MDedge Neurology

Low to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better cognitive function and slower cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults, new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.

Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Slower cognitive decline

The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.

The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.

Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.

For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.

Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.

One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.

Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.

Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.

Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).

Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
 

Heavy drinking ‘risky’

Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”

“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.

The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.

A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”

There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.

Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
 

U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’

The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”

Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.

The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.

The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.

Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.

Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
 

Balancing act

However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.

“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.

Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.

The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.

A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.

“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
 

Interpret with caution

Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.

“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.

He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”

With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.

Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.

He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.

He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.

Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.

Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.

Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.

“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Low to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better cognitive function and slower cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults, new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.

Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Slower cognitive decline

The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.

The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.

Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.

For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.

Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.

One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.

Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.

Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.

Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).

Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
 

Heavy drinking ‘risky’

Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”

“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.

The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.

A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”

There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.

Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
 

U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’

The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”

Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.

The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.

The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.

Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.

Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
 

Balancing act

However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.

“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.

Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.

The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.

A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.

“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
 

Interpret with caution

Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.

“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.

He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”

With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.

Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.

He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.

He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.

Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.

Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.

Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.

“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Low to moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better cognitive function and slower cognitive decline in middle-aged and older adults, new research suggests. However, at least one expert urges caution in interpreting the findings.

Investigators found that consuming 10-14 alcoholic drinks per week had the strongest cognitive benefit. The findings “add more weight” to the growing body of research identifying beneficial cognitive effects of moderate alcohol consumption, said lead author, Ruiyuan Zhang, MD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia, Athens. However, Dr. Zhang emphasized that nondrinkers should not take up drinking to protect brain function, as alcohol can have negative effects.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Slower cognitive decline

The observational study was a secondary analysis of data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative U.S. survey of middle-aged and older adults. The survey, which began in 1992, is conducted every 2 years and collects health and economic data.

The current analysis used data from 1996 to 2008 and included information from individuals who participated in at least three surveys. The study included 19,887 participants, with a mean age 61.8 years. Most (60.1%) were women and white (85.2%). Mean follow-up was 9.1 years.

Researchers measured cognitive domains of mental status, word recall, and vocabulary. They also calculated a total cognition score, with higher scores indicating better cognitive abilities.

For each cognitive function measure, researchers categorized participants into a consistently low–trajectory group in which cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently low or a consistently high–trajectory group, where cognitive test scores from baseline through follow-up were consistently high.

Based on self-reports, the investigators categorized participants as never drinkers (41.8%), former drinkers (39.5%), or current drinkers (18.7%). For current drinkers, researchers determined the number of drinking days per week and number of drinks per day. They further categorized these participants as low to moderate drinkers or heavy drinkers.

One drink was defined as a 12-ounce bottle of beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot of spirits, said Dr. Zhang.

Women who consumed 8 or more drinks per week and men who drank 15 or more drinks per week were considered heavy drinkers. Other current drinkers were deemed low to moderate drinkers. Most current drinkers (85.2%) were low to moderate drinkers.

Other covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of education, marital status, tobacco smoking status, and body mass index.

Results showed moderate drinking was associated with relatively high cognitive test scores. After controlling for all covariates, compared with never drinkers, current low to moderate drinkers were significantly less likely to have consistently low trajectories for total cognitive score (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.74), mental status (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81), word recall (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80), and vocabulary (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) (all P < .001).

Former drinkers also had better cognitive outcomes for all cognitive domains. Heavy drinkers had lower odds of being in the consistently low trajectory group only for the vocabulary test.
 

Heavy drinking ‘risky’

Because few participants were deemed to be heavy drinkers, the power to identify an association between heavy drinking and cognitive function was limited. Dr. Zhang acknowledged, though he noted that heavy drinking is “risky.”

“We found that, after the drinking dosage passes the moderate level, the risk of low cognitive function increases very fast, which indicates that heavy drinking may harm cognitive function.” Limiting alcohol consumption “is still very important,” he said.

The associations of alcohol and cognitive functions differed by race/ethnicity. Low to moderate drinking was significantly associated with a lower odds of having a consistently low trajectory for all four cognitive function measures only among white participants.

A possible reason for this is that the study had so few African Americans (who made up only 14.8% of the sample), which limited the ability to identify relationships between alcohol intake and cognitive function, said Dr. Zhang. “Another reason is that the sensitivity to alcohol may be different between white and African American subjects.”

There was a significant U-shaped association between weekly amounts of alcohol and the odds of being in the consistently low–trajectory group for all cognitive functions. Depending on the function tested, the optimal number of weekly drinks ranged from 10-14.

Dr. Zhang noted that, when women were examined separately, alcohol consumption had a significant U-shaped relationship only with word recall, with the optimal dosage being around eight drinks.
 

U-shaped relationship an ‘important finding’

The U-shaped relationship is “an important finding,” said Dr. Zhang. “It shows that the human body may act differently to low and high doses of alcohol. Knowing why and how this happens is very important as it would help us understand how alcohol affects the function of the human body.”

Sensitivity analyses among participants with no chronic diseases showed the U-shaped association was still significant for scores of total word recall and vocabulary, but not for mental status or total cognition score.

The authors noted that 77.2% of participants had at least one chronic disease. They maintained that the association between alcohol consumption and cognitive function may be applicable both to healthy people and to those with a chronic disease.

The study also found that low to moderate drinkers had slower rates of cognitive decline over time for all cognition domains.

Although the mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of alcohol consumption are unclear, the authors believe it may be via cerebrovascular and cardiovascular pathways.

Alcohol may increase levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, a key regulator of neuronal plasticity and development in the dorsal striatum, they noted.
 

Balancing act

However, there’s also evidence that drinking, especially heavy drinking, increases the risk of hypertension, stroke, liver damage, and some cancers. “We think the role of alcohol drinking in cognitive function may be a balance of its beneficial and harmful effects on the cardiovascular system,” said Dr. Zhang.

“For the low to moderate drinker, the beneficial effects may outweigh the harmful effects on the small blood vessels in the brain. In this way, it could preserve cognition,” he added.

Dr. Zhang also noted that the study focused on middle-aged and older adults. “We can’t say whether or not moderate alcohol could benefit younger people” because they may have different characteristics, he said.

The findings of other studies examining the effects of alcohol on cognitive function are mixed. While studies have identified a beneficial effect, others have uncovered no, minimal, or adverse effects. This could be due to the use of different tests of cognitive function or different study populations, said Dr. Zhang.

A limitation of the current study was that assessment of alcohol consumption was based on self-report, which might have introduced recall bias. In addition, because individuals tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption, heavy drinkers could be misclassified as low to moderate drinkers, and low to moderate drinkers as former drinkers.

“This may make our study underestimate the association between low to moderate drinking and cognitive function,” said Dr. Zhang. In addition, alcohol consumption tended to change with time, and this change may be associated with other factors that led to changes in cognitive function, the authors noted.
 

Interpret with caution

Commenting on the study, Brent P. Forester, MD, chief of the Center of Excellence in Geriatric Psychiatry at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a member of the American Psychiatric Association Council on Geriatric Psychiatry, said he views the study with some trepidation.

“As a clinician taking care of older adults, I would be very cautious about overinterpreting the beneficial effects of alcohol before we understand the mechanism better,” he said.

He noted that all of the risk factors associated with heart attack and stroke are also risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline more broadly. “One of the issues here is how in the world does alcohol reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks, if you know it increases the risk of hypertension and stroke, regardless of dose.”

With regard to the possible impact of alcohol on brain-derived neurotrophic factor, Dr. Forester said, “it’s an interesting idea” but the actual mechanism is still unclear.

Even with dietary studies, such as those on the Mediterranean diet that include red wine, showing cognitive benefit, Dr. Forester said he’s still concerned about the adverse effects of alcohol on older people. These can include falls and sleep disturbances in addition to cognitive issues, and these effects can increase with age.

He was somewhat surprised at the level of alcohol that the study determined was beneficial. “Essentially, what they’re saying here is that, for men, it’s two drinks a day.” This could be “problematic” as two drinks per day can quickly escalate as individuals build tolerance.

He also pointed out that the study does not determine cause and effect, noting that it’s only an association.

Dr. Forester said the study raises a number of questions, including the type of alcohol study participants consumed and whether this has any impact on cognitive benefit. He also questioned whether the mediating effects of alcohol were associated with something that wasn’t measured, such as socioeconomic status.

Another question, he said, is what factors in individuals’ medical or psychiatric history determine whether they are more or less likely to benefit from low to moderate alcohol intake.

Perhaps alcohol should be recommended only for “select subpopulations” – for example, those who are healthy and have a family history of cognitive decline –but not for those with a history of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse, said Dr. Forester.

“For this population, the last thing you want to do is recommend alcohol to reduce risk of cognitive decline,” he cautioned.

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators and Dr. Forester have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Data suggest that in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) reduces the need for polypharmacy and decreases the risk of disease progression, compared with standard medical therapy, over 5 years of treatment. According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.

“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
 

An extension of a pilot trial

Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.

Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.

Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
 

DBS may slow progression of rest tremor

Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.

Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.

At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.

Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.

In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.

In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.

The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.

The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.

The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”

Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
 

Effect on dyskinesia is unclear

“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.

“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.

“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”

Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.

Data suggest that in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) reduces the need for polypharmacy and decreases the risk of disease progression, compared with standard medical therapy, over 5 years of treatment. According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.

“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
 

An extension of a pilot trial

Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.

Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.

Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
 

DBS may slow progression of rest tremor

Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.

Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.

At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.

Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.

In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.

In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.

The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.

The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.

The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”

Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
 

Effect on dyskinesia is unclear

“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.

“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.

“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”

Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.

Data suggest that in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) reduces the need for polypharmacy and decreases the risk of disease progression, compared with standard medical therapy, over 5 years of treatment. According to the investigators, a larger trial is needed to confirm these findings, which were published online ahead of print June 29 in Neurology.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Adverse events were similar between patients who underwent DBS and drug therapy and those who underwent drug therapy alone. This result is a preliminary indication of the safety of long-term DBS therapy, according to the researchers. Furthermore, patients who received DBS required a significantly lower levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and were less likely to need polypharmacy than were patients who received medical treatment alone.

“While we can be really excited about these findings, we can’t change our practice, what we recommend to patients, based on this [study],” said David Charles, MD, professor and vice chair of neurology at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. “We have to do the next trial to get that class of evidence.”
 

An extension of a pilot trial

Previous research has indicated that treatment with DBS and optimal medical therapy provides benefits beyond those of medical therapy alone in patients with mid-stage or advanced Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Charles and colleagues conducted a randomized, single-blind pilot study to examine the safety and tolerability of STN DBS in 30 patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Eligible participants had Hoehn and Yahr stage II off medication, were between 50 and 75 years of age, had taken medication for 6 months to 4 years, and had no dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations.

Patients were randomly assigned in equal groups to optimal drug therapy plus STN DBS or to drug therapy alone. Investigators evaluated patients every 6 months for 2 years. The results suggested that STN DBS was safe and slowed the progression of rest tremor in this population.

Apart from research that included patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease, data relating to long-term follow-up of patients undergoing DBS for Parkinson’s disease have been limited. Prospective studies have found that DBS provides motor benefits in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease after 5-10 years, but they have not included control groups of patients randomly assigned to medication alone. Understanding the durability of effect of DBS is particularly important in patients with early Parkinson’s disease, because they could be exposed to stimulation for a longer time than other patients.
 

DBS may slow progression of rest tremor

Dr. Charles and colleagues invited patients who completed their pilot study to participate in an observational follow-up study. All 29 patients who completed the pilot study consented to participate in the follow-up. The investigators conducted annual outpatient examinations at 3, 4, and 5 years after baseline. These examinations were similar to those conducted at baseline in the pilot trial. Patients’ scores on the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part III were obtained through blinded video assessment. Rigidity was not assessed. The investigators calculated patients’ levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD) and total electrical energy delivered (TEED). Adverse events were classified as mild, moderate, or severe.

Because of a problem with study funding, the investigators examined only eight patients in the optimal therapy group and nine patients in the DBS group at 3 years. The final analysis included 28 patients, because one patient was found not to have met inclusion criteria after the trial was completed.

At 5 years, participants’ mean age was 66.1 years. Participants had been taking medications for Parkinson’s disease for a mean duration of 7.2 years. No deaths occurred during the study. Four participants who had been assigned randomly to optimal drug therapy chose to receive STN DBS during the study. The investigators evaluated these participants in the treatment group to which they had been assigned at randomization using an intention-to-treat analysis that compared early STN DBS plus drug therapy with drug therapy alone.

Among patients with early DBS, the odds ratio (OR) of worse UPDRS III scores during 5 years was 0.42, compared with the medical therapy group. The difference in mean UPDRS III score between groups due to randomization was 3.70, which was a clinically important difference, according to the investigators.

In the early DBS group, the OR of worse rest tremor was 0.21, compared with the drug therapy group. The between-group difference in mean rest tremor score favored the DBS group. Excluding rest tremor from participants’ UPDRS III scores eliminated between-group differences in the odds of having worse motor symptoms and in the magnitude of difference of motor symptom score.

In the early DBS group, the OR of requiring a greater LEDD was 0.26, compared with the drug therapy group. The between group difference in mean LEDD significantly favored the DBS group. In addition, at 5 years, the proportion of patients requiring polypharmacy was 93% in the drug therapy group and 43% in the DBS group.

The investigators found no difference between groups in the prevalence of dyskinesia at baseline. At 5 years, the prevalence of dyskinesia was 50% in the drug therapy group and 21% in the DBS group. The difference was not statistically significant, however.

The study groups had similar adverse event profiles. Five adverse events during follow-up were related to surgery or the DBS device. The most common of the 13 study-related adverse events was nausea.

The study’s most significant finding is that “DBS implanted in early Parkinson’s disease decreases the risk of disease progression,” said Dr. Charles. No therapy, including DBS, has been proven to decrease this risk. “This is class II evidence. We have to get class I evidence before we change practice.”

Dr. Charles and colleagues have received Food and Drug Administration approval for a multicenter phase 3 trial to obtain this evidence. The new trial may extend findings regarding DBS in mid-stage and advanced Parkinson’s disease to early-stage Parkinson’s disease. That is, it may show that DBS plus drug therapy in early stage Parkinson’s disease is safe, efficacious, and superior to standard medical therapy alone. “But the reason to do the trial is to determine if it changes or slows the progression of the disease,” said Dr. Charles.
 

Effect on dyskinesia is unclear

“If a patient does go on to develop problems that need DBS management, and only a small fraction of patients with Parkinson’s disease evolve to this need, then this procedure can be performed at that time,” said Peter A. LeWitt, MD, Sastry Foundation Endowed Chair in Neurology at Wayne State University in Detroit.

“One confound of the study is that DBS provides symptomatic relief of dyskinesias if a patient has developed this problem after a few years of levodopa treatment,” Dr. LeWitt added. “To demonstrate that early use of DBS prevented the development of dyskinesias, the study design should have included a period of turning off the stimulators to determine whether the generation of dyskinesias was prevented, rather than merely suppressed by DBS, as any patient would experience.

“Finally, the goal of reducing use of levodopa dose medications or polypharmacy doesn’t justify subjecting a patient to a brain operation that is not without risks and great expense,” Dr. LeWitt continued. “The results of this underpowered study add to my opinion that the ‘premature’ use of DBS is not a good idea for the management of Parkinson’s disease.”

Medtronic, which manufactures the DBS device that the investigators used, provided part of the study’s funding. Vanderbilt University receives income for research or educational programs that Dr. Charles leads. Dr. LeWitt had no pertinent disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hacker ML et al. Neurology. 2020 Jun 29. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009946.

During a family medicine rotation at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, third-year medical students are preparing for a patient visit. Only, instead of entering a clinic room, students sit down at a computer. The patient they’re virtually examining – a 42-year-old male cattle rancher with knee problems – is an actor.

He asks for an MRI. A student explains that kneecap pain calls for rehab rather than a scan. The patient pushes back. “It would ease my mind,” he says. “I really need to make sure I can keep the ranch running.” The student must now try to digitally maintain rapport while explaining why imaging isn’t necessary.

When COVID-19 hit, telehealth training and remote learning became major parts of medical education, seemingly overnight. Since the start of the pandemic, students have contended with canceled classes, missed rotations, and revised training timelines, even as the demand for new doctors grows ever more pressing.

Institutions have been forced to rethink how to best establish solid, long-term foundations to ensure that young doctors are adequately trained. “They may find themselves the only doctors to be practicing in a small town,” said Stephen G. Post, PhD, bioethicist and professor at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “They have to be ready.”

With limited hands-on access to patients, students must learn in ways most never have before. Medical schools are now test-driving a mix of new and reimagined teaching strategies that aim to produce doctors who will enter medicine just as prepared as their more seasoned peers.

Hands-off education

Soon after starting her pediatrics rotation in March, recent Stanford (Calif.) University graduate Paloma Marin-Nevarez, MD, heard that children were being admitted to her hospital for evaluation to rule out COVID-19. Dr. Marin-Nevarez was assigned to help care for them but never physically met any – an approach called “virtual rounding.”

In virtual rounding, a provider typically goes in, examines a patient, and uses a portable device such as an iPad to send video or take notes about the encounter. Students or others in another room then give input on the patient’s care. “It was bizarre doing rounds on patients I had not met yet, discussing their treatment plans in one of the team rooms,” Dr. Marin-Nevarez said. “There was something very eerie about passing that particular unit that said: ‘Do not enter,’ and never being able to go inside.”

Within weeks, the Association of American Medical Colleges advised medical schools to suspend any activities – including clinical rotations – that involved direct student contact with patients, even those who weren’t COVID-19 positive.

Many schools hope to have students back and participating in some degree of patient care at non–COVID-19 hospital wards as early as July 1, said Michael Gisondi, MD, vice chair of education at Stanford’s department of emergency medicine. Returning students must now adapt to a restricted training environment, often while scrambling to make up training time. “This is uncharted territory for medical schools. Elective cases are down, surgical cases are down. That’s potentially going to decrease exposure to training opportunities.”

When students come back, lectures are still likely to remain on hold at most schools, replaced by Zoom conferences and virtual presentations. That’s not completely new: A trend away from large, traditional classes predated the pandemic. In a 2017-2018 AAMC survey, one in four second-year medical students said they almost never went to in-person lectures. COVID-19 has accelerated this shift.

For faculty who have long emphasized hands-on, in-person learning, the shift presents “a whole pedagogical issue – you don’t necessarily know how to adjust your practices to an online format,” Dr. Gisondi said. Instructors have to be even more flexible in order to engage students. “Every week I ask the students: ‘What’s working? What’s not working?’ ” Dr. Gisondi said about his online classes. “We have to solicit feedback.”

Changes to lectures are the easy part, says Elisabeth Fassas, a second-year student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before the pandemic, she was taking a clinical medicine course that involved time in the hospital, something that helped link the academic with the practical. “You really get to see the stuff you’re learning being relevant: ‘Here’s a patient who has a cardiology problem,’ ” she said. “[Capturing] that piece of connection to what you’re working toward is going to be tricky, I think.”

Some students who graduated this past spring worry about that clinical time they lost. Many remain acutely conscious of specific knowledge gaps. “I did not get a ton of experience examining crying children or holding babies,” said Dr. Marin-Nevarez, who starts an emergency medicine residency this year. “I am going to have to be transparent with my future instructors and let them know I missed out because of the pandemic.”

Such knowledge gaps mean new doctors will have to make up ground, said Jeremiah Tao, MD, who trains ophthalmology residents at the University of California, Irvine. But Dr. Tao doesn’t see these setbacks as a major long-term problem. His residents are already starting to make up the patient hours they missed in the spring and are refining the skills that got short shrift earlier on. For eligibility, “most boards require a certain number of days of experience. But most of the message from our board is [that] they’re understanding, and they’re going to leave it to the program directors to declare someone competent.”

Robert Johnson, MD, dean of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said short-term setbacks in training likely won’t translate into longer-term skill deficits. “What most schools have done is overprepare students. We’re sure they have acquired all the skills they need to practice.”

Closing the gaps

To fill existing knowledge gaps and prevent future deficits, institutions hope to strike a balance between keeping trainees safe and providing necessary on-site learning. In line with ongoing AAMC recommendations, which suggest schools curtail student involvement in direct patient care in areas with significant COVID-19 spread, virtual rounding will likely continue.

Many schools may use a hybrid approach, in which students take turns entering patient rooms to perform checkups or observations while other students and instructors watch a video broadcast. “It’s not that different from when I go into the room and supervise a trainee,” Dr. Gisondi said.

Some schools are going even further, transforming education in ways that reflect the demands of a COVID-19–era medical marketplace. Institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and OHSU have invested in telemedicine training for years, but COVID-19 has given telehealth education an additional boost. These types of visits have surged dramatically, underscoring the importance of preparing new doctors to practice in a virtual setting – something that wasn’t common previously. In a 2019 survey, only about a quarter of sampled medical schools offered a telemedicine curriculum.

Simulated telehealth consults such as OHSU’s knee-pain scenario serve several purposes, says Ryan Palmer, EdD, associate dean of education at Northeast Ohio Universities, Rootstown. They virtually teach skills that students need – such as clearly explaining to patients why a care plan is called for – while allowing the trainees to practice forging an emotional connection with patients they are treating remotely.

“It’s less about how you use a specific system,” said Dr. Palmer, who developed OHSU’s TeleOSCE, a telehealth training system that has interested other schools. He sees this as an opportunity, inasmuch as telemedicine is likely to remain an important part of practice for the foreseeable future.

To that end, the AAMC recently hosted an online seminar to help faculty with telehealth instruction. But training such as this can only go so far, said Dr. Johnson. “There are techniques you do have to learn at the patient’s side.”

Dr. Johnson says that a traditional part of medical school at Rutgers has been having students spend time in general practitioners’ offices early on to see what the experience is like. “That’s going to be a problem – I expect many primary care practices will go out of business. Those types of shadowing experiences will probably go away. They may be replaced by experiences at larger clinics.”

Some learning in clinics may soon resume. Although fears about COVID-19 still loom large, Dr. Tao’s ophthalmology residents have started taking on something closer to a normal workload, thanks to patients returning for regular office visits. As people return to medical facilities in larger numbers, hospitals around the country have started separating patients with COVID-19 from others. Dr. Gisondi suggested that this means medical students may be able to circulate in non–COVID-19 wards, provided the institution has enough personal protective equipment. “The inpatient wards are really safe – there’s a low risk of transmission. That’s where core rotations occur.”

The road ahead

In settings where patients’ viral status remains uncertain, such as emergency wards and off-site clinics without rapid testing, in-person learning may be slower to resume. That’s where longer-term changes may come into play. Some schools are preparing digital learning platforms that have the potential to transform medical education.

For example, Haru Okuda, MD, an emergency medicine doctor and director of the Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation at the University of South Florida, Tampa, is testing a new virtual-reality platform called Immertec. Dr. Okuda said that, unlike older teaching tools, the system is not a stale, static virtual environment that will become obsolete. Instead, it uses a live camera to visually teleport students into the space of a real clinic or operating room.

“Let’s say you have students learning gross anatomy, how to dissect the chest. You’d have a cadaver on the table, demonstrating anatomy. The student has a headset – you can see like you’re in the room.” The wraparound visual device allows students to watch surgical maneuvers close up or view additional input from devices such as laparoscopes.

Dr. Okuda acknowledges that educators don’t yet know whether this works as well as older, hands-on methods. As yet, no virtual reality system has touch-based sensors sophisticated enough to simulate even skills such as tying a basic surgical knot, Dr. Gisondi said. And immersive platforms are expensive, which means a gap may occur between schools that can afford them and those that can’t.

The long-term consequences of COVID-19 go beyond costs that institutions may have to bear. Some students are concerned that the pandemic is affecting their mental well-being in ways that may make training a tougher slog. A few students graduated early to serve on the COVID-19 front lines. Others, rather than planning trips to celebrate the gap between medical school and residency, watched from home as young doctors they knew worked under abusive and unsafe conditions.

“Many of us felt powerless, given what we saw happening around us,” said recent University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, graduate Marina Haque, MD. She thinks those feelings, along with the rigors of practicing medicine during a pandemic, may leave her and her colleagues more prone to burnout.

The pandemic has also had a galvanizing effect on students – some excited new doctors are eager to line up for duty on COVID-19 wards. But supervisors say they must weigh young doctors’ desire to serve against the possible risks. “You don’t want people who have a big future ahead of them rushing into these situations and getting severely ill,” said Dr. Post. “There is a balance.”

All these changes, temporary or lasting, have led many to question whether doctors who complete their training under the cloud of the pandemic will be more – or less – prepared than those who came before them. But it’s not really a question of better or worse, says Dr. Johnson, who stresses that medical education has always required flexibility.

“You come into medicine with a plan in mind, but things happen,” he said. He reflected on the HIV pandemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s that influenced his medical career. He hopes young doctors come through the COVID-19 crucible more seasoned, resilient, and confident in crisis situations. “This is a pivotal event in their lives, and it will shape many careers.”

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

During a family medicine rotation at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, third-year medical students are preparing for a patient visit. Only, instead of entering a clinic room, students sit down at a computer. The patient they’re virtually examining – a 42-year-old male cattle rancher with knee problems – is an actor.

He asks for an MRI. A student explains that kneecap pain calls for rehab rather than a scan. The patient pushes back. “It would ease my mind,” he says. “I really need to make sure I can keep the ranch running.” The student must now try to digitally maintain rapport while explaining why imaging isn’t necessary.

When COVID-19 hit, telehealth training and remote learning became major parts of medical education, seemingly overnight. Since the start of the pandemic, students have contended with canceled classes, missed rotations, and revised training timelines, even as the demand for new doctors grows ever more pressing.

Institutions have been forced to rethink how to best establish solid, long-term foundations to ensure that young doctors are adequately trained. “They may find themselves the only doctors to be practicing in a small town,” said Stephen G. Post, PhD, bioethicist and professor at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “They have to be ready.”

With limited hands-on access to patients, students must learn in ways most never have before. Medical schools are now test-driving a mix of new and reimagined teaching strategies that aim to produce doctors who will enter medicine just as prepared as their more seasoned peers.

Hands-off education

Soon after starting her pediatrics rotation in March, recent Stanford (Calif.) University graduate Paloma Marin-Nevarez, MD, heard that children were being admitted to her hospital for evaluation to rule out COVID-19. Dr. Marin-Nevarez was assigned to help care for them but never physically met any – an approach called “virtual rounding.”

In virtual rounding, a provider typically goes in, examines a patient, and uses a portable device such as an iPad to send video or take notes about the encounter. Students or others in another room then give input on the patient’s care. “It was bizarre doing rounds on patients I had not met yet, discussing their treatment plans in one of the team rooms,” Dr. Marin-Nevarez said. “There was something very eerie about passing that particular unit that said: ‘Do not enter,’ and never being able to go inside.”

Within weeks, the Association of American Medical Colleges advised medical schools to suspend any activities – including clinical rotations – that involved direct student contact with patients, even those who weren’t COVID-19 positive.

Many schools hope to have students back and participating in some degree of patient care at non–COVID-19 hospital wards as early as July 1, said Michael Gisondi, MD, vice chair of education at Stanford’s department of emergency medicine. Returning students must now adapt to a restricted training environment, often while scrambling to make up training time. “This is uncharted territory for medical schools. Elective cases are down, surgical cases are down. That’s potentially going to decrease exposure to training opportunities.”

When students come back, lectures are still likely to remain on hold at most schools, replaced by Zoom conferences and virtual presentations. That’s not completely new: A trend away from large, traditional classes predated the pandemic. In a 2017-2018 AAMC survey, one in four second-year medical students said they almost never went to in-person lectures. COVID-19 has accelerated this shift.

For faculty who have long emphasized hands-on, in-person learning, the shift presents “a whole pedagogical issue – you don’t necessarily know how to adjust your practices to an online format,” Dr. Gisondi said. Instructors have to be even more flexible in order to engage students. “Every week I ask the students: ‘What’s working? What’s not working?’ ” Dr. Gisondi said about his online classes. “We have to solicit feedback.”

Changes to lectures are the easy part, says Elisabeth Fassas, a second-year student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before the pandemic, she was taking a clinical medicine course that involved time in the hospital, something that helped link the academic with the practical. “You really get to see the stuff you’re learning being relevant: ‘Here’s a patient who has a cardiology problem,’ ” she said. “[Capturing] that piece of connection to what you’re working toward is going to be tricky, I think.”

Some students who graduated this past spring worry about that clinical time they lost. Many remain acutely conscious of specific knowledge gaps. “I did not get a ton of experience examining crying children or holding babies,” said Dr. Marin-Nevarez, who starts an emergency medicine residency this year. “I am going to have to be transparent with my future instructors and let them know I missed out because of the pandemic.”

Such knowledge gaps mean new doctors will have to make up ground, said Jeremiah Tao, MD, who trains ophthalmology residents at the University of California, Irvine. But Dr. Tao doesn’t see these setbacks as a major long-term problem. His residents are already starting to make up the patient hours they missed in the spring and are refining the skills that got short shrift earlier on. For eligibility, “most boards require a certain number of days of experience. But most of the message from our board is [that] they’re understanding, and they’re going to leave it to the program directors to declare someone competent.”

Robert Johnson, MD, dean of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said short-term setbacks in training likely won’t translate into longer-term skill deficits. “What most schools have done is overprepare students. We’re sure they have acquired all the skills they need to practice.”

Closing the gaps

To fill existing knowledge gaps and prevent future deficits, institutions hope to strike a balance between keeping trainees safe and providing necessary on-site learning. In line with ongoing AAMC recommendations, which suggest schools curtail student involvement in direct patient care in areas with significant COVID-19 spread, virtual rounding will likely continue.

Many schools may use a hybrid approach, in which students take turns entering patient rooms to perform checkups or observations while other students and instructors watch a video broadcast. “It’s not that different from when I go into the room and supervise a trainee,” Dr. Gisondi said.

Some schools are going even further, transforming education in ways that reflect the demands of a COVID-19–era medical marketplace. Institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and OHSU have invested in telemedicine training for years, but COVID-19 has given telehealth education an additional boost. These types of visits have surged dramatically, underscoring the importance of preparing new doctors to practice in a virtual setting – something that wasn’t common previously. In a 2019 survey, only about a quarter of sampled medical schools offered a telemedicine curriculum.

Simulated telehealth consults such as OHSU’s knee-pain scenario serve several purposes, says Ryan Palmer, EdD, associate dean of education at Northeast Ohio Universities, Rootstown. They virtually teach skills that students need – such as clearly explaining to patients why a care plan is called for – while allowing the trainees to practice forging an emotional connection with patients they are treating remotely.

“It’s less about how you use a specific system,” said Dr. Palmer, who developed OHSU’s TeleOSCE, a telehealth training system that has interested other schools. He sees this as an opportunity, inasmuch as telemedicine is likely to remain an important part of practice for the foreseeable future.

To that end, the AAMC recently hosted an online seminar to help faculty with telehealth instruction. But training such as this can only go so far, said Dr. Johnson. “There are techniques you do have to learn at the patient’s side.”

Dr. Johnson says that a traditional part of medical school at Rutgers has been having students spend time in general practitioners’ offices early on to see what the experience is like. “That’s going to be a problem – I expect many primary care practices will go out of business. Those types of shadowing experiences will probably go away. They may be replaced by experiences at larger clinics.”

Some learning in clinics may soon resume. Although fears about COVID-19 still loom large, Dr. Tao’s ophthalmology residents have started taking on something closer to a normal workload, thanks to patients returning for regular office visits. As people return to medical facilities in larger numbers, hospitals around the country have started separating patients with COVID-19 from others. Dr. Gisondi suggested that this means medical students may be able to circulate in non–COVID-19 wards, provided the institution has enough personal protective equipment. “The inpatient wards are really safe – there’s a low risk of transmission. That’s where core rotations occur.”

The road ahead

In settings where patients’ viral status remains uncertain, such as emergency wards and off-site clinics without rapid testing, in-person learning may be slower to resume. That’s where longer-term changes may come into play. Some schools are preparing digital learning platforms that have the potential to transform medical education.

For example, Haru Okuda, MD, an emergency medicine doctor and director of the Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation at the University of South Florida, Tampa, is testing a new virtual-reality platform called Immertec. Dr. Okuda said that, unlike older teaching tools, the system is not a stale, static virtual environment that will become obsolete. Instead, it uses a live camera to visually teleport students into the space of a real clinic or operating room.

“Let’s say you have students learning gross anatomy, how to dissect the chest. You’d have a cadaver on the table, demonstrating anatomy. The student has a headset – you can see like you’re in the room.” The wraparound visual device allows students to watch surgical maneuvers close up or view additional input from devices such as laparoscopes.

Dr. Okuda acknowledges that educators don’t yet know whether this works as well as older, hands-on methods. As yet, no virtual reality system has touch-based sensors sophisticated enough to simulate even skills such as tying a basic surgical knot, Dr. Gisondi said. And immersive platforms are expensive, which means a gap may occur between schools that can afford them and those that can’t.

The long-term consequences of COVID-19 go beyond costs that institutions may have to bear. Some students are concerned that the pandemic is affecting their mental well-being in ways that may make training a tougher slog. A few students graduated early to serve on the COVID-19 front lines. Others, rather than planning trips to celebrate the gap between medical school and residency, watched from home as young doctors they knew worked under abusive and unsafe conditions.

“Many of us felt powerless, given what we saw happening around us,” said recent University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, graduate Marina Haque, MD. She thinks those feelings, along with the rigors of practicing medicine during a pandemic, may leave her and her colleagues more prone to burnout.

The pandemic has also had a galvanizing effect on students – some excited new doctors are eager to line up for duty on COVID-19 wards. But supervisors say they must weigh young doctors’ desire to serve against the possible risks. “You don’t want people who have a big future ahead of them rushing into these situations and getting severely ill,” said Dr. Post. “There is a balance.”

All these changes, temporary or lasting, have led many to question whether doctors who complete their training under the cloud of the pandemic will be more – or less – prepared than those who came before them. But it’s not really a question of better or worse, says Dr. Johnson, who stresses that medical education has always required flexibility.

“You come into medicine with a plan in mind, but things happen,” he said. He reflected on the HIV pandemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s that influenced his medical career. He hopes young doctors come through the COVID-19 crucible more seasoned, resilient, and confident in crisis situations. “This is a pivotal event in their lives, and it will shape many careers.”

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

During a family medicine rotation at Oregon Health & Sciences University, Portland, third-year medical students are preparing for a patient visit. Only, instead of entering a clinic room, students sit down at a computer. The patient they’re virtually examining – a 42-year-old male cattle rancher with knee problems – is an actor.

He asks for an MRI. A student explains that kneecap pain calls for rehab rather than a scan. The patient pushes back. “It would ease my mind,” he says. “I really need to make sure I can keep the ranch running.” The student must now try to digitally maintain rapport while explaining why imaging isn’t necessary.

When COVID-19 hit, telehealth training and remote learning became major parts of medical education, seemingly overnight. Since the start of the pandemic, students have contended with canceled classes, missed rotations, and revised training timelines, even as the demand for new doctors grows ever more pressing.

Institutions have been forced to rethink how to best establish solid, long-term foundations to ensure that young doctors are adequately trained. “They may find themselves the only doctors to be practicing in a small town,” said Stephen G. Post, PhD, bioethicist and professor at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University. “They have to be ready.”

With limited hands-on access to patients, students must learn in ways most never have before. Medical schools are now test-driving a mix of new and reimagined teaching strategies that aim to produce doctors who will enter medicine just as prepared as their more seasoned peers.

Hands-off education

Soon after starting her pediatrics rotation in March, recent Stanford (Calif.) University graduate Paloma Marin-Nevarez, MD, heard that children were being admitted to her hospital for evaluation to rule out COVID-19. Dr. Marin-Nevarez was assigned to help care for them but never physically met any – an approach called “virtual rounding.”

In virtual rounding, a provider typically goes in, examines a patient, and uses a portable device such as an iPad to send video or take notes about the encounter. Students or others in another room then give input on the patient’s care. “It was bizarre doing rounds on patients I had not met yet, discussing their treatment plans in one of the team rooms,” Dr. Marin-Nevarez said. “There was something very eerie about passing that particular unit that said: ‘Do not enter,’ and never being able to go inside.”

Within weeks, the Association of American Medical Colleges advised medical schools to suspend any activities – including clinical rotations – that involved direct student contact with patients, even those who weren’t COVID-19 positive.

Many schools hope to have students back and participating in some degree of patient care at non–COVID-19 hospital wards as early as July 1, said Michael Gisondi, MD, vice chair of education at Stanford’s department of emergency medicine. Returning students must now adapt to a restricted training environment, often while scrambling to make up training time. “This is uncharted territory for medical schools. Elective cases are down, surgical cases are down. That’s potentially going to decrease exposure to training opportunities.”

When students come back, lectures are still likely to remain on hold at most schools, replaced by Zoom conferences and virtual presentations. That’s not completely new: A trend away from large, traditional classes predated the pandemic. In a 2017-2018 AAMC survey, one in four second-year medical students said they almost never went to in-person lectures. COVID-19 has accelerated this shift.

For faculty who have long emphasized hands-on, in-person learning, the shift presents “a whole pedagogical issue – you don’t necessarily know how to adjust your practices to an online format,” Dr. Gisondi said. Instructors have to be even more flexible in order to engage students. “Every week I ask the students: ‘What’s working? What’s not working?’ ” Dr. Gisondi said about his online classes. “We have to solicit feedback.”

Changes to lectures are the easy part, says Elisabeth Fassas, a second-year student at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Before the pandemic, she was taking a clinical medicine course that involved time in the hospital, something that helped link the academic with the practical. “You really get to see the stuff you’re learning being relevant: ‘Here’s a patient who has a cardiology problem,’ ” she said. “[Capturing] that piece of connection to what you’re working toward is going to be tricky, I think.”

Some students who graduated this past spring worry about that clinical time they lost. Many remain acutely conscious of specific knowledge gaps. “I did not get a ton of experience examining crying children or holding babies,” said Dr. Marin-Nevarez, who starts an emergency medicine residency this year. “I am going to have to be transparent with my future instructors and let them know I missed out because of the pandemic.”

Such knowledge gaps mean new doctors will have to make up ground, said Jeremiah Tao, MD, who trains ophthalmology residents at the University of California, Irvine. But Dr. Tao doesn’t see these setbacks as a major long-term problem. His residents are already starting to make up the patient hours they missed in the spring and are refining the skills that got short shrift earlier on. For eligibility, “most boards require a certain number of days of experience. But most of the message from our board is [that] they’re understanding, and they’re going to leave it to the program directors to declare someone competent.”

Robert Johnson, MD, dean of New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said short-term setbacks in training likely won’t translate into longer-term skill deficits. “What most schools have done is overprepare students. We’re sure they have acquired all the skills they need to practice.”

Closing the gaps

To fill existing knowledge gaps and prevent future deficits, institutions hope to strike a balance between keeping trainees safe and providing necessary on-site learning. In line with ongoing AAMC recommendations, which suggest schools curtail student involvement in direct patient care in areas with significant COVID-19 spread, virtual rounding will likely continue.

Many schools may use a hybrid approach, in which students take turns entering patient rooms to perform checkups or observations while other students and instructors watch a video broadcast. “It’s not that different from when I go into the room and supervise a trainee,” Dr. Gisondi said.

Some schools are going even further, transforming education in ways that reflect the demands of a COVID-19–era medical marketplace. Institutions such as Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and OHSU have invested in telemedicine training for years, but COVID-19 has given telehealth education an additional boost. These types of visits have surged dramatically, underscoring the importance of preparing new doctors to practice in a virtual setting – something that wasn’t common previously. In a 2019 survey, only about a quarter of sampled medical schools offered a telemedicine curriculum.

Simulated telehealth consults such as OHSU’s knee-pain scenario serve several purposes, says Ryan Palmer, EdD, associate dean of education at Northeast Ohio Universities, Rootstown. They virtually teach skills that students need – such as clearly explaining to patients why a care plan is called for – while allowing the trainees to practice forging an emotional connection with patients they are treating remotely.

“It’s less about how you use a specific system,” said Dr. Palmer, who developed OHSU’s TeleOSCE, a telehealth training system that has interested other schools. He sees this as an opportunity, inasmuch as telemedicine is likely to remain an important part of practice for the foreseeable future.

To that end, the AAMC recently hosted an online seminar to help faculty with telehealth instruction. But training such as this can only go so far, said Dr. Johnson. “There are techniques you do have to learn at the patient’s side.”

Dr. Johnson says that a traditional part of medical school at Rutgers has been having students spend time in general practitioners’ offices early on to see what the experience is like. “That’s going to be a problem – I expect many primary care practices will go out of business. Those types of shadowing experiences will probably go away. They may be replaced by experiences at larger clinics.”

Some learning in clinics may soon resume. Although fears about COVID-19 still loom large, Dr. Tao’s ophthalmology residents have started taking on something closer to a normal workload, thanks to patients returning for regular office visits. As people return to medical facilities in larger numbers, hospitals around the country have started separating patients with COVID-19 from others. Dr. Gisondi suggested that this means medical students may be able to circulate in non–COVID-19 wards, provided the institution has enough personal protective equipment. “The inpatient wards are really safe – there’s a low risk of transmission. That’s where core rotations occur.”

The road ahead

In settings where patients’ viral status remains uncertain, such as emergency wards and off-site clinics without rapid testing, in-person learning may be slower to resume. That’s where longer-term changes may come into play. Some schools are preparing digital learning platforms that have the potential to transform medical education.

For example, Haru Okuda, MD, an emergency medicine doctor and director of the Center for Advanced Medical Learning and Simulation at the University of South Florida, Tampa, is testing a new virtual-reality platform called Immertec. Dr. Okuda said that, unlike older teaching tools, the system is not a stale, static virtual environment that will become obsolete. Instead, it uses a live camera to visually teleport students into the space of a real clinic or operating room.

“Let’s say you have students learning gross anatomy, how to dissect the chest. You’d have a cadaver on the table, demonstrating anatomy. The student has a headset – you can see like you’re in the room.” The wraparound visual device allows students to watch surgical maneuvers close up or view additional input from devices such as laparoscopes.

Dr. Okuda acknowledges that educators don’t yet know whether this works as well as older, hands-on methods. As yet, no virtual reality system has touch-based sensors sophisticated enough to simulate even skills such as tying a basic surgical knot, Dr. Gisondi said. And immersive platforms are expensive, which means a gap may occur between schools that can afford them and those that can’t.

The long-term consequences of COVID-19 go beyond costs that institutions may have to bear. Some students are concerned that the pandemic is affecting their mental well-being in ways that may make training a tougher slog. A few students graduated early to serve on the COVID-19 front lines. Others, rather than planning trips to celebrate the gap between medical school and residency, watched from home as young doctors they knew worked under abusive and unsafe conditions.

“Many of us felt powerless, given what we saw happening around us,” said recent University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, graduate Marina Haque, MD. She thinks those feelings, along with the rigors of practicing medicine during a pandemic, may leave her and her colleagues more prone to burnout.

The pandemic has also had a galvanizing effect on students – some excited new doctors are eager to line up for duty on COVID-19 wards. But supervisors say they must weigh young doctors’ desire to serve against the possible risks. “You don’t want people who have a big future ahead of them rushing into these situations and getting severely ill,” said Dr. Post. “There is a balance.”

All these changes, temporary or lasting, have led many to question whether doctors who complete their training under the cloud of the pandemic will be more – or less – prepared than those who came before them. But it’s not really a question of better or worse, says Dr. Johnson, who stresses that medical education has always required flexibility.

“You come into medicine with a plan in mind, but things happen,” he said. He reflected on the HIV pandemic of the late 1980s and early 1990s that influenced his medical career. He hopes young doctors come through the COVID-19 crucible more seasoned, resilient, and confident in crisis situations. “This is a pivotal event in their lives, and it will shape many careers.”

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

The World Health Organization is preparing a scientific brief to address the continually emerging evidence on transmission of COVID-19 and plans to release its guidance “in the coming days.”

WHO will likely address airborne transmission of the virus after a commentary from almost 240 multidisciplinary scientists raised the alarm that virus particles could remain airborne longer that previously appreciated, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

“Airborne route of infection transmission is significant, but so far completely undermined, and not recognized by the decision makers and bodies responsible for infection control,” lead commentary author Lidia Morawska, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“This means that no control measures are taken to mitigate airborne transmission and, as a consequence, people are infected and can die,” said Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. “We wanted to bring this to the attention of the world to prevent this from happening.”

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

WHO leaders defended their progress in announcing any changes regarding how COVID-19 can be transmitted during a virtual press briefing today. They have collaborated since April with some of the scientists who coauthored the commentary, for example, said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19.

“We have been working on a scientific brief ... to consolidate knowledge around transmission,” she added.

One focus will be on how masks protect healthcare workers. “We are also looking at the possible role of airborne transmission in other settings,” Van Kerkhove said. “We will be releasing our brief in the coming days.”

“We acknowledge there is emerging evidence in this field,” Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19, said during the briefing from Geneva. “Therefore, we believe we have to be open to this evidence and its implications.”

WHO participated in an international research meeting last week that addressed means for controlling modes of COVID-19 transmission, Allegranzi said. “Our group and others really highlighted importance of research on different modes of transmission, including droplets of different sizes and their relative importance,” she said. Another aim was determining the dose of the virus required for airborne transmission.

“These fields of research are really growing but not definitive. More evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated,” she explained.

In the meantime, Allegranzi said, “the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings – especially closed, poorly ventilated settings – cannot be ruled out.”

Morawska said the evidence already exists. “A continuous surprise is that it takes the world such a long time to accept this, while this has such solid scientific foundation.” As an example, she cited an April report she coauthored in the journal Environment International. She and colleagues call for “national authorities to acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air and recommend that adequate control measures be implemented to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in particularly removal of the virus-laden droplets from indoor air by ventilation.”

The take-home message from the commentary, Morawska said, is a call to action. The authors state there is a need “to provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes.”

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, explained why the organization remains cautious about making premature pronouncements regarding airborne transmission. “Any guidance we put out has implications for billions of people around the world, so we want to be as careful as possible,” she said during the press briefing. “We have to consider the weight of the evidence.”

“We are constantly looking for information on how we can do better,” Swaminathan added. WHO officials are reviewing hundreds of scientific reports every day, she said, and not all are of good quality. For this reason, she and other scientists at WHO perform a “living systematic review” – updating the consensus of evidence on a weekly basis.  

“This process on COVID-19 will, I am sure, continue for the weeks and months to come,” she added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The World Health Organization is preparing a scientific brief to address the continually emerging evidence on transmission of COVID-19 and plans to release its guidance “in the coming days.”

WHO will likely address airborne transmission of the virus after a commentary from almost 240 multidisciplinary scientists raised the alarm that virus particles could remain airborne longer that previously appreciated, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

“Airborne route of infection transmission is significant, but so far completely undermined, and not recognized by the decision makers and bodies responsible for infection control,” lead commentary author Lidia Morawska, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“This means that no control measures are taken to mitigate airborne transmission and, as a consequence, people are infected and can die,” said Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. “We wanted to bring this to the attention of the world to prevent this from happening.”

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

WHO leaders defended their progress in announcing any changes regarding how COVID-19 can be transmitted during a virtual press briefing today. They have collaborated since April with some of the scientists who coauthored the commentary, for example, said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19.

“We have been working on a scientific brief ... to consolidate knowledge around transmission,” she added.

One focus will be on how masks protect healthcare workers. “We are also looking at the possible role of airborne transmission in other settings,” Van Kerkhove said. “We will be releasing our brief in the coming days.”

“We acknowledge there is emerging evidence in this field,” Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19, said during the briefing from Geneva. “Therefore, we believe we have to be open to this evidence and its implications.”

WHO participated in an international research meeting last week that addressed means for controlling modes of COVID-19 transmission, Allegranzi said. “Our group and others really highlighted importance of research on different modes of transmission, including droplets of different sizes and their relative importance,” she said. Another aim was determining the dose of the virus required for airborne transmission.

“These fields of research are really growing but not definitive. More evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated,” she explained.

In the meantime, Allegranzi said, “the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings – especially closed, poorly ventilated settings – cannot be ruled out.”

Morawska said the evidence already exists. “A continuous surprise is that it takes the world such a long time to accept this, while this has such solid scientific foundation.” As an example, she cited an April report she coauthored in the journal Environment International. She and colleagues call for “national authorities to acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air and recommend that adequate control measures be implemented to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in particularly removal of the virus-laden droplets from indoor air by ventilation.”

The take-home message from the commentary, Morawska said, is a call to action. The authors state there is a need “to provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes.”

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, explained why the organization remains cautious about making premature pronouncements regarding airborne transmission. “Any guidance we put out has implications for billions of people around the world, so we want to be as careful as possible,” she said during the press briefing. “We have to consider the weight of the evidence.”

“We are constantly looking for information on how we can do better,” Swaminathan added. WHO officials are reviewing hundreds of scientific reports every day, she said, and not all are of good quality. For this reason, she and other scientists at WHO perform a “living systematic review” – updating the consensus of evidence on a weekly basis.  

“This process on COVID-19 will, I am sure, continue for the weeks and months to come,” she added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The World Health Organization is preparing a scientific brief to address the continually emerging evidence on transmission of COVID-19 and plans to release its guidance “in the coming days.”

WHO will likely address airborne transmission of the virus after a commentary from almost 240 multidisciplinary scientists raised the alarm that virus particles could remain airborne longer that previously appreciated, particularly in poorly ventilated indoor spaces.

“Airborne route of infection transmission is significant, but so far completely undermined, and not recognized by the decision makers and bodies responsible for infection control,” lead commentary author Lidia Morawska, PhD, told Medscape Medical News.

“This means that no control measures are taken to mitigate airborne transmission and, as a consequence, people are infected and can die,” said Morawska, director of the International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. “We wanted to bring this to the attention of the world to prevent this from happening.”

The commentary was published July 6 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

WHO leaders defended their progress in announcing any changes regarding how COVID-19 can be transmitted during a virtual press briefing today. They have collaborated since April with some of the scientists who coauthored the commentary, for example, said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19.

“We have been working on a scientific brief ... to consolidate knowledge around transmission,” she added.

One focus will be on how masks protect healthcare workers. “We are also looking at the possible role of airborne transmission in other settings,” Van Kerkhove said. “We will be releasing our brief in the coming days.”

“We acknowledge there is emerging evidence in this field,” Benedetta Allegranzi, MD, WHO technical lead on COVID-19, said during the briefing from Geneva. “Therefore, we believe we have to be open to this evidence and its implications.”

WHO participated in an international research meeting last week that addressed means for controlling modes of COVID-19 transmission, Allegranzi said. “Our group and others really highlighted importance of research on different modes of transmission, including droplets of different sizes and their relative importance,” she said. Another aim was determining the dose of the virus required for airborne transmission.

“These fields of research are really growing but not definitive. More evidence needs to be gathered and evaluated,” she explained.

In the meantime, Allegranzi said, “the possibility of airborne transmission in public settings – especially closed, poorly ventilated settings – cannot be ruled out.”

Morawska said the evidence already exists. “A continuous surprise is that it takes the world such a long time to accept this, while this has such solid scientific foundation.” As an example, she cited an April report she coauthored in the journal Environment International. She and colleagues call for “national authorities to acknowledge the reality that the virus spreads through air and recommend that adequate control measures be implemented to prevent further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in particularly removal of the virus-laden droplets from indoor air by ventilation.”

The take-home message from the commentary, Morawska said, is a call to action. The authors state there is a need “to provide sufficient and effective ventilation (supply clean outdoor air, minimize recirculating air) particularly in public buildings, workplace environments, schools, hospitals, and aged care homes.”

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan, MD, explained why the organization remains cautious about making premature pronouncements regarding airborne transmission. “Any guidance we put out has implications for billions of people around the world, so we want to be as careful as possible,” she said during the press briefing. “We have to consider the weight of the evidence.”

“We are constantly looking for information on how we can do better,” Swaminathan added. WHO officials are reviewing hundreds of scientific reports every day, she said, and not all are of good quality. For this reason, she and other scientists at WHO perform a “living systematic review” – updating the consensus of evidence on a weekly basis.  

“This process on COVID-19 will, I am sure, continue for the weeks and months to come,” she added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The severity of head injury in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is significantly linked with the risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy and seizures, and posttraumatic epilepsy itself further worsens outcomes at 12 months, findings from an analysis of a large, prospective database suggest. “We found that patients essentially have a 10-times greater risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy and seizures at 12 months [post injury] if the presenting Glasgow Coma Scale GCS) is less than 8,” said lead author John F. Burke, MD, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, in presenting the findings as part of the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.

Assessing risk factors

While posttraumatic epilepsy represents an estimated 20% of all cases of symptomatic epilepsy, many questions remain on those most at risk and on the long-term effects of posttraumatic epilepsy on TBI outcomes. To probe those issues, Dr. Burke and colleagues turned to the multicenter TRACK-TBI database, which has prospective, longitudinal data on more than 2,700 patients with traumatic brain injuries and is considered the largest source of prospective data on posttraumatic epilepsy.

Using the criteria of no previous epilepsy and having 12 months of follow-up, the team identified 1,493 patients with TBI. In addition, investigators identified 182 orthopedic controls (included and prospectively followed because they have injuries but not specifically head trauma) and 210 controls who are friends of the patients and who do not have injuries but allow researchers to control for socioeconomic and environmental factors.

Of the 1,493 patients with TBI, 41 (2.7%) were determined to have posttraumatic epilepsy, assessed according to a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke epilepsy screening questionnaire, which is designed to identify patients with posttraumatic epilepsy symptoms. There were no reports of epilepsy symptoms using the screening tool among the controls. Dr. Burke noted that the 2.7% was in agreement with historical reports.

In comparing patients with TBI who did and did not have posttraumatic epilepsy, no differences were observed in the groups in terms of gender, although there was a trend toward younger age among those with PTE (mean age, 35.4 years with posttraumatic injury vs. 41.5 without; P = .05).

A major risk factor for the development of posttraumatic epilepsy was presenting GCS scores. Among those with scores of less than 8, indicative of severe injury, the rate of posttraumatic epilepsy was 6% at 6 months and 12.5% at 12 months. In contrast, those with TBI presenting with GCS scores between 13 and 15, indicative of minor injury, had an incidence of posttraumatic epilepsy of 0.9% at 6 months and 1.4% at 12 months.

Imaging findings in the two groups showed that hemorrhage detected on CT imaging was associated with a significantly higher risk for posttraumatic epilepsy (P < .001).

“The main takeaway is that any hemorrhage in the brain is a major risk factor for developing seizures,” Dr. Burke said. “Whether it is subdural, epidural blood, subarachnoid or contusion, any blood confers a very [high] risk for developing seizures.”

Posttraumatic epilepsy was linked to poorer longer-term outcomes even for patients with lesser injury: Among those with TBI and GCS of 13-15, the mean Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) score at 12 months among those without posttraumatic epilepsy was 7, indicative of a good recovery with minor defects, whereas the mean GOSE score for those with PTE was 4.6, indicative of moderate to severe disability (P  < .001).

“It was surprising to us that PTE-positive patients had a very significant decrease in GOSE, compared to PTE-negative patients,” Dr. Burke said. “There was a nearly 2-point drop in the GOSE and that was extremely significant.”

A multivariate analysis showed there was still a significant independent risk for a poor GOSE score with posttraumatic epilepsy after controlling for GCS score, head CT findings, and age (P < .001).

The authors also looked at mood outcomes using the Brief Symptom Inventory–18, which showed significant worse effect in those with posttraumatic epilepsy after multivariate adjustment (P = .01). Additionally, a highly significant worse effect in cognitive outcomes on the Rivermead cognitive metric was observed with posttraumatic epilepsy (P = .001).

“On all metrics tested, posttraumatic epilepsy worsened outcomes,” Dr. Burke said.

He noted that the study has some key limitations, including the 12-month follow-up. A previous study showed a linear increase in posttraumatic follow-up up to 30 years. “The fact that we found 41 patients at 12 months indicates there are probably more that are out there who are going to develop seizures, but because we don’t have the follow-up we can’t look at that.”

Although the screening questionnaires are effective, “the issue is these people are not being seen by an epileptologist or having scalp EEG done, and we need a more accurate way to do this,” he said. A new study, TRACK-TBI EPI, will address those limitations and a host of other issues with a 5-year follow-up.
 

Capturing the nuances of brain injury

Commenting on the study as a discussant, neurosurgeon Uzma Samadani, MD, PhD, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center and CentraCare in Minneapolis, suggested that the future work should focus on issues including the wide-ranging mechanisms that could explain the seizure activity.

“For example, it’s known that posttraumatic epilepsy or seizures can be triggered by abnormal conductivity due to multiple different mechanisms associated with brain injury, such as endocrine dysfunction, cortical-spreading depression, and many others,” said Dr. Samadani, who has been a researcher on the TRACK-TBI study.

Factors ranging from genetic differences to comorbid conditions such as alcoholism can play a role in brain injury susceptibility, Dr. Samadani added. Furthermore, outcome measures currently available simply may not capture the unknown nuances of brain injury.

“We have to ask, are these an all-or-none phenomena, or is aberrant electrical activity after brain injury a continuum of dysfunction?” Dr. Samadani speculated.

“I would caution that we are likely underestimating the non–easily measurable consequences of brain injury,” she said. “And the better we can quantitate susceptibility, classify the nature of injury and target acute management, the less posttraumatic epilepsy/aberrant electrical activity our patients will have.”

Dr. Burke and Dr. Samadani disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The severity of head injury in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is significantly linked with the risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy and seizures, and posttraumatic epilepsy itself further worsens outcomes at 12 months, findings from an analysis of a large, prospective database suggest. “We found that patients essentially have a 10-times greater risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy and seizures at 12 months [post injury] if the presenting Glasgow Coma Scale GCS) is less than 8,” said lead author John F. Burke, MD, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, in presenting the findings as part of the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.

Assessing risk factors

While posttraumatic epilepsy represents an estimated 20% of all cases of symptomatic epilepsy, many questions remain on those most at risk and on the long-term effects of posttraumatic epilepsy on TBI outcomes. To probe those issues, Dr. Burke and colleagues turned to the multicenter TRACK-TBI database, which has prospective, longitudinal data on more than 2,700 patients with traumatic brain injuries and is considered the largest source of prospective data on posttraumatic epilepsy.

Using the criteria of no previous epilepsy and having 12 months of follow-up, the team identified 1,493 patients with TBI. In addition, investigators identified 182 orthopedic controls (included and prospectively followed because they have injuries but not specifically head trauma) and 210 controls who are friends of the patients and who do not have injuries but allow researchers to control for socioeconomic and environmental factors.

Of the 1,493 patients with TBI, 41 (2.7%) were determined to have posttraumatic epilepsy, assessed according to a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke epilepsy screening questionnaire, which is designed to identify patients with posttraumatic epilepsy symptoms. There were no reports of epilepsy symptoms using the screening tool among the controls. Dr. Burke noted that the 2.7% was in agreement with historical reports.

In comparing patients with TBI who did and did not have posttraumatic epilepsy, no differences were observed in the groups in terms of gender, although there was a trend toward younger age among those with PTE (mean age, 35.4 years with posttraumatic injury vs. 41.5 without; P = .05).

A major risk factor for the development of posttraumatic epilepsy was presenting GCS scores. Among those with scores of less than 8, indicative of severe injury, the rate of posttraumatic epilepsy was 6% at 6 months and 12.5% at 12 months. In contrast, those with TBI presenting with GCS scores between 13 and 15, indicative of minor injury, had an incidence of posttraumatic epilepsy of 0.9% at 6 months and 1.4% at 12 months.

Imaging findings in the two groups showed that hemorrhage detected on CT imaging was associated with a significantly higher risk for posttraumatic epilepsy (P < .001).

“The main takeaway is that any hemorrhage in the brain is a major risk factor for developing seizures,” Dr. Burke said. “Whether it is subdural, epidural blood, subarachnoid or contusion, any blood confers a very [high] risk for developing seizures.”

Posttraumatic epilepsy was linked to poorer longer-term outcomes even for patients with lesser injury: Among those with TBI and GCS of 13-15, the mean Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) score at 12 months among those without posttraumatic epilepsy was 7, indicative of a good recovery with minor defects, whereas the mean GOSE score for those with PTE was 4.6, indicative of moderate to severe disability (P  < .001).

“It was surprising to us that PTE-positive patients had a very significant decrease in GOSE, compared to PTE-negative patients,” Dr. Burke said. “There was a nearly 2-point drop in the GOSE and that was extremely significant.”

A multivariate analysis showed there was still a significant independent risk for a poor GOSE score with posttraumatic epilepsy after controlling for GCS score, head CT findings, and age (P < .001).

The authors also looked at mood outcomes using the Brief Symptom Inventory–18, which showed significant worse effect in those with posttraumatic epilepsy after multivariate adjustment (P = .01). Additionally, a highly significant worse effect in cognitive outcomes on the Rivermead cognitive metric was observed with posttraumatic epilepsy (P = .001).

“On all metrics tested, posttraumatic epilepsy worsened outcomes,” Dr. Burke said.

He noted that the study has some key limitations, including the 12-month follow-up. A previous study showed a linear increase in posttraumatic follow-up up to 30 years. “The fact that we found 41 patients at 12 months indicates there are probably more that are out there who are going to develop seizures, but because we don’t have the follow-up we can’t look at that.”

Although the screening questionnaires are effective, “the issue is these people are not being seen by an epileptologist or having scalp EEG done, and we need a more accurate way to do this,” he said. A new study, TRACK-TBI EPI, will address those limitations and a host of other issues with a 5-year follow-up.
 

Capturing the nuances of brain injury

Commenting on the study as a discussant, neurosurgeon Uzma Samadani, MD, PhD, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center and CentraCare in Minneapolis, suggested that the future work should focus on issues including the wide-ranging mechanisms that could explain the seizure activity.

“For example, it’s known that posttraumatic epilepsy or seizures can be triggered by abnormal conductivity due to multiple different mechanisms associated with brain injury, such as endocrine dysfunction, cortical-spreading depression, and many others,” said Dr. Samadani, who has been a researcher on the TRACK-TBI study.

Factors ranging from genetic differences to comorbid conditions such as alcoholism can play a role in brain injury susceptibility, Dr. Samadani added. Furthermore, outcome measures currently available simply may not capture the unknown nuances of brain injury.

“We have to ask, are these an all-or-none phenomena, or is aberrant electrical activity after brain injury a continuum of dysfunction?” Dr. Samadani speculated.

“I would caution that we are likely underestimating the non–easily measurable consequences of brain injury,” she said. “And the better we can quantitate susceptibility, classify the nature of injury and target acute management, the less posttraumatic epilepsy/aberrant electrical activity our patients will have.”

Dr. Burke and Dr. Samadani disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The severity of head injury in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is significantly linked with the risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy and seizures, and posttraumatic epilepsy itself further worsens outcomes at 12 months, findings from an analysis of a large, prospective database suggest. “We found that patients essentially have a 10-times greater risk of developing posttraumatic epilepsy and seizures at 12 months [post injury] if the presenting Glasgow Coma Scale GCS) is less than 8,” said lead author John F. Burke, MD, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, in presenting the findings as part of the virtual annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.

Assessing risk factors

While posttraumatic epilepsy represents an estimated 20% of all cases of symptomatic epilepsy, many questions remain on those most at risk and on the long-term effects of posttraumatic epilepsy on TBI outcomes. To probe those issues, Dr. Burke and colleagues turned to the multicenter TRACK-TBI database, which has prospective, longitudinal data on more than 2,700 patients with traumatic brain injuries and is considered the largest source of prospective data on posttraumatic epilepsy.

Using the criteria of no previous epilepsy and having 12 months of follow-up, the team identified 1,493 patients with TBI. In addition, investigators identified 182 orthopedic controls (included and prospectively followed because they have injuries but not specifically head trauma) and 210 controls who are friends of the patients and who do not have injuries but allow researchers to control for socioeconomic and environmental factors.

Of the 1,493 patients with TBI, 41 (2.7%) were determined to have posttraumatic epilepsy, assessed according to a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke epilepsy screening questionnaire, which is designed to identify patients with posttraumatic epilepsy symptoms. There were no reports of epilepsy symptoms using the screening tool among the controls. Dr. Burke noted that the 2.7% was in agreement with historical reports.

In comparing patients with TBI who did and did not have posttraumatic epilepsy, no differences were observed in the groups in terms of gender, although there was a trend toward younger age among those with PTE (mean age, 35.4 years with posttraumatic injury vs. 41.5 without; P = .05).

A major risk factor for the development of posttraumatic epilepsy was presenting GCS scores. Among those with scores of less than 8, indicative of severe injury, the rate of posttraumatic epilepsy was 6% at 6 months and 12.5% at 12 months. In contrast, those with TBI presenting with GCS scores between 13 and 15, indicative of minor injury, had an incidence of posttraumatic epilepsy of 0.9% at 6 months and 1.4% at 12 months.

Imaging findings in the two groups showed that hemorrhage detected on CT imaging was associated with a significantly higher risk for posttraumatic epilepsy (P < .001).

“The main takeaway is that any hemorrhage in the brain is a major risk factor for developing seizures,” Dr. Burke said. “Whether it is subdural, epidural blood, subarachnoid or contusion, any blood confers a very [high] risk for developing seizures.”

Posttraumatic epilepsy was linked to poorer longer-term outcomes even for patients with lesser injury: Among those with TBI and GCS of 13-15, the mean Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) score at 12 months among those without posttraumatic epilepsy was 7, indicative of a good recovery with minor defects, whereas the mean GOSE score for those with PTE was 4.6, indicative of moderate to severe disability (P  < .001).

“It was surprising to us that PTE-positive patients had a very significant decrease in GOSE, compared to PTE-negative patients,” Dr. Burke said. “There was a nearly 2-point drop in the GOSE and that was extremely significant.”

A multivariate analysis showed there was still a significant independent risk for a poor GOSE score with posttraumatic epilepsy after controlling for GCS score, head CT findings, and age (P < .001).

The authors also looked at mood outcomes using the Brief Symptom Inventory–18, which showed significant worse effect in those with posttraumatic epilepsy after multivariate adjustment (P = .01). Additionally, a highly significant worse effect in cognitive outcomes on the Rivermead cognitive metric was observed with posttraumatic epilepsy (P = .001).

“On all metrics tested, posttraumatic epilepsy worsened outcomes,” Dr. Burke said.

He noted that the study has some key limitations, including the 12-month follow-up. A previous study showed a linear increase in posttraumatic follow-up up to 30 years. “The fact that we found 41 patients at 12 months indicates there are probably more that are out there who are going to develop seizures, but because we don’t have the follow-up we can’t look at that.”

Although the screening questionnaires are effective, “the issue is these people are not being seen by an epileptologist or having scalp EEG done, and we need a more accurate way to do this,” he said. A new study, TRACK-TBI EPI, will address those limitations and a host of other issues with a 5-year follow-up.
 

Capturing the nuances of brain injury

Commenting on the study as a discussant, neurosurgeon Uzma Samadani, MD, PhD, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center and CentraCare in Minneapolis, suggested that the future work should focus on issues including the wide-ranging mechanisms that could explain the seizure activity.

“For example, it’s known that posttraumatic epilepsy or seizures can be triggered by abnormal conductivity due to multiple different mechanisms associated with brain injury, such as endocrine dysfunction, cortical-spreading depression, and many others,” said Dr. Samadani, who has been a researcher on the TRACK-TBI study.

Factors ranging from genetic differences to comorbid conditions such as alcoholism can play a role in brain injury susceptibility, Dr. Samadani added. Furthermore, outcome measures currently available simply may not capture the unknown nuances of brain injury.

“We have to ask, are these an all-or-none phenomena, or is aberrant electrical activity after brain injury a continuum of dysfunction?” Dr. Samadani speculated.

“I would caution that we are likely underestimating the non–easily measurable consequences of brain injury,” she said. “And the better we can quantitate susceptibility, classify the nature of injury and target acute management, the less posttraumatic epilepsy/aberrant electrical activity our patients will have.”

Dr. Burke and Dr. Samadani disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Opioid and nonopioid prescription pain medications have taken different journeys since 2009, but they ended up in the same place in 2018, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

At least by one measure, anyway. Survey data from 2009 to 2010 show that 6.2% of adults aged 20 years and older had taken at least one prescription opioid in the last 30 days and 4.3% had used a prescription nonopioid without an opioid. By 2017-2018, past 30-day use of both drug groups was 5.7%, Craig M. Hales, MD, and associates said in an NCHS data brief.

“Opioids may be prescribed together with nonopioid pain medications, [but] nonpharmacologic and nonopioid-containing pharmacologic therapies are preferred for management of chronic pain,” the NCHS researchers noted.

The increase in prescription nonopioid use over the entire 10-year period managed to reach statistical significance, as did the short-term increase in nonopioids from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, but the 10-year trend for opioids was not significant, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Much of the analysis focused on 2015-2018, when 30-day use of any prescription pain medication was reported by 10.7% of adults aged 20 years and older, with use of opioids at 5.7% and nonopioids at 5.0%. For women, use of any pain drug was 12.6% (6.4% opioid, 6.2% nonopioid) from 2015 to 2018, compared with 8.7% for men (4.9%, 3.8%), Dr. Hales and associates reported.

Past 30-day use of both opioids and nonopioids over those 4 years was highest for non-Hispanic whites and lowest, by a significant margin for both drug groups, among non-Hispanic Asian adults, a pattern that held for both men and women, they said.

[email protected]

Opioid and nonopioid prescription pain medications have taken different journeys since 2009, but they ended up in the same place in 2018, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

At least by one measure, anyway. Survey data from 2009 to 2010 show that 6.2% of adults aged 20 years and older had taken at least one prescription opioid in the last 30 days and 4.3% had used a prescription nonopioid without an opioid. By 2017-2018, past 30-day use of both drug groups was 5.7%, Craig M. Hales, MD, and associates said in an NCHS data brief.

“Opioids may be prescribed together with nonopioid pain medications, [but] nonpharmacologic and nonopioid-containing pharmacologic therapies are preferred for management of chronic pain,” the NCHS researchers noted.

The increase in prescription nonopioid use over the entire 10-year period managed to reach statistical significance, as did the short-term increase in nonopioids from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, but the 10-year trend for opioids was not significant, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Much of the analysis focused on 2015-2018, when 30-day use of any prescription pain medication was reported by 10.7% of adults aged 20 years and older, with use of opioids at 5.7% and nonopioids at 5.0%. For women, use of any pain drug was 12.6% (6.4% opioid, 6.2% nonopioid) from 2015 to 2018, compared with 8.7% for men (4.9%, 3.8%), Dr. Hales and associates reported.

Past 30-day use of both opioids and nonopioids over those 4 years was highest for non-Hispanic whites and lowest, by a significant margin for both drug groups, among non-Hispanic Asian adults, a pattern that held for both men and women, they said.

[email protected]

Opioid and nonopioid prescription pain medications have taken different journeys since 2009, but they ended up in the same place in 2018, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

At least by one measure, anyway. Survey data from 2009 to 2010 show that 6.2% of adults aged 20 years and older had taken at least one prescription opioid in the last 30 days and 4.3% had used a prescription nonopioid without an opioid. By 2017-2018, past 30-day use of both drug groups was 5.7%, Craig M. Hales, MD, and associates said in an NCHS data brief.

“Opioids may be prescribed together with nonopioid pain medications, [but] nonpharmacologic and nonopioid-containing pharmacologic therapies are preferred for management of chronic pain,” the NCHS researchers noted.

The increase in prescription nonopioid use over the entire 10-year period managed to reach statistical significance, as did the short-term increase in nonopioids from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, but the 10-year trend for opioids was not significant, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Much of the analysis focused on 2015-2018, when 30-day use of any prescription pain medication was reported by 10.7% of adults aged 20 years and older, with use of opioids at 5.7% and nonopioids at 5.0%. For women, use of any pain drug was 12.6% (6.4% opioid, 6.2% nonopioid) from 2015 to 2018, compared with 8.7% for men (4.9%, 3.8%), Dr. Hales and associates reported.

Past 30-day use of both opioids and nonopioids over those 4 years was highest for non-Hispanic whites and lowest, by a significant margin for both drug groups, among non-Hispanic Asian adults, a pattern that held for both men and women, they said.

[email protected]

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lifestyle choices may reduce breast cancer risk regardless of genetics

A “favorable” lifestyle was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer even among women at high genetic risk for the disease in a study of more than 90,000 women, researchers reported.

The findings suggest that, regardless of genetic risk, women may be able to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer by getting adequate levels of exercise; maintaining a healthy weight; and limiting or eliminating use of alcohol, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapy.

“These data should empower patients that they can impact on their overall health and reduce the risk of developing breast cancer,” said William Gradishar, MD, who was not invovled with the study. Read more.

Primary care practices may lose $68K per physician this year

Primary care practices stand to lose almost $68,000 per full-time physician this year as COVID-19 causes care delays and cancellations, researchers estimate. And while some outpatient care has started to rebound to near baseline appointment levels, other ambulatory specialties remain dramatically down from prepandemic rates.

Dermatology and rheumatology visits have recovered, but some specialties have cumulative deficits that are particularly concerning. For example, pediatric visits were down by 47% in the 3 months since March 15, and pulmonology visits were down 45% in that time.

This primary care estimate is without a potential second wave of COVID-19, noted Sanjay Basu, MD, director of research and population health at Collective Health in San Francisco, and colleagues.

“We expect ongoing turbulent times, so having a prospective payment could unleash the capacity for primary care practices to be creative in the way they care for their patients,” Daniel Horn, MD, director of population health and quality at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. Read more.

Big pharma sues to block Minnesota insulin affordability law

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) is suing the state of Minnesota in an attempt to overturn a law that requires insulin makers to provide an emergency supply to individuals free of charge.

In the July 1 filing, PhRMA’s attorneys said the law is unconstitutional. It “order[s] pharmaceutical manufacturers to give insulin to state residents, on the state’s prescribed terms, at no charge to the recipients and without compensating the manufacturers in any way.”

The state has estimated that as many as 30,000 Minnesotans would be eligible for free insulin in the first year of the program. The drugmakers strenuously objected, noting that would mean they would “be compelled to provide 173,800 monthly supplies of free insulin” just in the first year.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from saving the lives of its citizens who are in imminent danger,” said Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD. “The only motives for this lawsuit in my opinion are greed and the worry that other states may also choose to put lives of patients ahead of pharma profits.” Read more.

Despite guidelines, kids get opioids & steroids for pneumonia, sinusitis

A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.

Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.

“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.” Read more.

Study supports changing classification of RCC

The definition of stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be expanded to include lymph node–positive stage III disease, according to a population-level cohort study published in Cancer.

While patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease had superior overall survival at 5 years, survival rates were similar between patients with node–positive stage III disease and stage IV disease. This supports reclassifying stage III node-positive RCC to stage IV, according to researchers.

“Prior institutional studies have indicated that, among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease,” wrote Arnav Srivastava, MD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lifestyle choices may reduce breast cancer risk regardless of genetics

A “favorable” lifestyle was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer even among women at high genetic risk for the disease in a study of more than 90,000 women, researchers reported.

The findings suggest that, regardless of genetic risk, women may be able to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer by getting adequate levels of exercise; maintaining a healthy weight; and limiting or eliminating use of alcohol, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapy.

“These data should empower patients that they can impact on their overall health and reduce the risk of developing breast cancer,” said William Gradishar, MD, who was not invovled with the study. Read more.

Primary care practices may lose $68K per physician this year

Primary care practices stand to lose almost $68,000 per full-time physician this year as COVID-19 causes care delays and cancellations, researchers estimate. And while some outpatient care has started to rebound to near baseline appointment levels, other ambulatory specialties remain dramatically down from prepandemic rates.

Dermatology and rheumatology visits have recovered, but some specialties have cumulative deficits that are particularly concerning. For example, pediatric visits were down by 47% in the 3 months since March 15, and pulmonology visits were down 45% in that time.

This primary care estimate is without a potential second wave of COVID-19, noted Sanjay Basu, MD, director of research and population health at Collective Health in San Francisco, and colleagues.

“We expect ongoing turbulent times, so having a prospective payment could unleash the capacity for primary care practices to be creative in the way they care for their patients,” Daniel Horn, MD, director of population health and quality at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. Read more.

Big pharma sues to block Minnesota insulin affordability law

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) is suing the state of Minnesota in an attempt to overturn a law that requires insulin makers to provide an emergency supply to individuals free of charge.

In the July 1 filing, PhRMA’s attorneys said the law is unconstitutional. It “order[s] pharmaceutical manufacturers to give insulin to state residents, on the state’s prescribed terms, at no charge to the recipients and without compensating the manufacturers in any way.”

The state has estimated that as many as 30,000 Minnesotans would be eligible for free insulin in the first year of the program. The drugmakers strenuously objected, noting that would mean they would “be compelled to provide 173,800 monthly supplies of free insulin” just in the first year.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from saving the lives of its citizens who are in imminent danger,” said Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD. “The only motives for this lawsuit in my opinion are greed and the worry that other states may also choose to put lives of patients ahead of pharma profits.” Read more.

Despite guidelines, kids get opioids & steroids for pneumonia, sinusitis

A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.

Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.

“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.” Read more.

Study supports changing classification of RCC

The definition of stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be expanded to include lymph node–positive stage III disease, according to a population-level cohort study published in Cancer.

While patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease had superior overall survival at 5 years, survival rates were similar between patients with node–positive stage III disease and stage IV disease. This supports reclassifying stage III node-positive RCC to stage IV, according to researchers.

“Prior institutional studies have indicated that, among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease,” wrote Arnav Srivastava, MD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Lifestyle choices may reduce breast cancer risk regardless of genetics

A “favorable” lifestyle was associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer even among women at high genetic risk for the disease in a study of more than 90,000 women, researchers reported.

The findings suggest that, regardless of genetic risk, women may be able to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer by getting adequate levels of exercise; maintaining a healthy weight; and limiting or eliminating use of alcohol, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapy.

“These data should empower patients that they can impact on their overall health and reduce the risk of developing breast cancer,” said William Gradishar, MD, who was not invovled with the study. Read more.

Primary care practices may lose $68K per physician this year

Primary care practices stand to lose almost $68,000 per full-time physician this year as COVID-19 causes care delays and cancellations, researchers estimate. And while some outpatient care has started to rebound to near baseline appointment levels, other ambulatory specialties remain dramatically down from prepandemic rates.

Dermatology and rheumatology visits have recovered, but some specialties have cumulative deficits that are particularly concerning. For example, pediatric visits were down by 47% in the 3 months since March 15, and pulmonology visits were down 45% in that time.

This primary care estimate is without a potential second wave of COVID-19, noted Sanjay Basu, MD, director of research and population health at Collective Health in San Francisco, and colleagues.

“We expect ongoing turbulent times, so having a prospective payment could unleash the capacity for primary care practices to be creative in the way they care for their patients,” Daniel Horn, MD, director of population health and quality at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. Read more.

Big pharma sues to block Minnesota insulin affordability law

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) is suing the state of Minnesota in an attempt to overturn a law that requires insulin makers to provide an emergency supply to individuals free of charge.

In the July 1 filing, PhRMA’s attorneys said the law is unconstitutional. It “order[s] pharmaceutical manufacturers to give insulin to state residents, on the state’s prescribed terms, at no charge to the recipients and without compensating the manufacturers in any way.”

The state has estimated that as many as 30,000 Minnesotans would be eligible for free insulin in the first year of the program. The drugmakers strenuously objected, noting that would mean they would “be compelled to provide 173,800 monthly supplies of free insulin” just in the first year.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents states from saving the lives of its citizens who are in imminent danger,” said Mayo Clinic hematologist S. Vincent Rajkumar, MD. “The only motives for this lawsuit in my opinion are greed and the worry that other states may also choose to put lives of patients ahead of pharma profits.” Read more.

Despite guidelines, kids get opioids & steroids for pneumonia, sinusitis

A significant percentage of children receive opioids and systemic corticosteroids for pneumonia and sinusitis despite guidelines, according to an analysis of 2016 Medicaid data from South Carolina.

Prescriptions for these drugs were more likely after visits to EDs than after ambulatory visits, researchers reported in Pediatrics.

“Each of the 828 opioid and 2,737 systemic steroid prescriptions in the data set represent a potentially inappropriate prescription,” wrote Karina G. Phang, MD, MPH, of Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and colleagues. “These rates appear excessive given that the use of these medications is not supported by available research or recommended in national guidelines.” Read more.

Study supports changing classification of RCC

The definition of stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be expanded to include lymph node–positive stage III disease, according to a population-level cohort study published in Cancer.

While patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease had superior overall survival at 5 years, survival rates were similar between patients with node–positive stage III disease and stage IV disease. This supports reclassifying stage III node-positive RCC to stage IV, according to researchers.

“Prior institutional studies have indicated that, among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease,” wrote Arnav Srivastava, MD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues. Read more.

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Patients with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of acute ischemic stroke compared with patients with influenza, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.

While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
 

An increased risk of stroke

The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.

Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.

The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).

This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”

The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).

In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).

The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
 

COVID or conventional risk factors?

Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”

Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).

He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”

SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.

Patients with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of acute ischemic stroke compared with patients with influenza, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.

While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
 

An increased risk of stroke

The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.

Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.

The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).

This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”

The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).

In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).

The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
 

COVID or conventional risk factors?

Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”

Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).

He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”

SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.

Patients with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of acute ischemic stroke compared with patients with influenza, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.

While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
 

An increased risk of stroke

The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.

Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.

The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).

This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”

The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).

In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).

The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
 

COVID or conventional risk factors?

Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”

Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).

He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”

SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.

Fifteen-year projections for the shortage of primary care and specialty physicians in the United States grew to between 54,000 and 139,000 in the latest annual report by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Those estimates are up from last year’s projections of a shortfall of 46,900-121,900 by 2032.

The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2018 to 2033, was the sixth annual study conducted for the AAMC by the Life Science division of global analytics firm IHS Markit.

This analysis, conducted in 2019, includes supply and demand scenarios but predates the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a telephone press briefing this morning, David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC’s president and CEO, told reporters that the pandemic has highlighted the acute effects of physician shortages.

“We’ve seen in stark detail how fragile and quickly overwhelmed America’s health care system truly is, and we’re nowhere near out of the woods with this public health emergency yet,” he said.

The persistent shortages mean people “will have ongoing difficulty accessing the care that they need, especially as we all age.”

Some of the biggest shortages will be seen in non–primary care specialists. Dr. Skorton notes that, during the pandemic, shortages of specialists in hospital settings, including critical care, emergency medicine, pulmonology, and infectious disease, are an urgent concern.

Population trends continue to be the biggest drivers of the shortage. Report authors found that by 2033, the U.S. population is expected to grow by 10.4% from 327 million to 361 million, with wide differences by age.

The under-18 population is expected to grow by 3.9%, whereas the numbers of those aged 65 and older is expected to balloon by 45.1% in that time, thus stoking demand for specialties focused on care for older Americans.

Physician age is also a large factor in the projections. More than two in five currently active physicians will be 65 or older in the next 10 years, according to the report. A wave of retirements will have a large impact on the supply of physicians.

The report explains that the projected shortages remain under predictable scenarios: an increase in the use of advanced practice nurses (APRNs) and physician assistants (PAs), more care in alternate settings such as retail clinics, and changes in payment and delivery.

According to the report, the supply of APRNs and PAs is on track to double over the next 15 years (with growth rates varying by APRN and PA specialty).

“At current rates of production, by 2033 APRN supply will grow by 276,000 [full-time equivalents (FTEs)] and PA supply by nearly 138,000 FTEs,” the report states.

However, authors acknowledge there is scant evidence on what effect these numbers will have on demand for physicians.

The report points out that if underserved communities were able to access health care in numbers similar to those without barriers imposed by where they live or what insurance they have, demand could rise beyond the projections in this report by an additional 74,000 to 145,000 physicians.
 

Stemming the shortages

The first step in addressing the shortage, Dr. Skorton said, is assuring a healthy physician pipeline to meet the demand for generations.

“One essential step that we believe Congress must take is to end the freeze that has been in place since 1997 that limits federal support for residency training of new physicians,” Skorton said.

He noted that AAMC supports the bipartisan Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act, introduced to Congress in 2019, which calls for an increase in Medicare support for 3000 new residency positions each year over the next 5 years.

However, additional steps are needed, including enabling advanced practice providers to play a greater role in increasing the health care workforce, Dr. Skorton said.

Pointing out some of the effects of physician shortages, Janis M. Orlowski, MD, chief health care officer for the AAMC, noted that high rates of maternal morbidity are partially linked to lack of adequate numbers of physicians in the United States, and a lack of behavioral health specialists has exacerbated effects of the opioid epidemic.

Shortages are already evident in the current pandemic, she added, saying, “Today we see governors calling for retired physicians or physicians from other states to come and help battle the pandemic within their states.”

The report explains that long-term effects on physician numbers from the pandemic likely will include workforce exits because of COVID-19 deaths, early retirements from burnout, or a shift in interest in certain specialties.

Karen Fisher, JD, chief public policy officer for AAMC, said telehealth will also play an important role in bridging gaps in access to care, and its importance has already been seen in this first wave of the pandemic.

She noted that temporary federal waivers have made it easier for those enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to receive telehealth services during the pandemic.

Expanding the access to telehealth permanently will be important in helping to fill gaps, Ms. Fisher said.

Dr. Skorton, Dr. Orlowski, and Ms. Fisher have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fifteen-year projections for the shortage of primary care and specialty physicians in the United States grew to between 54,000 and 139,000 in the latest annual report by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Those estimates are up from last year’s projections of a shortfall of 46,900-121,900 by 2032.

The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2018 to 2033, was the sixth annual study conducted for the AAMC by the Life Science division of global analytics firm IHS Markit.

This analysis, conducted in 2019, includes supply and demand scenarios but predates the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a telephone press briefing this morning, David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC’s president and CEO, told reporters that the pandemic has highlighted the acute effects of physician shortages.

“We’ve seen in stark detail how fragile and quickly overwhelmed America’s health care system truly is, and we’re nowhere near out of the woods with this public health emergency yet,” he said.

The persistent shortages mean people “will have ongoing difficulty accessing the care that they need, especially as we all age.”

Some of the biggest shortages will be seen in non–primary care specialists. Dr. Skorton notes that, during the pandemic, shortages of specialists in hospital settings, including critical care, emergency medicine, pulmonology, and infectious disease, are an urgent concern.

Population trends continue to be the biggest drivers of the shortage. Report authors found that by 2033, the U.S. population is expected to grow by 10.4% from 327 million to 361 million, with wide differences by age.

The under-18 population is expected to grow by 3.9%, whereas the numbers of those aged 65 and older is expected to balloon by 45.1% in that time, thus stoking demand for specialties focused on care for older Americans.

Physician age is also a large factor in the projections. More than two in five currently active physicians will be 65 or older in the next 10 years, according to the report. A wave of retirements will have a large impact on the supply of physicians.

The report explains that the projected shortages remain under predictable scenarios: an increase in the use of advanced practice nurses (APRNs) and physician assistants (PAs), more care in alternate settings such as retail clinics, and changes in payment and delivery.

According to the report, the supply of APRNs and PAs is on track to double over the next 15 years (with growth rates varying by APRN and PA specialty).

“At current rates of production, by 2033 APRN supply will grow by 276,000 [full-time equivalents (FTEs)] and PA supply by nearly 138,000 FTEs,” the report states.

However, authors acknowledge there is scant evidence on what effect these numbers will have on demand for physicians.

The report points out that if underserved communities were able to access health care in numbers similar to those without barriers imposed by where they live or what insurance they have, demand could rise beyond the projections in this report by an additional 74,000 to 145,000 physicians.
 

Stemming the shortages

The first step in addressing the shortage, Dr. Skorton said, is assuring a healthy physician pipeline to meet the demand for generations.

“One essential step that we believe Congress must take is to end the freeze that has been in place since 1997 that limits federal support for residency training of new physicians,” Skorton said.

He noted that AAMC supports the bipartisan Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act, introduced to Congress in 2019, which calls for an increase in Medicare support for 3000 new residency positions each year over the next 5 years.

However, additional steps are needed, including enabling advanced practice providers to play a greater role in increasing the health care workforce, Dr. Skorton said.

Pointing out some of the effects of physician shortages, Janis M. Orlowski, MD, chief health care officer for the AAMC, noted that high rates of maternal morbidity are partially linked to lack of adequate numbers of physicians in the United States, and a lack of behavioral health specialists has exacerbated effects of the opioid epidemic.

Shortages are already evident in the current pandemic, she added, saying, “Today we see governors calling for retired physicians or physicians from other states to come and help battle the pandemic within their states.”

The report explains that long-term effects on physician numbers from the pandemic likely will include workforce exits because of COVID-19 deaths, early retirements from burnout, or a shift in interest in certain specialties.

Karen Fisher, JD, chief public policy officer for AAMC, said telehealth will also play an important role in bridging gaps in access to care, and its importance has already been seen in this first wave of the pandemic.

She noted that temporary federal waivers have made it easier for those enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to receive telehealth services during the pandemic.

Expanding the access to telehealth permanently will be important in helping to fill gaps, Ms. Fisher said.

Dr. Skorton, Dr. Orlowski, and Ms. Fisher have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fifteen-year projections for the shortage of primary care and specialty physicians in the United States grew to between 54,000 and 139,000 in the latest annual report by the Association of American Medical Colleges.

Those estimates are up from last year’s projections of a shortfall of 46,900-121,900 by 2032.

The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2018 to 2033, was the sixth annual study conducted for the AAMC by the Life Science division of global analytics firm IHS Markit.

This analysis, conducted in 2019, includes supply and demand scenarios but predates the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a telephone press briefing this morning, David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC’s president and CEO, told reporters that the pandemic has highlighted the acute effects of physician shortages.

“We’ve seen in stark detail how fragile and quickly overwhelmed America’s health care system truly is, and we’re nowhere near out of the woods with this public health emergency yet,” he said.

The persistent shortages mean people “will have ongoing difficulty accessing the care that they need, especially as we all age.”

Some of the biggest shortages will be seen in non–primary care specialists. Dr. Skorton notes that, during the pandemic, shortages of specialists in hospital settings, including critical care, emergency medicine, pulmonology, and infectious disease, are an urgent concern.

Population trends continue to be the biggest drivers of the shortage. Report authors found that by 2033, the U.S. population is expected to grow by 10.4% from 327 million to 361 million, with wide differences by age.

The under-18 population is expected to grow by 3.9%, whereas the numbers of those aged 65 and older is expected to balloon by 45.1% in that time, thus stoking demand for specialties focused on care for older Americans.

Physician age is also a large factor in the projections. More than two in five currently active physicians will be 65 or older in the next 10 years, according to the report. A wave of retirements will have a large impact on the supply of physicians.

The report explains that the projected shortages remain under predictable scenarios: an increase in the use of advanced practice nurses (APRNs) and physician assistants (PAs), more care in alternate settings such as retail clinics, and changes in payment and delivery.

According to the report, the supply of APRNs and PAs is on track to double over the next 15 years (with growth rates varying by APRN and PA specialty).

“At current rates of production, by 2033 APRN supply will grow by 276,000 [full-time equivalents (FTEs)] and PA supply by nearly 138,000 FTEs,” the report states.

However, authors acknowledge there is scant evidence on what effect these numbers will have on demand for physicians.

The report points out that if underserved communities were able to access health care in numbers similar to those without barriers imposed by where they live or what insurance they have, demand could rise beyond the projections in this report by an additional 74,000 to 145,000 physicians.
 

Stemming the shortages

The first step in addressing the shortage, Dr. Skorton said, is assuring a healthy physician pipeline to meet the demand for generations.

“One essential step that we believe Congress must take is to end the freeze that has been in place since 1997 that limits federal support for residency training of new physicians,” Skorton said.

He noted that AAMC supports the bipartisan Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act, introduced to Congress in 2019, which calls for an increase in Medicare support for 3000 new residency positions each year over the next 5 years.

However, additional steps are needed, including enabling advanced practice providers to play a greater role in increasing the health care workforce, Dr. Skorton said.

Pointing out some of the effects of physician shortages, Janis M. Orlowski, MD, chief health care officer for the AAMC, noted that high rates of maternal morbidity are partially linked to lack of adequate numbers of physicians in the United States, and a lack of behavioral health specialists has exacerbated effects of the opioid epidemic.

Shortages are already evident in the current pandemic, she added, saying, “Today we see governors calling for retired physicians or physicians from other states to come and help battle the pandemic within their states.”

The report explains that long-term effects on physician numbers from the pandemic likely will include workforce exits because of COVID-19 deaths, early retirements from burnout, or a shift in interest in certain specialties.

Karen Fisher, JD, chief public policy officer for AAMC, said telehealth will also play an important role in bridging gaps in access to care, and its importance has already been seen in this first wave of the pandemic.

She noted that temporary federal waivers have made it easier for those enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to receive telehealth services during the pandemic.

Expanding the access to telehealth permanently will be important in helping to fill gaps, Ms. Fisher said.

Dr. Skorton, Dr. Orlowski, and Ms. Fisher have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data from active surveillance of the severe inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 in previously healthy children provide further insight into the prevalence and course of the rare syndrome, but experts are concerned that current diagnostic criteria may not capture the true scope of the problem.

In separate reports published online June 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the New York State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the epidemiology and clinical features of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) on the basis of information derived from targeted surveillance programs in New York State and across the country.

For the New York study, Elizabeth M. Dufort, MD, from the New York Department of Health in Albany and colleagues analyzed MIS-C surveillance data from 106 hospitals across the state. Of 191 suspected MIS-C cases reported to the Department of Health from March 1 through May 10, 99 met the state’s interim case definition of the condition and were included in the analysis.

The incidence rate for MIS-C was two cases per 100,000 individuals younger than 21 years, whereas the incidence rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was 322 per 100,000. Most cases occurred approximately 1 month after the state’s COVID-19 peak.

“Among our patients, predominantly from the New York Metropolitan Region, 40% were black and 36% were Hispanic. This may be a reflection of the well-documented elevated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among black and Hispanic communities,” the authors report.

All children presented with fever or chills, and most had tachycardia (97%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (80%). Rash (60%), conjunctival infection (56%), hypotension (32%), and mucosal changes (27%) were reported. Among all of the children, levels of inflammatory markers were elevated, including levels of C-reactive protein (100%), D-dimer (91%), and troponin (71%). More than one third of the patients (36%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, and an additional 16% had clinical myocarditis.

Of the full cohort, 80% of the children required intensive care, 62% received vasopressor support, and two children died.

The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction or depression, coagulopathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, mild respiratory symptoms, and indications for supplemental oxygen in patients with MIS-C stands in contrast to the clinical picture observed in most acute cases of COVID-19 in hospitalized children, the authors write.

“Although most children have mild or no illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, MIS-C may follow Covid-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognition of the syndrome and early identification of children with MIS-C, including early monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic evaluation, could inform appropriate supportive care and other potential therapeutic options,” they continue.

The incidence of MIS-C among children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unclear because children with COVID-19 often have mild or no symptoms and because children are not tested as frequently, the authors state. For this reason, “[i]t is crucial to establish surveillance for MIS-C cases, particularly in communities with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

Important Differences From Kawasaki Disease

In a separate study, Leora R. Feldstein, MD, of the CDC, and colleagues report 186 cases of MIS-C collected through targeted surveillance of pediatric health centers in 26 US states from March 15 to May 20, 2020. As with the New York cohort, a disproportionate number of children in this cohort were black (25%) and Hispanic or Latino (31%).

Similar to the New York cohort, 80% of the children in this group required intensive care, 48% received vasoactive support, 20% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and four children died. Skin rashes, gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and hematologic effects, mucous changes, and elevations of inflammatory biomarkers were also similarly observed.

The researchers note that, although many of the features of MIS-C overlap with Kawasaki disease, there are some important differences, particularly with respect to the nature of cardiovascular involvement. “Approximately 5% of children with Kawasaki’s disease in the United States present with cardiovascular shock leading to vasopressor or inotropic support, as compared with 50% of the patients in our series,” the authors write.

In addition, coronary-artery aneurysms affect approximately one quarter of Kawasaki disease patients within 21 days of disease onset. “In our series, a maximum z score of 2.5 or higher in the left anterior descending or right coronary artery was reported in 8% of the patients overall and in 9% of patients with echocardiograms,” they report.

Additional differentiating features include patient age and race/ethnicity. Kawasaki disease occurs most commonly in children younger than 5 years. The median age in the multistate study was 8.3 years, and nearly half of the children in the New York cohort were in the 6- to 12-year age group. Further, Kawasaki disease is disproportionately prevalent in children of Asian descent.

Despite the differences, “until more is known about long-term cardiac sequelae of MIS-C, providers could consider following Kawasaki’s disease guidelines for follow-up, which recommend repeat echocardiographic imaging at 1 to 2 weeks.”

As was the case in the New York series, treatment in the multistate cohort most commonly included intravenous immunoglobulin and systemic glucocorticoids. Optimal management, however, will require a better understanding of the pathogenesis of MIS-C, Feldstein and colleagues write.

Questions Remain

With the accumulating data on this syndrome, the MIS-C picture seems to be getting incrementally clearer, but there is still much uncertainty, according to Michael Levin, FMedSci, PhD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.

“The recognition and description of new diseases often resemble the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with each declaring that the part of the beast they have touched fully defines it,” he writes in an accompanying editorial.

“As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has evolved, case reports have appeared describing children with unusual febrile illnesses that have features of Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock syndrome, acute abdominal conditions, and encephalopathy, along with other reports of children with fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and multisystem involvement. It is now apparent that these reports were describing different clinical presentations of a new childhood inflammatory disorder.”

Although a consistent clinical picture is emerging, “[t]he published reports have used a variety of hastily developed case definitions based on the most severe cases, possibly missing less serious cases,” Levin writes. In particular, both the CDC and World Health Organization definitions require evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure, which might contribute to underrecognition and underreporting because asymptomatic infections are common and antibody testing is not universally available.

“There is concern that children meeting current diagnostic criteria for MIS-C are the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ and a bigger problem may be lurking below the waterline,” Levin states. With approximately 1000 cases of the syndrome reported worldwide, “do we now have a clear picture of the new disorder, or as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, has only part of the beast been described?”

Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is a coauthor of the multistate report, agrees that there is still much to learn about MIS-C before the whole beast can be understood. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, she listed the following key questions that have yet to be answered:

• Why do some children get MIS-C and not others?
• What is the long-term outcome of children with MIS-C?
• How can we differentiate MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection in children with respiratory failure?
• Does MIS-C occur in young adults?

Randolph said her team is taking the best path forward toward answering these questions, including conducting a second study to identify risk factors for MIS-C and longer-term follow-up studies with the National Institutes of Health. “We are also getting consent to collect blood samples and look at other tests to help distinguish MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection,” she said. She encouraged heightened awareness among physicians who care for young adults to consider MIS-C in patients aged 21 years and older who present with similar signs and symptoms.

On the basis of the answers to these and additional questions, the case definitions for MIS-C may need refinement to capture the wider spectrum of illness, Levin writes in his editorial. “The challenges of this new condition will now be to understand its pathophysiological mechanisms, to develop diagnostics, and to define the best treatment.”

Kleinman has received grants from the Health Services Resources Administration outside the submitted work. Maddux has received grants from the NIH/NICHD and the Francis Family Foundation outside the submitted work. Randolph has received grants from Genentech and personal fees from La Jolla Pharma outside the submitted work and others from the CDC during the conduct of the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from active surveillance of the severe inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 in previously healthy children provide further insight into the prevalence and course of the rare syndrome, but experts are concerned that current diagnostic criteria may not capture the true scope of the problem.

In separate reports published online June 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the New York State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the epidemiology and clinical features of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) on the basis of information derived from targeted surveillance programs in New York State and across the country.

For the New York study, Elizabeth M. Dufort, MD, from the New York Department of Health in Albany and colleagues analyzed MIS-C surveillance data from 106 hospitals across the state. Of 191 suspected MIS-C cases reported to the Department of Health from March 1 through May 10, 99 met the state’s interim case definition of the condition and were included in the analysis.

The incidence rate for MIS-C was two cases per 100,000 individuals younger than 21 years, whereas the incidence rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was 322 per 100,000. Most cases occurred approximately 1 month after the state’s COVID-19 peak.

“Among our patients, predominantly from the New York Metropolitan Region, 40% were black and 36% were Hispanic. This may be a reflection of the well-documented elevated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among black and Hispanic communities,” the authors report.

All children presented with fever or chills, and most had tachycardia (97%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (80%). Rash (60%), conjunctival infection (56%), hypotension (32%), and mucosal changes (27%) were reported. Among all of the children, levels of inflammatory markers were elevated, including levels of C-reactive protein (100%), D-dimer (91%), and troponin (71%). More than one third of the patients (36%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, and an additional 16% had clinical myocarditis.

Of the full cohort, 80% of the children required intensive care, 62% received vasopressor support, and two children died.

The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction or depression, coagulopathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, mild respiratory symptoms, and indications for supplemental oxygen in patients with MIS-C stands in contrast to the clinical picture observed in most acute cases of COVID-19 in hospitalized children, the authors write.

“Although most children have mild or no illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, MIS-C may follow Covid-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognition of the syndrome and early identification of children with MIS-C, including early monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic evaluation, could inform appropriate supportive care and other potential therapeutic options,” they continue.

The incidence of MIS-C among children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unclear because children with COVID-19 often have mild or no symptoms and because children are not tested as frequently, the authors state. For this reason, “[i]t is crucial to establish surveillance for MIS-C cases, particularly in communities with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

Important Differences From Kawasaki Disease

In a separate study, Leora R. Feldstein, MD, of the CDC, and colleagues report 186 cases of MIS-C collected through targeted surveillance of pediatric health centers in 26 US states from March 15 to May 20, 2020. As with the New York cohort, a disproportionate number of children in this cohort were black (25%) and Hispanic or Latino (31%).

Similar to the New York cohort, 80% of the children in this group required intensive care, 48% received vasoactive support, 20% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and four children died. Skin rashes, gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and hematologic effects, mucous changes, and elevations of inflammatory biomarkers were also similarly observed.

The researchers note that, although many of the features of MIS-C overlap with Kawasaki disease, there are some important differences, particularly with respect to the nature of cardiovascular involvement. “Approximately 5% of children with Kawasaki’s disease in the United States present with cardiovascular shock leading to vasopressor or inotropic support, as compared with 50% of the patients in our series,” the authors write.

In addition, coronary-artery aneurysms affect approximately one quarter of Kawasaki disease patients within 21 days of disease onset. “In our series, a maximum z score of 2.5 or higher in the left anterior descending or right coronary artery was reported in 8% of the patients overall and in 9% of patients with echocardiograms,” they report.

Additional differentiating features include patient age and race/ethnicity. Kawasaki disease occurs most commonly in children younger than 5 years. The median age in the multistate study was 8.3 years, and nearly half of the children in the New York cohort were in the 6- to 12-year age group. Further, Kawasaki disease is disproportionately prevalent in children of Asian descent.

Despite the differences, “until more is known about long-term cardiac sequelae of MIS-C, providers could consider following Kawasaki’s disease guidelines for follow-up, which recommend repeat echocardiographic imaging at 1 to 2 weeks.”

As was the case in the New York series, treatment in the multistate cohort most commonly included intravenous immunoglobulin and systemic glucocorticoids. Optimal management, however, will require a better understanding of the pathogenesis of MIS-C, Feldstein and colleagues write.

Questions Remain

With the accumulating data on this syndrome, the MIS-C picture seems to be getting incrementally clearer, but there is still much uncertainty, according to Michael Levin, FMedSci, PhD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.

“The recognition and description of new diseases often resemble the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with each declaring that the part of the beast they have touched fully defines it,” he writes in an accompanying editorial.

“As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has evolved, case reports have appeared describing children with unusual febrile illnesses that have features of Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock syndrome, acute abdominal conditions, and encephalopathy, along with other reports of children with fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and multisystem involvement. It is now apparent that these reports were describing different clinical presentations of a new childhood inflammatory disorder.”

Although a consistent clinical picture is emerging, “[t]he published reports have used a variety of hastily developed case definitions based on the most severe cases, possibly missing less serious cases,” Levin writes. In particular, both the CDC and World Health Organization definitions require evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure, which might contribute to underrecognition and underreporting because asymptomatic infections are common and antibody testing is not universally available.

“There is concern that children meeting current diagnostic criteria for MIS-C are the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ and a bigger problem may be lurking below the waterline,” Levin states. With approximately 1000 cases of the syndrome reported worldwide, “do we now have a clear picture of the new disorder, or as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, has only part of the beast been described?”

Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is a coauthor of the multistate report, agrees that there is still much to learn about MIS-C before the whole beast can be understood. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, she listed the following key questions that have yet to be answered:

• Why do some children get MIS-C and not others?
• What is the long-term outcome of children with MIS-C?
• How can we differentiate MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection in children with respiratory failure?
• Does MIS-C occur in young adults?

Randolph said her team is taking the best path forward toward answering these questions, including conducting a second study to identify risk factors for MIS-C and longer-term follow-up studies with the National Institutes of Health. “We are also getting consent to collect blood samples and look at other tests to help distinguish MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection,” she said. She encouraged heightened awareness among physicians who care for young adults to consider MIS-C in patients aged 21 years and older who present with similar signs and symptoms.

On the basis of the answers to these and additional questions, the case definitions for MIS-C may need refinement to capture the wider spectrum of illness, Levin writes in his editorial. “The challenges of this new condition will now be to understand its pathophysiological mechanisms, to develop diagnostics, and to define the best treatment.”

Kleinman has received grants from the Health Services Resources Administration outside the submitted work. Maddux has received grants from the NIH/NICHD and the Francis Family Foundation outside the submitted work. Randolph has received grants from Genentech and personal fees from La Jolla Pharma outside the submitted work and others from the CDC during the conduct of the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from active surveillance of the severe inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 in previously healthy children provide further insight into the prevalence and course of the rare syndrome, but experts are concerned that current diagnostic criteria may not capture the true scope of the problem.

In separate reports published online June 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the New York State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the epidemiology and clinical features of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) on the basis of information derived from targeted surveillance programs in New York State and across the country.

For the New York study, Elizabeth M. Dufort, MD, from the New York Department of Health in Albany and colleagues analyzed MIS-C surveillance data from 106 hospitals across the state. Of 191 suspected MIS-C cases reported to the Department of Health from March 1 through May 10, 99 met the state’s interim case definition of the condition and were included in the analysis.

The incidence rate for MIS-C was two cases per 100,000 individuals younger than 21 years, whereas the incidence rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was 322 per 100,000. Most cases occurred approximately 1 month after the state’s COVID-19 peak.

“Among our patients, predominantly from the New York Metropolitan Region, 40% were black and 36% were Hispanic. This may be a reflection of the well-documented elevated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among black and Hispanic communities,” the authors report.

All children presented with fever or chills, and most had tachycardia (97%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (80%). Rash (60%), conjunctival infection (56%), hypotension (32%), and mucosal changes (27%) were reported. Among all of the children, levels of inflammatory markers were elevated, including levels of C-reactive protein (100%), D-dimer (91%), and troponin (71%). More than one third of the patients (36%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, and an additional 16% had clinical myocarditis.

Of the full cohort, 80% of the children required intensive care, 62% received vasopressor support, and two children died.

The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction or depression, coagulopathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, mild respiratory symptoms, and indications for supplemental oxygen in patients with MIS-C stands in contrast to the clinical picture observed in most acute cases of COVID-19 in hospitalized children, the authors write.

“Although most children have mild or no illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, MIS-C may follow Covid-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognition of the syndrome and early identification of children with MIS-C, including early monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic evaluation, could inform appropriate supportive care and other potential therapeutic options,” they continue.

The incidence of MIS-C among children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unclear because children with COVID-19 often have mild or no symptoms and because children are not tested as frequently, the authors state. For this reason, “[i]t is crucial to establish surveillance for MIS-C cases, particularly in communities with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

Important Differences From Kawasaki Disease

In a separate study, Leora R. Feldstein, MD, of the CDC, and colleagues report 186 cases of MIS-C collected through targeted surveillance of pediatric health centers in 26 US states from March 15 to May 20, 2020. As with the New York cohort, a disproportionate number of children in this cohort were black (25%) and Hispanic or Latino (31%).

Similar to the New York cohort, 80% of the children in this group required intensive care, 48% received vasoactive support, 20% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and four children died. Skin rashes, gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and hematologic effects, mucous changes, and elevations of inflammatory biomarkers were also similarly observed.

The researchers note that, although many of the features of MIS-C overlap with Kawasaki disease, there are some important differences, particularly with respect to the nature of cardiovascular involvement. “Approximately 5% of children with Kawasaki’s disease in the United States present with cardiovascular shock leading to vasopressor or inotropic support, as compared with 50% of the patients in our series,” the authors write.

In addition, coronary-artery aneurysms affect approximately one quarter of Kawasaki disease patients within 21 days of disease onset. “In our series, a maximum z score of 2.5 or higher in the left anterior descending or right coronary artery was reported in 8% of the patients overall and in 9% of patients with echocardiograms,” they report.

Additional differentiating features include patient age and race/ethnicity. Kawasaki disease occurs most commonly in children younger than 5 years. The median age in the multistate study was 8.3 years, and nearly half of the children in the New York cohort were in the 6- to 12-year age group. Further, Kawasaki disease is disproportionately prevalent in children of Asian descent.

Despite the differences, “until more is known about long-term cardiac sequelae of MIS-C, providers could consider following Kawasaki’s disease guidelines for follow-up, which recommend repeat echocardiographic imaging at 1 to 2 weeks.”

As was the case in the New York series, treatment in the multistate cohort most commonly included intravenous immunoglobulin and systemic glucocorticoids. Optimal management, however, will require a better understanding of the pathogenesis of MIS-C, Feldstein and colleagues write.

Questions Remain

With the accumulating data on this syndrome, the MIS-C picture seems to be getting incrementally clearer, but there is still much uncertainty, according to Michael Levin, FMedSci, PhD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.

“The recognition and description of new diseases often resemble the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with each declaring that the part of the beast they have touched fully defines it,” he writes in an accompanying editorial.

“As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has evolved, case reports have appeared describing children with unusual febrile illnesses that have features of Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock syndrome, acute abdominal conditions, and encephalopathy, along with other reports of children with fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and multisystem involvement. It is now apparent that these reports were describing different clinical presentations of a new childhood inflammatory disorder.”

Although a consistent clinical picture is emerging, “[t]he published reports have used a variety of hastily developed case definitions based on the most severe cases, possibly missing less serious cases,” Levin writes. In particular, both the CDC and World Health Organization definitions require evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure, which might contribute to underrecognition and underreporting because asymptomatic infections are common and antibody testing is not universally available.

“There is concern that children meeting current diagnostic criteria for MIS-C are the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ and a bigger problem may be lurking below the waterline,” Levin states. With approximately 1000 cases of the syndrome reported worldwide, “do we now have a clear picture of the new disorder, or as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, has only part of the beast been described?”

Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is a coauthor of the multistate report, agrees that there is still much to learn about MIS-C before the whole beast can be understood. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, she listed the following key questions that have yet to be answered:

• Why do some children get MIS-C and not others?
• What is the long-term outcome of children with MIS-C?
• How can we differentiate MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection in children with respiratory failure?
• Does MIS-C occur in young adults?

Randolph said her team is taking the best path forward toward answering these questions, including conducting a second study to identify risk factors for MIS-C and longer-term follow-up studies with the National Institutes of Health. “We are also getting consent to collect blood samples and look at other tests to help distinguish MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection,” she said. She encouraged heightened awareness among physicians who care for young adults to consider MIS-C in patients aged 21 years and older who present with similar signs and symptoms.

On the basis of the answers to these and additional questions, the case definitions for MIS-C may need refinement to capture the wider spectrum of illness, Levin writes in his editorial. “The challenges of this new condition will now be to understand its pathophysiological mechanisms, to develop diagnostics, and to define the best treatment.”

Kleinman has received grants from the Health Services Resources Administration outside the submitted work. Maddux has received grants from the NIH/NICHD and the Francis Family Foundation outside the submitted work. Randolph has received grants from Genentech and personal fees from La Jolla Pharma outside the submitted work and others from the CDC during the conduct of the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.