Neurology Reviews

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Stroke rates in Californians with sickle cell disease (SCD) have increased in both children and adults in the post-STOP era. The cumulative incidence of first ischemic stroke was 2.1% by age 20 and 13.5% by age 60.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the California Department of Health Care Access and Innovation (HCAI), covering emergency department and hospitalization records from 1991 to 2019.
• A total of 7636 patients with SCD were included in the study cohort.
• Cumulative incidence and rates for primary and recurrent strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) were determined pre- and post STOP trial.
• Patients with SCD were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, with specific criteria for inclusion based on hospitalization records.
• The study utilized Fine and Gray methodology to calculate cumulative incidence functions, accounting for the competing risk for death.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cumulative incidence of first ischemic stroke in patients with SCD was 2.1% by age 20 and 13.5% by age 60.
• Ischemic stroke rates increased significantly in children and adults in the 2010-2019 period, compared with the preceding decade.
• Risk factors for stroke and TIA included increasing age, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
• The study found a significant increase in rates of intracranial hemorrhage in adults aged 18-30 years and TIAs in children younger than 18 years from 2010 to 2019, compared with the prior decade.

IN PRACTICE:

“Neurovascular complications, including strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), are common and cause significant morbidity in individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). The STOP trial (1998) established chronic transfusions as the standard of care for children with SCD at high risk for stroke,” the study’s authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Olubusola B. Oluwole, MD, MS, University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and was published online in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s reliance on administrative data may have introduced systematic errors, particularly with the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes. The lack of laboratory results and medication data in the HCAI database limited the ability to fully assess patient conditions and treatments. Additionally, the methodology changes in 2014 likely underreported death rates in people without PDD/EDU encounters in the calendar year preceding their death.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Stroke rates in Californians with sickle cell disease (SCD) have increased in both children and adults in the post-STOP era. The cumulative incidence of first ischemic stroke was 2.1% by age 20 and 13.5% by age 60.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the California Department of Health Care Access and Innovation (HCAI), covering emergency department and hospitalization records from 1991 to 2019.
• A total of 7636 patients with SCD were included in the study cohort.
• Cumulative incidence and rates for primary and recurrent strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) were determined pre- and post STOP trial.
• Patients with SCD were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, with specific criteria for inclusion based on hospitalization records.
• The study utilized Fine and Gray methodology to calculate cumulative incidence functions, accounting for the competing risk for death.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cumulative incidence of first ischemic stroke in patients with SCD was 2.1% by age 20 and 13.5% by age 60.
• Ischemic stroke rates increased significantly in children and adults in the 2010-2019 period, compared with the preceding decade.
• Risk factors for stroke and TIA included increasing age, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
• The study found a significant increase in rates of intracranial hemorrhage in adults aged 18-30 years and TIAs in children younger than 18 years from 2010 to 2019, compared with the prior decade.

IN PRACTICE:

“Neurovascular complications, including strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), are common and cause significant morbidity in individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). The STOP trial (1998) established chronic transfusions as the standard of care for children with SCD at high risk for stroke,” the study’s authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Olubusola B. Oluwole, MD, MS, University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and was published online in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s reliance on administrative data may have introduced systematic errors, particularly with the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes. The lack of laboratory results and medication data in the HCAI database limited the ability to fully assess patient conditions and treatments. Additionally, the methodology changes in 2014 likely underreported death rates in people without PDD/EDU encounters in the calendar year preceding their death.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Stroke rates in Californians with sickle cell disease (SCD) have increased in both children and adults in the post-STOP era. The cumulative incidence of first ischemic stroke was 2.1% by age 20 and 13.5% by age 60.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the California Department of Health Care Access and Innovation (HCAI), covering emergency department and hospitalization records from 1991 to 2019.
• A total of 7636 patients with SCD were included in the study cohort.
• Cumulative incidence and rates for primary and recurrent strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) were determined pre- and post STOP trial.
• Patients with SCD were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, with specific criteria for inclusion based on hospitalization records.
• The study utilized Fine and Gray methodology to calculate cumulative incidence functions, accounting for the competing risk for death.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cumulative incidence of first ischemic stroke in patients with SCD was 2.1% by age 20 and 13.5% by age 60.
• Ischemic stroke rates increased significantly in children and adults in the 2010-2019 period, compared with the preceding decade.
• Risk factors for stroke and TIA included increasing age, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
• The study found a significant increase in rates of intracranial hemorrhage in adults aged 18-30 years and TIAs in children younger than 18 years from 2010 to 2019, compared with the prior decade.

IN PRACTICE:

“Neurovascular complications, including strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), are common and cause significant morbidity in individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). The STOP trial (1998) established chronic transfusions as the standard of care for children with SCD at high risk for stroke,” the study’s authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Olubusola B. Oluwole, MD, MS, University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and was published online in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s reliance on administrative data may have introduced systematic errors, particularly with the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes. The lack of laboratory results and medication data in the HCAI database limited the ability to fully assess patient conditions and treatments. Additionally, the methodology changes in 2014 likely underreported death rates in people without PDD/EDU encounters in the calendar year preceding their death.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ABU DHABI, UAE — The long-standing debate as to when to start anticoagulation in patients with an acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF) looks as though it’s settled.

Results of the OPTIMAS trial, the largest trial to address this question, showed that initiation of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) within 4 days after ischemic stroke associated with AF was noninferior to delayed initiation (7-14 days) for the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism at 90 days. Importantly, early DOAC initiation was safe with a low rate of symptomatic hemorrhage, regardless of stroke severity.

In addition, a new meta-analysis, known as CATALYST, which included all four randomized trials now available on this issue, showed a clear benefit of earlier initiation (within 4 days) versus later (5 days and up) on its primary endpoint of new ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and unclassified stroke at 30 days.

The results of the OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were both presented at the 16th World Stroke Congress (WSC) 2024. The OPTIMAS trial was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

“Our findings do not support the guideline recommended practice of delaying DOAC initiation after ischemic stroke with AF regardless of clinical stroke severity, reperfusion or prior anticoagulation,” said OPTIMAS investigator David Werring, PhD, University College London in England.

Presenting the meta-analysis, Signild Åsberg, MD, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, said his group’s findings “support the early start of DOACs (within 4 days) in clinical practice.”

Werring pointed out that starting anticoagulation early also had important logistical advantages.

“This means we can start anticoagulation before patients are discharged from hospital, thus ensuring that this important secondary prevention medication is always prescribed, when appropriate. That’s going to be a key benefit in the real world.”
 

Clinical Dilemma

Werring noted that AF accounts for 20%-30% of ischemic strokes, which tend to be more severe than other stroke types. The pivotal trials of DOACs did not include patients within 30 days of an acute ischemic stroke, creating a clinical dilemma on when to start this treatment.

“On the one hand, we wish to start anticoagulation early to reduce early recurrence of ischemic stroke. But on the other hand, there are concerns that if we start anticoagulation early, it could cause intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic transformation of the acute infarct. Guidelines on this issue are inconsistent and have called for randomized control trials in this area,” he noted.

So far, three randomized trials on DOAC timing have been conducted, which Werring said suggested early DOAC treatment is safe. However, these trials have provided limited data on moderate to severe stroke, patients with hemorrhagic transformation, or those already taking oral anticoagulants — subgroups in which there are particular concerns about early oral anticoagulation.

The OPTIMAS trial included a broad population of patients with acute ischemic stroke associated with AF including these critical subgroups.

The trial, conducted at 100 hospitals in the United Kingdom, included 3648 patients with AF and acute ischemic stroke who were randomly assigned to early (≤ 4 days from stroke symptom onset) or delayed (7-14 days) anticoagulation initiation with any DOAC.

There was no restriction on stroke severity, and patients with hemorrhagic transformation were allowed, with the exception of parenchymal hematoma type 2, a rare and severe type of hemorrhagic transformation.

Approximately 35% of patients had been taking an oral anticoagulant, mainly DOACs, prior to their stroke, and about 30% had revascularization with thrombolysis, thrombectomy, or both. Nearly 900 participants (25%) had moderate to severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≥ 11).

The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism incidence at 90 days. The initial analysis aimed to show noninferiority of early DOAC initiation, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points, followed by testing for superiority.

Results showed that the primary outcome occurred in 3.3% of both groups (adjusted risk difference, 0.000; 95% CI, −0.011 to 0.012), with noninferiority criteria fulfilled. Superiority was not achieved.

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.6% of patients in the early DOAC initiation group vs 0.7% of those in the delayed group — a nonsignificant difference.
 

Applicable to Real-World Practice

A time-to-event analysis of the primary outcome showed that there were fewer outcomes in the first 30 days in the early DOAC initiation group, but the curves subsequently came together.

Subgroup analysis showed consistent results across all whole trial population, with no modification of the effect of early DOAC initiation according to stroke severity, reperfusion treatment, or previous anticoagulation.

Werring said that strengths of the OPTIMAS trial included a large sample size, a broad population with generalizability to real-world practice, and the inclusion of patients at higher bleeding risk than included in previous studies.

During the discussion, it was noted that the trial included few (about 3%) patients — about 3% — with very severe stroke (NIHSS score > 21), with the question of whether the findings could be applied to this group.

Werring noted that there was no evidence of heterogeneity, and if anything, patients with more severe strokes may have had a slightly greater benefit with early DOAC initiation. “So my feeling is probably these results do generalize to the more severe patients,” he said.

In a commentary accompanying The Lancet publication of the OPTIMAS trial, Else Charlotte Sandset, MD, University of Oslo, in Norway, and Diana Aguiar de Sousa, MD, Central Lisbon University Hospital Centre, Lisbon, Portugal, noted that the “increasing body of evidence strongly supports the message that initiating anticoagulation early for patients with ischaemic stroke is safe. The consistent absence of heterogeneity in safety outcomes suggests that the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage is not a major concern, even in patients with large infarcts.”

Regardless of the size of the treatment effect, initiating early anticoagulation makes sense when it can be done safely, as it helps prevent recurrent ischemic strokes and other embolic events. Early intervention reduces embolization risk, particularly in high-risk patients, and allows secondary prevention measures to begin while patients are still hospitalized, they added.
 

CATALYST Findings

The CATALYST meta-analysis included four trials, namely, TIMING, ELAN, OPTIMAS, and START, of early versus later DOAC administration in a total of 5411 patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF. In this meta-analysis, early was defined as within 4 days of stroke and later as 5 days or more.

The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, symptomatic, intracerebral hemorrhage, or unclassified stroke at 30 days. This was significantly reduced in the early group (2.12%) versus 3.02% in the later group, giving an odds ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50-0.98; P =.04).

The results were consistent across all subgroups, all suggesting an advantage for early DOAC.

Further analysis showed a clear benefit of early DOAC initiation in ischemic stroke with the curves separating early.

The rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was low in both groups (0.45% in the early group and 0.40% in the later group) as was extracranial hemorrhage (0.45% vs 0.55%).

At 90 days, there were still lower event rates in the early group than the later one, but the difference was no longer statistically significant.
 

‘Practice Changing’ Results

Commenting on both studies, chair of the WSC session where the results of both OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were presented, Craig Anderson, MD, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, described these latest results as “practice changing.”

“When to start anticoagulation in acute ischemic stroke patients with AF has been uncertain for a long time. The dogma has always been that we should wait. Over the years, we’ve become a little bit more confident, but now we’ve got good data from randomized trials showing that early initiation is safe, with the meta-analysis showing benefit,” he said.

“These new data from OPTIMAS will reassure clinicians that there’s no excessive harm and, more importantly, no excessive harm across all patient groups. And the meta-analysis clearly showed an upfront benefit of starting anticoagulation early. That’s a very convincing result,” he added.

Anderson cautioned that there still may be concerns about starting DOACs early in some groups, including Asian populations that have a higher bleeding risk (these trials included predominantly White patients) and people who are older or frail, who may have extensive small vessel disease.

During the discussion, several questions centered on the lack of imaging data available on the patients in the studies. Anderson said imaging data would help reassure clinicians on the safety of early anticoagulation in patients with large infarcts.

“Stroke clinicians make decisions on the basis of the patient and on the basis of the brain, and we only have the patient information at the moment. We don’t have information on the brain — that comes from imaging.”

Regardless, he believes these new data will lead to a shift in practice. “But maybe, it won’t be as dramatic as we would hope because I think some clinicians may still hesitate to apply these results to patients at high risk of bleeding. With imaging data from the studies that might change.”

The OPTIMAS trial was funded by University College London and the British Heart Foundation. Werring reported consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Alnylam; payments or speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and AstraZeneca/Alexion; participation on a data safety monitoring board for the OXHARP trial; and participation as steering committee chair for the MACE-ICH and PLINTH trials. Åsberg received institutional research grants and lecture fees to her institution from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Institut Produits Synthése. Sandset and de Sousa were both steering committee members of the ELAN trial. Anderson reported grant funding from Penumbra and Takeda China.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ABU DHABI, UAE — The long-standing debate as to when to start anticoagulation in patients with an acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF) looks as though it’s settled.

Results of the OPTIMAS trial, the largest trial to address this question, showed that initiation of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) within 4 days after ischemic stroke associated with AF was noninferior to delayed initiation (7-14 days) for the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism at 90 days. Importantly, early DOAC initiation was safe with a low rate of symptomatic hemorrhage, regardless of stroke severity.

In addition, a new meta-analysis, known as CATALYST, which included all four randomized trials now available on this issue, showed a clear benefit of earlier initiation (within 4 days) versus later (5 days and up) on its primary endpoint of new ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and unclassified stroke at 30 days.

The results of the OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were both presented at the 16th World Stroke Congress (WSC) 2024. The OPTIMAS trial was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

“Our findings do not support the guideline recommended practice of delaying DOAC initiation after ischemic stroke with AF regardless of clinical stroke severity, reperfusion or prior anticoagulation,” said OPTIMAS investigator David Werring, PhD, University College London in England.

Presenting the meta-analysis, Signild Åsberg, MD, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, said his group’s findings “support the early start of DOACs (within 4 days) in clinical practice.”

Werring pointed out that starting anticoagulation early also had important logistical advantages.

“This means we can start anticoagulation before patients are discharged from hospital, thus ensuring that this important secondary prevention medication is always prescribed, when appropriate. That’s going to be a key benefit in the real world.”
 

Clinical Dilemma

Werring noted that AF accounts for 20%-30% of ischemic strokes, which tend to be more severe than other stroke types. The pivotal trials of DOACs did not include patients within 30 days of an acute ischemic stroke, creating a clinical dilemma on when to start this treatment.

“On the one hand, we wish to start anticoagulation early to reduce early recurrence of ischemic stroke. But on the other hand, there are concerns that if we start anticoagulation early, it could cause intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic transformation of the acute infarct. Guidelines on this issue are inconsistent and have called for randomized control trials in this area,” he noted.

So far, three randomized trials on DOAC timing have been conducted, which Werring said suggested early DOAC treatment is safe. However, these trials have provided limited data on moderate to severe stroke, patients with hemorrhagic transformation, or those already taking oral anticoagulants — subgroups in which there are particular concerns about early oral anticoagulation.

The OPTIMAS trial included a broad population of patients with acute ischemic stroke associated with AF including these critical subgroups.

The trial, conducted at 100 hospitals in the United Kingdom, included 3648 patients with AF and acute ischemic stroke who were randomly assigned to early (≤ 4 days from stroke symptom onset) or delayed (7-14 days) anticoagulation initiation with any DOAC.

There was no restriction on stroke severity, and patients with hemorrhagic transformation were allowed, with the exception of parenchymal hematoma type 2, a rare and severe type of hemorrhagic transformation.

Approximately 35% of patients had been taking an oral anticoagulant, mainly DOACs, prior to their stroke, and about 30% had revascularization with thrombolysis, thrombectomy, or both. Nearly 900 participants (25%) had moderate to severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≥ 11).

The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism incidence at 90 days. The initial analysis aimed to show noninferiority of early DOAC initiation, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points, followed by testing for superiority.

Results showed that the primary outcome occurred in 3.3% of both groups (adjusted risk difference, 0.000; 95% CI, −0.011 to 0.012), with noninferiority criteria fulfilled. Superiority was not achieved.

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.6% of patients in the early DOAC initiation group vs 0.7% of those in the delayed group — a nonsignificant difference.
 

Applicable to Real-World Practice

A time-to-event analysis of the primary outcome showed that there were fewer outcomes in the first 30 days in the early DOAC initiation group, but the curves subsequently came together.

Subgroup analysis showed consistent results across all whole trial population, with no modification of the effect of early DOAC initiation according to stroke severity, reperfusion treatment, or previous anticoagulation.

Werring said that strengths of the OPTIMAS trial included a large sample size, a broad population with generalizability to real-world practice, and the inclusion of patients at higher bleeding risk than included in previous studies.

During the discussion, it was noted that the trial included few (about 3%) patients — about 3% — with very severe stroke (NIHSS score > 21), with the question of whether the findings could be applied to this group.

Werring noted that there was no evidence of heterogeneity, and if anything, patients with more severe strokes may have had a slightly greater benefit with early DOAC initiation. “So my feeling is probably these results do generalize to the more severe patients,” he said.

In a commentary accompanying The Lancet publication of the OPTIMAS trial, Else Charlotte Sandset, MD, University of Oslo, in Norway, and Diana Aguiar de Sousa, MD, Central Lisbon University Hospital Centre, Lisbon, Portugal, noted that the “increasing body of evidence strongly supports the message that initiating anticoagulation early for patients with ischaemic stroke is safe. The consistent absence of heterogeneity in safety outcomes suggests that the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage is not a major concern, even in patients with large infarcts.”

Regardless of the size of the treatment effect, initiating early anticoagulation makes sense when it can be done safely, as it helps prevent recurrent ischemic strokes and other embolic events. Early intervention reduces embolization risk, particularly in high-risk patients, and allows secondary prevention measures to begin while patients are still hospitalized, they added.
 

CATALYST Findings

The CATALYST meta-analysis included four trials, namely, TIMING, ELAN, OPTIMAS, and START, of early versus later DOAC administration in a total of 5411 patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF. In this meta-analysis, early was defined as within 4 days of stroke and later as 5 days or more.

The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, symptomatic, intracerebral hemorrhage, or unclassified stroke at 30 days. This was significantly reduced in the early group (2.12%) versus 3.02% in the later group, giving an odds ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50-0.98; P =.04).

The results were consistent across all subgroups, all suggesting an advantage for early DOAC.

Further analysis showed a clear benefit of early DOAC initiation in ischemic stroke with the curves separating early.

The rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was low in both groups (0.45% in the early group and 0.40% in the later group) as was extracranial hemorrhage (0.45% vs 0.55%).

At 90 days, there were still lower event rates in the early group than the later one, but the difference was no longer statistically significant.
 

‘Practice Changing’ Results

Commenting on both studies, chair of the WSC session where the results of both OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were presented, Craig Anderson, MD, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, described these latest results as “practice changing.”

“When to start anticoagulation in acute ischemic stroke patients with AF has been uncertain for a long time. The dogma has always been that we should wait. Over the years, we’ve become a little bit more confident, but now we’ve got good data from randomized trials showing that early initiation is safe, with the meta-analysis showing benefit,” he said.

“These new data from OPTIMAS will reassure clinicians that there’s no excessive harm and, more importantly, no excessive harm across all patient groups. And the meta-analysis clearly showed an upfront benefit of starting anticoagulation early. That’s a very convincing result,” he added.

Anderson cautioned that there still may be concerns about starting DOACs early in some groups, including Asian populations that have a higher bleeding risk (these trials included predominantly White patients) and people who are older or frail, who may have extensive small vessel disease.

During the discussion, several questions centered on the lack of imaging data available on the patients in the studies. Anderson said imaging data would help reassure clinicians on the safety of early anticoagulation in patients with large infarcts.

“Stroke clinicians make decisions on the basis of the patient and on the basis of the brain, and we only have the patient information at the moment. We don’t have information on the brain — that comes from imaging.”

Regardless, he believes these new data will lead to a shift in practice. “But maybe, it won’t be as dramatic as we would hope because I think some clinicians may still hesitate to apply these results to patients at high risk of bleeding. With imaging data from the studies that might change.”

The OPTIMAS trial was funded by University College London and the British Heart Foundation. Werring reported consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Alnylam; payments or speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and AstraZeneca/Alexion; participation on a data safety monitoring board for the OXHARP trial; and participation as steering committee chair for the MACE-ICH and PLINTH trials. Åsberg received institutional research grants and lecture fees to her institution from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Institut Produits Synthése. Sandset and de Sousa were both steering committee members of the ELAN trial. Anderson reported grant funding from Penumbra and Takeda China.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ABU DHABI, UAE — The long-standing debate as to when to start anticoagulation in patients with an acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF) looks as though it’s settled.

Results of the OPTIMAS trial, the largest trial to address this question, showed that initiation of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) within 4 days after ischemic stroke associated with AF was noninferior to delayed initiation (7-14 days) for the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism at 90 days. Importantly, early DOAC initiation was safe with a low rate of symptomatic hemorrhage, regardless of stroke severity.

In addition, a new meta-analysis, known as CATALYST, which included all four randomized trials now available on this issue, showed a clear benefit of earlier initiation (within 4 days) versus later (5 days and up) on its primary endpoint of new ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and unclassified stroke at 30 days.

The results of the OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were both presented at the 16th World Stroke Congress (WSC) 2024. The OPTIMAS trial was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

“Our findings do not support the guideline recommended practice of delaying DOAC initiation after ischemic stroke with AF regardless of clinical stroke severity, reperfusion or prior anticoagulation,” said OPTIMAS investigator David Werring, PhD, University College London in England.

Presenting the meta-analysis, Signild Åsberg, MD, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, said his group’s findings “support the early start of DOACs (within 4 days) in clinical practice.”

Werring pointed out that starting anticoagulation early also had important logistical advantages.

“This means we can start anticoagulation before patients are discharged from hospital, thus ensuring that this important secondary prevention medication is always prescribed, when appropriate. That’s going to be a key benefit in the real world.”
 

Clinical Dilemma

Werring noted that AF accounts for 20%-30% of ischemic strokes, which tend to be more severe than other stroke types. The pivotal trials of DOACs did not include patients within 30 days of an acute ischemic stroke, creating a clinical dilemma on when to start this treatment.

“On the one hand, we wish to start anticoagulation early to reduce early recurrence of ischemic stroke. But on the other hand, there are concerns that if we start anticoagulation early, it could cause intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic transformation of the acute infarct. Guidelines on this issue are inconsistent and have called for randomized control trials in this area,” he noted.

So far, three randomized trials on DOAC timing have been conducted, which Werring said suggested early DOAC treatment is safe. However, these trials have provided limited data on moderate to severe stroke, patients with hemorrhagic transformation, or those already taking oral anticoagulants — subgroups in which there are particular concerns about early oral anticoagulation.

The OPTIMAS trial included a broad population of patients with acute ischemic stroke associated with AF including these critical subgroups.

The trial, conducted at 100 hospitals in the United Kingdom, included 3648 patients with AF and acute ischemic stroke who were randomly assigned to early (≤ 4 days from stroke symptom onset) or delayed (7-14 days) anticoagulation initiation with any DOAC.

There was no restriction on stroke severity, and patients with hemorrhagic transformation were allowed, with the exception of parenchymal hematoma type 2, a rare and severe type of hemorrhagic transformation.

Approximately 35% of patients had been taking an oral anticoagulant, mainly DOACs, prior to their stroke, and about 30% had revascularization with thrombolysis, thrombectomy, or both. Nearly 900 participants (25%) had moderate to severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≥ 11).

The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism incidence at 90 days. The initial analysis aimed to show noninferiority of early DOAC initiation, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points, followed by testing for superiority.

Results showed that the primary outcome occurred in 3.3% of both groups (adjusted risk difference, 0.000; 95% CI, −0.011 to 0.012), with noninferiority criteria fulfilled. Superiority was not achieved.

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.6% of patients in the early DOAC initiation group vs 0.7% of those in the delayed group — a nonsignificant difference.
 

Applicable to Real-World Practice

A time-to-event analysis of the primary outcome showed that there were fewer outcomes in the first 30 days in the early DOAC initiation group, but the curves subsequently came together.

Subgroup analysis showed consistent results across all whole trial population, with no modification of the effect of early DOAC initiation according to stroke severity, reperfusion treatment, or previous anticoagulation.

Werring said that strengths of the OPTIMAS trial included a large sample size, a broad population with generalizability to real-world practice, and the inclusion of patients at higher bleeding risk than included in previous studies.

During the discussion, it was noted that the trial included few (about 3%) patients — about 3% — with very severe stroke (NIHSS score > 21), with the question of whether the findings could be applied to this group.

Werring noted that there was no evidence of heterogeneity, and if anything, patients with more severe strokes may have had a slightly greater benefit with early DOAC initiation. “So my feeling is probably these results do generalize to the more severe patients,” he said.

In a commentary accompanying The Lancet publication of the OPTIMAS trial, Else Charlotte Sandset, MD, University of Oslo, in Norway, and Diana Aguiar de Sousa, MD, Central Lisbon University Hospital Centre, Lisbon, Portugal, noted that the “increasing body of evidence strongly supports the message that initiating anticoagulation early for patients with ischaemic stroke is safe. The consistent absence of heterogeneity in safety outcomes suggests that the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage is not a major concern, even in patients with large infarcts.”

Regardless of the size of the treatment effect, initiating early anticoagulation makes sense when it can be done safely, as it helps prevent recurrent ischemic strokes and other embolic events. Early intervention reduces embolization risk, particularly in high-risk patients, and allows secondary prevention measures to begin while patients are still hospitalized, they added.
 

CATALYST Findings

The CATALYST meta-analysis included four trials, namely, TIMING, ELAN, OPTIMAS, and START, of early versus later DOAC administration in a total of 5411 patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF. In this meta-analysis, early was defined as within 4 days of stroke and later as 5 days or more.

The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, symptomatic, intracerebral hemorrhage, or unclassified stroke at 30 days. This was significantly reduced in the early group (2.12%) versus 3.02% in the later group, giving an odds ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50-0.98; P =.04).

The results were consistent across all subgroups, all suggesting an advantage for early DOAC.

Further analysis showed a clear benefit of early DOAC initiation in ischemic stroke with the curves separating early.

The rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was low in both groups (0.45% in the early group and 0.40% in the later group) as was extracranial hemorrhage (0.45% vs 0.55%).

At 90 days, there were still lower event rates in the early group than the later one, but the difference was no longer statistically significant.
 

‘Practice Changing’ Results

Commenting on both studies, chair of the WSC session where the results of both OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were presented, Craig Anderson, MD, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, described these latest results as “practice changing.”

“When to start anticoagulation in acute ischemic stroke patients with AF has been uncertain for a long time. The dogma has always been that we should wait. Over the years, we’ve become a little bit more confident, but now we’ve got good data from randomized trials showing that early initiation is safe, with the meta-analysis showing benefit,” he said.

“These new data from OPTIMAS will reassure clinicians that there’s no excessive harm and, more importantly, no excessive harm across all patient groups. And the meta-analysis clearly showed an upfront benefit of starting anticoagulation early. That’s a very convincing result,” he added.

Anderson cautioned that there still may be concerns about starting DOACs early in some groups, including Asian populations that have a higher bleeding risk (these trials included predominantly White patients) and people who are older or frail, who may have extensive small vessel disease.

During the discussion, several questions centered on the lack of imaging data available on the patients in the studies. Anderson said imaging data would help reassure clinicians on the safety of early anticoagulation in patients with large infarcts.

“Stroke clinicians make decisions on the basis of the patient and on the basis of the brain, and we only have the patient information at the moment. We don’t have information on the brain — that comes from imaging.”

Regardless, he believes these new data will lead to a shift in practice. “But maybe, it won’t be as dramatic as we would hope because I think some clinicians may still hesitate to apply these results to patients at high risk of bleeding. With imaging data from the studies that might change.”

The OPTIMAS trial was funded by University College London and the British Heart Foundation. Werring reported consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Alnylam; payments or speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and AstraZeneca/Alexion; participation on a data safety monitoring board for the OXHARP trial; and participation as steering committee chair for the MACE-ICH and PLINTH trials. Åsberg received institutional research grants and lecture fees to her institution from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Institut Produits Synthése. Sandset and de Sousa were both steering committee members of the ELAN trial. Anderson reported grant funding from Penumbra and Takeda China.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a physician, you might be contacted by the media to provide your professional opinion and advice. Or you might be looking for media interview opportunities to market your practice or side project. And if you do research, media interviews can be an effective way to spread the word. It’s important to prepare for a media interview so that you achieve the outcome you are looking for. Here are six tips I learned from writing health articles, interviewing experts, and being interviewed myself. 

Keep your message simple. When you are a subject expert, you might think that the basics are obvious or even boring, and that the nuances are more important. However, most of the audience is looking for big-picture information that they can apply to their lives. Consider a few key takeaways, keeping in mind that your interview is likely to be edited to short sound bites or a few quotes. It may help to jot down notes so that you cover the fundamentals clearly. You could even write and rehearse a script beforehand. If there is something complicated or subtle that you want to convey, you can preface it by saying, “This is confusing but very important …” to let the audience know to give extra consideration to what you are about to say.

Avoid extremes and hyperbole. Sometimes, exaggerated statements make their way into medical discussions. Statements such as “it doesn’t matter how many calories you consume — it’s all about the quality” are common oversimplifications. But you might be upset to see your name next to a comment like this because it is not actually correct. Check the phrasing of your key takeaways to avoid being stuck defending or explaining an inaccurate statement when your patients ask you about it later. 

Ask the interviewers what they are looking for. Many medical topics have some controversial element, so it is good to know what you’re getting into. Find out the purpose of the article or interview before you decide whether it is right for you. It could be about another doctor in town who is being sued; if you don’t want to be associated with that story, it might be best to decline the interview. 

Explain your goals. You might accept or pursue an interview to raise awareness about an underrecognized condition. You might want the public to identify and get help for early symptoms, or you might want to create empathy for people coping with a disease you treat. Consider why you are participating in an interview, and communicate that to the interviewer to ensure that your objective can be part of the final product. 

Know whom you’re dealing with. It is good to learn about the publication/media channel before you agree to participate. It may have a political bias, or perhaps the interview is intended to promote a specific product. If you agree with and support their purposes, then you may be happy to lend your opinion. But learning about the “voice” of the publication in advance allows you to make an informed decision about whether you want to be identified with a particular political ideology or product endorsement.

Ask to see your quotes before publication. It’s good to have the opportunity to make corrections in case you are accidentally misquoted or misunderstood. It is best to ask to see quotes before you agree to the interview. Some reporters may agree to (or even prefer) a written question-and-answer format so that they can directly quote your responses without rephrasing your words. You could suggest this, especially if you are too busy for a call or live meeting.

As a physician, your insights and advice can be highly beneficial to others. You can also use media interviews to propel your career forward. Doing your homework can ensure that you will be pleased with the final product and how your words were used. 
 

Dr. Moawad, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a physician, you might be contacted by the media to provide your professional opinion and advice. Or you might be looking for media interview opportunities to market your practice or side project. And if you do research, media interviews can be an effective way to spread the word. It’s important to prepare for a media interview so that you achieve the outcome you are looking for. Here are six tips I learned from writing health articles, interviewing experts, and being interviewed myself. 

Keep your message simple. When you are a subject expert, you might think that the basics are obvious or even boring, and that the nuances are more important. However, most of the audience is looking for big-picture information that they can apply to their lives. Consider a few key takeaways, keeping in mind that your interview is likely to be edited to short sound bites or a few quotes. It may help to jot down notes so that you cover the fundamentals clearly. You could even write and rehearse a script beforehand. If there is something complicated or subtle that you want to convey, you can preface it by saying, “This is confusing but very important …” to let the audience know to give extra consideration to what you are about to say.

Avoid extremes and hyperbole. Sometimes, exaggerated statements make their way into medical discussions. Statements such as “it doesn’t matter how many calories you consume — it’s all about the quality” are common oversimplifications. But you might be upset to see your name next to a comment like this because it is not actually correct. Check the phrasing of your key takeaways to avoid being stuck defending or explaining an inaccurate statement when your patients ask you about it later. 

Ask the interviewers what they are looking for. Many medical topics have some controversial element, so it is good to know what you’re getting into. Find out the purpose of the article or interview before you decide whether it is right for you. It could be about another doctor in town who is being sued; if you don’t want to be associated with that story, it might be best to decline the interview. 

Explain your goals. You might accept or pursue an interview to raise awareness about an underrecognized condition. You might want the public to identify and get help for early symptoms, or you might want to create empathy for people coping with a disease you treat. Consider why you are participating in an interview, and communicate that to the interviewer to ensure that your objective can be part of the final product. 

Know whom you’re dealing with. It is good to learn about the publication/media channel before you agree to participate. It may have a political bias, or perhaps the interview is intended to promote a specific product. If you agree with and support their purposes, then you may be happy to lend your opinion. But learning about the “voice” of the publication in advance allows you to make an informed decision about whether you want to be identified with a particular political ideology or product endorsement.

Ask to see your quotes before publication. It’s good to have the opportunity to make corrections in case you are accidentally misquoted or misunderstood. It is best to ask to see quotes before you agree to the interview. Some reporters may agree to (or even prefer) a written question-and-answer format so that they can directly quote your responses without rephrasing your words. You could suggest this, especially if you are too busy for a call or live meeting.

As a physician, your insights and advice can be highly beneficial to others. You can also use media interviews to propel your career forward. Doing your homework can ensure that you will be pleased with the final product and how your words were used. 
 

Dr. Moawad, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a physician, you might be contacted by the media to provide your professional opinion and advice. Or you might be looking for media interview opportunities to market your practice or side project. And if you do research, media interviews can be an effective way to spread the word. It’s important to prepare for a media interview so that you achieve the outcome you are looking for. Here are six tips I learned from writing health articles, interviewing experts, and being interviewed myself. 

Keep your message simple. When you are a subject expert, you might think that the basics are obvious or even boring, and that the nuances are more important. However, most of the audience is looking for big-picture information that they can apply to their lives. Consider a few key takeaways, keeping in mind that your interview is likely to be edited to short sound bites or a few quotes. It may help to jot down notes so that you cover the fundamentals clearly. You could even write and rehearse a script beforehand. If there is something complicated or subtle that you want to convey, you can preface it by saying, “This is confusing but very important …” to let the audience know to give extra consideration to what you are about to say.

Avoid extremes and hyperbole. Sometimes, exaggerated statements make their way into medical discussions. Statements such as “it doesn’t matter how many calories you consume — it’s all about the quality” are common oversimplifications. But you might be upset to see your name next to a comment like this because it is not actually correct. Check the phrasing of your key takeaways to avoid being stuck defending or explaining an inaccurate statement when your patients ask you about it later. 

Ask the interviewers what they are looking for. Many medical topics have some controversial element, so it is good to know what you’re getting into. Find out the purpose of the article or interview before you decide whether it is right for you. It could be about another doctor in town who is being sued; if you don’t want to be associated with that story, it might be best to decline the interview. 

Explain your goals. You might accept or pursue an interview to raise awareness about an underrecognized condition. You might want the public to identify and get help for early symptoms, or you might want to create empathy for people coping with a disease you treat. Consider why you are participating in an interview, and communicate that to the interviewer to ensure that your objective can be part of the final product. 

Know whom you’re dealing with. It is good to learn about the publication/media channel before you agree to participate. It may have a political bias, or perhaps the interview is intended to promote a specific product. If you agree with and support their purposes, then you may be happy to lend your opinion. But learning about the “voice” of the publication in advance allows you to make an informed decision about whether you want to be identified with a particular political ideology or product endorsement.

Ask to see your quotes before publication. It’s good to have the opportunity to make corrections in case you are accidentally misquoted or misunderstood. It is best to ask to see quotes before you agree to the interview. Some reporters may agree to (or even prefer) a written question-and-answer format so that they can directly quote your responses without rephrasing your words. You could suggest this, especially if you are too busy for a call or live meeting.

As a physician, your insights and advice can be highly beneficial to others. You can also use media interviews to propel your career forward. Doing your homework can ensure that you will be pleased with the final product and how your words were used. 
 

Dr. Moawad, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a voluntary manufacturer-initiated recall of more than 7000 bottles of duloxetine delayed-release capsules due to unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen.

Duloxetine (Cymbalta) is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor used to treat major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, fibromyalgia, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

The recall is due to the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso duloxetine, above the proposed interim limit.

Nitrosamines are common in water and foods, and exposure to some levels of the chemical is common. Exposure to nitrosamine impurities above acceptable levels and over long periods may increase cancer risk, the FDA reported.

“If drugs contain levels of nitrosamines above the acceptable daily intake limits, FDA recommends these drugs be recalled by the manufacturer as appropriate,” the agency noted on its website.

The recall was initiated by Breckenridge Pharmaceutical and covers 7107 bottles of 500-count, 20 mg duloxetine delayed-release capsules. The drug is manufactured by Towa Pharmaceutical Europe and distributed nationwide by BPI.

The affected bottles are from lot number 220128 with an expiration date of 12/2024 and NDC of 51991-746-05.

The recall was initiated on October 10 and is ongoing.

“Healthcare professionals can educate patients about alternative treatment options to medications with potential nitrosamine impurities if available and clinically appropriate,” the FDA advises. “If a medication has been recalled, pharmacists may be able to dispense the same medication from a manufacturing lot that has not been recalled. Prescribers may also determine whether there is an alternative treatment option for patients.”

The FDA has labeled this a “class II” recall, which the agency defines as “a situation in which use of or exposure to a violative product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote.”

Nitrosamine impurities have prompted a number of drug recalls in recent years, including oral anticoagulants, metformin, and skeletal muscle relaxants.

The impurities may be found in drugs for a number of reasons, the agency reported. The source may be from a drug’s manufacturing process, chemical structure, or the conditions under which it is stored or packaged.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a voluntary manufacturer-initiated recall of more than 7000 bottles of duloxetine delayed-release capsules due to unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen.

Duloxetine (Cymbalta) is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor used to treat major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, fibromyalgia, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

The recall is due to the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso duloxetine, above the proposed interim limit.

Nitrosamines are common in water and foods, and exposure to some levels of the chemical is common. Exposure to nitrosamine impurities above acceptable levels and over long periods may increase cancer risk, the FDA reported.

“If drugs contain levels of nitrosamines above the acceptable daily intake limits, FDA recommends these drugs be recalled by the manufacturer as appropriate,” the agency noted on its website.

The recall was initiated by Breckenridge Pharmaceutical and covers 7107 bottles of 500-count, 20 mg duloxetine delayed-release capsules. The drug is manufactured by Towa Pharmaceutical Europe and distributed nationwide by BPI.

The affected bottles are from lot number 220128 with an expiration date of 12/2024 and NDC of 51991-746-05.

The recall was initiated on October 10 and is ongoing.

“Healthcare professionals can educate patients about alternative treatment options to medications with potential nitrosamine impurities if available and clinically appropriate,” the FDA advises. “If a medication has been recalled, pharmacists may be able to dispense the same medication from a manufacturing lot that has not been recalled. Prescribers may also determine whether there is an alternative treatment option for patients.”

The FDA has labeled this a “class II” recall, which the agency defines as “a situation in which use of or exposure to a violative product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote.”

Nitrosamine impurities have prompted a number of drug recalls in recent years, including oral anticoagulants, metformin, and skeletal muscle relaxants.

The impurities may be found in drugs for a number of reasons, the agency reported. The source may be from a drug’s manufacturing process, chemical structure, or the conditions under which it is stored or packaged.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a voluntary manufacturer-initiated recall of more than 7000 bottles of duloxetine delayed-release capsules due to unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen.

Duloxetine (Cymbalta) is a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor used to treat major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, fibromyalgia, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

The recall is due to the detection of the nitrosamine impurity, N-nitroso duloxetine, above the proposed interim limit.

Nitrosamines are common in water and foods, and exposure to some levels of the chemical is common. Exposure to nitrosamine impurities above acceptable levels and over long periods may increase cancer risk, the FDA reported.

“If drugs contain levels of nitrosamines above the acceptable daily intake limits, FDA recommends these drugs be recalled by the manufacturer as appropriate,” the agency noted on its website.

The recall was initiated by Breckenridge Pharmaceutical and covers 7107 bottles of 500-count, 20 mg duloxetine delayed-release capsules. The drug is manufactured by Towa Pharmaceutical Europe and distributed nationwide by BPI.

The affected bottles are from lot number 220128 with an expiration date of 12/2024 and NDC of 51991-746-05.

The recall was initiated on October 10 and is ongoing.

“Healthcare professionals can educate patients about alternative treatment options to medications with potential nitrosamine impurities if available and clinically appropriate,” the FDA advises. “If a medication has been recalled, pharmacists may be able to dispense the same medication from a manufacturing lot that has not been recalled. Prescribers may also determine whether there is an alternative treatment option for patients.”

The FDA has labeled this a “class II” recall, which the agency defines as “a situation in which use of or exposure to a violative product may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences or where the probability of serious adverse health consequences is remote.”

Nitrosamine impurities have prompted a number of drug recalls in recent years, including oral anticoagulants, metformin, and skeletal muscle relaxants.

The impurities may be found in drugs for a number of reasons, the agency reported. The source may be from a drug’s manufacturing process, chemical structure, or the conditions under which it is stored or packaged.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — There is a lack of understanding among neuromuscular specialists on how to balance the risks for and benefits of corticosteroids when treating patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), results of a US survey showed.

For both MG and CIDP specialists, uncertainty around corticosteroid dosing, duration, and toxicity underscores the need for more guidance, the investigators noted. Over 85% of respondents indicated that a tool for systematically monitoring corticosteroid toxicity would be valuable.

The results indicate “a lack of knowledge by this pool of neurologists about the guidelines and what they contain,” said study investigator Gil Wolfe, MD, professor of neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, in New York.

Clearer guidance on how to administer corticosteroids and manage toxicities in patients with gMG and CIDP “would be welcomed by neurologists and have potential for benefit to patient care,” the team noted.

The findings were presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Lack of Knowledge

Although guidelines for both CIDP and gMG recommend corticosteroids as first-line treatment and emphasize using the lowest effective dose to control symptoms, they do not include specific recommendations on dosing, duration, or toxicity monitoring, the researchers noted.

Despite this, a large proportion of survey respondents reported using guidelines to make clinical decisions on monitoring toxicity, with up to a third actually endorsing a guideline that doesn’t exist.

The cross-sectional, online survey was deployed in November and December 2023 and included 200 US neurologists. Of these, 99 answered questions on CIDP, and 101 answered similar questions on gMG.

To participate in the survey, respondents had to be board-certified neurologists, practicing for at least 2 years post-residency, and have treated or consulted on at least three patients with CIDP or 10 patients with gMG in the past year who were on a corticosteroid dose of at least 10 mg daily for 1 month or more.

CIDP respondents had been practicing a mean of 18.1 years since residency and were board certified in neuromuscular (20%), electrodiagnostic medicine/clinical neurophysiology (21%), and pediatric neurology (8%). Two thirds of them accepted referrals from other neurologists.

The gMG respondents had been practicing a mean of 20.5 years since residency and were board certified in neuromuscular (45%), electrodiagnostic medicine/clinical neurophysiology (35%), and pediatric neurology (17%). A total of 72% accepted referrals from other neurologists.

Respondents estimated that about 60% of their patients with gMG and 58% of patients with CIDP were being treated with corticosteroids, with gMG and CIDP respondents reporting a mean of 26.4 and 15.6 patients, respectively, meeting the study’s dosing criteria.
 

Appropriate Dosing

When asked what chronic, long-term (≥ 6 months) corticosteroid dose they considered safe in terms of minimizing adverse events, 43% of CIDP respondents and 51% of gMG respondents considered corticosteroid doses of 10 mg/d or less (prednisone equivalent) well tolerated; additionally, 32% and 31%, respectively, considered 20-40 mg/d well tolerated. Moreover, they said only about half of their patients would be able to taper to less than 10 mg/d in less than 6 months.

“Studies suggest safety is not seen until patients are on doses at 5 mg/d or less,” Wolfe said. “There is not enough appreciation that doses at levels we once considered safe really do pose significant risk,” he added.

“With the increasing number of treatment options in MG and to a lesser extent in CIDP, we need to do all we can to use corticosteroids as judiciously as possible and be aware of side effects our patients may not even report unless we make a pointed effort to ask about them.”

Familiarity with corticosteroid toxicities was more common among gMG respondents, of whom 77% reported being very/extremely familiar, than among 55% of CIDP respondents. Appetite/weight gain was reported among the most common adverse effects (AEs) associated with long-term CS use (reported by 68% of CIDP and 58% of gMG respondents). Other common AEs reported were insulin resistance (53% of CIDP and 50% of gMG respondents), decreased bone density (47% and 48%, respectively), immunosuppression (37% and 45%, respectively). Mood and behavioral change were noted by 56% of CIDP and 37% of gMG respondents, particularly mood swings, irritability, mania, and sleep disorders.

When asked how they balanced the risk for and benefit of corticosteroids, more than 80% of CIDP specialists reported personally monitoring for corticosteroid-related toxicity, and 42% reported they collaborated with the patient’s primary care provider. However, fewer than 10% reported ordering lab tests. Among neurologists treating gMG, 84% said they typically monitor corticosteroid toxicity independently, while 41% reported doing so in collaboration with primary care providers.

Two thirds of CIDP respondents and 53% of gMG respondents reported using guidelines to make clinical decisions on monitoring toxicity, and 34% of gMG respondents actually endorsed using the Guideline for Systematic Surveillance of Steroid Safety, which does not exist.
 

‘A Big Issue’ in Neurology

Commenting on the results, Said R. Beydoun, MD, professor and division chief, Neuromuscular Medicine, Department of Neurology at Keck Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said steroid toxicity is “a big issue” in neurology.

These patients can be on chronic therapy, and they aren’t really monitored for osteoporosis or other complications, he said, adding that neurologists aren’t always taking the necessary precautions to prevent steroid toxicity.

Beydoun estimated that about half of neurologists are not adequately familiar with balancing the efficacy of corticosteroids versus in toxicity.

“Objective improvement, either on the functional scale or the muscle impairment scale — that’s really response treatment. Whereas adverse effects of a treatment are something separate. The patient may be improving but also maybe developing other complications from the treatment,” he said.

Also commenting, Ghazala Hayat, MD, professor of neurology and director of neuromuscular and clinical neurophysiology services at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, said there is a clear need for more education.

“I always say prednisone is our best friend initially, and then it becomes the worst enemy. If you don’t see lots of neuromuscular patients, you might not know even how to recognize toxicity or how to taper. Or the opposite to that, if you taper too quickly, patients relapse.”

The study was funded by argenx. Wolfe reported serving on advisory boards for Alexion, argenx, UCB, and Johnson & Johnson. Neelam Goyal, MD, is a consultant/advisor for Alexion, argenx, Amgen, Janssen, Lycia Therapeutics, and UCB and has received grant support from argenx. Beydoun reported receiving research support and consulting and speaking fees from Healey Center, Amylyx, AB Science, Sanofi, Janssen, Genentech, Regeneron, UCB, Abcuro argenx, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Amylyx, CSL Behring, Grifols, Takeda, Octapharma, UCB, and Janssen. Hayat reported speaker and advisory roles with argenx, Alexion, and MTPA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — There is a lack of understanding among neuromuscular specialists on how to balance the risks for and benefits of corticosteroids when treating patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), results of a US survey showed.

For both MG and CIDP specialists, uncertainty around corticosteroid dosing, duration, and toxicity underscores the need for more guidance, the investigators noted. Over 85% of respondents indicated that a tool for systematically monitoring corticosteroid toxicity would be valuable.

The results indicate “a lack of knowledge by this pool of neurologists about the guidelines and what they contain,” said study investigator Gil Wolfe, MD, professor of neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, in New York.

Clearer guidance on how to administer corticosteroids and manage toxicities in patients with gMG and CIDP “would be welcomed by neurologists and have potential for benefit to patient care,” the team noted.

The findings were presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Lack of Knowledge

Although guidelines for both CIDP and gMG recommend corticosteroids as first-line treatment and emphasize using the lowest effective dose to control symptoms, they do not include specific recommendations on dosing, duration, or toxicity monitoring, the researchers noted.

Despite this, a large proportion of survey respondents reported using guidelines to make clinical decisions on monitoring toxicity, with up to a third actually endorsing a guideline that doesn’t exist.

The cross-sectional, online survey was deployed in November and December 2023 and included 200 US neurologists. Of these, 99 answered questions on CIDP, and 101 answered similar questions on gMG.

To participate in the survey, respondents had to be board-certified neurologists, practicing for at least 2 years post-residency, and have treated or consulted on at least three patients with CIDP or 10 patients with gMG in the past year who were on a corticosteroid dose of at least 10 mg daily for 1 month or more.

CIDP respondents had been practicing a mean of 18.1 years since residency and were board certified in neuromuscular (20%), electrodiagnostic medicine/clinical neurophysiology (21%), and pediatric neurology (8%). Two thirds of them accepted referrals from other neurologists.

The gMG respondents had been practicing a mean of 20.5 years since residency and were board certified in neuromuscular (45%), electrodiagnostic medicine/clinical neurophysiology (35%), and pediatric neurology (17%). A total of 72% accepted referrals from other neurologists.

Respondents estimated that about 60% of their patients with gMG and 58% of patients with CIDP were being treated with corticosteroids, with gMG and CIDP respondents reporting a mean of 26.4 and 15.6 patients, respectively, meeting the study’s dosing criteria.
 

Appropriate Dosing

When asked what chronic, long-term (≥ 6 months) corticosteroid dose they considered safe in terms of minimizing adverse events, 43% of CIDP respondents and 51% of gMG respondents considered corticosteroid doses of 10 mg/d or less (prednisone equivalent) well tolerated; additionally, 32% and 31%, respectively, considered 20-40 mg/d well tolerated. Moreover, they said only about half of their patients would be able to taper to less than 10 mg/d in less than 6 months.

“Studies suggest safety is not seen until patients are on doses at 5 mg/d or less,” Wolfe said. “There is not enough appreciation that doses at levels we once considered safe really do pose significant risk,” he added.

“With the increasing number of treatment options in MG and to a lesser extent in CIDP, we need to do all we can to use corticosteroids as judiciously as possible and be aware of side effects our patients may not even report unless we make a pointed effort to ask about them.”

Familiarity with corticosteroid toxicities was more common among gMG respondents, of whom 77% reported being very/extremely familiar, than among 55% of CIDP respondents. Appetite/weight gain was reported among the most common adverse effects (AEs) associated with long-term CS use (reported by 68% of CIDP and 58% of gMG respondents). Other common AEs reported were insulin resistance (53% of CIDP and 50% of gMG respondents), decreased bone density (47% and 48%, respectively), immunosuppression (37% and 45%, respectively). Mood and behavioral change were noted by 56% of CIDP and 37% of gMG respondents, particularly mood swings, irritability, mania, and sleep disorders.

When asked how they balanced the risk for and benefit of corticosteroids, more than 80% of CIDP specialists reported personally monitoring for corticosteroid-related toxicity, and 42% reported they collaborated with the patient’s primary care provider. However, fewer than 10% reported ordering lab tests. Among neurologists treating gMG, 84% said they typically monitor corticosteroid toxicity independently, while 41% reported doing so in collaboration with primary care providers.

Two thirds of CIDP respondents and 53% of gMG respondents reported using guidelines to make clinical decisions on monitoring toxicity, and 34% of gMG respondents actually endorsed using the Guideline for Systematic Surveillance of Steroid Safety, which does not exist.
 

‘A Big Issue’ in Neurology

Commenting on the results, Said R. Beydoun, MD, professor and division chief, Neuromuscular Medicine, Department of Neurology at Keck Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said steroid toxicity is “a big issue” in neurology.

These patients can be on chronic therapy, and they aren’t really monitored for osteoporosis or other complications, he said, adding that neurologists aren’t always taking the necessary precautions to prevent steroid toxicity.

Beydoun estimated that about half of neurologists are not adequately familiar with balancing the efficacy of corticosteroids versus in toxicity.

“Objective improvement, either on the functional scale or the muscle impairment scale — that’s really response treatment. Whereas adverse effects of a treatment are something separate. The patient may be improving but also maybe developing other complications from the treatment,” he said.

Also commenting, Ghazala Hayat, MD, professor of neurology and director of neuromuscular and clinical neurophysiology services at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, said there is a clear need for more education.

“I always say prednisone is our best friend initially, and then it becomes the worst enemy. If you don’t see lots of neuromuscular patients, you might not know even how to recognize toxicity or how to taper. Or the opposite to that, if you taper too quickly, patients relapse.”

The study was funded by argenx. Wolfe reported serving on advisory boards for Alexion, argenx, UCB, and Johnson & Johnson. Neelam Goyal, MD, is a consultant/advisor for Alexion, argenx, Amgen, Janssen, Lycia Therapeutics, and UCB and has received grant support from argenx. Beydoun reported receiving research support and consulting and speaking fees from Healey Center, Amylyx, AB Science, Sanofi, Janssen, Genentech, Regeneron, UCB, Abcuro argenx, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Amylyx, CSL Behring, Grifols, Takeda, Octapharma, UCB, and Janssen. Hayat reported speaker and advisory roles with argenx, Alexion, and MTPA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — There is a lack of understanding among neuromuscular specialists on how to balance the risks for and benefits of corticosteroids when treating patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), results of a US survey showed.

For both MG and CIDP specialists, uncertainty around corticosteroid dosing, duration, and toxicity underscores the need for more guidance, the investigators noted. Over 85% of respondents indicated that a tool for systematically monitoring corticosteroid toxicity would be valuable.

The results indicate “a lack of knowledge by this pool of neurologists about the guidelines and what they contain,” said study investigator Gil Wolfe, MD, professor of neurology at the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, in New York.

Clearer guidance on how to administer corticosteroids and manage toxicities in patients with gMG and CIDP “would be welcomed by neurologists and have potential for benefit to patient care,” the team noted.

The findings were presented at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Lack of Knowledge

Although guidelines for both CIDP and gMG recommend corticosteroids as first-line treatment and emphasize using the lowest effective dose to control symptoms, they do not include specific recommendations on dosing, duration, or toxicity monitoring, the researchers noted.

Despite this, a large proportion of survey respondents reported using guidelines to make clinical decisions on monitoring toxicity, with up to a third actually endorsing a guideline that doesn’t exist.

The cross-sectional, online survey was deployed in November and December 2023 and included 200 US neurologists. Of these, 99 answered questions on CIDP, and 101 answered similar questions on gMG.

To participate in the survey, respondents had to be board-certified neurologists, practicing for at least 2 years post-residency, and have treated or consulted on at least three patients with CIDP or 10 patients with gMG in the past year who were on a corticosteroid dose of at least 10 mg daily for 1 month or more.

CIDP respondents had been practicing a mean of 18.1 years since residency and were board certified in neuromuscular (20%), electrodiagnostic medicine/clinical neurophysiology (21%), and pediatric neurology (8%). Two thirds of them accepted referrals from other neurologists.

The gMG respondents had been practicing a mean of 20.5 years since residency and were board certified in neuromuscular (45%), electrodiagnostic medicine/clinical neurophysiology (35%), and pediatric neurology (17%). A total of 72% accepted referrals from other neurologists.

Respondents estimated that about 60% of their patients with gMG and 58% of patients with CIDP were being treated with corticosteroids, with gMG and CIDP respondents reporting a mean of 26.4 and 15.6 patients, respectively, meeting the study’s dosing criteria.
 

Appropriate Dosing

When asked what chronic, long-term (≥ 6 months) corticosteroid dose they considered safe in terms of minimizing adverse events, 43% of CIDP respondents and 51% of gMG respondents considered corticosteroid doses of 10 mg/d or less (prednisone equivalent) well tolerated; additionally, 32% and 31%, respectively, considered 20-40 mg/d well tolerated. Moreover, they said only about half of their patients would be able to taper to less than 10 mg/d in less than 6 months.

“Studies suggest safety is not seen until patients are on doses at 5 mg/d or less,” Wolfe said. “There is not enough appreciation that doses at levels we once considered safe really do pose significant risk,” he added.

“With the increasing number of treatment options in MG and to a lesser extent in CIDP, we need to do all we can to use corticosteroids as judiciously as possible and be aware of side effects our patients may not even report unless we make a pointed effort to ask about them.”

Familiarity with corticosteroid toxicities was more common among gMG respondents, of whom 77% reported being very/extremely familiar, than among 55% of CIDP respondents. Appetite/weight gain was reported among the most common adverse effects (AEs) associated with long-term CS use (reported by 68% of CIDP and 58% of gMG respondents). Other common AEs reported were insulin resistance (53% of CIDP and 50% of gMG respondents), decreased bone density (47% and 48%, respectively), immunosuppression (37% and 45%, respectively). Mood and behavioral change were noted by 56% of CIDP and 37% of gMG respondents, particularly mood swings, irritability, mania, and sleep disorders.

When asked how they balanced the risk for and benefit of corticosteroids, more than 80% of CIDP specialists reported personally monitoring for corticosteroid-related toxicity, and 42% reported they collaborated with the patient’s primary care provider. However, fewer than 10% reported ordering lab tests. Among neurologists treating gMG, 84% said they typically monitor corticosteroid toxicity independently, while 41% reported doing so in collaboration with primary care providers.

Two thirds of CIDP respondents and 53% of gMG respondents reported using guidelines to make clinical decisions on monitoring toxicity, and 34% of gMG respondents actually endorsed using the Guideline for Systematic Surveillance of Steroid Safety, which does not exist.
 

‘A Big Issue’ in Neurology

Commenting on the results, Said R. Beydoun, MD, professor and division chief, Neuromuscular Medicine, Department of Neurology at Keck Medicine of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said steroid toxicity is “a big issue” in neurology.

These patients can be on chronic therapy, and they aren’t really monitored for osteoporosis or other complications, he said, adding that neurologists aren’t always taking the necessary precautions to prevent steroid toxicity.

Beydoun estimated that about half of neurologists are not adequately familiar with balancing the efficacy of corticosteroids versus in toxicity.

“Objective improvement, either on the functional scale or the muscle impairment scale — that’s really response treatment. Whereas adverse effects of a treatment are something separate. The patient may be improving but also maybe developing other complications from the treatment,” he said.

Also commenting, Ghazala Hayat, MD, professor of neurology and director of neuromuscular and clinical neurophysiology services at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, said there is a clear need for more education.

“I always say prednisone is our best friend initially, and then it becomes the worst enemy. If you don’t see lots of neuromuscular patients, you might not know even how to recognize toxicity or how to taper. Or the opposite to that, if you taper too quickly, patients relapse.”

The study was funded by argenx. Wolfe reported serving on advisory boards for Alexion, argenx, UCB, and Johnson & Johnson. Neelam Goyal, MD, is a consultant/advisor for Alexion, argenx, Amgen, Janssen, Lycia Therapeutics, and UCB and has received grant support from argenx. Beydoun reported receiving research support and consulting and speaking fees from Healey Center, Amylyx, AB Science, Sanofi, Janssen, Genentech, Regeneron, UCB, Abcuro argenx, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Amylyx, CSL Behring, Grifols, Takeda, Octapharma, UCB, and Janssen. Hayat reported speaker and advisory roles with argenx, Alexion, and MTPA.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Teamwork and transdisciplinary collaboration create an effective system of care for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), ensuring improved health both for patients and clinicians alike, said one expert.

In a plenary address at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024, Ileana Howard, MD, medical co-director of the ALS Center of Excellence at VA Puget Sound in Seattle, said the recently released National Academies report “Living with ALS” cited the Veterans Administration as “a bright spot in the landscape of ALS care due to its interdisciplinary, holistic, and proactive approach to care.”

Since the early 2000s and the publication of several studies linking active military service with ALS, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has opened an ALS registry, a tissue and brain biobank, and in 2008, granted 100% presumptive service connection to any individual who served more than 90 days of active duty and was later diagnosed with ALS, she said.

“We now serve approximately 4000 veterans with ALS across the system, and we count 47 full interdisciplinary clinics within VA across the nation, with ALS coordinators designated for all 170 VA facilities, regardless of whether they had an ALS clinic or not, to serve as a navigator for patients and their families, to identify the closest ALS clinic that could meet their needs.” 
 

Multidisciplinary vs Interdisciplinary

Howard emphasized that transdisciplinary collaboration is essential for maintaining an effective system. She pointed out that the term “multidisciplinary” is outdated, referring to teams that work independently but in parallel on the same issue.

In contrast, interdisciplinary teams integrate their assessments into a cohesive plan of care, whereas transdisciplinary teams take it further by combining both their assessments and care plans, allowing for greater intentional overlap.

The VA’s ALS handbook lists approximately 20 essential clinicians for a VA ALS clinic, including recreation therapists, assistive technology specialists, and veteran benefit service officers to assist with disability benefits application, among others, she said.

Essential to this collaboration is “role release,” which deliberately blurs the boundaries between disciplines. “The future of our specialty hinges on effective and selfless collaboration,” she said.

Howard encouraged ALS healthcare providers to move away from outdated terminology rooted in hierarchical team models and to break down silos that no longer benefit either the patients or the care teams.

She noted that while teamwork can enhance patient outcomes and overall health, it has also been associated with better health among healthcare providers. It’s well-known, she said, that neurologists and physiatrists are among the specialties with the highest burnout rates, and ALS teams, in particular, experience significant stress and burnout.
 

Better Together

A recent Canadian study on resiliency and burnout in ALS clinics surveyed a wide range of practitioners within ALS centers and found respondents drew resiliency through relationships with patients and colleagues, and that there was a strongly expressed desire for increased resources, team building/debriefing, and formal training in emotional exhaustion and burnout.

“A consistent theme was the lack of adequate allied health support (nursing, social work, occupational therapy) to address the complex needs of patients,” said the report’s senior author Kerri Lynn Schellenberg, MD, medical director of the ALS/Motor Neuron Diseases clinic and associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

“The majority of participants felt they would benefit from more consistent team building exercises and debriefing,” noted the authors.

Schellenberg agreed, emphasizing that care teams perform best when there is mutual appreciation and support among members. By learning from one another and reaching consensus together, the care plan benefits from the collective expertise of the team. “We are stronger together,” she said.

Howard and Schellenberg reported no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Teamwork and transdisciplinary collaboration create an effective system of care for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), ensuring improved health both for patients and clinicians alike, said one expert.

In a plenary address at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024, Ileana Howard, MD, medical co-director of the ALS Center of Excellence at VA Puget Sound in Seattle, said the recently released National Academies report “Living with ALS” cited the Veterans Administration as “a bright spot in the landscape of ALS care due to its interdisciplinary, holistic, and proactive approach to care.”

Since the early 2000s and the publication of several studies linking active military service with ALS, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has opened an ALS registry, a tissue and brain biobank, and in 2008, granted 100% presumptive service connection to any individual who served more than 90 days of active duty and was later diagnosed with ALS, she said.

“We now serve approximately 4000 veterans with ALS across the system, and we count 47 full interdisciplinary clinics within VA across the nation, with ALS coordinators designated for all 170 VA facilities, regardless of whether they had an ALS clinic or not, to serve as a navigator for patients and their families, to identify the closest ALS clinic that could meet their needs.” 
 

Multidisciplinary vs Interdisciplinary

Howard emphasized that transdisciplinary collaboration is essential for maintaining an effective system. She pointed out that the term “multidisciplinary” is outdated, referring to teams that work independently but in parallel on the same issue.

In contrast, interdisciplinary teams integrate their assessments into a cohesive plan of care, whereas transdisciplinary teams take it further by combining both their assessments and care plans, allowing for greater intentional overlap.

The VA’s ALS handbook lists approximately 20 essential clinicians for a VA ALS clinic, including recreation therapists, assistive technology specialists, and veteran benefit service officers to assist with disability benefits application, among others, she said.

Essential to this collaboration is “role release,” which deliberately blurs the boundaries between disciplines. “The future of our specialty hinges on effective and selfless collaboration,” she said.

Howard encouraged ALS healthcare providers to move away from outdated terminology rooted in hierarchical team models and to break down silos that no longer benefit either the patients or the care teams.

She noted that while teamwork can enhance patient outcomes and overall health, it has also been associated with better health among healthcare providers. It’s well-known, she said, that neurologists and physiatrists are among the specialties with the highest burnout rates, and ALS teams, in particular, experience significant stress and burnout.
 

Better Together

A recent Canadian study on resiliency and burnout in ALS clinics surveyed a wide range of practitioners within ALS centers and found respondents drew resiliency through relationships with patients and colleagues, and that there was a strongly expressed desire for increased resources, team building/debriefing, and formal training in emotional exhaustion and burnout.

“A consistent theme was the lack of adequate allied health support (nursing, social work, occupational therapy) to address the complex needs of patients,” said the report’s senior author Kerri Lynn Schellenberg, MD, medical director of the ALS/Motor Neuron Diseases clinic and associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

“The majority of participants felt they would benefit from more consistent team building exercises and debriefing,” noted the authors.

Schellenberg agreed, emphasizing that care teams perform best when there is mutual appreciation and support among members. By learning from one another and reaching consensus together, the care plan benefits from the collective expertise of the team. “We are stronger together,” she said.

Howard and Schellenberg reported no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — Teamwork and transdisciplinary collaboration create an effective system of care for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), ensuring improved health both for patients and clinicians alike, said one expert.

In a plenary address at the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024, Ileana Howard, MD, medical co-director of the ALS Center of Excellence at VA Puget Sound in Seattle, said the recently released National Academies report “Living with ALS” cited the Veterans Administration as “a bright spot in the landscape of ALS care due to its interdisciplinary, holistic, and proactive approach to care.”

Since the early 2000s and the publication of several studies linking active military service with ALS, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has opened an ALS registry, a tissue and brain biobank, and in 2008, granted 100% presumptive service connection to any individual who served more than 90 days of active duty and was later diagnosed with ALS, she said.

“We now serve approximately 4000 veterans with ALS across the system, and we count 47 full interdisciplinary clinics within VA across the nation, with ALS coordinators designated for all 170 VA facilities, regardless of whether they had an ALS clinic or not, to serve as a navigator for patients and their families, to identify the closest ALS clinic that could meet their needs.” 
 

Multidisciplinary vs Interdisciplinary

Howard emphasized that transdisciplinary collaboration is essential for maintaining an effective system. She pointed out that the term “multidisciplinary” is outdated, referring to teams that work independently but in parallel on the same issue.

In contrast, interdisciplinary teams integrate their assessments into a cohesive plan of care, whereas transdisciplinary teams take it further by combining both their assessments and care plans, allowing for greater intentional overlap.

The VA’s ALS handbook lists approximately 20 essential clinicians for a VA ALS clinic, including recreation therapists, assistive technology specialists, and veteran benefit service officers to assist with disability benefits application, among others, she said.

Essential to this collaboration is “role release,” which deliberately blurs the boundaries between disciplines. “The future of our specialty hinges on effective and selfless collaboration,” she said.

Howard encouraged ALS healthcare providers to move away from outdated terminology rooted in hierarchical team models and to break down silos that no longer benefit either the patients or the care teams.

She noted that while teamwork can enhance patient outcomes and overall health, it has also been associated with better health among healthcare providers. It’s well-known, she said, that neurologists and physiatrists are among the specialties with the highest burnout rates, and ALS teams, in particular, experience significant stress and burnout.
 

Better Together

A recent Canadian study on resiliency and burnout in ALS clinics surveyed a wide range of practitioners within ALS centers and found respondents drew resiliency through relationships with patients and colleagues, and that there was a strongly expressed desire for increased resources, team building/debriefing, and formal training in emotional exhaustion and burnout.

“A consistent theme was the lack of adequate allied health support (nursing, social work, occupational therapy) to address the complex needs of patients,” said the report’s senior author Kerri Lynn Schellenberg, MD, medical director of the ALS/Motor Neuron Diseases clinic and associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

“The majority of participants felt they would benefit from more consistent team building exercises and debriefing,” noted the authors.

Schellenberg agreed, emphasizing that care teams perform best when there is mutual appreciation and support among members. By learning from one another and reaching consensus together, the care plan benefits from the collective expertise of the team. “We are stronger together,” she said.

Howard and Schellenberg reported no disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — A digital tool to help neurologists assess steroid toxicity in patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) demonstrated sensitivity in distinguishing between different doses and durations of steroid exposure in a retrospective, real-world study.

The Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index-Metabolic Domains (GTI-MD), an abbreviated version of the GTI (Steritas), used weighted, standardized clinical outcome assessments to calculate steroid toxicity using a de-identified electronic health record (EHR) dataset.

“The results of our study indicate that patients with MG who initiated steroids demonstrated evidence of steroid toxicity in as little as 90 days after initial exposure, which was significant for patients with 20+ mg at index with repeated use,” noted study investigators, led by Neelam Goyal, MD, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California.

The findings were presented at American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Rapid Evidence of Toxicity

The GTI uses nine health domains to calculate steroid toxicity scores, and the GTI-MD, which has been shown to be closely correlated, uses four domains collected routinely in clinical practice: Body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and lipid metabolism.

The study used the Optum EHR dataset to identify 682 adult patients with MG, mean age of 70 years, 38% women, with at least two confirmed diagnoses of MG between 30 and 730 days apart and information on steroid utilization.

Patients were divided into two groups: Steroid initiators (SI; n = 377) were those whose steroid use was already in progress at the index date, whereas steroid-naive (SN) patients (n = 305) began their steroid use at the index date. Among the SI group, 30% were on doses greater than 20 mg/d and 22% were on lower doses. Among the SN group, 22% were on doses greater than 20 mg/d and 26% were on lower doses.

As expected, mean GTI-MD scores measured 90 days after the index date were higher in the SI group than in the SN group, indicating a higher level of steroid toxicity in the SI group. This was measured with two subscores of the GTI-MD: The Cumulative Worsening Score (22.6 vs 18.7; P = .007) and the Aggregate Improvement Score (4.9 vs 1.9; P = .27), the latter incorporating resolved toxicities resulting from the introduction of steroid-sparing agents.

The authors commented that scores were higher in the SN group than expected, “which could be explained by age, previous steroid exposure, comorbidities, and side effects from other medications.” However, they concluded that the findings suggest utility of the tool retrospectively, with EHR data.
 

Clinical Application

The GTI and related measurements are proprietary tools and therefore not readily available to all clinicians, noted Marie Beaudin, MD, another neurologist at Stanford University School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research.

In a separate, observational, ongoing study, Beaudin and Goyal’s team are examining the use of the tool prospectively for following the steroid toxicity burden in 50 patients with MG and correlating it with MG outcomes measured using the MG-Activities of Daily Living, MG Composite, and MG-Quality of Life 15R validated scales, as well as the adverse event unit.

“The objective of this study is to quantify the burden of toxicity that our patients are having from glucocorticoids, see how sensitive to change the scale is as their dosage of prednisone changes, and explore the correlations between the score and their disease outcome measures,” Beaudin said.

Unlike the abbreviated GTI-MD, the GTI measures nine domains: Bone mineral density, BMI, lipid metabolism, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, myopathy, skin toxicity, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and infections.

The score involves actively prompting and examining the patient, making it quite comprehensive. Beaudin said the study has revealed interesting insights into how patients report their side effects. When asked broadly about steroid-related side effects, many patients mention issues like weight or skin issues.

However, she noted, when prompted specifically about symptoms like insomnia, irritability, depression, or cognitive changes, there was an unexpected increase in positive responses, as patients are often unaware these could be side effects. This suggests the study may capture a greater burden than originally anticipated, said Beaudin.

She added that the long-term utility of the GTI score might be to help clinicians predict steroid toxicity and guide management.

“Then we would get more aggressive in trying to wean or taper patients. But these are often complicated cases because as soon as we taper, the disease flares. It’s a difficult decision whether to reduce the dosage of prednisone because toxicity burden is high, when disease burden is high too, and that’s where other medications can come into play.”

For example, she said, for insurance coverage, a high steroid toxicity score could justify the need to initiate more expensive steroid-sparing agents.

Both studies were funded by argenx. Goyal reported that she has consulted and received grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen argenx. Beaudin is supported by a McLaughlin Scholarship from Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — A digital tool to help neurologists assess steroid toxicity in patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) demonstrated sensitivity in distinguishing between different doses and durations of steroid exposure in a retrospective, real-world study.

The Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index-Metabolic Domains (GTI-MD), an abbreviated version of the GTI (Steritas), used weighted, standardized clinical outcome assessments to calculate steroid toxicity using a de-identified electronic health record (EHR) dataset.

“The results of our study indicate that patients with MG who initiated steroids demonstrated evidence of steroid toxicity in as little as 90 days after initial exposure, which was significant for patients with 20+ mg at index with repeated use,” noted study investigators, led by Neelam Goyal, MD, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California.

The findings were presented at American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Rapid Evidence of Toxicity

The GTI uses nine health domains to calculate steroid toxicity scores, and the GTI-MD, which has been shown to be closely correlated, uses four domains collected routinely in clinical practice: Body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and lipid metabolism.

The study used the Optum EHR dataset to identify 682 adult patients with MG, mean age of 70 years, 38% women, with at least two confirmed diagnoses of MG between 30 and 730 days apart and information on steroid utilization.

Patients were divided into two groups: Steroid initiators (SI; n = 377) were those whose steroid use was already in progress at the index date, whereas steroid-naive (SN) patients (n = 305) began their steroid use at the index date. Among the SI group, 30% were on doses greater than 20 mg/d and 22% were on lower doses. Among the SN group, 22% were on doses greater than 20 mg/d and 26% were on lower doses.

As expected, mean GTI-MD scores measured 90 days after the index date were higher in the SI group than in the SN group, indicating a higher level of steroid toxicity in the SI group. This was measured with two subscores of the GTI-MD: The Cumulative Worsening Score (22.6 vs 18.7; P = .007) and the Aggregate Improvement Score (4.9 vs 1.9; P = .27), the latter incorporating resolved toxicities resulting from the introduction of steroid-sparing agents.

The authors commented that scores were higher in the SN group than expected, “which could be explained by age, previous steroid exposure, comorbidities, and side effects from other medications.” However, they concluded that the findings suggest utility of the tool retrospectively, with EHR data.
 

Clinical Application

The GTI and related measurements are proprietary tools and therefore not readily available to all clinicians, noted Marie Beaudin, MD, another neurologist at Stanford University School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research.

In a separate, observational, ongoing study, Beaudin and Goyal’s team are examining the use of the tool prospectively for following the steroid toxicity burden in 50 patients with MG and correlating it with MG outcomes measured using the MG-Activities of Daily Living, MG Composite, and MG-Quality of Life 15R validated scales, as well as the adverse event unit.

“The objective of this study is to quantify the burden of toxicity that our patients are having from glucocorticoids, see how sensitive to change the scale is as their dosage of prednisone changes, and explore the correlations between the score and their disease outcome measures,” Beaudin said.

Unlike the abbreviated GTI-MD, the GTI measures nine domains: Bone mineral density, BMI, lipid metabolism, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, myopathy, skin toxicity, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and infections.

The score involves actively prompting and examining the patient, making it quite comprehensive. Beaudin said the study has revealed interesting insights into how patients report their side effects. When asked broadly about steroid-related side effects, many patients mention issues like weight or skin issues.

However, she noted, when prompted specifically about symptoms like insomnia, irritability, depression, or cognitive changes, there was an unexpected increase in positive responses, as patients are often unaware these could be side effects. This suggests the study may capture a greater burden than originally anticipated, said Beaudin.

She added that the long-term utility of the GTI score might be to help clinicians predict steroid toxicity and guide management.

“Then we would get more aggressive in trying to wean or taper patients. But these are often complicated cases because as soon as we taper, the disease flares. It’s a difficult decision whether to reduce the dosage of prednisone because toxicity burden is high, when disease burden is high too, and that’s where other medications can come into play.”

For example, she said, for insurance coverage, a high steroid toxicity score could justify the need to initiate more expensive steroid-sparing agents.

Both studies were funded by argenx. Goyal reported that she has consulted and received grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen argenx. Beaudin is supported by a McLaughlin Scholarship from Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA — A digital tool to help neurologists assess steroid toxicity in patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) demonstrated sensitivity in distinguishing between different doses and durations of steroid exposure in a retrospective, real-world study.

The Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index-Metabolic Domains (GTI-MD), an abbreviated version of the GTI (Steritas), used weighted, standardized clinical outcome assessments to calculate steroid toxicity using a de-identified electronic health record (EHR) dataset.

“The results of our study indicate that patients with MG who initiated steroids demonstrated evidence of steroid toxicity in as little as 90 days after initial exposure, which was significant for patients with 20+ mg at index with repeated use,” noted study investigators, led by Neelam Goyal, MD, clinical professor of neurology and neurological sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California.

The findings were presented at American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) 2024.
 

Rapid Evidence of Toxicity

The GTI uses nine health domains to calculate steroid toxicity scores, and the GTI-MD, which has been shown to be closely correlated, uses four domains collected routinely in clinical practice: Body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and lipid metabolism.

The study used the Optum EHR dataset to identify 682 adult patients with MG, mean age of 70 years, 38% women, with at least two confirmed diagnoses of MG between 30 and 730 days apart and information on steroid utilization.

Patients were divided into two groups: Steroid initiators (SI; n = 377) were those whose steroid use was already in progress at the index date, whereas steroid-naive (SN) patients (n = 305) began their steroid use at the index date. Among the SI group, 30% were on doses greater than 20 mg/d and 22% were on lower doses. Among the SN group, 22% were on doses greater than 20 mg/d and 26% were on lower doses.

As expected, mean GTI-MD scores measured 90 days after the index date were higher in the SI group than in the SN group, indicating a higher level of steroid toxicity in the SI group. This was measured with two subscores of the GTI-MD: The Cumulative Worsening Score (22.6 vs 18.7; P = .007) and the Aggregate Improvement Score (4.9 vs 1.9; P = .27), the latter incorporating resolved toxicities resulting from the introduction of steroid-sparing agents.

The authors commented that scores were higher in the SN group than expected, “which could be explained by age, previous steroid exposure, comorbidities, and side effects from other medications.” However, they concluded that the findings suggest utility of the tool retrospectively, with EHR data.
 

Clinical Application

The GTI and related measurements are proprietary tools and therefore not readily available to all clinicians, noted Marie Beaudin, MD, another neurologist at Stanford University School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research.

In a separate, observational, ongoing study, Beaudin and Goyal’s team are examining the use of the tool prospectively for following the steroid toxicity burden in 50 patients with MG and correlating it with MG outcomes measured using the MG-Activities of Daily Living, MG Composite, and MG-Quality of Life 15R validated scales, as well as the adverse event unit.

“The objective of this study is to quantify the burden of toxicity that our patients are having from glucocorticoids, see how sensitive to change the scale is as their dosage of prednisone changes, and explore the correlations between the score and their disease outcome measures,” Beaudin said.

Unlike the abbreviated GTI-MD, the GTI measures nine domains: Bone mineral density, BMI, lipid metabolism, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, myopathy, skin toxicity, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and infections.

The score involves actively prompting and examining the patient, making it quite comprehensive. Beaudin said the study has revealed interesting insights into how patients report their side effects. When asked broadly about steroid-related side effects, many patients mention issues like weight or skin issues.

However, she noted, when prompted specifically about symptoms like insomnia, irritability, depression, or cognitive changes, there was an unexpected increase in positive responses, as patients are often unaware these could be side effects. This suggests the study may capture a greater burden than originally anticipated, said Beaudin.

She added that the long-term utility of the GTI score might be to help clinicians predict steroid toxicity and guide management.

“Then we would get more aggressive in trying to wean or taper patients. But these are often complicated cases because as soon as we taper, the disease flares. It’s a difficult decision whether to reduce the dosage of prednisone because toxicity burden is high, when disease burden is high too, and that’s where other medications can come into play.”

For example, she said, for insurance coverage, a high steroid toxicity score could justify the need to initiate more expensive steroid-sparing agents.

Both studies were funded by argenx. Goyal reported that she has consulted and received grant support from argenx, UCB, Alexion, and Janssen argenx. Beaudin is supported by a McLaughlin Scholarship from Laval University, Quebec, Canada.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study provides real-world evidence to support the potential repurposing of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), used to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity, for prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.

Adults with type 2 diabetes who were prescribed the GLP-1 RA semaglutide had a significantly lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease compared with their peers who were prescribed any of seven other antidiabetic medications, including other types of GLP-1 receptor–targeting medications. 

“These findings support further clinical trials to assess semaglutide’s potential in delaying or preventing Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote the investigators, led by Rong Xu, PhD, with Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio. 

The study was published online on October 24 in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Real-World Data

Semaglutide has shown neuroprotective effects in animal models of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. In animal models of Alzheimer’s disease, the drug reduced beta-amyloid deposition and improved spatial learning and memory, as well as glucose metabolism in the brain. 

In a real-world analysis, Xu and colleagues used electronic health record data to identify 17,104 new users of semaglutide and 1,077,657 new users of seven other antidiabetic medications, including other GLP-1 RAs, insulin, metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, sulfonylurea, and thiazolidinedione.

Over 3 years, treatment with semaglutide was associated with significantly reduced risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, most strongly compared with insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33) and most weakly compared with other GLP-1 RAs (HR, 0.59). 

Compared with the other medications, semaglutide was associated with a 40%-70% reduced risk for first-time diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease in patients with type 2 diabetes, with similar reductions seen across obesity status and gender and age groups, the authors reported. 

The findings align with recent evidence suggesting GLP-1 RAs may protect cognitive function. 

For example, as previously reported, in the phase 2b ELAD clinical trial, adults with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease taking the GLP-1 RA liraglutide exhibited slower decline in memory and thinking and experienced less brain atrophy over 12 months compared with placebo. 
 

Promising, but Preliminary 

Reached for comment, Courtney Kloske, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific engagement, noted that diabetes is a known risk factor for AD and managing diabetes with drugs such as semaglutide “could benefit brain health simply by managing diabetes.”

“However, we still need large clinical trials in representative populations to determine if semaglutide specifically lowers the risk of Alzheimer’s, so it is too early to recommend it for prevention,” Kloske said. 

She noted that some research suggests that GLP-1 RAs “may help reduce inflammation and positively impact brain energy use. However, more research is needed to fully understand how these processes might contribute to preventing cognitive decline or Alzheimer’s,” Kloske cautioned. 

The Alzheimer’s Association’s “Part the Cloud” initiative has invested more than $68 million to advance 65 clinical trials targeting a variety of compounds, including repurposed drugs that may address known and potential new aspects of the disease, Kloske said. 

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Xu and Kloske have no relevant conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study provides real-world evidence to support the potential repurposing of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), used to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity, for prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.

Adults with type 2 diabetes who were prescribed the GLP-1 RA semaglutide had a significantly lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease compared with their peers who were prescribed any of seven other antidiabetic medications, including other types of GLP-1 receptor–targeting medications. 

“These findings support further clinical trials to assess semaglutide’s potential in delaying or preventing Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote the investigators, led by Rong Xu, PhD, with Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio. 

The study was published online on October 24 in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Real-World Data

Semaglutide has shown neuroprotective effects in animal models of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. In animal models of Alzheimer’s disease, the drug reduced beta-amyloid deposition and improved spatial learning and memory, as well as glucose metabolism in the brain. 

In a real-world analysis, Xu and colleagues used electronic health record data to identify 17,104 new users of semaglutide and 1,077,657 new users of seven other antidiabetic medications, including other GLP-1 RAs, insulin, metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, sulfonylurea, and thiazolidinedione.

Over 3 years, treatment with semaglutide was associated with significantly reduced risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, most strongly compared with insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33) and most weakly compared with other GLP-1 RAs (HR, 0.59). 

Compared with the other medications, semaglutide was associated with a 40%-70% reduced risk for first-time diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease in patients with type 2 diabetes, with similar reductions seen across obesity status and gender and age groups, the authors reported. 

The findings align with recent evidence suggesting GLP-1 RAs may protect cognitive function. 

For example, as previously reported, in the phase 2b ELAD clinical trial, adults with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease taking the GLP-1 RA liraglutide exhibited slower decline in memory and thinking and experienced less brain atrophy over 12 months compared with placebo. 
 

Promising, but Preliminary 

Reached for comment, Courtney Kloske, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific engagement, noted that diabetes is a known risk factor for AD and managing diabetes with drugs such as semaglutide “could benefit brain health simply by managing diabetes.”

“However, we still need large clinical trials in representative populations to determine if semaglutide specifically lowers the risk of Alzheimer’s, so it is too early to recommend it for prevention,” Kloske said. 

She noted that some research suggests that GLP-1 RAs “may help reduce inflammation and positively impact brain energy use. However, more research is needed to fully understand how these processes might contribute to preventing cognitive decline or Alzheimer’s,” Kloske cautioned. 

The Alzheimer’s Association’s “Part the Cloud” initiative has invested more than $68 million to advance 65 clinical trials targeting a variety of compounds, including repurposed drugs that may address known and potential new aspects of the disease, Kloske said. 

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Xu and Kloske have no relevant conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study provides real-world evidence to support the potential repurposing of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), used to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity, for prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.

Adults with type 2 diabetes who were prescribed the GLP-1 RA semaglutide had a significantly lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease compared with their peers who were prescribed any of seven other antidiabetic medications, including other types of GLP-1 receptor–targeting medications. 

“These findings support further clinical trials to assess semaglutide’s potential in delaying or preventing Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote the investigators, led by Rong Xu, PhD, with Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio. 

The study was published online on October 24 in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
 

Real-World Data

Semaglutide has shown neuroprotective effects in animal models of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. In animal models of Alzheimer’s disease, the drug reduced beta-amyloid deposition and improved spatial learning and memory, as well as glucose metabolism in the brain. 

In a real-world analysis, Xu and colleagues used electronic health record data to identify 17,104 new users of semaglutide and 1,077,657 new users of seven other antidiabetic medications, including other GLP-1 RAs, insulin, metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, sulfonylurea, and thiazolidinedione.

Over 3 years, treatment with semaglutide was associated with significantly reduced risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, most strongly compared with insulin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33) and most weakly compared with other GLP-1 RAs (HR, 0.59). 

Compared with the other medications, semaglutide was associated with a 40%-70% reduced risk for first-time diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease in patients with type 2 diabetes, with similar reductions seen across obesity status and gender and age groups, the authors reported. 

The findings align with recent evidence suggesting GLP-1 RAs may protect cognitive function. 

For example, as previously reported, in the phase 2b ELAD clinical trial, adults with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease taking the GLP-1 RA liraglutide exhibited slower decline in memory and thinking and experienced less brain atrophy over 12 months compared with placebo. 
 

Promising, but Preliminary 

Reached for comment, Courtney Kloske, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific engagement, noted that diabetes is a known risk factor for AD and managing diabetes with drugs such as semaglutide “could benefit brain health simply by managing diabetes.”

“However, we still need large clinical trials in representative populations to determine if semaglutide specifically lowers the risk of Alzheimer’s, so it is too early to recommend it for prevention,” Kloske said. 

She noted that some research suggests that GLP-1 RAs “may help reduce inflammation and positively impact brain energy use. However, more research is needed to fully understand how these processes might contribute to preventing cognitive decline or Alzheimer’s,” Kloske cautioned. 

The Alzheimer’s Association’s “Part the Cloud” initiative has invested more than $68 million to advance 65 clinical trials targeting a variety of compounds, including repurposed drugs that may address known and potential new aspects of the disease, Kloske said. 

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Xu and Kloske have no relevant conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.