and be mercifully free of corporate interference inside your own head, right? Right?

Early in 2021, Coors launched an ad campaign that seemed to be a b bit of a gimmick, if not a joke. Coors claimed that if people watched an ad before bed, and played an 8-hour soundscape while sleeping, their dreams would be filled with crisp mountains and cold, thirst-quenching beverages. While, the Coors campaign didn’t go viral, someone was paying attention. A group of 35 leading researchers published an open letter on the subject of corporate dream manipulation, in the journal Dream Engineering.

"Multiple marketing studies are openly testing new ways to alter and motivate purchasing behavior through dream and sleep hacking. The commercial, for-profit use of dream incubation is rapidly becoming a reality," wrote the investigators. "As sleep and dream researchers, we are deeply concerned about marketing plans aimed at generating profits at the cost of interfering with our natural nocturnal memory processing."

People have tried to manipulate their dreams for countless years, but only in recent years have scientists attempted to target or manipulate behavior through dreams. In a 2014 study, smokers exposed to tobacco smoke and rotten egg smell while sleeping reduced their cigarette consumption by 30%.

Free-Photos/Pixabay

Got breast milk?

As we know, breast milk has endless benefits for newbords and babies, but many things can stand in the way of a mother’s ability to breastfeed. Baby formula has served as a good enough substitute. But now, there might be something that’s even better.

A start-up company called BIOMILQ created a product that could be groundbreaking. Using “breakthrough mammary biotechnology,” BIOMILQ created cell-cultured breast milk.

Focus_on_Nature/Getty Images

Insert clove A into nostril B

Just when you start wondering what crazy and potentially dangerous thing people can do to themselves next, comes a crazy and potentially dangerous new trend. The good folks at TikTok have provided patients a new treatment for stuffed up sinuses.

Dangerous? Well, that’s what doctors say, anyway.

“We typically do not recommend putting anything into the nostril for the obvious fact that it could get dislodged or lodged up into the nasal cavity,” Anthony Del Signore, MD, of Mount Sinai Union Square, New York, told TODAY.

“Not only does it have the potential to rot or cause a nasal obstruction, it can induce an episode of sinusitis,” Omid Mehdizadeh, MD, of Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., explained to Shape.

But who doesn't want to breathe easier and keep blood-sucking vampires at bay?

Max Pixel

Seeing faces in random places?

Ever look up at the clouds, at a fast-moving train, or into your morning bowl of cereal and see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth looking back at you? You may shake it off and think you’re imagining something, but it's actually your brain doing what it’s built to do and researchers know why.

The phenomenon is called face pareidolia, and it’s technically an error function of the human brain. Evolution has molded our brains to rapidly identify faces, according to David Alais, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study.

“But the system plays ‘fast and loose’ by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth. Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response,” he said in a separate statement. But not only are we seeing faces, our brains go one step further and seemingly give those faces feelings.

University of Sydney

Corporate dream manipulation

Advertisements are quite literally everywhere. On billboards, in commercials, in videos, in movies; the list goes on and on. Still, at least you can shut your eyes and be mercifully free of corporate interference inside your own head, right? Right?

Early in 2021, Coors launched an ad campaign that seemed to be a b bit of a gimmick, if not a joke. Coors claimed that if people watched an ad before bed, and played an 8-hour soundscape while sleeping, their dreams would be filled with crisp mountains and cold, thirst-quenching beverages. While, the Coors campaign didn’t go viral, someone was paying attention. A group of 35 leading researchers published an open letter on the subject of corporate dream manipulation, in the journal Dream Engineering.

"Multiple marketing studies are openly testing new ways to alter and motivate purchasing behavior through dream and sleep hacking. The commercial, for-profit use of dream incubation is rapidly becoming a reality," wrote the investigators. "As sleep and dream researchers, we are deeply concerned about marketing plans aimed at generating profits at the cost of interfering with our natural nocturnal memory processing."

People have tried to manipulate their dreams for countless years, but only in recent years have scientists attempted to target or manipulate behavior through dreams. In a 2014 study, smokers exposed to tobacco smoke and rotten egg smell while sleeping reduced their cigarette consumption by 30%.

Free-Photos/Pixabay

Got breast milk?

As we know, breast milk has endless benefits for newbords and babies, but many things can stand in the way of a mother’s ability to breastfeed. Baby formula has served as a good enough substitute. But now, there might be something that’s even better.

A start-up company called BIOMILQ created a product that could be groundbreaking. Using “breakthrough mammary biotechnology,” BIOMILQ created cell-cultured breast milk.

Focus_on_Nature/Getty Images

Catheter ablation appears better than drug therapy for treating atrial fibrillation (AFib) in racial and ethnic minorities, according to a new look at CABANA trial data.

CABANA, which was undertaken to compare catheter ablation and rate-control or rhythm-control drug therapy for AFib, concluded there was no significant difference between the two strategies in improving the trial’s composite primary outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest.

But a closer look at a subgroup of participants reveals an important difference in outcome among racial and ethnic minorities.

In that group, which made up about 10% of the CABANA study population, catheter ablation was significantly better at treating AFib than was drug therapy, producing roughly a 70% relative reduction in the primary endpoint and all-cause mortality.

The benefit for catheter ablation, which was not seen in the nonminority participants, appeared to be due to worse outcomes with drug therapy, the investigators report in an article published July 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“The study really highlights the importance of trying to secure an inclusive and diverse population in clinical trials,” lead author Kevin L. Thomas, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“When we focused on the racial and ethnic minorities who were included in CABANA, the findings were different. This was a surprise,” Dr. Thomas said.

“The findings from the secondary analysis of CABANA suggest that racial and ethnic minorities that are treated with drugs compared with ablation do worse,” he said. “If we can validate this in a larger sample of patients and this does in fact turn out to be true, then we would change how we practice medicine. We would have discussions with these populations about the benefits of ablation over drugs, and this would be important information to help guide our practice.”

The investigators analyzed data from 1,280 participants enrolled in the North American arm of CABANA. Of these, 127 (9.9%) were of racial or ethnic minorities, as defined by the National Institutes of Health, and were randomly assigned to receive ablation (n = 62) or drug therapy (n = 65).

Compared with nonminorities, participants of racial and ethnic minorities were younger (median age, 65.5 years, vs. 68.5 years) and were more likely to have NYHA functional class greater than or equal to II symptoms (37.0% vs. 22.0%), hypertension (92.1% vs. 76.8%), and an ejection fraction less than 40% (20.8% vs. 7.1%).

The overall median follow-up was 54.9 months. Among ethnic and minority participants, the median follow-up was 48 months, compared with 55.5 months for the nonminority participants.

Although there was no significant difference in the primary composite endpoint in the main CABANA trial, among racial and ethnic minorities treated with ablation, there was a 68% relative reduction in the trial’s primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.78) and a 72% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10-0.79).

The 4-year Kaplan-Meier primary event rates were similar in both racial/ethnic minority and nonminority groups that received catheter ablation (12.3% vs. 9.9%).

However, the 4-year event rate was much higher among nonminority participants than among racial and ethnic minorities who received drug therapy (27.4% vs. 9.4%).

The corresponding all-cause 4-year mortality rates were 8.1% and 6.7%, respectively, in the ablation arm and 20.2% and 4.5%, respectively, in the drug arm.

Dr. Thomas and colleagues point out that heart failure in racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Black patients, is typically due to hypertensive heart disease, whereas in non-Hispanic White patients, it is overwhelmingly associated with coronary artery disease. “Our results in CABANA, therefore, raise the possibility that the variations in the prevalence of the heart diseases associated with AFib might account for differences in the benefits observed with ablation therapy.”

Prior data suggest that AFib in the setting of heart failure with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction has substantially better clinical outcomes with ablation versus drug therapy, but most studies either do not report racial/ethnic demographics or enroll very low numbers of minorities, they note.

Andrea M. Russo, MD, a professor of medicine at Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, asks why drug therapy might result in worse outcomes in racial and ethnic minorities in an accompanying editorial.

“Those who received ablation did better than those who received drugs, and the main reason for that is not that ablation works better in minorities than nonminorities, it’s because drugs are worse in minority patients than they are in nonminority patients. This means that either the way we are using the drugs or the ones that we are using in minority patients are resulting in worse overall outcomes,” Dr. Russo told this news organization.

“The minority patients were younger and yet had more hypertension at baseline. There could be all kinds of factors contributing to their health,” she said.

Dr. Russo agrees with Dr. Thomas on the need to enroll diverse populations in clinical trials.

“Dr. Thomas should be commended. He did a fabulous job of looking at this issue. It’s only 10% of the group, but it is better than what we have had so far, and this is a start,” Dr. Russo said. “It’s bringing recognition to how important it is to make sure that we include underrepresented populations in these trials and also that we offer all appropriate therapies to everyone.”

Dr. Thomas reports financial relationships with Janssen, Pfizer, Biosense Webster. Dr. Russo reports no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, St. Jude Medical Foundation and Corporation, Biosense Webster, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific.

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

Catheter ablation appears better than drug therapy for treating atrial fibrillation (AFib) in racial and ethnic minorities, according to a new look at CABANA trial data.

CABANA, which was undertaken to compare catheter ablation and rate-control or rhythm-control drug therapy for AFib, concluded there was no significant difference between the two strategies in improving the trial’s composite primary outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest.

But a closer look at a subgroup of participants reveals an important difference in outcome among racial and ethnic minorities.

In that group, which made up about 10% of the CABANA study population, catheter ablation was significantly better at treating AFib than was drug therapy, producing roughly a 70% relative reduction in the primary endpoint and all-cause mortality.

The benefit for catheter ablation, which was not seen in the nonminority participants, appeared to be due to worse outcomes with drug therapy, the investigators report in an article published July 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“The study really highlights the importance of trying to secure an inclusive and diverse population in clinical trials,” lead author Kevin L. Thomas, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“When we focused on the racial and ethnic minorities who were included in CABANA, the findings were different. This was a surprise,” Dr. Thomas said.

“The findings from the secondary analysis of CABANA suggest that racial and ethnic minorities that are treated with drugs compared with ablation do worse,” he said. “If we can validate this in a larger sample of patients and this does in fact turn out to be true, then we would change how we practice medicine. We would have discussions with these populations about the benefits of ablation over drugs, and this would be important information to help guide our practice.”

The investigators analyzed data from 1,280 participants enrolled in the North American arm of CABANA. Of these, 127 (9.9%) were of racial or ethnic minorities, as defined by the National Institutes of Health, and were randomly assigned to receive ablation (n = 62) or drug therapy (n = 65).

Compared with nonminorities, participants of racial and ethnic minorities were younger (median age, 65.5 years, vs. 68.5 years) and were more likely to have NYHA functional class greater than or equal to II symptoms (37.0% vs. 22.0%), hypertension (92.1% vs. 76.8%), and an ejection fraction less than 40% (20.8% vs. 7.1%).

The overall median follow-up was 54.9 months. Among ethnic and minority participants, the median follow-up was 48 months, compared with 55.5 months for the nonminority participants.

Although there was no significant difference in the primary composite endpoint in the main CABANA trial, among racial and ethnic minorities treated with ablation, there was a 68% relative reduction in the trial’s primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.78) and a 72% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10-0.79).

The 4-year Kaplan-Meier primary event rates were similar in both racial/ethnic minority and nonminority groups that received catheter ablation (12.3% vs. 9.9%).

However, the 4-year event rate was much higher among nonminority participants than among racial and ethnic minorities who received drug therapy (27.4% vs. 9.4%).

The corresponding all-cause 4-year mortality rates were 8.1% and 6.7%, respectively, in the ablation arm and 20.2% and 4.5%, respectively, in the drug arm.

Dr. Thomas and colleagues point out that heart failure in racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Black patients, is typically due to hypertensive heart disease, whereas in non-Hispanic White patients, it is overwhelmingly associated with coronary artery disease. “Our results in CABANA, therefore, raise the possibility that the variations in the prevalence of the heart diseases associated with AFib might account for differences in the benefits observed with ablation therapy.”

Prior data suggest that AFib in the setting of heart failure with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction has substantially better clinical outcomes with ablation versus drug therapy, but most studies either do not report racial/ethnic demographics or enroll very low numbers of minorities, they note.

Andrea M. Russo, MD, a professor of medicine at Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, asks why drug therapy might result in worse outcomes in racial and ethnic minorities in an accompanying editorial.

“Those who received ablation did better than those who received drugs, and the main reason for that is not that ablation works better in minorities than nonminorities, it’s because drugs are worse in minority patients than they are in nonminority patients. This means that either the way we are using the drugs or the ones that we are using in minority patients are resulting in worse overall outcomes,” Dr. Russo told this news organization.

“The minority patients were younger and yet had more hypertension at baseline. There could be all kinds of factors contributing to their health,” she said.

Dr. Russo agrees with Dr. Thomas on the need to enroll diverse populations in clinical trials.

“Dr. Thomas should be commended. He did a fabulous job of looking at this issue. It’s only 10% of the group, but it is better than what we have had so far, and this is a start,” Dr. Russo said. “It’s bringing recognition to how important it is to make sure that we include underrepresented populations in these trials and also that we offer all appropriate therapies to everyone.”

Dr. Thomas reports financial relationships with Janssen, Pfizer, Biosense Webster. Dr. Russo reports no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, St. Jude Medical Foundation and Corporation, Biosense Webster, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific.

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

Catheter ablation appears better than drug therapy for treating atrial fibrillation (AFib) in racial and ethnic minorities, according to a new look at CABANA trial data.

CABANA, which was undertaken to compare catheter ablation and rate-control or rhythm-control drug therapy for AFib, concluded there was no significant difference between the two strategies in improving the trial’s composite primary outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest.

But a closer look at a subgroup of participants reveals an important difference in outcome among racial and ethnic minorities.

In that group, which made up about 10% of the CABANA study population, catheter ablation was significantly better at treating AFib than was drug therapy, producing roughly a 70% relative reduction in the primary endpoint and all-cause mortality.

The benefit for catheter ablation, which was not seen in the nonminority participants, appeared to be due to worse outcomes with drug therapy, the investigators report in an article published July 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“The study really highlights the importance of trying to secure an inclusive and diverse population in clinical trials,” lead author Kevin L. Thomas, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“When we focused on the racial and ethnic minorities who were included in CABANA, the findings were different. This was a surprise,” Dr. Thomas said.

“The findings from the secondary analysis of CABANA suggest that racial and ethnic minorities that are treated with drugs compared with ablation do worse,” he said. “If we can validate this in a larger sample of patients and this does in fact turn out to be true, then we would change how we practice medicine. We would have discussions with these populations about the benefits of ablation over drugs, and this would be important information to help guide our practice.”

The investigators analyzed data from 1,280 participants enrolled in the North American arm of CABANA. Of these, 127 (9.9%) were of racial or ethnic minorities, as defined by the National Institutes of Health, and were randomly assigned to receive ablation (n = 62) or drug therapy (n = 65).

Compared with nonminorities, participants of racial and ethnic minorities were younger (median age, 65.5 years, vs. 68.5 years) and were more likely to have NYHA functional class greater than or equal to II symptoms (37.0% vs. 22.0%), hypertension (92.1% vs. 76.8%), and an ejection fraction less than 40% (20.8% vs. 7.1%).

The overall median follow-up was 54.9 months. Among ethnic and minority participants, the median follow-up was 48 months, compared with 55.5 months for the nonminority participants.

Although there was no significant difference in the primary composite endpoint in the main CABANA trial, among racial and ethnic minorities treated with ablation, there was a 68% relative reduction in the trial’s primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.78) and a 72% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10-0.79).

The 4-year Kaplan-Meier primary event rates were similar in both racial/ethnic minority and nonminority groups that received catheter ablation (12.3% vs. 9.9%).

However, the 4-year event rate was much higher among nonminority participants than among racial and ethnic minorities who received drug therapy (27.4% vs. 9.4%).

The corresponding all-cause 4-year mortality rates were 8.1% and 6.7%, respectively, in the ablation arm and 20.2% and 4.5%, respectively, in the drug arm.

Dr. Thomas and colleagues point out that heart failure in racial and ethnic minorities, particularly Black patients, is typically due to hypertensive heart disease, whereas in non-Hispanic White patients, it is overwhelmingly associated with coronary artery disease. “Our results in CABANA, therefore, raise the possibility that the variations in the prevalence of the heart diseases associated with AFib might account for differences in the benefits observed with ablation therapy.”

Prior data suggest that AFib in the setting of heart failure with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction has substantially better clinical outcomes with ablation versus drug therapy, but most studies either do not report racial/ethnic demographics or enroll very low numbers of minorities, they note.

Andrea M. Russo, MD, a professor of medicine at Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, asks why drug therapy might result in worse outcomes in racial and ethnic minorities in an accompanying editorial.

“Those who received ablation did better than those who received drugs, and the main reason for that is not that ablation works better in minorities than nonminorities, it’s because drugs are worse in minority patients than they are in nonminority patients. This means that either the way we are using the drugs or the ones that we are using in minority patients are resulting in worse overall outcomes,” Dr. Russo told this news organization.

“The minority patients were younger and yet had more hypertension at baseline. There could be all kinds of factors contributing to their health,” she said.

Dr. Russo agrees with Dr. Thomas on the need to enroll diverse populations in clinical trials.

“Dr. Thomas should be commended. He did a fabulous job of looking at this issue. It’s only 10% of the group, but it is better than what we have had so far, and this is a start,” Dr. Russo said. “It’s bringing recognition to how important it is to make sure that we include underrepresented populations in these trials and also that we offer all appropriate therapies to everyone.”

Dr. Thomas reports financial relationships with Janssen, Pfizer, Biosense Webster. Dr. Russo reports no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, St. Jude Medical Foundation and Corporation, Biosense Webster, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific.

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

The contagious Delta variant has become the dominant form of the coronavirus in the United States, now accounting for more than 51% of COVID-19 cases in the country, according to new CDC data to updated on July 6.

The variant, also known as B.1.617.2 and first detected in India, makes up more than 80% of new cases in some Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Delta also accounts for 74% of cases in Western states such as Colorado and Utah and 59% of cases in Southern states such as Louisiana and Texas.

Communities with low vaccination rates are bearing the brunt of new Delta cases. Public health experts are urging those who are unvaccinated to get a shot to protect themselves and their communities against future surges.

“Right now we have two Americas: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated,” Paul Offit, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told NPR.

“We’re feeling pretty good right now because it’s the summer,” he said. “But come winter, if we still have a significant percentage of the population that is unvaccinated, we’re going to see this virus surge again.”

So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to protect people against the Delta variant. But health officials are watching other variants that could evade vaccine protection and lead to major outbreaks this year.

For instance, certain mutations in the Epsilon variant may allow it to evade the immunity from past infections and current COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published July 1 in the Science. The variant, also known as B.1.427/B.1.429 and first identified in California, has now been reported in 34 countries and could become widespread in the United States.

Researchers from the University of Washington and clinics in Switzerland tested the variant in blood samples from vaccinated people, as well as those who were previously infected with COVID-19. They found that the neutralizing power was reduced by about 2 to 3½ times.

The research team also visualized the variant and found that three mutations on Epsilon’s spike protein allow the virus to escape certain antibodies and lower the strength of vaccines.

Epsilon “relies on an indirect and unusual neutralization-escape strategy,” they wrote, saying that understanding these escape routes could help scientists track new variants, curb the pandemic, and create booster shots.

In Australia, for instance, public health officials have detected the Lambda variant, which could be more infectious than the Delta variant and resistant to vaccines, according to Sky News.

A hotel quarantine program in New South Wales identified the variant in someone who had returned from travel, the news outlet reported. Also known as C.37, Lambda was named a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization in June.

Lambda was first identified in Peru in December and now accounts for more than 80% of the country’s cases, according to the Financial Times. It has since been found in 27 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

The variant has seven mutations on the spike protein that allow the virus to infect human cells, the news outlet reported. One mutation is like another mutation on the Delta variant, which could make it more contagious.

In a preprint study published July 1, researchers at the University of Chile at Santiago found that Lambda is better able to escape antibodies created by the CoronaVac vaccine made by Sinovac in China. In the paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, researchers tested blood samples from local health care workers in Santiago who had received two doses of the vaccine.

“Our data revealed that the spike protein ... carries mutations conferring increased infectivity and the ability to escape from neutralizing antibodies,” they wrote.

The research team urged countries to continue testing for contagious variants, even in areas with high vaccination rates, so scientists can identify mutations quickly and analyze whether new variants can escape vaccines.

“The world has to get its act together,” Saad Omer, PhD, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told NPR. “Otherwise yet another, potentially more dangerous, variant could emerge.”

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

The contagious Delta variant has become the dominant form of the coronavirus in the United States, now accounting for more than 51% of COVID-19 cases in the country, according to new CDC data to updated on July 6.

The variant, also known as B.1.617.2 and first detected in India, makes up more than 80% of new cases in some Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Delta also accounts for 74% of cases in Western states such as Colorado and Utah and 59% of cases in Southern states such as Louisiana and Texas.

Communities with low vaccination rates are bearing the brunt of new Delta cases. Public health experts are urging those who are unvaccinated to get a shot to protect themselves and their communities against future surges.

“Right now we have two Americas: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated,” Paul Offit, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told NPR.

“We’re feeling pretty good right now because it’s the summer,” he said. “But come winter, if we still have a significant percentage of the population that is unvaccinated, we’re going to see this virus surge again.”

So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to protect people against the Delta variant. But health officials are watching other variants that could evade vaccine protection and lead to major outbreaks this year.

For instance, certain mutations in the Epsilon variant may allow it to evade the immunity from past infections and current COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published July 1 in the Science. The variant, also known as B.1.427/B.1.429 and first identified in California, has now been reported in 34 countries and could become widespread in the United States.

Researchers from the University of Washington and clinics in Switzerland tested the variant in blood samples from vaccinated people, as well as those who were previously infected with COVID-19. They found that the neutralizing power was reduced by about 2 to 3½ times.

The research team also visualized the variant and found that three mutations on Epsilon’s spike protein allow the virus to escape certain antibodies and lower the strength of vaccines.

Epsilon “relies on an indirect and unusual neutralization-escape strategy,” they wrote, saying that understanding these escape routes could help scientists track new variants, curb the pandemic, and create booster shots.

In Australia, for instance, public health officials have detected the Lambda variant, which could be more infectious than the Delta variant and resistant to vaccines, according to Sky News.

A hotel quarantine program in New South Wales identified the variant in someone who had returned from travel, the news outlet reported. Also known as C.37, Lambda was named a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization in June.

Lambda was first identified in Peru in December and now accounts for more than 80% of the country’s cases, according to the Financial Times. It has since been found in 27 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

The variant has seven mutations on the spike protein that allow the virus to infect human cells, the news outlet reported. One mutation is like another mutation on the Delta variant, which could make it more contagious.

In a preprint study published July 1, researchers at the University of Chile at Santiago found that Lambda is better able to escape antibodies created by the CoronaVac vaccine made by Sinovac in China. In the paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, researchers tested blood samples from local health care workers in Santiago who had received two doses of the vaccine.

“Our data revealed that the spike protein ... carries mutations conferring increased infectivity and the ability to escape from neutralizing antibodies,” they wrote.

The research team urged countries to continue testing for contagious variants, even in areas with high vaccination rates, so scientists can identify mutations quickly and analyze whether new variants can escape vaccines.

“The world has to get its act together,” Saad Omer, PhD, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told NPR. “Otherwise yet another, potentially more dangerous, variant could emerge.”

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

The contagious Delta variant has become the dominant form of the coronavirus in the United States, now accounting for more than 51% of COVID-19 cases in the country, according to new CDC data to updated on July 6.

The variant, also known as B.1.617.2 and first detected in India, makes up more than 80% of new cases in some Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Delta also accounts for 74% of cases in Western states such as Colorado and Utah and 59% of cases in Southern states such as Louisiana and Texas.

Communities with low vaccination rates are bearing the brunt of new Delta cases. Public health experts are urging those who are unvaccinated to get a shot to protect themselves and their communities against future surges.

“Right now we have two Americas: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated,” Paul Offit, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told NPR.

“We’re feeling pretty good right now because it’s the summer,” he said. “But come winter, if we still have a significant percentage of the population that is unvaccinated, we’re going to see this virus surge again.”

So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to protect people against the Delta variant. But health officials are watching other variants that could evade vaccine protection and lead to major outbreaks this year.

For instance, certain mutations in the Epsilon variant may allow it to evade the immunity from past infections and current COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published July 1 in the Science. The variant, also known as B.1.427/B.1.429 and first identified in California, has now been reported in 34 countries and could become widespread in the United States.

Researchers from the University of Washington and clinics in Switzerland tested the variant in blood samples from vaccinated people, as well as those who were previously infected with COVID-19. They found that the neutralizing power was reduced by about 2 to 3½ times.

The research team also visualized the variant and found that three mutations on Epsilon’s spike protein allow the virus to escape certain antibodies and lower the strength of vaccines.

Epsilon “relies on an indirect and unusual neutralization-escape strategy,” they wrote, saying that understanding these escape routes could help scientists track new variants, curb the pandemic, and create booster shots.

In Australia, for instance, public health officials have detected the Lambda variant, which could be more infectious than the Delta variant and resistant to vaccines, according to Sky News.

A hotel quarantine program in New South Wales identified the variant in someone who had returned from travel, the news outlet reported. Also known as C.37, Lambda was named a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization in June.

Lambda was first identified in Peru in December and now accounts for more than 80% of the country’s cases, according to the Financial Times. It has since been found in 27 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

The variant has seven mutations on the spike protein that allow the virus to infect human cells, the news outlet reported. One mutation is like another mutation on the Delta variant, which could make it more contagious.

In a preprint study published July 1, researchers at the University of Chile at Santiago found that Lambda is better able to escape antibodies created by the CoronaVac vaccine made by Sinovac in China. In the paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, researchers tested blood samples from local health care workers in Santiago who had received two doses of the vaccine.

“Our data revealed that the spike protein ... carries mutations conferring increased infectivity and the ability to escape from neutralizing antibodies,” they wrote.

The research team urged countries to continue testing for contagious variants, even in areas with high vaccination rates, so scientists can identify mutations quickly and analyze whether new variants can escape vaccines.

“The world has to get its act together,” Saad Omer, PhD, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told NPR. “Otherwise yet another, potentially more dangerous, variant could emerge.”

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

A review of human and animal epidemiological studies found that long-term stress and genetic factors may act through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis – a pathway in the brain that mediates stress responses – to contribute to the development of Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers also proposed a mechanism to account for how genetic factors may affect HPA axis reactivity and lead to inflammation, which is a core component of neurodegeneration.

“Chronic stress can impact the way immune cells in the brain function and increase inflammation. Genetic variants within that stress response can further affect the function of immune cells,” lead author Ayeisha Milligan Armstrong, a PhD candidate at Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute in Perth, Australia, said in an interview.

The findings were published online June 22 in Biological Reviews).

Research has found that long-term stress during early and mid-life is increasingly associated with cognitive decline and neurodegeneration. There is already evidence to suggest that chronic stress is a risk factor for the “sporadic” or late-onset subtype of Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A cascade of events

Stress activates the HPA, which in turn regulates bodily levels of cortisol, a glucocorticoid stress hormone. Increased levels of cortisol are frequently observed in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and “make a major contribution to the disease process,” the authors wrote. For example, the hippocampus – a part of the brain involved in processing and forming memories – has numerous glucocorticoid receptors and is “therefore particularly sensitive to the effects of glucocorticoids.” However, the molecular mechanisms involved remain poorly understood.

“There is an intimate interplay between exposure to chronic stress and pathways influencing the body’s reaction to such stress,” senior author David Groth, PhD, said in a statement. Dr. Groth is an associate professor at Curtin University in Perth, Australia.

There is variation between individuals with regard to how sensitive they are to stress and glucocorticoid responses. Environmental factors such as stress are thought to be at least partly responsible, as are genetic factors such as genetic polymorphisms and epigenetics. “Genetic variations within these pathways can influence the way the brain’s immune system behaves, leading to a dysfunctional response. In the brain, this leads to a chronic disruption of normal brain processes, increasing the risk of subsequent neurodegeneration and ultimately dementia,” Dr. Groth said.

The researchers suggested that these variations may prime the immune cells of the brain, the microglia, to cause inflammation in the brain. Normally, microglia are involved in monitoring the brain tissue for and responding to damage and infections to keep the brain healthy. However, in an inflammatory state, the microglia instead contribute to a “more neurotoxic environment through the production of proinflammatory cytokines, altered synaptic pruning, and the reduced production of protective neurotrophic factors,” the authors wrote. Microglia may also promote the accumulation of amyloid beta and tau protein, which damage the brain tissue and can cause neurodegeneration. There are different groups of microglia in the brain, each of which may respond differently to genetic and environmental stressors.

“Genome-wide association studies have found that of the genes identified as being associated with Alzheimer’s disease, 60.5% are expressed in microglia,” the authors noted.

To connect the roles of chronic stress and brain inflammation in Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers proposed a “two-hit” hypothesis: Early or mid-life exposure to stress primes the microglia to enter an inflammatory state in response to a secondary stimulus later in life.
 

Pay attention to stress

For clinicians, this paper highlights the importance of managing stress in patients and their families.

“Clinicians need to be attuned to the effects of stress on patients and their caregivers, and how that [stress] can affect their morbidity and mortality,” Cynthia Munro, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. She added that attention must be paid to modifiable risk factors such as poor sleep and diet.

Although managing stress is important, that doesn’t mean that everyone who’s experienced chronic stress will develop Alzheimer’s disease. “Chronic stress can alter the HPA axis but it doesn’t necessarily do so in everyone. A cascade of events needs to occur,” said Dr. Munro. “People should always try to reduce the effects of stress to the extent that they can. Stress can lead to a whole host of negative health outcomes, not just Alzheimer’s disease.”
 

Next steps

Moving forward, the researchers plan to further investigate the molecular mechanisms responsible for the role of stress in Alzheimer’s disease and how genetic variants affect neurodegeneration, Ms. Armstrong said. Ultimately, understanding how stress and genetics contribute to Alzheimer’s disease may lead to the identification of possible therapeutic targets.

Ms. Armstrong and Dr. Munro declared no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently funded.

A review of human and animal epidemiological studies found that long-term stress and genetic factors may act through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis – a pathway in the brain that mediates stress responses – to contribute to the development of Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers also proposed a mechanism to account for how genetic factors may affect HPA axis reactivity and lead to inflammation, which is a core component of neurodegeneration.

“Chronic stress can impact the way immune cells in the brain function and increase inflammation. Genetic variants within that stress response can further affect the function of immune cells,” lead author Ayeisha Milligan Armstrong, a PhD candidate at Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute in Perth, Australia, said in an interview.

The findings were published online June 22 in Biological Reviews).

Research has found that long-term stress during early and mid-life is increasingly associated with cognitive decline and neurodegeneration. There is already evidence to suggest that chronic stress is a risk factor for the “sporadic” or late-onset subtype of Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A cascade of events

Stress activates the HPA, which in turn regulates bodily levels of cortisol, a glucocorticoid stress hormone. Increased levels of cortisol are frequently observed in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and “make a major contribution to the disease process,” the authors wrote. For example, the hippocampus – a part of the brain involved in processing and forming memories – has numerous glucocorticoid receptors and is “therefore particularly sensitive to the effects of glucocorticoids.” However, the molecular mechanisms involved remain poorly understood.

“There is an intimate interplay between exposure to chronic stress and pathways influencing the body’s reaction to such stress,” senior author David Groth, PhD, said in a statement. Dr. Groth is an associate professor at Curtin University in Perth, Australia.

There is variation between individuals with regard to how sensitive they are to stress and glucocorticoid responses. Environmental factors such as stress are thought to be at least partly responsible, as are genetic factors such as genetic polymorphisms and epigenetics. “Genetic variations within these pathways can influence the way the brain’s immune system behaves, leading to a dysfunctional response. In the brain, this leads to a chronic disruption of normal brain processes, increasing the risk of subsequent neurodegeneration and ultimately dementia,” Dr. Groth said.

The researchers suggested that these variations may prime the immune cells of the brain, the microglia, to cause inflammation in the brain. Normally, microglia are involved in monitoring the brain tissue for and responding to damage and infections to keep the brain healthy. However, in an inflammatory state, the microglia instead contribute to a “more neurotoxic environment through the production of proinflammatory cytokines, altered synaptic pruning, and the reduced production of protective neurotrophic factors,” the authors wrote. Microglia may also promote the accumulation of amyloid beta and tau protein, which damage the brain tissue and can cause neurodegeneration. There are different groups of microglia in the brain, each of which may respond differently to genetic and environmental stressors.

“Genome-wide association studies have found that of the genes identified as being associated with Alzheimer’s disease, 60.5% are expressed in microglia,” the authors noted.

To connect the roles of chronic stress and brain inflammation in Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers proposed a “two-hit” hypothesis: Early or mid-life exposure to stress primes the microglia to enter an inflammatory state in response to a secondary stimulus later in life.
 

Pay attention to stress

For clinicians, this paper highlights the importance of managing stress in patients and their families.

“Clinicians need to be attuned to the effects of stress on patients and their caregivers, and how that [stress] can affect their morbidity and mortality,” Cynthia Munro, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. She added that attention must be paid to modifiable risk factors such as poor sleep and diet.

Although managing stress is important, that doesn’t mean that everyone who’s experienced chronic stress will develop Alzheimer’s disease. “Chronic stress can alter the HPA axis but it doesn’t necessarily do so in everyone. A cascade of events needs to occur,” said Dr. Munro. “People should always try to reduce the effects of stress to the extent that they can. Stress can lead to a whole host of negative health outcomes, not just Alzheimer’s disease.”
 

Next steps

Moving forward, the researchers plan to further investigate the molecular mechanisms responsible for the role of stress in Alzheimer’s disease and how genetic variants affect neurodegeneration, Ms. Armstrong said. Ultimately, understanding how stress and genetics contribute to Alzheimer’s disease may lead to the identification of possible therapeutic targets.

Ms. Armstrong and Dr. Munro declared no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently funded.

A review of human and animal epidemiological studies found that long-term stress and genetic factors may act through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis – a pathway in the brain that mediates stress responses – to contribute to the development of Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers also proposed a mechanism to account for how genetic factors may affect HPA axis reactivity and lead to inflammation, which is a core component of neurodegeneration.

“Chronic stress can impact the way immune cells in the brain function and increase inflammation. Genetic variants within that stress response can further affect the function of immune cells,” lead author Ayeisha Milligan Armstrong, a PhD candidate at Curtin Health Innovation Research Institute in Perth, Australia, said in an interview.

The findings were published online June 22 in Biological Reviews).

Research has found that long-term stress during early and mid-life is increasingly associated with cognitive decline and neurodegeneration. There is already evidence to suggest that chronic stress is a risk factor for the “sporadic” or late-onset subtype of Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A cascade of events

Stress activates the HPA, which in turn regulates bodily levels of cortisol, a glucocorticoid stress hormone. Increased levels of cortisol are frequently observed in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and “make a major contribution to the disease process,” the authors wrote. For example, the hippocampus – a part of the brain involved in processing and forming memories – has numerous glucocorticoid receptors and is “therefore particularly sensitive to the effects of glucocorticoids.” However, the molecular mechanisms involved remain poorly understood.

“There is an intimate interplay between exposure to chronic stress and pathways influencing the body’s reaction to such stress,” senior author David Groth, PhD, said in a statement. Dr. Groth is an associate professor at Curtin University in Perth, Australia.

There is variation between individuals with regard to how sensitive they are to stress and glucocorticoid responses. Environmental factors such as stress are thought to be at least partly responsible, as are genetic factors such as genetic polymorphisms and epigenetics. “Genetic variations within these pathways can influence the way the brain’s immune system behaves, leading to a dysfunctional response. In the brain, this leads to a chronic disruption of normal brain processes, increasing the risk of subsequent neurodegeneration and ultimately dementia,” Dr. Groth said.

The researchers suggested that these variations may prime the immune cells of the brain, the microglia, to cause inflammation in the brain. Normally, microglia are involved in monitoring the brain tissue for and responding to damage and infections to keep the brain healthy. However, in an inflammatory state, the microglia instead contribute to a “more neurotoxic environment through the production of proinflammatory cytokines, altered synaptic pruning, and the reduced production of protective neurotrophic factors,” the authors wrote. Microglia may also promote the accumulation of amyloid beta and tau protein, which damage the brain tissue and can cause neurodegeneration. There are different groups of microglia in the brain, each of which may respond differently to genetic and environmental stressors.

“Genome-wide association studies have found that of the genes identified as being associated with Alzheimer’s disease, 60.5% are expressed in microglia,” the authors noted.

To connect the roles of chronic stress and brain inflammation in Alzheimer’s disease, the researchers proposed a “two-hit” hypothesis: Early or mid-life exposure to stress primes the microglia to enter an inflammatory state in response to a secondary stimulus later in life.
 

Pay attention to stress

For clinicians, this paper highlights the importance of managing stress in patients and their families.

“Clinicians need to be attuned to the effects of stress on patients and their caregivers, and how that [stress] can affect their morbidity and mortality,” Cynthia Munro, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. She added that attention must be paid to modifiable risk factors such as poor sleep and diet.

Although managing stress is important, that doesn’t mean that everyone who’s experienced chronic stress will develop Alzheimer’s disease. “Chronic stress can alter the HPA axis but it doesn’t necessarily do so in everyone. A cascade of events needs to occur,” said Dr. Munro. “People should always try to reduce the effects of stress to the extent that they can. Stress can lead to a whole host of negative health outcomes, not just Alzheimer’s disease.”
 

Next steps

Moving forward, the researchers plan to further investigate the molecular mechanisms responsible for the role of stress in Alzheimer’s disease and how genetic variants affect neurodegeneration, Ms. Armstrong said. Ultimately, understanding how stress and genetics contribute to Alzheimer’s disease may lead to the identification of possible therapeutic targets.

Ms. Armstrong and Dr. Munro declared no relevant financial relationships. The study was independently funded.

Midlife changes in wealth may affect a patient’s risk of cardiovascular disease, a new cohort study suggests.

It found that upward wealth mobility relative to peers was independently associated with protection against cardiovascular disease after age 65. In contrast, downward wealth mobility during middle age was linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

“A lot of studies have shown an inverse relationship between wealth and health in cross section at a single timepoint. What we really wanted to understand is whether this risk is modifiable and if this relationship changes over time,” senior author Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview.

The results were published online June 15 in JAMA Cardiology.  

For the primary analysis, the researchers collected data from 5,579 U.S. adults aged 50 years and older with no known cardiovascular disease at baseline who participated in the RAND Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal survey that measures changes in health and wealth every 2 years. The participants had been interviewed in at least two of three 5-year age intervals (50-54, 55-59, 60-64 years) and had follow-up data available after age 65. Survey data from Jan. 1, 1992 to Dec. 31, 2016 was used.

Participants were grouped into quintiles based on wealth, defined as total nonhousing assets in 2012 U.S. dollars, and were further stratified by birth cohort (1931-1935, 1936-1940, 1941-1945, 1946-1950). Upward relative wealth mobility involved an increase of one or more wealth quintiles during the observation period, while downward relative wealth mobility was defined as a decrease of one or more wealth quintiles. Participants who remained in the same quintile were described as having stable wealth.

Across the birth cohorts, the bottom wealth quintile ranged from -$581,447 to $7,460 and the top wealth quintile ranged from $327,064 to $22,661,450.

Over a mean 16.9 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or a nonfatal cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke occurred in 1,336 participants, including 22.5% whose wealth increased by one quintile versus 28.1% whose wealth decreased by one quintile.

In adjusted analyses, higher initial wealth was associated with lower cardiovascular risk after turning 65 (adjusted hazard ratio per quintile, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95; P = .001). Additionally, experiencing relative upward wealth mobility by at least one quintile was independently associated with a lower risk of a nonfatal cardiovascular event or cardiovascular death, compared with stable wealth (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97; P = .02).

Downward wealth mobility was associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00-1.32; P = .046). This effect was also observed on the risk of cardiovascular death in a secondary analysis of 3,360 participants who had a previous history of cardiovascular disease (aHR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.13-1.93; P = .004).

“We estimate that each $100,000 increase in wealth was associated with a roughly 1% lower hazard of cardiovascular outcome in follow-up,” the authors write.

The protective effect of wealth on cardiovascular health may be the result of factors such as “better access to care, having more time to adhere to a healthier diet or exercise regularly, and reduced stress,” Kiarri Kershaw, PhD, a social epidemiologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. Dr. Kershaw, who was not involved in the study, added that “stress can affect health through both biological and behavioral pathways.”

The study did not find a statistical relationship between race, wealth, and health. However, it was observed that the overall risk of cardiovascular events among non-Hispanic Black and Black participants was lower. The authors noted that “these findings are likely a byproduct of collider bias, in which Black and Hispanic participants who experience downward wealth mobility are more likely to experience barriers to care and subsequently less likely to receive a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease.”

Moving forward, the researchers plan to investigate health policy interventions that “best promote and sustain economic opportunity and wealth formed among low-income individuals,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

The study was funded independently. Dr. Vaduganathan and Dr. Kershaw have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Midlife changes in wealth may affect a patient’s risk of cardiovascular disease, a new cohort study suggests.

It found that upward wealth mobility relative to peers was independently associated with protection against cardiovascular disease after age 65. In contrast, downward wealth mobility during middle age was linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

“A lot of studies have shown an inverse relationship between wealth and health in cross section at a single timepoint. What we really wanted to understand is whether this risk is modifiable and if this relationship changes over time,” senior author Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview.

The results were published online June 15 in JAMA Cardiology.  

For the primary analysis, the researchers collected data from 5,579 U.S. adults aged 50 years and older with no known cardiovascular disease at baseline who participated in the RAND Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal survey that measures changes in health and wealth every 2 years. The participants had been interviewed in at least two of three 5-year age intervals (50-54, 55-59, 60-64 years) and had follow-up data available after age 65. Survey data from Jan. 1, 1992 to Dec. 31, 2016 was used.

Participants were grouped into quintiles based on wealth, defined as total nonhousing assets in 2012 U.S. dollars, and were further stratified by birth cohort (1931-1935, 1936-1940, 1941-1945, 1946-1950). Upward relative wealth mobility involved an increase of one or more wealth quintiles during the observation period, while downward relative wealth mobility was defined as a decrease of one or more wealth quintiles. Participants who remained in the same quintile were described as having stable wealth.

Across the birth cohorts, the bottom wealth quintile ranged from -$581,447 to $7,460 and the top wealth quintile ranged from $327,064 to $22,661,450.

Over a mean 16.9 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or a nonfatal cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke occurred in 1,336 participants, including 22.5% whose wealth increased by one quintile versus 28.1% whose wealth decreased by one quintile.

In adjusted analyses, higher initial wealth was associated with lower cardiovascular risk after turning 65 (adjusted hazard ratio per quintile, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95; P = .001). Additionally, experiencing relative upward wealth mobility by at least one quintile was independently associated with a lower risk of a nonfatal cardiovascular event or cardiovascular death, compared with stable wealth (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97; P = .02).

Downward wealth mobility was associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00-1.32; P = .046). This effect was also observed on the risk of cardiovascular death in a secondary analysis of 3,360 participants who had a previous history of cardiovascular disease (aHR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.13-1.93; P = .004).

“We estimate that each $100,000 increase in wealth was associated with a roughly 1% lower hazard of cardiovascular outcome in follow-up,” the authors write.

The protective effect of wealth on cardiovascular health may be the result of factors such as “better access to care, having more time to adhere to a healthier diet or exercise regularly, and reduced stress,” Kiarri Kershaw, PhD, a social epidemiologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. Dr. Kershaw, who was not involved in the study, added that “stress can affect health through both biological and behavioral pathways.”

The study did not find a statistical relationship between race, wealth, and health. However, it was observed that the overall risk of cardiovascular events among non-Hispanic Black and Black participants was lower. The authors noted that “these findings are likely a byproduct of collider bias, in which Black and Hispanic participants who experience downward wealth mobility are more likely to experience barriers to care and subsequently less likely to receive a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease.”

Moving forward, the researchers plan to investigate health policy interventions that “best promote and sustain economic opportunity and wealth formed among low-income individuals,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

The study was funded independently. Dr. Vaduganathan and Dr. Kershaw have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Midlife changes in wealth may affect a patient’s risk of cardiovascular disease, a new cohort study suggests.

It found that upward wealth mobility relative to peers was independently associated with protection against cardiovascular disease after age 65. In contrast, downward wealth mobility during middle age was linked to an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

“A lot of studies have shown an inverse relationship between wealth and health in cross section at a single timepoint. What we really wanted to understand is whether this risk is modifiable and if this relationship changes over time,” senior author Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Boston, said in an interview.

The results were published online June 15 in JAMA Cardiology.  

For the primary analysis, the researchers collected data from 5,579 U.S. adults aged 50 years and older with no known cardiovascular disease at baseline who participated in the RAND Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal survey that measures changes in health and wealth every 2 years. The participants had been interviewed in at least two of three 5-year age intervals (50-54, 55-59, 60-64 years) and had follow-up data available after age 65. Survey data from Jan. 1, 1992 to Dec. 31, 2016 was used.

Participants were grouped into quintiles based on wealth, defined as total nonhousing assets in 2012 U.S. dollars, and were further stratified by birth cohort (1931-1935, 1936-1940, 1941-1945, 1946-1950). Upward relative wealth mobility involved an increase of one or more wealth quintiles during the observation period, while downward relative wealth mobility was defined as a decrease of one or more wealth quintiles. Participants who remained in the same quintile were described as having stable wealth.

Across the birth cohorts, the bottom wealth quintile ranged from -$581,447 to $7,460 and the top wealth quintile ranged from $327,064 to $22,661,450.

Over a mean 16.9 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular death or a nonfatal cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke occurred in 1,336 participants, including 22.5% whose wealth increased by one quintile versus 28.1% whose wealth decreased by one quintile.

In adjusted analyses, higher initial wealth was associated with lower cardiovascular risk after turning 65 (adjusted hazard ratio per quintile, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.95; P = .001). Additionally, experiencing relative upward wealth mobility by at least one quintile was independently associated with a lower risk of a nonfatal cardiovascular event or cardiovascular death, compared with stable wealth (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97; P = .02).

Downward wealth mobility was associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes (aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00-1.32; P = .046). This effect was also observed on the risk of cardiovascular death in a secondary analysis of 3,360 participants who had a previous history of cardiovascular disease (aHR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.13-1.93; P = .004).

“We estimate that each $100,000 increase in wealth was associated with a roughly 1% lower hazard of cardiovascular outcome in follow-up,” the authors write.

The protective effect of wealth on cardiovascular health may be the result of factors such as “better access to care, having more time to adhere to a healthier diet or exercise regularly, and reduced stress,” Kiarri Kershaw, PhD, a social epidemiologist at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. Dr. Kershaw, who was not involved in the study, added that “stress can affect health through both biological and behavioral pathways.”

The study did not find a statistical relationship between race, wealth, and health. However, it was observed that the overall risk of cardiovascular events among non-Hispanic Black and Black participants was lower. The authors noted that “these findings are likely a byproduct of collider bias, in which Black and Hispanic participants who experience downward wealth mobility are more likely to experience barriers to care and subsequently less likely to receive a diagnosis of cardiovascular disease.”

Moving forward, the researchers plan to investigate health policy interventions that “best promote and sustain economic opportunity and wealth formed among low-income individuals,” Dr. Vaduganathan said.

The study was funded independently. Dr. Vaduganathan and Dr. Kershaw have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

“What’s my number?” When I hear this from my financial planning clients, I know they mean: “What investment net worth do I need to be financially independent and make practicing medicine optional?” In my 20-year career, this “magic number” is by far the most common thing physicians want to know.

Wiroj Sidhisoradej/EyeEm/Getty Images

If you look online, articles may recommend having a portfolio valued at $2 million, $5 million, and not uncommonly $10 million or more to retire. Really? $10 million? You might be thinking that surely not everyone needs that amount. Luckily, that’s true.

There’s no magic number your portfolio should be – just your number.

It’s human nature to want a simple, clear target to shoot for. But unfortunately, there’s no generic answer when it comes to saving for retirement. Even after a comprehensive hour-long review of a client’s financial plan – including insurance, investments, estate planning, and other items – the most honest answer I can give is: “It depends.” Not satisfying, I know. But there are still too many holes to fill.

By far the most important factor in getting beyond “it depends” is having an accurate estimate of annual retirement expenses. I have clients who live comfortably on $50,000 a year in retirement and others who need $250,000 or more. Knowing how much you need – your personal number – depends on the individual’s unique dream for retirement and calculating what that dream will cost.

Form a guesstimate based on savings and anticipated expenses

The total portfolio value needed to sustain an annual expense of $50,000 a year in retirement spending versus the portfolio size needed for $250,000 or more, blows apart the fiction of a universal “magic number.” It’s just not that simple. While it’s hard to gauge exactly what you will need, the right information can lead to a logical guesstimate about what size portfolio will provide you with financial independence.

In the end, it’s up to you to determine your desired retirement lifestyle. Then, the only way to get there is to calculate how much it will cost and save up for it by following a well-informed financial plan. This plan will be based on strategy that shifts from the middle to the later stages of your medical career and into retirement.

Let’s see how it works.
 

Early to mid-career: Focus on building up retirement savings

We ultimately want to save enough to meet our retirement expenses. But figuring out how much to save when you’re in your 40s and 50s is difficult. A mid-career physician likely has significant family- and child-related expenses. When we become empty-nesters, those expenses will decline. In retirement they may disappear entirely, but new expenses may arise.

With large variations in expenses at different life stages, it’s hard to calculate exactly how much you will need to save. Early on, the most sensible thing is putting aside a “reasonable” percentage of gross income for retirement savings.

What is a ‘reasonable’ savings goal for retirement?

As is often the case with high-income earners, many of our clients don’t have a budget or a clear picture of their current expenses and spending habits. That’s alright as long as they are building up a reasonable nest egg for the future – which begs the question of what is reasonable.

For mid-career docs, a reasonable goal to aim for is putting aside 20% of gross income for retirement. What you spend the rest of your money on is less important than how much you’re saving.

This is quite different from how you’ll handle expenses during retirement, when you no longer have a steady stream of income; rather, you have a pot of money that needs to last you another 20, 30, or even 40 years. At that point, thinking about specific expenses becomes more important (more on this topic later). That said, if you’re a mid-career doctor who is not meeting this 20% savings goal, it’s time to make a plan that will free up cash for retirement savings and investments.
 

Later-career docs: Calculate your spending level in retirement

Financial success means having a portfolio that can support your retirement dreams – with the confidence that your money will last and you won’t need to watch every dollar you spend. As you near retirement, your focus will shift away from accumulating savings to calculating the annual expenses you will have to meet in retirement.

A good place to start is figuring out which expenses will be necessary and which will be more flexible. To do this, separate your anticipated spending into these two categories:

• Fixed expenses: You can confidently forecast your “must-have” fixed expenses – such as property taxes, property/casualty insurance, health care costs, utilities, and groceries – because they remain steady from month to month.
• Discretionary expenses: These “like-to-have” expenses vary from month to month. This makes them harder to predict but easier to control. They might include dining out, travel, and charitable contributions.

As a retiree, understanding your fixed and discretionary expenses can help you prepare for a bear market, when the stock market can decline by 20% or more. Your portfolio won’t consist entirely of stocks, so it shouldn’t drop to that degree. Still, it will decline significantly. You may need to cut back on spending for a year or 2 to allow your portfolio to recover, particularly if the portfolio declines early in retirement.

Are you ready for retirement?

During the long bull market preceding the great recession of 2007 and 2009, many physicians retired –only to return to their practices when their portfolio values plummeted. In the exuberance of the moment, many failed to heed the warnings of many economists and got caught flat-footed.

Right now it’s a bull market, but we’re seeing concerning signs, such as an out-of-control housing market and rumblings about inflation and rising consumer costs. Sound familiar? If you hope to retire soon, take the time to objectively look around the corner so you can plan appropriately – whether your goal is to retire completely, stay in practice part-time, or even take on a new opportunity.

In an “it-depends” world, don’t be lured by a fictitious magic number, no matter what comes up when you Google: “When can I retire?” Instead, save early, imagine your dream retirement, and calculate expenses later to see what’s possible.

Dr. Greenwald is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Dr. Greenwald completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He practiced internal medicine in the Twin Cities for 11 years before making the transition to financial planning for physicians, beginning in 1998.

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

“What’s my number?” When I hear this from my financial planning clients, I know they mean: “What investment net worth do I need to be financially independent and make practicing medicine optional?” In my 20-year career, this “magic number” is by far the most common thing physicians want to know.

Wiroj Sidhisoradej/EyeEm/Getty Images

If you look online, articles may recommend having a portfolio valued at $2 million, $5 million, and not uncommonly $10 million or more to retire. Really? $10 million? You might be thinking that surely not everyone needs that amount. Luckily, that’s true.

There’s no magic number your portfolio should be – just your number.

It’s human nature to want a simple, clear target to shoot for. But unfortunately, there’s no generic answer when it comes to saving for retirement. Even after a comprehensive hour-long review of a client’s financial plan – including insurance, investments, estate planning, and other items – the most honest answer I can give is: “It depends.” Not satisfying, I know. But there are still too many holes to fill.

By far the most important factor in getting beyond “it depends” is having an accurate estimate of annual retirement expenses. I have clients who live comfortably on $50,000 a year in retirement and others who need $250,000 or more. Knowing how much you need – your personal number – depends on the individual’s unique dream for retirement and calculating what that dream will cost.

Form a guesstimate based on savings and anticipated expenses

The total portfolio value needed to sustain an annual expense of $50,000 a year in retirement spending versus the portfolio size needed for $250,000 or more, blows apart the fiction of a universal “magic number.” It’s just not that simple. While it’s hard to gauge exactly what you will need, the right information can lead to a logical guesstimate about what size portfolio will provide you with financial independence.

In the end, it’s up to you to determine your desired retirement lifestyle. Then, the only way to get there is to calculate how much it will cost and save up for it by following a well-informed financial plan. This plan will be based on strategy that shifts from the middle to the later stages of your medical career and into retirement.

Let’s see how it works.
 

Early to mid-career: Focus on building up retirement savings

We ultimately want to save enough to meet our retirement expenses. But figuring out how much to save when you’re in your 40s and 50s is difficult. A mid-career physician likely has significant family- and child-related expenses. When we become empty-nesters, those expenses will decline. In retirement they may disappear entirely, but new expenses may arise.

With large variations in expenses at different life stages, it’s hard to calculate exactly how much you will need to save. Early on, the most sensible thing is putting aside a “reasonable” percentage of gross income for retirement savings.

What is a ‘reasonable’ savings goal for retirement?

As is often the case with high-income earners, many of our clients don’t have a budget or a clear picture of their current expenses and spending habits. That’s alright as long as they are building up a reasonable nest egg for the future – which begs the question of what is reasonable.

For mid-career docs, a reasonable goal to aim for is putting aside 20% of gross income for retirement. What you spend the rest of your money on is less important than how much you’re saving.

This is quite different from how you’ll handle expenses during retirement, when you no longer have a steady stream of income; rather, you have a pot of money that needs to last you another 20, 30, or even 40 years. At that point, thinking about specific expenses becomes more important (more on this topic later). That said, if you’re a mid-career doctor who is not meeting this 20% savings goal, it’s time to make a plan that will free up cash for retirement savings and investments.
 

Later-career docs: Calculate your spending level in retirement

Financial success means having a portfolio that can support your retirement dreams – with the confidence that your money will last and you won’t need to watch every dollar you spend. As you near retirement, your focus will shift away from accumulating savings to calculating the annual expenses you will have to meet in retirement.

A good place to start is figuring out which expenses will be necessary and which will be more flexible. To do this, separate your anticipated spending into these two categories:

• Fixed expenses: You can confidently forecast your “must-have” fixed expenses – such as property taxes, property/casualty insurance, health care costs, utilities, and groceries – because they remain steady from month to month.
• Discretionary expenses: These “like-to-have” expenses vary from month to month. This makes them harder to predict but easier to control. They might include dining out, travel, and charitable contributions.

As a retiree, understanding your fixed and discretionary expenses can help you prepare for a bear market, when the stock market can decline by 20% or more. Your portfolio won’t consist entirely of stocks, so it shouldn’t drop to that degree. Still, it will decline significantly. You may need to cut back on spending for a year or 2 to allow your portfolio to recover, particularly if the portfolio declines early in retirement.

Are you ready for retirement?

During the long bull market preceding the great recession of 2007 and 2009, many physicians retired –only to return to their practices when their portfolio values plummeted. In the exuberance of the moment, many failed to heed the warnings of many economists and got caught flat-footed.

Right now it’s a bull market, but we’re seeing concerning signs, such as an out-of-control housing market and rumblings about inflation and rising consumer costs. Sound familiar? If you hope to retire soon, take the time to objectively look around the corner so you can plan appropriately – whether your goal is to retire completely, stay in practice part-time, or even take on a new opportunity.

In an “it-depends” world, don’t be lured by a fictitious magic number, no matter what comes up when you Google: “When can I retire?” Instead, save early, imagine your dream retirement, and calculate expenses later to see what’s possible.

Dr. Greenwald is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Dr. Greenwald completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He practiced internal medicine in the Twin Cities for 11 years before making the transition to financial planning for physicians, beginning in 1998.

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

“What’s my number?” When I hear this from my financial planning clients, I know they mean: “What investment net worth do I need to be financially independent and make practicing medicine optional?” In my 20-year career, this “magic number” is by far the most common thing physicians want to know.

Wiroj Sidhisoradej/EyeEm/Getty Images

If you look online, articles may recommend having a portfolio valued at $2 million, $5 million, and not uncommonly $10 million or more to retire. Really? $10 million? You might be thinking that surely not everyone needs that amount. Luckily, that’s true.

There’s no magic number your portfolio should be – just your number.

It’s human nature to want a simple, clear target to shoot for. But unfortunately, there’s no generic answer when it comes to saving for retirement. Even after a comprehensive hour-long review of a client’s financial plan – including insurance, investments, estate planning, and other items – the most honest answer I can give is: “It depends.” Not satisfying, I know. But there are still too many holes to fill.

By far the most important factor in getting beyond “it depends” is having an accurate estimate of annual retirement expenses. I have clients who live comfortably on $50,000 a year in retirement and others who need $250,000 or more. Knowing how much you need – your personal number – depends on the individual’s unique dream for retirement and calculating what that dream will cost.

Form a guesstimate based on savings and anticipated expenses

The total portfolio value needed to sustain an annual expense of $50,000 a year in retirement spending versus the portfolio size needed for $250,000 or more, blows apart the fiction of a universal “magic number.” It’s just not that simple. While it’s hard to gauge exactly what you will need, the right information can lead to a logical guesstimate about what size portfolio will provide you with financial independence.

In the end, it’s up to you to determine your desired retirement lifestyle. Then, the only way to get there is to calculate how much it will cost and save up for it by following a well-informed financial plan. This plan will be based on strategy that shifts from the middle to the later stages of your medical career and into retirement.

Let’s see how it works.
 

Early to mid-career: Focus on building up retirement savings

We ultimately want to save enough to meet our retirement expenses. But figuring out how much to save when you’re in your 40s and 50s is difficult. A mid-career physician likely has significant family- and child-related expenses. When we become empty-nesters, those expenses will decline. In retirement they may disappear entirely, but new expenses may arise.

With large variations in expenses at different life stages, it’s hard to calculate exactly how much you will need to save. Early on, the most sensible thing is putting aside a “reasonable” percentage of gross income for retirement savings.

What is a ‘reasonable’ savings goal for retirement?

As is often the case with high-income earners, many of our clients don’t have a budget or a clear picture of their current expenses and spending habits. That’s alright as long as they are building up a reasonable nest egg for the future – which begs the question of what is reasonable.

For mid-career docs, a reasonable goal to aim for is putting aside 20% of gross income for retirement. What you spend the rest of your money on is less important than how much you’re saving.

This is quite different from how you’ll handle expenses during retirement, when you no longer have a steady stream of income; rather, you have a pot of money that needs to last you another 20, 30, or even 40 years. At that point, thinking about specific expenses becomes more important (more on this topic later). That said, if you’re a mid-career doctor who is not meeting this 20% savings goal, it’s time to make a plan that will free up cash for retirement savings and investments.
 

Later-career docs: Calculate your spending level in retirement

Financial success means having a portfolio that can support your retirement dreams – with the confidence that your money will last and you won’t need to watch every dollar you spend. As you near retirement, your focus will shift away from accumulating savings to calculating the annual expenses you will have to meet in retirement.

A good place to start is figuring out which expenses will be necessary and which will be more flexible. To do this, separate your anticipated spending into these two categories:

• Fixed expenses: You can confidently forecast your “must-have” fixed expenses – such as property taxes, property/casualty insurance, health care costs, utilities, and groceries – because they remain steady from month to month.
• Discretionary expenses: These “like-to-have” expenses vary from month to month. This makes them harder to predict but easier to control. They might include dining out, travel, and charitable contributions.

As a retiree, understanding your fixed and discretionary expenses can help you prepare for a bear market, when the stock market can decline by 20% or more. Your portfolio won’t consist entirely of stocks, so it shouldn’t drop to that degree. Still, it will decline significantly. You may need to cut back on spending for a year or 2 to allow your portfolio to recover, particularly if the portfolio declines early in retirement.

Are you ready for retirement?

During the long bull market preceding the great recession of 2007 and 2009, many physicians retired –only to return to their practices when their portfolio values plummeted. In the exuberance of the moment, many failed to heed the warnings of many economists and got caught flat-footed.

Right now it’s a bull market, but we’re seeing concerning signs, such as an out-of-control housing market and rumblings about inflation and rising consumer costs. Sound familiar? If you hope to retire soon, take the time to objectively look around the corner so you can plan appropriately – whether your goal is to retire completely, stay in practice part-time, or even take on a new opportunity.

In an “it-depends” world, don’t be lured by a fictitious magic number, no matter what comes up when you Google: “When can I retire?” Instead, save early, imagine your dream retirement, and calculate expenses later to see what’s possible.

Dr. Greenwald is a graduate of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. Dr. Greenwald completed his internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. He practiced internal medicine in the Twin Cities for 11 years before making the transition to financial planning for physicians, beginning in 1998.

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