Neurology Reviews

TOPLINE:

Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) enables earlier intraoperative monitoring of facial nerve activity than sevoflurane anesthesia during ear surgery, with reduced patient-ventilator dyssynchrony and fewer requirements for postoperative antiemetics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the difference in the timeliness of intraoperative monitoring of facial nerve activity during ear surgery with TIVA vs sevoflurane anesthesia.
• They included 98 patients aged 18-74 years undergoing ear surgery between November 2021 and November 2022; patients were randomly assigned to receive either TIVA or sevoflurane during the procedure. Of these, 92 were included in the final analysis.
• Neuromuscular function was monitored quantitatively throughout anesthesia with train-of-four counts and train-of-four ratios.
• The time from the administration of rocuronium to the start of facial nerve monitoring was recorded.
• The primary outcome measure focused on the recovery index, defined as the time interval between a train-of-four ratio of 0.25 and 0.75; the key secondary outcome was the time to reach a train-of-four ratio of 0.25 from rocuronium administration.

TAKEAWAY:

•  
• The time to reach a train-of-four ratio of 0.25 was achieved earlier with TIVA than with sevoflurane (34 minutes vs 51 minutes; P < .001).
• Patient-ventilator dyssynchrony occurred less frequently in the TIVA group than in the sevoflurane group (15% vs 39%; P = .01).
• Postoperative requests for antiemetics were less frequent in the TIVA group than in the sevoflurane group (2% vs 17%; P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

“We suggest that TIVA may be a better choice than sevoflurane anesthesia to meet an earlier request” for intraoperative facial nerve monitoring by surgeons, the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yu Jeong Bang, MD, of the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, in Seoul, Republic of Korea. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in The Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.

LIMITATIONS:

A careful interpretation of results may be necessary when clinicians use balanced anesthesia, such as sevoflurane with adjuvants like opioids or nonopioids. The feasibility of intraoperative facial nerve monitoring was decided by the surgeon during surgery, and the lowest stimulation intensity threshold for electromyography amplitude was not detected, as it was not the focus of this study. Although patients requiring intraoperative facial nerve monitoring during ear surgery were enrolled, some did not undergo the procedure based on the surgeon’s judgment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) enables earlier intraoperative monitoring of facial nerve activity than sevoflurane anesthesia during ear surgery, with reduced patient-ventilator dyssynchrony and fewer requirements for postoperative antiemetics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the difference in the timeliness of intraoperative monitoring of facial nerve activity during ear surgery with TIVA vs sevoflurane anesthesia.
• They included 98 patients aged 18-74 years undergoing ear surgery between November 2021 and November 2022; patients were randomly assigned to receive either TIVA or sevoflurane during the procedure. Of these, 92 were included in the final analysis.
• Neuromuscular function was monitored quantitatively throughout anesthesia with train-of-four counts and train-of-four ratios.
• The time from the administration of rocuronium to the start of facial nerve monitoring was recorded.
• The primary outcome measure focused on the recovery index, defined as the time interval between a train-of-four ratio of 0.25 and 0.75; the key secondary outcome was the time to reach a train-of-four ratio of 0.25 from rocuronium administration.

TAKEAWAY:

•  
• The time to reach a train-of-four ratio of 0.25 was achieved earlier with TIVA than with sevoflurane (34 minutes vs 51 minutes; P < .001).
• Patient-ventilator dyssynchrony occurred less frequently in the TIVA group than in the sevoflurane group (15% vs 39%; P = .01).
• Postoperative requests for antiemetics were less frequent in the TIVA group than in the sevoflurane group (2% vs 17%; P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

“We suggest that TIVA may be a better choice than sevoflurane anesthesia to meet an earlier request” for intraoperative facial nerve monitoring by surgeons, the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yu Jeong Bang, MD, of the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, in Seoul, Republic of Korea. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in The Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.

LIMITATIONS:

A careful interpretation of results may be necessary when clinicians use balanced anesthesia, such as sevoflurane with adjuvants like opioids or nonopioids. The feasibility of intraoperative facial nerve monitoring was decided by the surgeon during surgery, and the lowest stimulation intensity threshold for electromyography amplitude was not detected, as it was not the focus of this study. Although patients requiring intraoperative facial nerve monitoring during ear surgery were enrolled, some did not undergo the procedure based on the surgeon’s judgment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) enables earlier intraoperative monitoring of facial nerve activity than sevoflurane anesthesia during ear surgery, with reduced patient-ventilator dyssynchrony and fewer requirements for postoperative antiemetics.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the difference in the timeliness of intraoperative monitoring of facial nerve activity during ear surgery with TIVA vs sevoflurane anesthesia.
• They included 98 patients aged 18-74 years undergoing ear surgery between November 2021 and November 2022; patients were randomly assigned to receive either TIVA or sevoflurane during the procedure. Of these, 92 were included in the final analysis.
• Neuromuscular function was monitored quantitatively throughout anesthesia with train-of-four counts and train-of-four ratios.
• The time from the administration of rocuronium to the start of facial nerve monitoring was recorded.
• The primary outcome measure focused on the recovery index, defined as the time interval between a train-of-four ratio of 0.25 and 0.75; the key secondary outcome was the time to reach a train-of-four ratio of 0.25 from rocuronium administration.

TAKEAWAY:

•  
• The time to reach a train-of-four ratio of 0.25 was achieved earlier with TIVA than with sevoflurane (34 minutes vs 51 minutes; P < .001).
• Patient-ventilator dyssynchrony occurred less frequently in the TIVA group than in the sevoflurane group (15% vs 39%; P = .01).
• Postoperative requests for antiemetics were less frequent in the TIVA group than in the sevoflurane group (2% vs 17%; P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

“We suggest that TIVA may be a better choice than sevoflurane anesthesia to meet an earlier request” for intraoperative facial nerve monitoring by surgeons, the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yu Jeong Bang, MD, of the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, in Seoul, Republic of Korea. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in The Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.

LIMITATIONS:

A careful interpretation of results may be necessary when clinicians use balanced anesthesia, such as sevoflurane with adjuvants like opioids or nonopioids. The feasibility of intraoperative facial nerve monitoring was decided by the surgeon during surgery, and the lowest stimulation intensity threshold for electromyography amplitude was not detected, as it was not the focus of this study. Although patients requiring intraoperative facial nerve monitoring during ear surgery were enrolled, some did not undergo the procedure based on the surgeon’s judgment.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Cultural competency is one of the most important values in the practice of medicine. Defined as the “ability to collaborate effectively with individuals from different cultures,” this type of competence “improves healthcare experiences and outcomes.” But within the context of cultural familiarity, it’s equally important to “understand that each person is an individual and may or may not adhere to certain cultural beliefs or practices common in his or her culture,” according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ’s) Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit.

Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician specializing in primary care for older adults in Washington, DC, said that the medical code of ethics consists of several pillars, with patient autonomy as the “first and most primary of those pillars.” She calls the balance of patient autonomy and cultural respect a “complicated tightrope to walk,” but says that these ethical principles can inform medical decisions and the patient-physician relationship.

 

Cultural Familiarity

It’s important to be as familiar as possible with the patient’s culture, Santina Wheat, MD, program director, Northwestern McGaw Family Medicine Residency at Delnor Hospital, Geneva, told this news organization. “For example, we serve many Orthodox Jewish patients. We had a meeting with rabbis from the community to present to us what religious laws might affect our patients. Until recently, I was delivering babies, and there was always a 24-hour emergency rabbi on call if an Orthodox patient wanted the input of a rabbi into her decisions.”

Jay W. Lee, MD, MPH, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, also sets out to educate himself about the cultural norms of his patients if they come from populations he’s not familiar with. “For example, this comes up when a new refugee population comes to the United States — most recently, there was a population of Afghan refugees,” Lee told this news organization.

Lee spent “a lot of time trying to learn about their cultural norms,” which prepared him to “ask more targeted questions about the patient’s understanding of the tests we were ordering or treatment options we were bringing forward.”

Lee, also the medical director at Integrated Health Partners of Southern California and associate clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine, said it might be best if the physician is “language congruent or culturally similar.” Lee is of Asian descent and also speaks Spanish fluently. “I enjoy cultural exchanges with my patients, and I encourage patients to find a physician who’s the best fit.” But being from the same culture isn’t absolutely necessary for building relationships with the patient. “The key is offering the patient autonomy” while understanding the cultural context.

 

Don’t Assume ... Always Ask

Cultural familiarity doesn’t equate with stereotyping, Wheat emphasized. “Proceeding without assumptions opens the opportunity to ask questions for clarification and understanding and to improve patient care,” said Lee.

Sara Glass, PhD, LCSW, agrees. She’s the clinical director of Soul Wellness NYC, New York City, a psychotherapy practice that specializes in treating trauma. Based on her own experiences, she knows that some physicians and other healthcare professionals confuse cultural sensitivity with cultural stereotyping.

Glass, formerly Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox, shared an example from her own life. During the delivery of her second child, she sustained a vaginal tear. At her 6-week postpartum visit, her ob/gyn said, “Just remind me when you’re in your ninth month next time, and I can sew it up right after you deliver.”

Much of this physician’s practice “consisted of Hasidic women who looked just like me, wearing the same garb — head coverings such as wigs and scarves and long skirts. Most women in that community have multiple pregnancies,” Glass told this news organization. “My sister has 10 children, and that’s not unusual. The doctor simply assumed I’d be going on to have more babies without asking if that’s what I wanted.”

Glass says she was also never given information by her physician about the range of available contraceptive options. The rabbis of the Hasidic sect to which Glass belonged allowed women to practice contraception for 6 months following childbirth, or for longer, in the setting of certain medical conditions, but only certain types of birth control were religiously permissible. Other options were not mentioned to her by her physician, and she didn’t know that they existed.

Making no assumptions applies not only to patients from other cultures but also to all patients — including members of “mainstream American culture.”

Candler recalls a young patient with a new baby, who shared “how exhausted she was and how much time, energy, and work it took to care for children,” Candler recounted. “To me, it sounded as though she didn’t want another child, and I was about to offer contraception when it occurred to me to first ask if she wanted to have more children.” Candler was surprised when the patient said that, although she wasn’t actively looking to become pregnant again, she didn’t want to take preventive measures. “I’m so glad I asked, rather than simply assuming.”

 

Culture Is Mutable

Important questions to ask patients include whether there are aspects of their culture or religion that might affect their care — which can include medications they may feel uncomfortable using — and what family members they want to have involved in clinical discussions and decisions, said Wheat.

Lee described treating a refugee from Afghanistan who was in her sixth month of pregnancy. “I quickly needed to learn about what her expectations were for her care and my presence as a male on her care team,” he recounted. Lee arranged for the patient to receive prenatal care from a different clinician and arranged for follow-up for her husband and children. “Everyone had good results.”

Candler noted that some patients choose their physician specifically because that practitioner is conversant with their culture and respectful of its mores — especially when physicians share the same culture as the patient. But that level of familiarity can make it easy to forget to ask questions about the experience of the individual patient within that culture.

Moreover, Glass suggested, some physicians who treat patients from a particular culture or religious group may be concerned about offending them or antagonizing religious leaders if they discuss medical options that aren’t accepted or practiced in that community or culture, such as vasectomy for male contraception. “But that deprives patients of knowing what choices are available and making truly informed decisions.”

This is especially important because “culture is mutable,” said Candler, and religious or cultural practices can “look one way on paper but be implemented, adopted, or executed in a completely different way by every human being who lives in that culture.” The best cultural competency “comes from continuing to build relationships with our patients. But even in a single visit, a single hospitalization, we should get to know patients as human beings, not just members of a given culture.”

There are cultures in which families want to be the liaison between the patient and the physician and to make decisions on the patient’s behalf. “I always ask patients what role they want their family members to play even if the cultural expectation is that the family will be heavily involved,” Candler said.

Sometimes, this can be awkward, and families might become upset. Candler described an elderly, frail patient who was diagnosed with end-stage cancer. She had always relied heavily on family to care for her. Concerned about overburdening them, she didn’t want them to know her diagnosis. The patient was mentally competent to make that decision.

“Usually, I would have had the family at the bedside so I could be sure everyone was appropriately informed and prepared for what lay ahead, but in this case, I couldn’t do so,” Candler said. “I had to inform her entire care team not to discuss the cancer diagnosis with any family members because this was the patient’s express wish. And when the family asked me if the diagnosis was cancer, I had to respond, ‘I’m so sorry, but your loved one doesn’t want us to discuss details of her diagnosis.’”

Other patients don’t want to know their own diagnosis and specifically ask Candler to inform a family member. “I’ve had patients request that I tell their children. They want their children to make decisions on their behalf.”

The main thing, Candler emphasized, is to “ask the patient, make sure the patient is competent to make that decision, thoroughly document the patient’s decision in the chart, and respect whatever that decision is.”

 

You Can Revisit the Questions

Having a longitudinal relationship means that the physician can revisit the same questions at different junctures because people’s perspectives sometimes change over time. “Discussing what a patient wants isn’t necessarily a one-time occurrence,” Wheat said. For example, “I’ve had situations where a patient has been a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses and won’t accept blood products — like transfusions — in treatment. I tell these patients that if an emergent situation arises, I would like to have the conversation again.”

Of course, sometimes patients are seen in the emergency department or in other situations where the physician has no prior relationship with them. “I always go into a room, especially with new patients, aiming to build rapport, communicate with a high level of respect, introduce myself, explain my approach, and understand the patient’s wishes,” Lee said. “As scenarios play out, I ask in multiple ways for the patient to confirm those wishes.”

He acknowledges that this can be time-consuming, “but it helps ensure the care that patient receives is complete, thorough, comprehensive, and respectful of the patient’s values and wishes.”

Candler disclosed paid part-time clinical work at CuraCapitol Primary Care Services, volunteer advocacy (reimbursed for travel) for the American College of Physicians, volunteer advocacy (reimbursed for travel) for the American Medical Association while serving on their Task Force to Preserve the Patient-Physician Relationship, and serving as a partner representative (reimbursed for time) for the AHRQ’s Person-Centered Care Planning Partnership, representing the American College of Physicians. Lee, Wheat, and Glass disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cultural competency is one of the most important values in the practice of medicine. Defined as the “ability to collaborate effectively with individuals from different cultures,” this type of competence “improves healthcare experiences and outcomes.” But within the context of cultural familiarity, it’s equally important to “understand that each person is an individual and may or may not adhere to certain cultural beliefs or practices common in his or her culture,” according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ’s) Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit.

Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician specializing in primary care for older adults in Washington, DC, said that the medical code of ethics consists of several pillars, with patient autonomy as the “first and most primary of those pillars.” She calls the balance of patient autonomy and cultural respect a “complicated tightrope to walk,” but says that these ethical principles can inform medical decisions and the patient-physician relationship.

 

Cultural Familiarity

It’s important to be as familiar as possible with the patient’s culture, Santina Wheat, MD, program director, Northwestern McGaw Family Medicine Residency at Delnor Hospital, Geneva, told this news organization. “For example, we serve many Orthodox Jewish patients. We had a meeting with rabbis from the community to present to us what religious laws might affect our patients. Until recently, I was delivering babies, and there was always a 24-hour emergency rabbi on call if an Orthodox patient wanted the input of a rabbi into her decisions.”

Jay W. Lee, MD, MPH, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, also sets out to educate himself about the cultural norms of his patients if they come from populations he’s not familiar with. “For example, this comes up when a new refugee population comes to the United States — most recently, there was a population of Afghan refugees,” Lee told this news organization.

Lee spent “a lot of time trying to learn about their cultural norms,” which prepared him to “ask more targeted questions about the patient’s understanding of the tests we were ordering or treatment options we were bringing forward.”

Lee, also the medical director at Integrated Health Partners of Southern California and associate clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine, said it might be best if the physician is “language congruent or culturally similar.” Lee is of Asian descent and also speaks Spanish fluently. “I enjoy cultural exchanges with my patients, and I encourage patients to find a physician who’s the best fit.” But being from the same culture isn’t absolutely necessary for building relationships with the patient. “The key is offering the patient autonomy” while understanding the cultural context.

 

Don’t Assume ... Always Ask

Cultural familiarity doesn’t equate with stereotyping, Wheat emphasized. “Proceeding without assumptions opens the opportunity to ask questions for clarification and understanding and to improve patient care,” said Lee.

Sara Glass, PhD, LCSW, agrees. She’s the clinical director of Soul Wellness NYC, New York City, a psychotherapy practice that specializes in treating trauma. Based on her own experiences, she knows that some physicians and other healthcare professionals confuse cultural sensitivity with cultural stereotyping.

Glass, formerly Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox, shared an example from her own life. During the delivery of her second child, she sustained a vaginal tear. At her 6-week postpartum visit, her ob/gyn said, “Just remind me when you’re in your ninth month next time, and I can sew it up right after you deliver.”

Much of this physician’s practice “consisted of Hasidic women who looked just like me, wearing the same garb — head coverings such as wigs and scarves and long skirts. Most women in that community have multiple pregnancies,” Glass told this news organization. “My sister has 10 children, and that’s not unusual. The doctor simply assumed I’d be going on to have more babies without asking if that’s what I wanted.”

Glass says she was also never given information by her physician about the range of available contraceptive options. The rabbis of the Hasidic sect to which Glass belonged allowed women to practice contraception for 6 months following childbirth, or for longer, in the setting of certain medical conditions, but only certain types of birth control were religiously permissible. Other options were not mentioned to her by her physician, and she didn’t know that they existed.

Making no assumptions applies not only to patients from other cultures but also to all patients — including members of “mainstream American culture.”

Candler recalls a young patient with a new baby, who shared “how exhausted she was and how much time, energy, and work it took to care for children,” Candler recounted. “To me, it sounded as though she didn’t want another child, and I was about to offer contraception when it occurred to me to first ask if she wanted to have more children.” Candler was surprised when the patient said that, although she wasn’t actively looking to become pregnant again, she didn’t want to take preventive measures. “I’m so glad I asked, rather than simply assuming.”

 

Culture Is Mutable

Important questions to ask patients include whether there are aspects of their culture or religion that might affect their care — which can include medications they may feel uncomfortable using — and what family members they want to have involved in clinical discussions and decisions, said Wheat.

Lee described treating a refugee from Afghanistan who was in her sixth month of pregnancy. “I quickly needed to learn about what her expectations were for her care and my presence as a male on her care team,” he recounted. Lee arranged for the patient to receive prenatal care from a different clinician and arranged for follow-up for her husband and children. “Everyone had good results.”

Candler noted that some patients choose their physician specifically because that practitioner is conversant with their culture and respectful of its mores — especially when physicians share the same culture as the patient. But that level of familiarity can make it easy to forget to ask questions about the experience of the individual patient within that culture.

Moreover, Glass suggested, some physicians who treat patients from a particular culture or religious group may be concerned about offending them or antagonizing religious leaders if they discuss medical options that aren’t accepted or practiced in that community or culture, such as vasectomy for male contraception. “But that deprives patients of knowing what choices are available and making truly informed decisions.”

This is especially important because “culture is mutable,” said Candler, and religious or cultural practices can “look one way on paper but be implemented, adopted, or executed in a completely different way by every human being who lives in that culture.” The best cultural competency “comes from continuing to build relationships with our patients. But even in a single visit, a single hospitalization, we should get to know patients as human beings, not just members of a given culture.”

There are cultures in which families want to be the liaison between the patient and the physician and to make decisions on the patient’s behalf. “I always ask patients what role they want their family members to play even if the cultural expectation is that the family will be heavily involved,” Candler said.

Sometimes, this can be awkward, and families might become upset. Candler described an elderly, frail patient who was diagnosed with end-stage cancer. She had always relied heavily on family to care for her. Concerned about overburdening them, she didn’t want them to know her diagnosis. The patient was mentally competent to make that decision.

“Usually, I would have had the family at the bedside so I could be sure everyone was appropriately informed and prepared for what lay ahead, but in this case, I couldn’t do so,” Candler said. “I had to inform her entire care team not to discuss the cancer diagnosis with any family members because this was the patient’s express wish. And when the family asked me if the diagnosis was cancer, I had to respond, ‘I’m so sorry, but your loved one doesn’t want us to discuss details of her diagnosis.’”

Other patients don’t want to know their own diagnosis and specifically ask Candler to inform a family member. “I’ve had patients request that I tell their children. They want their children to make decisions on their behalf.”

The main thing, Candler emphasized, is to “ask the patient, make sure the patient is competent to make that decision, thoroughly document the patient’s decision in the chart, and respect whatever that decision is.”

 

You Can Revisit the Questions

Having a longitudinal relationship means that the physician can revisit the same questions at different junctures because people’s perspectives sometimes change over time. “Discussing what a patient wants isn’t necessarily a one-time occurrence,” Wheat said. For example, “I’ve had situations where a patient has been a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses and won’t accept blood products — like transfusions — in treatment. I tell these patients that if an emergent situation arises, I would like to have the conversation again.”

Of course, sometimes patients are seen in the emergency department or in other situations where the physician has no prior relationship with them. “I always go into a room, especially with new patients, aiming to build rapport, communicate with a high level of respect, introduce myself, explain my approach, and understand the patient’s wishes,” Lee said. “As scenarios play out, I ask in multiple ways for the patient to confirm those wishes.”

He acknowledges that this can be time-consuming, “but it helps ensure the care that patient receives is complete, thorough, comprehensive, and respectful of the patient’s values and wishes.”

Candler disclosed paid part-time clinical work at CuraCapitol Primary Care Services, volunteer advocacy (reimbursed for travel) for the American College of Physicians, volunteer advocacy (reimbursed for travel) for the American Medical Association while serving on their Task Force to Preserve the Patient-Physician Relationship, and serving as a partner representative (reimbursed for time) for the AHRQ’s Person-Centered Care Planning Partnership, representing the American College of Physicians. Lee, Wheat, and Glass disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cultural competency is one of the most important values in the practice of medicine. Defined as the “ability to collaborate effectively with individuals from different cultures,” this type of competence “improves healthcare experiences and outcomes.” But within the context of cultural familiarity, it’s equally important to “understand that each person is an individual and may or may not adhere to certain cultural beliefs or practices common in his or her culture,” according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ’s) Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit.

Sarah Candler, MD, MPH, an internal medicine physician specializing in primary care for older adults in Washington, DC, said that the medical code of ethics consists of several pillars, with patient autonomy as the “first and most primary of those pillars.” She calls the balance of patient autonomy and cultural respect a “complicated tightrope to walk,” but says that these ethical principles can inform medical decisions and the patient-physician relationship.

 

Cultural Familiarity

It’s important to be as familiar as possible with the patient’s culture, Santina Wheat, MD, program director, Northwestern McGaw Family Medicine Residency at Delnor Hospital, Geneva, told this news organization. “For example, we serve many Orthodox Jewish patients. We had a meeting with rabbis from the community to present to us what religious laws might affect our patients. Until recently, I was delivering babies, and there was always a 24-hour emergency rabbi on call if an Orthodox patient wanted the input of a rabbi into her decisions.”

Jay W. Lee, MD, MPH, a member of the board of directors of the American Academy of Family Physicians, also sets out to educate himself about the cultural norms of his patients if they come from populations he’s not familiar with. “For example, this comes up when a new refugee population comes to the United States — most recently, there was a population of Afghan refugees,” Lee told this news organization.

Lee spent “a lot of time trying to learn about their cultural norms,” which prepared him to “ask more targeted questions about the patient’s understanding of the tests we were ordering or treatment options we were bringing forward.”

Lee, also the medical director at Integrated Health Partners of Southern California and associate clinical professor of family medicine at the University of California, Irvine, said it might be best if the physician is “language congruent or culturally similar.” Lee is of Asian descent and also speaks Spanish fluently. “I enjoy cultural exchanges with my patients, and I encourage patients to find a physician who’s the best fit.” But being from the same culture isn’t absolutely necessary for building relationships with the patient. “The key is offering the patient autonomy” while understanding the cultural context.

 

Don’t Assume ... Always Ask

Cultural familiarity doesn’t equate with stereotyping, Wheat emphasized. “Proceeding without assumptions opens the opportunity to ask questions for clarification and understanding and to improve patient care,” said Lee.

Sara Glass, PhD, LCSW, agrees. She’s the clinical director of Soul Wellness NYC, New York City, a psychotherapy practice that specializes in treating trauma. Based on her own experiences, she knows that some physicians and other healthcare professionals confuse cultural sensitivity with cultural stereotyping.

Glass, formerly Hasidic and ultra-Orthodox, shared an example from her own life. During the delivery of her second child, she sustained a vaginal tear. At her 6-week postpartum visit, her ob/gyn said, “Just remind me when you’re in your ninth month next time, and I can sew it up right after you deliver.”

Much of this physician’s practice “consisted of Hasidic women who looked just like me, wearing the same garb — head coverings such as wigs and scarves and long skirts. Most women in that community have multiple pregnancies,” Glass told this news organization. “My sister has 10 children, and that’s not unusual. The doctor simply assumed I’d be going on to have more babies without asking if that’s what I wanted.”

Glass says she was also never given information by her physician about the range of available contraceptive options. The rabbis of the Hasidic sect to which Glass belonged allowed women to practice contraception for 6 months following childbirth, or for longer, in the setting of certain medical conditions, but only certain types of birth control were religiously permissible. Other options were not mentioned to her by her physician, and she didn’t know that they existed.

Making no assumptions applies not only to patients from other cultures but also to all patients — including members of “mainstream American culture.”

Candler recalls a young patient with a new baby, who shared “how exhausted she was and how much time, energy, and work it took to care for children,” Candler recounted. “To me, it sounded as though she didn’t want another child, and I was about to offer contraception when it occurred to me to first ask if she wanted to have more children.” Candler was surprised when the patient said that, although she wasn’t actively looking to become pregnant again, she didn’t want to take preventive measures. “I’m so glad I asked, rather than simply assuming.”

 

Culture Is Mutable

Important questions to ask patients include whether there are aspects of their culture or religion that might affect their care — which can include medications they may feel uncomfortable using — and what family members they want to have involved in clinical discussions and decisions, said Wheat.

Lee described treating a refugee from Afghanistan who was in her sixth month of pregnancy. “I quickly needed to learn about what her expectations were for her care and my presence as a male on her care team,” he recounted. Lee arranged for the patient to receive prenatal care from a different clinician and arranged for follow-up for her husband and children. “Everyone had good results.”

Candler noted that some patients choose their physician specifically because that practitioner is conversant with their culture and respectful of its mores — especially when physicians share the same culture as the patient. But that level of familiarity can make it easy to forget to ask questions about the experience of the individual patient within that culture.

Moreover, Glass suggested, some physicians who treat patients from a particular culture or religious group may be concerned about offending them or antagonizing religious leaders if they discuss medical options that aren’t accepted or practiced in that community or culture, such as vasectomy for male contraception. “But that deprives patients of knowing what choices are available and making truly informed decisions.”

This is especially important because “culture is mutable,” said Candler, and religious or cultural practices can “look one way on paper but be implemented, adopted, or executed in a completely different way by every human being who lives in that culture.” The best cultural competency “comes from continuing to build relationships with our patients. But even in a single visit, a single hospitalization, we should get to know patients as human beings, not just members of a given culture.”

There are cultures in which families want to be the liaison between the patient and the physician and to make decisions on the patient’s behalf. “I always ask patients what role they want their family members to play even if the cultural expectation is that the family will be heavily involved,” Candler said.

Sometimes, this can be awkward, and families might become upset. Candler described an elderly, frail patient who was diagnosed with end-stage cancer. She had always relied heavily on family to care for her. Concerned about overburdening them, she didn’t want them to know her diagnosis. The patient was mentally competent to make that decision.

“Usually, I would have had the family at the bedside so I could be sure everyone was appropriately informed and prepared for what lay ahead, but in this case, I couldn’t do so,” Candler said. “I had to inform her entire care team not to discuss the cancer diagnosis with any family members because this was the patient’s express wish. And when the family asked me if the diagnosis was cancer, I had to respond, ‘I’m so sorry, but your loved one doesn’t want us to discuss details of her diagnosis.’”

Other patients don’t want to know their own diagnosis and specifically ask Candler to inform a family member. “I’ve had patients request that I tell their children. They want their children to make decisions on their behalf.”

The main thing, Candler emphasized, is to “ask the patient, make sure the patient is competent to make that decision, thoroughly document the patient’s decision in the chart, and respect whatever that decision is.”

 

You Can Revisit the Questions

Having a longitudinal relationship means that the physician can revisit the same questions at different junctures because people’s perspectives sometimes change over time. “Discussing what a patient wants isn’t necessarily a one-time occurrence,” Wheat said. For example, “I’ve had situations where a patient has been a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses and won’t accept blood products — like transfusions — in treatment. I tell these patients that if an emergent situation arises, I would like to have the conversation again.”

Of course, sometimes patients are seen in the emergency department or in other situations where the physician has no prior relationship with them. “I always go into a room, especially with new patients, aiming to build rapport, communicate with a high level of respect, introduce myself, explain my approach, and understand the patient’s wishes,” Lee said. “As scenarios play out, I ask in multiple ways for the patient to confirm those wishes.”

He acknowledges that this can be time-consuming, “but it helps ensure the care that patient receives is complete, thorough, comprehensive, and respectful of the patient’s values and wishes.”

Candler disclosed paid part-time clinical work at CuraCapitol Primary Care Services, volunteer advocacy (reimbursed for travel) for the American College of Physicians, volunteer advocacy (reimbursed for travel) for the American Medical Association while serving on their Task Force to Preserve the Patient-Physician Relationship, and serving as a partner representative (reimbursed for time) for the AHRQ’s Person-Centered Care Planning Partnership, representing the American College of Physicians. Lee, Wheat, and Glass disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hatice became pregnant while working as a medical resident, and her career took a noticeable hit. Her training was downgraded, and her job applications went unanswered. This news organization spoke with her about her experiences and the disadvantages faced by young female doctors with children. 

Hatice, can you tell us about your career path?

I initially started my clinical year at a hospital in Cologne, Germany. Then, 8 months in, I got pregnant with my first child during the first COVID-19 wave. After my maternity leave, I returned to the clinic, and that’s when the problems began.

Where did the issues arise?

Suddenly, I wasn’t allowed into the operating rooms (ORs) and was instead sent to the outpatient clinic. I had to fight for every OR slot until, eventually, I said, “This can’t go on. I want to stay in the hospital and gain my surgical experience, but not if I have to keep struggling for it.”

So, initially, it was about wanting to improve the quality of your ongoing training, as they gave you no path forward for further development? And you attribute this to your maternity leave.

It wasn’t just my perception — I was told as much directly. I returned from maternity leave and was told to work in outpatients and cover shifts. I went to my supervisor and explained that I was unhappy with this. We have an OR log, and I wanted to complete my required cases. He replied, “Well, that’s your fault for getting pregnant right away.” 

In the Cologne/Düsseldorf/Bonn area, there is no shortage of doctors in training. This means that as soon as I leave, there will be new recruits. So my boss actually said to me at the time, “If you’re gone, you’re gone, then the next candidate will come along.”

 

Did you return to work part-time after your maternity leave, or full-time?

I returned full-time and took on all my usual duties. Fortunately, my husband takes on a lot at home. He spent a significant time on parental leave and has often been the one to care for our child when they’re sick. So, if you didn’t know, you wouldn’t necessarily realize at work that I have a child.

What happened next?

I discussed the situation with the senior physician responsible for the OR assignments, but she told me not to worry, as I would eventually get the required signature at the end of my training. But that wasn’t my issue — I wanted the professional training. Feeling stuck, I decided to look for other positions.

Did you apply elsewhere to improve your situation?

Yes, but most of my applications went unanswered, which I didn’t understand. When I followed up, I actually received verbal replies from three hospitals, stating, “We don’t hire women with children.”

You’ve shared your experiences publicly on social media. How has the response been? Have other female doctors had similar experiences?

I think the problem of discrimination against women with children is still taboo. You’d think, with the shortage of doctors, that jobs would be available. But I’ve heard from former classmates who now have children that they face similar career obstacles, especially in fields such as internal medicine, where fulfilling rotations is challenging owing to scheduling bias.

This raises the question of adapting working conditions. In your case, it seems that a change in employer attitudes is also needed. What’s your perspective?

It varies depending on the region. I’ve applied across Germany and found that areas outside major cities such as Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Frankfurt tend to be better. In urban centers with a large applicant pool, the atmosphere is different. In smaller areas, finding a job is easier, especially if you’re fluent in German and experienced.

Do you believe that changing the mindset of employers regarding female staff with children could happen with a generational shift?

Honestly, I doubt it. It’s not just an issue at management level — it’s also present among residents. When someone takes leave, colleagues have to cover, which leads to resentment. Yet many female residents will eventually have children themselves. And it’s often overlooked that many men now share childcare responsibilities or take parental leave. Improving staffing levels would help alleviate these pressures.

Returning to structural issues, how is your situation now — can you continue your training?

I’ve since changed positions and am very happy. I didn’t expect such a positive reception with a child in tow.

Lastly, what changes do you think are needed? Is it enough to speak out about such experiences, or are further solutions necessary?

It’s good that topics such as burnout are openly discussed now. With children, there’s a risk for burnout, as you strive to meet all expectations to avoid career setbacks. But there also needs to be an acceptance that women who are hired may become pregnant and may have more than one child. I’m hopeful that over time, this will become normalized, especially as medicine becomes a more female-dominated field.

Is there anything else you’d like to share?

I wish there were more solidarity among women. It’s disheartening to see competition and infighting. More mutual support among women would make a huge difference.

Thank you, Hatice, and best of luck in your career.

Hatice, who prefers not to disclose her last name for privacy, is a fourth-year ENT specialist in training and shares her journey as a young doctor on Instagram under the name dein.hno.arzt.

This article was translated from Coliquio 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.

Hatice became pregnant while working as a medical resident, and her career took a noticeable hit. Her training was downgraded, and her job applications went unanswered. This news organization spoke with her about her experiences and the disadvantages faced by young female doctors with children. 

Hatice, can you tell us about your career path?

I initially started my clinical year at a hospital in Cologne, Germany. Then, 8 months in, I got pregnant with my first child during the first COVID-19 wave. After my maternity leave, I returned to the clinic, and that’s when the problems began.

Where did the issues arise?

Suddenly, I wasn’t allowed into the operating rooms (ORs) and was instead sent to the outpatient clinic. I had to fight for every OR slot until, eventually, I said, “This can’t go on. I want to stay in the hospital and gain my surgical experience, but not if I have to keep struggling for it.”

So, initially, it was about wanting to improve the quality of your ongoing training, as they gave you no path forward for further development? And you attribute this to your maternity leave.

It wasn’t just my perception — I was told as much directly. I returned from maternity leave and was told to work in outpatients and cover shifts. I went to my supervisor and explained that I was unhappy with this. We have an OR log, and I wanted to complete my required cases. He replied, “Well, that’s your fault for getting pregnant right away.” 

In the Cologne/Düsseldorf/Bonn area, there is no shortage of doctors in training. This means that as soon as I leave, there will be new recruits. So my boss actually said to me at the time, “If you’re gone, you’re gone, then the next candidate will come along.”

 

Did you return to work part-time after your maternity leave, or full-time?

I returned full-time and took on all my usual duties. Fortunately, my husband takes on a lot at home. He spent a significant time on parental leave and has often been the one to care for our child when they’re sick. So, if you didn’t know, you wouldn’t necessarily realize at work that I have a child.

What happened next?

I discussed the situation with the senior physician responsible for the OR assignments, but she told me not to worry, as I would eventually get the required signature at the end of my training. But that wasn’t my issue — I wanted the professional training. Feeling stuck, I decided to look for other positions.

Did you apply elsewhere to improve your situation?

Yes, but most of my applications went unanswered, which I didn’t understand. When I followed up, I actually received verbal replies from three hospitals, stating, “We don’t hire women with children.”

You’ve shared your experiences publicly on social media. How has the response been? Have other female doctors had similar experiences?

I think the problem of discrimination against women with children is still taboo. You’d think, with the shortage of doctors, that jobs would be available. But I’ve heard from former classmates who now have children that they face similar career obstacles, especially in fields such as internal medicine, where fulfilling rotations is challenging owing to scheduling bias.

This raises the question of adapting working conditions. In your case, it seems that a change in employer attitudes is also needed. What’s your perspective?

It varies depending on the region. I’ve applied across Germany and found that areas outside major cities such as Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Frankfurt tend to be better. In urban centers with a large applicant pool, the atmosphere is different. In smaller areas, finding a job is easier, especially if you’re fluent in German and experienced.

Do you believe that changing the mindset of employers regarding female staff with children could happen with a generational shift?

Honestly, I doubt it. It’s not just an issue at management level — it’s also present among residents. When someone takes leave, colleagues have to cover, which leads to resentment. Yet many female residents will eventually have children themselves. And it’s often overlooked that many men now share childcare responsibilities or take parental leave. Improving staffing levels would help alleviate these pressures.

Returning to structural issues, how is your situation now — can you continue your training?

I’ve since changed positions and am very happy. I didn’t expect such a positive reception with a child in tow.

Lastly, what changes do you think are needed? Is it enough to speak out about such experiences, or are further solutions necessary?

It’s good that topics such as burnout are openly discussed now. With children, there’s a risk for burnout, as you strive to meet all expectations to avoid career setbacks. But there also needs to be an acceptance that women who are hired may become pregnant and may have more than one child. I’m hopeful that over time, this will become normalized, especially as medicine becomes a more female-dominated field.

Is there anything else you’d like to share?

I wish there were more solidarity among women. It’s disheartening to see competition and infighting. More mutual support among women would make a huge difference.

Thank you, Hatice, and best of luck in your career.

Hatice, who prefers not to disclose her last name for privacy, is a fourth-year ENT specialist in training and shares her journey as a young doctor on Instagram under the name dein.hno.arzt.

This article was translated from Coliquio 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.

Hatice became pregnant while working as a medical resident, and her career took a noticeable hit. Her training was downgraded, and her job applications went unanswered. This news organization spoke with her about her experiences and the disadvantages faced by young female doctors with children. 

Hatice, can you tell us about your career path?

I initially started my clinical year at a hospital in Cologne, Germany. Then, 8 months in, I got pregnant with my first child during the first COVID-19 wave. After my maternity leave, I returned to the clinic, and that’s when the problems began.

Where did the issues arise?

Suddenly, I wasn’t allowed into the operating rooms (ORs) and was instead sent to the outpatient clinic. I had to fight for every OR slot until, eventually, I said, “This can’t go on. I want to stay in the hospital and gain my surgical experience, but not if I have to keep struggling for it.”

So, initially, it was about wanting to improve the quality of your ongoing training, as they gave you no path forward for further development? And you attribute this to your maternity leave.

It wasn’t just my perception — I was told as much directly. I returned from maternity leave and was told to work in outpatients and cover shifts. I went to my supervisor and explained that I was unhappy with this. We have an OR log, and I wanted to complete my required cases. He replied, “Well, that’s your fault for getting pregnant right away.” 

In the Cologne/Düsseldorf/Bonn area, there is no shortage of doctors in training. This means that as soon as I leave, there will be new recruits. So my boss actually said to me at the time, “If you’re gone, you’re gone, then the next candidate will come along.”

 

Did you return to work part-time after your maternity leave, or full-time?

I returned full-time and took on all my usual duties. Fortunately, my husband takes on a lot at home. He spent a significant time on parental leave and has often been the one to care for our child when they’re sick. So, if you didn’t know, you wouldn’t necessarily realize at work that I have a child.

What happened next?

I discussed the situation with the senior physician responsible for the OR assignments, but she told me not to worry, as I would eventually get the required signature at the end of my training. But that wasn’t my issue — I wanted the professional training. Feeling stuck, I decided to look for other positions.

Did you apply elsewhere to improve your situation?

Yes, but most of my applications went unanswered, which I didn’t understand. When I followed up, I actually received verbal replies from three hospitals, stating, “We don’t hire women with children.”

You’ve shared your experiences publicly on social media. How has the response been? Have other female doctors had similar experiences?

I think the problem of discrimination against women with children is still taboo. You’d think, with the shortage of doctors, that jobs would be available. But I’ve heard from former classmates who now have children that they face similar career obstacles, especially in fields such as internal medicine, where fulfilling rotations is challenging owing to scheduling bias.

This raises the question of adapting working conditions. In your case, it seems that a change in employer attitudes is also needed. What’s your perspective?

It varies depending on the region. I’ve applied across Germany and found that areas outside major cities such as Cologne, Düsseldorf, and Frankfurt tend to be better. In urban centers with a large applicant pool, the atmosphere is different. In smaller areas, finding a job is easier, especially if you’re fluent in German and experienced.

Do you believe that changing the mindset of employers regarding female staff with children could happen with a generational shift?

Honestly, I doubt it. It’s not just an issue at management level — it’s also present among residents. When someone takes leave, colleagues have to cover, which leads to resentment. Yet many female residents will eventually have children themselves. And it’s often overlooked that many men now share childcare responsibilities or take parental leave. Improving staffing levels would help alleviate these pressures.

Returning to structural issues, how is your situation now — can you continue your training?

I’ve since changed positions and am very happy. I didn’t expect such a positive reception with a child in tow.

Lastly, what changes do you think are needed? Is it enough to speak out about such experiences, or are further solutions necessary?

It’s good that topics such as burnout are openly discussed now. With children, there’s a risk for burnout, as you strive to meet all expectations to avoid career setbacks. But there also needs to be an acceptance that women who are hired may become pregnant and may have more than one child. I’m hopeful that over time, this will become normalized, especially as medicine becomes a more female-dominated field.

Is there anything else you’d like to share?

I wish there were more solidarity among women. It’s disheartening to see competition and infighting. More mutual support among women would make a huge difference.

Thank you, Hatice, and best of luck in your career.

Hatice, who prefers not to disclose her last name for privacy, is a fourth-year ENT specialist in training and shares her journey as a young doctor on Instagram under the name dein.hno.arzt.

This article was translated from Coliquio 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.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Oh, insurance claim denials. When patient care or treatment is warranted by a specific diagnosis, I wish insurers would just reimburse it without any hassle. That’s not reality. Let’s talk about insurance claim denials, how they’re rising and harming patient care, and what we can do about it. That’s kind of complicated.

Rising Trend in Claim Denials and Financial Impact

First, denials are increasing. Experian Health surveyed provider revenue cycle leaders— that’s a fancy term for people who manage billing and insurance claims — and 75% said that denials are increasing. This is up from 42% a few years ago. Those surveyed also said that reimbursement times and errors in claims are also increasing, and changes in policy are happening more frequently. This all adds to the problem. 

Aside from being time-consuming and annoying, claim denials take a toll on hospitals and patients. One analysis, which made headlines everywhere, showed that hospitals and health systems spent nearly $20 billion in 2022 trying to repeal overturned claims. This analysis was done by Premier, a health insurance performance company.

 

Breakdown of Denial Rates and Costs

Let’s do some quick whiteboard math. Health insurance companies get about 3 billion claims per year. According to surveys, about 15% of those claims are denied, so that leaves us with 450 million denied claims. Hospitals spend, on average, $43.84 per denied claim in administrative fees trying to get them overturned.

That’s about $19.7 billion spent on claim denials. Here’s the gut punch: Around 54% of those claims are ultimately paid, so that leaves us with $10.7 billion that we definitely should have saved. 

 

Common Reasons for Denials

Let’s take a look at major causes and what’s going on. 

Insurance denial rates are all over the place. It depends on state and plan. According to one analysis, the average for in-network claim denials across some states was 4% to 5%. It was 40% in Mississippi. According to HealthCare.gov, in 2021, around 17% of in-network claims were denied. 

The most common reasons were excluded services, a lack of referral or preauthorization, or a medical treatment not being deemed necessary. Then there’s the black box of “other,” just some arbitrary reason to make a claim denial. 

Many times, these denials are done by an algorithm, not by individual people. 

What’s more, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, were more likely to deny claims than public options. 

When broken down, the problem was higher among employer-sponsored and marketplace insurance, and less so with Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

Impact on Patient Care

Many consumers don’t truly understand what their health insurance covers and what’s going to be out of pocket, and many people don’t know that they have appeal rights. They don’t know who to call for help either. 

The ACA set up Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs), which are designed to help people navigate health insurance problems. By law, private insurers have to share data with CAPs. Yet, only 3% of people who had trouble with health insurance claims called a CAP for help.

We all know some of the downstream effects of this problem. Patients may skip or delay treatments if they can’t get insurance to cover it or it’s too expensive. When post-acute care, such as transfer to a skilled nursing facility or rehab center, isn’t covered and we’re trying to discharge patients from the hospital, hospital stays become lengthened, which means they’re more expensive, and this comes with its own set of complications.

 

How Can We Address This?

I’m genuinely curious about what you all have done to efficiently address this problem. I’m looking at this publication from the American Health Information Management Association about major reasons for denial. We’ve already talked about a lack of preauthorization or procedures not being covered, but there are also reasons such as missing or incorrect information, duplicate claims, and not filing within the appropriate time.

Also, if treatments or procedures are bundled, they can’t be filed separately. 

Preventing all of this would take a large effort. Healthcare systems would have to have a dedicated team, who would understand all the major reasons for denials, identify common patterns, and then fill everything out with accurate information, with referrals, with preauthorizations, high-specificity codes, and the correct modifiers — and do all of this within the filing deadline every time. 

You would need physicians on board, but also people from IT, finance, compliance, case management, registration, and probably a bunch of other people who are already stretched too thin. 

Perhaps our government can do more to hold insurers accountable and make sure plans, such as Medicare Advantage, are holding up their end of the public health bargain.

It’s an uphill $20 billion battle, but I’m optimistic. What about you? What’s your unfiltered take on claim denials? What more can we be doing?

Dr. Patel is a clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; pediatric hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York City, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He reported a conflict of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Oh, insurance claim denials. When patient care or treatment is warranted by a specific diagnosis, I wish insurers would just reimburse it without any hassle. That’s not reality. Let’s talk about insurance claim denials, how they’re rising and harming patient care, and what we can do about it. That’s kind of complicated.

Rising Trend in Claim Denials and Financial Impact

First, denials are increasing. Experian Health surveyed provider revenue cycle leaders— that’s a fancy term for people who manage billing and insurance claims — and 75% said that denials are increasing. This is up from 42% a few years ago. Those surveyed also said that reimbursement times and errors in claims are also increasing, and changes in policy are happening more frequently. This all adds to the problem. 

Aside from being time-consuming and annoying, claim denials take a toll on hospitals and patients. One analysis, which made headlines everywhere, showed that hospitals and health systems spent nearly $20 billion in 2022 trying to repeal overturned claims. This analysis was done by Premier, a health insurance performance company.

 

Breakdown of Denial Rates and Costs

Let’s do some quick whiteboard math. Health insurance companies get about 3 billion claims per year. According to surveys, about 15% of those claims are denied, so that leaves us with 450 million denied claims. Hospitals spend, on average, $43.84 per denied claim in administrative fees trying to get them overturned.

That’s about $19.7 billion spent on claim denials. Here’s the gut punch: Around 54% of those claims are ultimately paid, so that leaves us with $10.7 billion that we definitely should have saved. 

 

Common Reasons for Denials

Let’s take a look at major causes and what’s going on. 

Insurance denial rates are all over the place. It depends on state and plan. According to one analysis, the average for in-network claim denials across some states was 4% to 5%. It was 40% in Mississippi. According to HealthCare.gov, in 2021, around 17% of in-network claims were denied. 

The most common reasons were excluded services, a lack of referral or preauthorization, or a medical treatment not being deemed necessary. Then there’s the black box of “other,” just some arbitrary reason to make a claim denial. 

Many times, these denials are done by an algorithm, not by individual people. 

What’s more, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, were more likely to deny claims than public options. 

When broken down, the problem was higher among employer-sponsored and marketplace insurance, and less so with Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

Impact on Patient Care

Many consumers don’t truly understand what their health insurance covers and what’s going to be out of pocket, and many people don’t know that they have appeal rights. They don’t know who to call for help either. 

The ACA set up Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs), which are designed to help people navigate health insurance problems. By law, private insurers have to share data with CAPs. Yet, only 3% of people who had trouble with health insurance claims called a CAP for help.

We all know some of the downstream effects of this problem. Patients may skip or delay treatments if they can’t get insurance to cover it or it’s too expensive. When post-acute care, such as transfer to a skilled nursing facility or rehab center, isn’t covered and we’re trying to discharge patients from the hospital, hospital stays become lengthened, which means they’re more expensive, and this comes with its own set of complications.

 

How Can We Address This?

I’m genuinely curious about what you all have done to efficiently address this problem. I’m looking at this publication from the American Health Information Management Association about major reasons for denial. We’ve already talked about a lack of preauthorization or procedures not being covered, but there are also reasons such as missing or incorrect information, duplicate claims, and not filing within the appropriate time.

Also, if treatments or procedures are bundled, they can’t be filed separately. 

Preventing all of this would take a large effort. Healthcare systems would have to have a dedicated team, who would understand all the major reasons for denials, identify common patterns, and then fill everything out with accurate information, with referrals, with preauthorizations, high-specificity codes, and the correct modifiers — and do all of this within the filing deadline every time. 

You would need physicians on board, but also people from IT, finance, compliance, case management, registration, and probably a bunch of other people who are already stretched too thin. 

Perhaps our government can do more to hold insurers accountable and make sure plans, such as Medicare Advantage, are holding up their end of the public health bargain.

It’s an uphill $20 billion battle, but I’m optimistic. What about you? What’s your unfiltered take on claim denials? What more can we be doing?

Dr. Patel is a clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; pediatric hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York City, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He reported a conflict of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Oh, insurance claim denials. When patient care or treatment is warranted by a specific diagnosis, I wish insurers would just reimburse it without any hassle. That’s not reality. Let’s talk about insurance claim denials, how they’re rising and harming patient care, and what we can do about it. That’s kind of complicated.

Rising Trend in Claim Denials and Financial Impact

First, denials are increasing. Experian Health surveyed provider revenue cycle leaders— that’s a fancy term for people who manage billing and insurance claims — and 75% said that denials are increasing. This is up from 42% a few years ago. Those surveyed also said that reimbursement times and errors in claims are also increasing, and changes in policy are happening more frequently. This all adds to the problem. 

Aside from being time-consuming and annoying, claim denials take a toll on hospitals and patients. One analysis, which made headlines everywhere, showed that hospitals and health systems spent nearly $20 billion in 2022 trying to repeal overturned claims. This analysis was done by Premier, a health insurance performance company.

 

Breakdown of Denial Rates and Costs

Let’s do some quick whiteboard math. Health insurance companies get about 3 billion claims per year. According to surveys, about 15% of those claims are denied, so that leaves us with 450 million denied claims. Hospitals spend, on average, $43.84 per denied claim in administrative fees trying to get them overturned.

That’s about $19.7 billion spent on claim denials. Here’s the gut punch: Around 54% of those claims are ultimately paid, so that leaves us with $10.7 billion that we definitely should have saved. 

 

Common Reasons for Denials

Let’s take a look at major causes and what’s going on. 

Insurance denial rates are all over the place. It depends on state and plan. According to one analysis, the average for in-network claim denials across some states was 4% to 5%. It was 40% in Mississippi. According to HealthCare.gov, in 2021, around 17% of in-network claims were denied. 

The most common reasons were excluded services, a lack of referral or preauthorization, or a medical treatment not being deemed necessary. Then there’s the black box of “other,” just some arbitrary reason to make a claim denial. 

Many times, these denials are done by an algorithm, not by individual people. 

What’s more, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, were more likely to deny claims than public options. 

When broken down, the problem was higher among employer-sponsored and marketplace insurance, and less so with Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

Impact on Patient Care

Many consumers don’t truly understand what their health insurance covers and what’s going to be out of pocket, and many people don’t know that they have appeal rights. They don’t know who to call for help either. 

The ACA set up Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs), which are designed to help people navigate health insurance problems. By law, private insurers have to share data with CAPs. Yet, only 3% of people who had trouble with health insurance claims called a CAP for help.

We all know some of the downstream effects of this problem. Patients may skip or delay treatments if they can’t get insurance to cover it or it’s too expensive. When post-acute care, such as transfer to a skilled nursing facility or rehab center, isn’t covered and we’re trying to discharge patients from the hospital, hospital stays become lengthened, which means they’re more expensive, and this comes with its own set of complications.

 

How Can We Address This?

I’m genuinely curious about what you all have done to efficiently address this problem. I’m looking at this publication from the American Health Information Management Association about major reasons for denial. We’ve already talked about a lack of preauthorization or procedures not being covered, but there are also reasons such as missing or incorrect information, duplicate claims, and not filing within the appropriate time.

Also, if treatments or procedures are bundled, they can’t be filed separately. 

Preventing all of this would take a large effort. Healthcare systems would have to have a dedicated team, who would understand all the major reasons for denials, identify common patterns, and then fill everything out with accurate information, with referrals, with preauthorizations, high-specificity codes, and the correct modifiers — and do all of this within the filing deadline every time. 

You would need physicians on board, but also people from IT, finance, compliance, case management, registration, and probably a bunch of other people who are already stretched too thin. 

Perhaps our government can do more to hold insurers accountable and make sure plans, such as Medicare Advantage, are holding up their end of the public health bargain.

It’s an uphill $20 billion battle, but I’m optimistic. What about you? What’s your unfiltered take on claim denials? What more can we be doing?

Dr. Patel is a clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; pediatric hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York City, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He reported a conflict of interest with Medumo.

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

In preparation for a future international treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution, the French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices presented the conclusions of a public hearing on the impact of plastics on various aspects of human health.

Increased Global Plastic Production

Philippe Bolo, a member of the French Democratic Party and the rapporteur for the public mission on the health impacts of plastics, spoke about the latest round of treaty negotiations, held from November 25 to December 1 in South Korea, attended by leading French and global experts about the impact of plastics on human health.

The hearing highlighted a sharp increase in plastic production. “It has doubled in the last 20 years and is expected to exceed 500 million tons in 2024,” Bolo said. This is about 60 kg per person. According to projections from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, on its current trajectory, plastic production will reach 750 million tons by 2040 and surpass 1 billion tons before 2050, he said.

 

Minimal Plastic Waste Recycling

Around one third (32%) of plastics are used for packaging. “Therefore, most plastic production is still intended for single-use purposes,” he said. Plastic waste follows a similar growth trajectory, with volumes expected to rise from 360 million tons in 2020 to 617 million tons by 2040 unless action is taken. Very little of this waste is recycled, even in the most countries that are most advanced in terms of collection, sorting, and processing.

In France, for example, in 2018, only 0.6 million tons of the 3.6 million tons of plastic waste produced was truly recycled. This is less than one fifth (17%). Globally, less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled. In 2020, plastic waste that ended up in the environment represented 81 million tons, or 22% of the total. “Beyond waste, this leads to pollution by microplastics and nanoplastics, resulting from their fragmentation. All environments are affected: Seas, rivers, soils, air, and even living organisms,” Bolo said.

 

Methodological Challenges

However, measuring the impact of plastics on health faces methodological difficulties due to the wide variety of composition, size, and shape of plastics. Nevertheless, the French Standardization Association (Association Française de Normalisation) has conducted work to establish a characterization standard for microplastics in water, which serves as an international reference.

“It is also very difficult to know what we are ingesting,” Bolo said. “A study conducted in 2019 estimated that the average human absorbs 5 grams of plastics per week, the equivalent of a credit card.» Since then, other studies have revised this estimate downward, but no consensus has been reached.

A recent study across 109 countries, both industrialized and developing, found significant exposure, estimated at 500 mg/d, particularly in Southeast Asian countries, where it was due mainly to seafood consumption.

A study concluded that plastic water bottles contain 240,000 particles per liter, 90% of which are nanoplastics. These nanoparticles can pass through the intestinal barrier to enter the bloodstream and reach several organs including the heart, brain, and placenta, as well as the fetus.

 

Changes to the Microbiome

Microplastics also accumulate in organs. Thus, the amount of plastic in the lungs increases with age, suggesting that particles may persist in the body without being eliminated. The health consequences of this are still poorly understood, but exposure to plastics appears to cause changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota. Pathobionts (commensal bacteria with harmful potential) have been found in both adults and children, which could contribute to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome. Furthermore, a decrease in butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid beneficial to health, has been observed in children’s intestines.

Inhaled nanoplastics may disrupt the mucociliary clearance mechanisms of the respiratory system. The toxicity of inhaled plastic particles was demonstrated as early as the 1970s among workers in the flocking industry. Some developed lung function impairments, shortness of breath, inflammation, fibrosis, and even lung cancer. Similar symptoms have been observed in workers in the textile and polyvinyl chloride industries.

A study published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine measured the amount of microplastics collected from carotid plaque of more than 300 patients who had undergone carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease. It found a 4.53 times higher risk for the primary endpoint, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, among individuals with microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque compared with those without.

 

Health Affects High

The danger of plastics is also directly linked to the chemical substances they contain. A general scientific review looked at the health impacts of three chemicals used almost exclusively in plastics: Polybromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants in textiles or electronics; bisphenol A (BPA), used in the lining of cans and bottles; and phthalates, particularly diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), used to make plastics more flexible.

The review highlighted strong epidemiological evidence linking fetal exposure to PBDEs during pregnancy to low birth weight and later exposure to delayed or impaired cognitive development in children and even a loss of IQ. Statistically significant evidence of disruption of thyroid function in adults was also found.

BPA is linked to genital malformations in female newborns exposed to BPA in utero, type 2 diabetes in adults, insulin resistance, and polycystic ovary syndrome in women. BPA exposure also increases the risk for obesity and hypertension in both children and adults, as well as the risk for cardiovascular disease in adults.

Finally, the review established links between exposure to DEHP and miscarriages, genital malformations in male newborns, delayed or impaired cognitive development in children, loss of IQ, delayed psychomotor development, early puberty in young girls, and endometriosis in young women. DEHP exposure also has multiple effects on cardiometabolic health, including insulin resistance, obesity, and elevated blood pressure.

The economic costs associated with the health impacts of these three substances have been estimated at $675 billion in the United States.

Bolo said that the solution to this plastic pollution is necessarily international. “We need an ambitious and legally binding treaty to reduce plastic production,” he said. “The damage is already done; we need to act to protect human health,” he concluded. The parliamentary office has made nine recommendations to the treaty negotiators.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In preparation for a future international treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution, the French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices presented the conclusions of a public hearing on the impact of plastics on various aspects of human health.

Increased Global Plastic Production

Philippe Bolo, a member of the French Democratic Party and the rapporteur for the public mission on the health impacts of plastics, spoke about the latest round of treaty negotiations, held from November 25 to December 1 in South Korea, attended by leading French and global experts about the impact of plastics on human health.

The hearing highlighted a sharp increase in plastic production. “It has doubled in the last 20 years and is expected to exceed 500 million tons in 2024,” Bolo said. This is about 60 kg per person. According to projections from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, on its current trajectory, plastic production will reach 750 million tons by 2040 and surpass 1 billion tons before 2050, he said.

 

Minimal Plastic Waste Recycling

Around one third (32%) of plastics are used for packaging. “Therefore, most plastic production is still intended for single-use purposes,” he said. Plastic waste follows a similar growth trajectory, with volumes expected to rise from 360 million tons in 2020 to 617 million tons by 2040 unless action is taken. Very little of this waste is recycled, even in the most countries that are most advanced in terms of collection, sorting, and processing.

In France, for example, in 2018, only 0.6 million tons of the 3.6 million tons of plastic waste produced was truly recycled. This is less than one fifth (17%). Globally, less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled. In 2020, plastic waste that ended up in the environment represented 81 million tons, or 22% of the total. “Beyond waste, this leads to pollution by microplastics and nanoplastics, resulting from their fragmentation. All environments are affected: Seas, rivers, soils, air, and even living organisms,” Bolo said.

 

Methodological Challenges

However, measuring the impact of plastics on health faces methodological difficulties due to the wide variety of composition, size, and shape of plastics. Nevertheless, the French Standardization Association (Association Française de Normalisation) has conducted work to establish a characterization standard for microplastics in water, which serves as an international reference.

“It is also very difficult to know what we are ingesting,” Bolo said. “A study conducted in 2019 estimated that the average human absorbs 5 grams of plastics per week, the equivalent of a credit card.» Since then, other studies have revised this estimate downward, but no consensus has been reached.

A recent study across 109 countries, both industrialized and developing, found significant exposure, estimated at 500 mg/d, particularly in Southeast Asian countries, where it was due mainly to seafood consumption.

A study concluded that plastic water bottles contain 240,000 particles per liter, 90% of which are nanoplastics. These nanoparticles can pass through the intestinal barrier to enter the bloodstream and reach several organs including the heart, brain, and placenta, as well as the fetus.

 

Changes to the Microbiome

Microplastics also accumulate in organs. Thus, the amount of plastic in the lungs increases with age, suggesting that particles may persist in the body without being eliminated. The health consequences of this are still poorly understood, but exposure to plastics appears to cause changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota. Pathobionts (commensal bacteria with harmful potential) have been found in both adults and children, which could contribute to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome. Furthermore, a decrease in butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid beneficial to health, has been observed in children’s intestines.

Inhaled nanoplastics may disrupt the mucociliary clearance mechanisms of the respiratory system. The toxicity of inhaled plastic particles was demonstrated as early as the 1970s among workers in the flocking industry. Some developed lung function impairments, shortness of breath, inflammation, fibrosis, and even lung cancer. Similar symptoms have been observed in workers in the textile and polyvinyl chloride industries.

A study published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine measured the amount of microplastics collected from carotid plaque of more than 300 patients who had undergone carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease. It found a 4.53 times higher risk for the primary endpoint, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, among individuals with microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque compared with those without.

 

Health Affects High

The danger of plastics is also directly linked to the chemical substances they contain. A general scientific review looked at the health impacts of three chemicals used almost exclusively in plastics: Polybromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants in textiles or electronics; bisphenol A (BPA), used in the lining of cans and bottles; and phthalates, particularly diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), used to make plastics more flexible.

The review highlighted strong epidemiological evidence linking fetal exposure to PBDEs during pregnancy to low birth weight and later exposure to delayed or impaired cognitive development in children and even a loss of IQ. Statistically significant evidence of disruption of thyroid function in adults was also found.

BPA is linked to genital malformations in female newborns exposed to BPA in utero, type 2 diabetes in adults, insulin resistance, and polycystic ovary syndrome in women. BPA exposure also increases the risk for obesity and hypertension in both children and adults, as well as the risk for cardiovascular disease in adults.

Finally, the review established links between exposure to DEHP and miscarriages, genital malformations in male newborns, delayed or impaired cognitive development in children, loss of IQ, delayed psychomotor development, early puberty in young girls, and endometriosis in young women. DEHP exposure also has multiple effects on cardiometabolic health, including insulin resistance, obesity, and elevated blood pressure.

The economic costs associated with the health impacts of these three substances have been estimated at $675 billion in the United States.

Bolo said that the solution to this plastic pollution is necessarily international. “We need an ambitious and legally binding treaty to reduce plastic production,” he said. “The damage is already done; we need to act to protect human health,” he concluded. The parliamentary office has made nine recommendations to the treaty negotiators.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In preparation for a future international treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution, the French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices presented the conclusions of a public hearing on the impact of plastics on various aspects of human health.

Increased Global Plastic Production

Philippe Bolo, a member of the French Democratic Party and the rapporteur for the public mission on the health impacts of plastics, spoke about the latest round of treaty negotiations, held from November 25 to December 1 in South Korea, attended by leading French and global experts about the impact of plastics on human health.

The hearing highlighted a sharp increase in plastic production. “It has doubled in the last 20 years and is expected to exceed 500 million tons in 2024,” Bolo said. This is about 60 kg per person. According to projections from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, on its current trajectory, plastic production will reach 750 million tons by 2040 and surpass 1 billion tons before 2050, he said.

 

Minimal Plastic Waste Recycling

Around one third (32%) of plastics are used for packaging. “Therefore, most plastic production is still intended for single-use purposes,” he said. Plastic waste follows a similar growth trajectory, with volumes expected to rise from 360 million tons in 2020 to 617 million tons by 2040 unless action is taken. Very little of this waste is recycled, even in the most countries that are most advanced in terms of collection, sorting, and processing.

In France, for example, in 2018, only 0.6 million tons of the 3.6 million tons of plastic waste produced was truly recycled. This is less than one fifth (17%). Globally, less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled. In 2020, plastic waste that ended up in the environment represented 81 million tons, or 22% of the total. “Beyond waste, this leads to pollution by microplastics and nanoplastics, resulting from their fragmentation. All environments are affected: Seas, rivers, soils, air, and even living organisms,” Bolo said.

 

Methodological Challenges

However, measuring the impact of plastics on health faces methodological difficulties due to the wide variety of composition, size, and shape of plastics. Nevertheless, the French Standardization Association (Association Française de Normalisation) has conducted work to establish a characterization standard for microplastics in water, which serves as an international reference.

“It is also very difficult to know what we are ingesting,” Bolo said. “A study conducted in 2019 estimated that the average human absorbs 5 grams of plastics per week, the equivalent of a credit card.» Since then, other studies have revised this estimate downward, but no consensus has been reached.

A recent study across 109 countries, both industrialized and developing, found significant exposure, estimated at 500 mg/d, particularly in Southeast Asian countries, where it was due mainly to seafood consumption.

A study concluded that plastic water bottles contain 240,000 particles per liter, 90% of which are nanoplastics. These nanoparticles can pass through the intestinal barrier to enter the bloodstream and reach several organs including the heart, brain, and placenta, as well as the fetus.

 

Changes to the Microbiome

Microplastics also accumulate in organs. Thus, the amount of plastic in the lungs increases with age, suggesting that particles may persist in the body without being eliminated. The health consequences of this are still poorly understood, but exposure to plastics appears to cause changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota. Pathobionts (commensal bacteria with harmful potential) have been found in both adults and children, which could contribute to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome. Furthermore, a decrease in butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid beneficial to health, has been observed in children’s intestines.

Inhaled nanoplastics may disrupt the mucociliary clearance mechanisms of the respiratory system. The toxicity of inhaled plastic particles was demonstrated as early as the 1970s among workers in the flocking industry. Some developed lung function impairments, shortness of breath, inflammation, fibrosis, and even lung cancer. Similar symptoms have been observed in workers in the textile and polyvinyl chloride industries.

A study published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine measured the amount of microplastics collected from carotid plaque of more than 300 patients who had undergone carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease. It found a 4.53 times higher risk for the primary endpoint, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, among individuals with microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque compared with those without.

 

Health Affects High

The danger of plastics is also directly linked to the chemical substances they contain. A general scientific review looked at the health impacts of three chemicals used almost exclusively in plastics: Polybromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants in textiles or electronics; bisphenol A (BPA), used in the lining of cans and bottles; and phthalates, particularly diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), used to make plastics more flexible.

The review highlighted strong epidemiological evidence linking fetal exposure to PBDEs during pregnancy to low birth weight and later exposure to delayed or impaired cognitive development in children and even a loss of IQ. Statistically significant evidence of disruption of thyroid function in adults was also found.

BPA is linked to genital malformations in female newborns exposed to BPA in utero, type 2 diabetes in adults, insulin resistance, and polycystic ovary syndrome in women. BPA exposure also increases the risk for obesity and hypertension in both children and adults, as well as the risk for cardiovascular disease in adults.

Finally, the review established links between exposure to DEHP and miscarriages, genital malformations in male newborns, delayed or impaired cognitive development in children, loss of IQ, delayed psychomotor development, early puberty in young girls, and endometriosis in young women. DEHP exposure also has multiple effects on cardiometabolic health, including insulin resistance, obesity, and elevated blood pressure.

The economic costs associated with the health impacts of these three substances have been estimated at $675 billion in the United States.

Bolo said that the solution to this plastic pollution is necessarily international. “We need an ambitious and legally binding treaty to reduce plastic production,” he said. “The damage is already done; we need to act to protect human health,” he concluded. The parliamentary office has made nine recommendations to the treaty negotiators.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — Angiotensin receptor blockers are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in reducing the risk for post-stroke epilepsy (PSE), new research showed.

Investigators found angiotensin receptor blockers are better at cutting the PSE risk in individuals with high blood pressure than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

The results suggested angiotensin receptor blockers could be a frontline strategy to proactively forestall development of epilepsy in patients with a history of stroke and hypertension, said the study’s co-lead investigator Giacomo Evangelista, MD, PhD, a resident in neurology at the Epilepsy Center at “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Stroke and Seizures Tightly Linked

Stroke is the most common cause of seizures in patients older than 60 years. About 6%-8% of new epilepsy diagnoses in older adult patients are associated with a brain ischemic event.

Hypertension is among the most common risk factors for both epilepsy and stroke. The European Society of Cardiology recommends ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers be considered first-line hypertension treatments.

Angiotensin receptor blockers seem to provide a protective effect in terms of seizures in the general population, but their possible preventive role in PSE has not been clear.

The retrospective, observational study included 528 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; 57.19% men) with hypertension and ischemic stroke without a history of epilepsy.

Researchers divided patients into those who developed PSE during the 2-year follow-up and those who didn’t. The main outcome was incidence of PSE associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy compared with other antihypertensive drug classes (ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta blockers).

Of the total, 7.2% of patients developed PSE. The study found patients treated with an angiotensin receptor blockers had a lower risk for PSE (P = .009). PSE incidence was higher among patients receiving calcium channel blockers (P = .019) and beta blockers (P = .008), but ACE inhibitors did not appear to affect PSE risk.

Further analysis showed that patients taking a beta blocker were 120% more likely to develop PSE, and those taking a calcium channel blocker were 110% more likely to develop PSE than those taking an angiotensin receptor blocker. The corresponding comparison was 65% for those taking an ACE inhibitor.

 

Potential Mechanisms

Angiotensin receptor blockers block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, which may lead to numerous neuroprotective benefits such as improved blood flow to the brain and less neuroinflammation. The blockage may also reduce epilepsy severity and seizure frequency.

ACE inhibitors work in the same system as angiotensin receptor blockers but don’t bind directly to the angiotensin receptor. Experts believe these drugs may lead to inflammation that raises the risk for PSE.

Calcium channel blockers and beta blockers may increase the likelihood of seizures by inducing excessive excitability in the brain, which can trigger seizures.

Other research presented at the meeting found that angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk for epilepsy in patients with hypertension even in the absence of stroke.

Using data from an US national administrative database, the retrospective cohort study included 2,261,964 eligible adult beneficiaries diagnosed with hypertension and dispensed at least one angiotensin receptor blocker, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, or calcium channel blocker from 2010 to 2017.

The study found angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with lower epilepsy incidence than ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), beta blockers (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and calcium channel blockers (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04).

The effect was most robust for the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and among patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular conditions.

Researchers ran the analysis excluding stroke and the association was still there, said lead study author Kimford Meador, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “People with hypertension who use angiotensin receptor blockers — even if they don’t have a stroke — are less likely to develop epilepsy than if they use other major anti-hypertensives.”

 

Exciting and Suggestive

These new studies are “exciting” and “very suggestive,” said Meador. “We don’t have any true antiepileptic drugs; we have antiseizure medications. If we could reduce the incidence of epilepsy, that would be a very big thing.”

But the research to date hasn’t been “definitive” and is subject to bias, he said. “What we really need is a large randomized controlled trial to see if this is real because any observational study in humans has the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables.”

If such a study does show the effect is real, “that would change clinical practice,” said Meador.

As angiotensin receptor blockers have anti-inflammatory effects, researchers are now investigating whether this class of drugs might be useful in other diseases linked to inflammation such as multiple sclerosis, said Meador.

Commenting on the research, Alain Zingraff Looti, MD, assistant professor of neurology and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said this new research is “important” although still at a “very preliminary stage.”

As the studies so far have all been observational, “they showed an association, but that doesn’t mean causality,” said Looti. These studies just looked at known potential confounders, “and there may be some unknown confounders that could explain the association,” he added.

But he acknowledged the results make sense from a biological standpoint. He noted that infusing angiotensin receptor blockers into rats causes a “cascade reaction” leading to reduced inflammation in the brain and then to less epilepsy. “Inflammation plays a major role in several models of epilepsy,” he added.

While these new results are important, Looti, too, would like to see a randomized controlled trial to confirm the findings.

Looti and Meador reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — Angiotensin receptor blockers are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in reducing the risk for post-stroke epilepsy (PSE), new research showed.

Investigators found angiotensin receptor blockers are better at cutting the PSE risk in individuals with high blood pressure than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

The results suggested angiotensin receptor blockers could be a frontline strategy to proactively forestall development of epilepsy in patients with a history of stroke and hypertension, said the study’s co-lead investigator Giacomo Evangelista, MD, PhD, a resident in neurology at the Epilepsy Center at “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Stroke and Seizures Tightly Linked

Stroke is the most common cause of seizures in patients older than 60 years. About 6%-8% of new epilepsy diagnoses in older adult patients are associated with a brain ischemic event.

Hypertension is among the most common risk factors for both epilepsy and stroke. The European Society of Cardiology recommends ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers be considered first-line hypertension treatments.

Angiotensin receptor blockers seem to provide a protective effect in terms of seizures in the general population, but their possible preventive role in PSE has not been clear.

The retrospective, observational study included 528 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; 57.19% men) with hypertension and ischemic stroke without a history of epilepsy.

Researchers divided patients into those who developed PSE during the 2-year follow-up and those who didn’t. The main outcome was incidence of PSE associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy compared with other antihypertensive drug classes (ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta blockers).

Of the total, 7.2% of patients developed PSE. The study found patients treated with an angiotensin receptor blockers had a lower risk for PSE (P = .009). PSE incidence was higher among patients receiving calcium channel blockers (P = .019) and beta blockers (P = .008), but ACE inhibitors did not appear to affect PSE risk.

Further analysis showed that patients taking a beta blocker were 120% more likely to develop PSE, and those taking a calcium channel blocker were 110% more likely to develop PSE than those taking an angiotensin receptor blocker. The corresponding comparison was 65% for those taking an ACE inhibitor.

 

Potential Mechanisms

Angiotensin receptor blockers block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, which may lead to numerous neuroprotective benefits such as improved blood flow to the brain and less neuroinflammation. The blockage may also reduce epilepsy severity and seizure frequency.

ACE inhibitors work in the same system as angiotensin receptor blockers but don’t bind directly to the angiotensin receptor. Experts believe these drugs may lead to inflammation that raises the risk for PSE.

Calcium channel blockers and beta blockers may increase the likelihood of seizures by inducing excessive excitability in the brain, which can trigger seizures.

Other research presented at the meeting found that angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk for epilepsy in patients with hypertension even in the absence of stroke.

Using data from an US national administrative database, the retrospective cohort study included 2,261,964 eligible adult beneficiaries diagnosed with hypertension and dispensed at least one angiotensin receptor blocker, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, or calcium channel blocker from 2010 to 2017.

The study found angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with lower epilepsy incidence than ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), beta blockers (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and calcium channel blockers (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04).

The effect was most robust for the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and among patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular conditions.

Researchers ran the analysis excluding stroke and the association was still there, said lead study author Kimford Meador, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “People with hypertension who use angiotensin receptor blockers — even if they don’t have a stroke — are less likely to develop epilepsy than if they use other major anti-hypertensives.”

 

Exciting and Suggestive

These new studies are “exciting” and “very suggestive,” said Meador. “We don’t have any true antiepileptic drugs; we have antiseizure medications. If we could reduce the incidence of epilepsy, that would be a very big thing.”

But the research to date hasn’t been “definitive” and is subject to bias, he said. “What we really need is a large randomized controlled trial to see if this is real because any observational study in humans has the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables.”

If such a study does show the effect is real, “that would change clinical practice,” said Meador.

As angiotensin receptor blockers have anti-inflammatory effects, researchers are now investigating whether this class of drugs might be useful in other diseases linked to inflammation such as multiple sclerosis, said Meador.

Commenting on the research, Alain Zingraff Looti, MD, assistant professor of neurology and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said this new research is “important” although still at a “very preliminary stage.”

As the studies so far have all been observational, “they showed an association, but that doesn’t mean causality,” said Looti. These studies just looked at known potential confounders, “and there may be some unknown confounders that could explain the association,” he added.

But he acknowledged the results make sense from a biological standpoint. He noted that infusing angiotensin receptor blockers into rats causes a “cascade reaction” leading to reduced inflammation in the brain and then to less epilepsy. “Inflammation plays a major role in several models of epilepsy,” he added.

While these new results are important, Looti, too, would like to see a randomized controlled trial to confirm the findings.

Looti and Meador reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — Angiotensin receptor blockers are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in reducing the risk for post-stroke epilepsy (PSE), new research showed.

Investigators found angiotensin receptor blockers are better at cutting the PSE risk in individuals with high blood pressure than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta-blockers.

The results suggested angiotensin receptor blockers could be a frontline strategy to proactively forestall development of epilepsy in patients with a history of stroke and hypertension, said the study’s co-lead investigator Giacomo Evangelista, MD, PhD, a resident in neurology at the Epilepsy Center at “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Stroke and Seizures Tightly Linked

Stroke is the most common cause of seizures in patients older than 60 years. About 6%-8% of new epilepsy diagnoses in older adult patients are associated with a brain ischemic event.

Hypertension is among the most common risk factors for both epilepsy and stroke. The European Society of Cardiology recommends ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers be considered first-line hypertension treatments.

Angiotensin receptor blockers seem to provide a protective effect in terms of seizures in the general population, but their possible preventive role in PSE has not been clear.

The retrospective, observational study included 528 patients (mean age, 71.4 years; 57.19% men) with hypertension and ischemic stroke without a history of epilepsy.

Researchers divided patients into those who developed PSE during the 2-year follow-up and those who didn’t. The main outcome was incidence of PSE associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy compared with other antihypertensive drug classes (ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and beta blockers).

Of the total, 7.2% of patients developed PSE. The study found patients treated with an angiotensin receptor blockers had a lower risk for PSE (P = .009). PSE incidence was higher among patients receiving calcium channel blockers (P = .019) and beta blockers (P = .008), but ACE inhibitors did not appear to affect PSE risk.

Further analysis showed that patients taking a beta blocker were 120% more likely to develop PSE, and those taking a calcium channel blocker were 110% more likely to develop PSE than those taking an angiotensin receptor blocker. The corresponding comparison was 65% for those taking an ACE inhibitor.

 

Potential Mechanisms

Angiotensin receptor blockers block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, which may lead to numerous neuroprotective benefits such as improved blood flow to the brain and less neuroinflammation. The blockage may also reduce epilepsy severity and seizure frequency.

ACE inhibitors work in the same system as angiotensin receptor blockers but don’t bind directly to the angiotensin receptor. Experts believe these drugs may lead to inflammation that raises the risk for PSE.

Calcium channel blockers and beta blockers may increase the likelihood of seizures by inducing excessive excitability in the brain, which can trigger seizures.

Other research presented at the meeting found that angiotensin receptor blockers reduce the risk for epilepsy in patients with hypertension even in the absence of stroke.

Using data from an US national administrative database, the retrospective cohort study included 2,261,964 eligible adult beneficiaries diagnosed with hypertension and dispensed at least one angiotensin receptor blocker, ACE inhibitor, beta blocker, or calcium channel blocker from 2010 to 2017.

The study found angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with lower epilepsy incidence than ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), beta blockers (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and calcium channel blockers (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.04).

The effect was most robust for the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan and among patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular conditions.

Researchers ran the analysis excluding stroke and the association was still there, said lead study author Kimford Meador, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. “People with hypertension who use angiotensin receptor blockers — even if they don’t have a stroke — are less likely to develop epilepsy than if they use other major anti-hypertensives.”

 

Exciting and Suggestive

These new studies are “exciting” and “very suggestive,” said Meador. “We don’t have any true antiepileptic drugs; we have antiseizure medications. If we could reduce the incidence of epilepsy, that would be a very big thing.”

But the research to date hasn’t been “definitive” and is subject to bias, he said. “What we really need is a large randomized controlled trial to see if this is real because any observational study in humans has the potential for confounding from unmeasured variables.”

If such a study does show the effect is real, “that would change clinical practice,” said Meador.

As angiotensin receptor blockers have anti-inflammatory effects, researchers are now investigating whether this class of drugs might be useful in other diseases linked to inflammation such as multiple sclerosis, said Meador.

Commenting on the research, Alain Zingraff Looti, MD, assistant professor of neurology and public health sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, said this new research is “important” although still at a “very preliminary stage.”

As the studies so far have all been observational, “they showed an association, but that doesn’t mean causality,” said Looti. These studies just looked at known potential confounders, “and there may be some unknown confounders that could explain the association,” he added.

But he acknowledged the results make sense from a biological standpoint. He noted that infusing angiotensin receptor blockers into rats causes a “cascade reaction” leading to reduced inflammation in the brain and then to less epilepsy. “Inflammation plays a major role in several models of epilepsy,” he added.

While these new results are important, Looti, too, would like to see a randomized controlled trial to confirm the findings.

Looti and Meador reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — The median cost of brand-name anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in the United States almost doubled from 2013 to 2023, whereas generic ASM prices declined over the same period, results of a new study showed.

These findings highlight an “urgent need” to examine ASM pricing, said study investigator Pradeep Javarayee, MD, MBA, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“The price disparity between generic and brand-name anti-seizure medications is growing,” said Javarayee. “Understanding these trends is essential for clinicians to make cost-conscious prescribing decisions and to advocate for policies that ensure equitable access to treatment for patients with epilepsy.” 

The findings were presented at American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Concerning Trends

Researchers analyzed prices of ASMs using National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from November 2013 to July 2023.

A publicly available resource, NADAC is widely regarded as the most reliable benchmark for drug reimbursement in the United States, said Javarayee. It is based on the price/unit of Medicaid-covered outpatient drugs collected though monthly surveys of retail community pharmacies across the United States.

The database includes medication names, strengths, formulations, and National Drug Codes.

The study examined 23 US Food and Drug Administration–approved ASMs, encompassing 223 oral formulations, which included 112 brand-name and 111 generic products.

To account for inflation, researchers adjusted ASM prices using the Consumer Price Index for Medicinal Drugs–Seasonally Adjusted. They also explored the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on drug pricing.

The study uncovered trends that Javarayee found concerning. For example, between 2013 and 2023, the average price of brand-name ASMs increased from $8.71 to $15.43, whereas the average price of generic ASMs decreased from $1.39 to $1.26.

Most generic ASMs remained in the low-cost range ($0-$0.25) during the study period, whereas the proportion of higher-priced brand-name ASMs ($10-$50) increased.

The number of brand-name ASMs with a mean price exceeding $15 rose from two (2013-2016) to six (2017-2019) and then to eight (2020-2023).

 

Unsustainable Price Increases

The study uncovered examples of what Javarayee called “extreme” price differences. For instance, matched brand-name and generic ASMs with price differences of 1000%-9999% increased from 32.88% in 2013-2016 to 41.43% in 2020-2023.

Among brand-name ASMs, cenobamate (Xcopri), which is approved in the United States for partial-onset seizures, had the highest mean price between 2020 and 2023 ($35.59). For generic ASMs, topiramate had the highest mean price in the same time period ($6.64).

Looking at formulation-based cost differences, the study found generic immediate-release formulations were significantly cheaper than extended-release or delayed-release counterparts, with cost differences reaching as high as 7751.20%.

The study also showed the COVID-19 pandemic led to a 24.4% increase in brand-name ASM prices and a 23.1% decrease in generic ASM prices.

The results underscore the need to raise awareness of drug pricing dynamics and call for targeted policy interventions to alleviate the rising cost burden on patients, said Javarayee.

He emphasized that such price increases are unsustainable. “Addressing these disparities is critical not only for improving patient adherence and outcomes but also for reducing the overall economic strain on the healthcare system.”

 

‘Tip of the Iceberg’

Reached for a comment, Tim Welty, a pharmacist in Des Moines, Iowa, who specializes in epilepsy drugs, agreed that the issue of medication costs needs to be addressed.

“I absolutely think physicians and others need to advocate for transparency in pricing,” he said. It’s not unusual for physician requests to have newer ASMs covered for their patients to be denied, he added.

Welty also noted Congress is currently considering bills that address the lack of transparency in the way medications are reimbursed.

This new study doesn’t reveal what patients are paying for their medications, he said. “These data tell me the national average of the cost to the pharmacy, but don’t tell me what the patient is actually paying, or what the insurance companies are actually paying for these medications.”

A “hot topic” in the industry is the role of pharmacy benefit managers, who are contracted by health insurance companies to manage medication portfolios, in influencing drug prices.

Drug pricing is a complicated topic. “There’s a lot more behind this; this is just like a tip of the iceberg,” said Welty.

Also commenting, Jacqueline French, MD, professor, NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, New York City, said the much higher ASM prices are “very problematic,” particularly for drugs that don’t have a generic.

“I wonder how much the drugs for orphan indications, which are usually higher priced, influenced the numbers.”

The good news, though, is that many people “can safely take generics if they’re available,” said French.

The investigators and Welty reported no relevant disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — The median cost of brand-name anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in the United States almost doubled from 2013 to 2023, whereas generic ASM prices declined over the same period, results of a new study showed.

These findings highlight an “urgent need” to examine ASM pricing, said study investigator Pradeep Javarayee, MD, MBA, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“The price disparity between generic and brand-name anti-seizure medications is growing,” said Javarayee. “Understanding these trends is essential for clinicians to make cost-conscious prescribing decisions and to advocate for policies that ensure equitable access to treatment for patients with epilepsy.” 

The findings were presented at American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Concerning Trends

Researchers analyzed prices of ASMs using National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from November 2013 to July 2023.

A publicly available resource, NADAC is widely regarded as the most reliable benchmark for drug reimbursement in the United States, said Javarayee. It is based on the price/unit of Medicaid-covered outpatient drugs collected though monthly surveys of retail community pharmacies across the United States.

The database includes medication names, strengths, formulations, and National Drug Codes.

The study examined 23 US Food and Drug Administration–approved ASMs, encompassing 223 oral formulations, which included 112 brand-name and 111 generic products.

To account for inflation, researchers adjusted ASM prices using the Consumer Price Index for Medicinal Drugs–Seasonally Adjusted. They also explored the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on drug pricing.

The study uncovered trends that Javarayee found concerning. For example, between 2013 and 2023, the average price of brand-name ASMs increased from $8.71 to $15.43, whereas the average price of generic ASMs decreased from $1.39 to $1.26.

Most generic ASMs remained in the low-cost range ($0-$0.25) during the study period, whereas the proportion of higher-priced brand-name ASMs ($10-$50) increased.

The number of brand-name ASMs with a mean price exceeding $15 rose from two (2013-2016) to six (2017-2019) and then to eight (2020-2023).

 

Unsustainable Price Increases

The study uncovered examples of what Javarayee called “extreme” price differences. For instance, matched brand-name and generic ASMs with price differences of 1000%-9999% increased from 32.88% in 2013-2016 to 41.43% in 2020-2023.

Among brand-name ASMs, cenobamate (Xcopri), which is approved in the United States for partial-onset seizures, had the highest mean price between 2020 and 2023 ($35.59). For generic ASMs, topiramate had the highest mean price in the same time period ($6.64).

Looking at formulation-based cost differences, the study found generic immediate-release formulations were significantly cheaper than extended-release or delayed-release counterparts, with cost differences reaching as high as 7751.20%.

The study also showed the COVID-19 pandemic led to a 24.4% increase in brand-name ASM prices and a 23.1% decrease in generic ASM prices.

The results underscore the need to raise awareness of drug pricing dynamics and call for targeted policy interventions to alleviate the rising cost burden on patients, said Javarayee.

He emphasized that such price increases are unsustainable. “Addressing these disparities is critical not only for improving patient adherence and outcomes but also for reducing the overall economic strain on the healthcare system.”

 

‘Tip of the Iceberg’

Reached for a comment, Tim Welty, a pharmacist in Des Moines, Iowa, who specializes in epilepsy drugs, agreed that the issue of medication costs needs to be addressed.

“I absolutely think physicians and others need to advocate for transparency in pricing,” he said. It’s not unusual for physician requests to have newer ASMs covered for their patients to be denied, he added.

Welty also noted Congress is currently considering bills that address the lack of transparency in the way medications are reimbursed.

This new study doesn’t reveal what patients are paying for their medications, he said. “These data tell me the national average of the cost to the pharmacy, but don’t tell me what the patient is actually paying, or what the insurance companies are actually paying for these medications.”

A “hot topic” in the industry is the role of pharmacy benefit managers, who are contracted by health insurance companies to manage medication portfolios, in influencing drug prices.

Drug pricing is a complicated topic. “There’s a lot more behind this; this is just like a tip of the iceberg,” said Welty.

Also commenting, Jacqueline French, MD, professor, NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, New York City, said the much higher ASM prices are “very problematic,” particularly for drugs that don’t have a generic.

“I wonder how much the drugs for orphan indications, which are usually higher priced, influenced the numbers.”

The good news, though, is that many people “can safely take generics if they’re available,” said French.

The investigators and Welty reported no relevant disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES — The median cost of brand-name anti-seizure medications (ASMs) in the United States almost doubled from 2013 to 2023, whereas generic ASM prices declined over the same period, results of a new study showed.

These findings highlight an “urgent need” to examine ASM pricing, said study investigator Pradeep Javarayee, MD, MBA, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

“The price disparity between generic and brand-name anti-seizure medications is growing,” said Javarayee. “Understanding these trends is essential for clinicians to make cost-conscious prescribing decisions and to advocate for policies that ensure equitable access to treatment for patients with epilepsy.” 

The findings were presented at American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Concerning Trends

Researchers analyzed prices of ASMs using National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from November 2013 to July 2023.

A publicly available resource, NADAC is widely regarded as the most reliable benchmark for drug reimbursement in the United States, said Javarayee. It is based on the price/unit of Medicaid-covered outpatient drugs collected though monthly surveys of retail community pharmacies across the United States.

The database includes medication names, strengths, formulations, and National Drug Codes.

The study examined 23 US Food and Drug Administration–approved ASMs, encompassing 223 oral formulations, which included 112 brand-name and 111 generic products.

To account for inflation, researchers adjusted ASM prices using the Consumer Price Index for Medicinal Drugs–Seasonally Adjusted. They also explored the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on drug pricing.

The study uncovered trends that Javarayee found concerning. For example, between 2013 and 2023, the average price of brand-name ASMs increased from $8.71 to $15.43, whereas the average price of generic ASMs decreased from $1.39 to $1.26.

Most generic ASMs remained in the low-cost range ($0-$0.25) during the study period, whereas the proportion of higher-priced brand-name ASMs ($10-$50) increased.

The number of brand-name ASMs with a mean price exceeding $15 rose from two (2013-2016) to six (2017-2019) and then to eight (2020-2023).

 

Unsustainable Price Increases

The study uncovered examples of what Javarayee called “extreme” price differences. For instance, matched brand-name and generic ASMs with price differences of 1000%-9999% increased from 32.88% in 2013-2016 to 41.43% in 2020-2023.

Among brand-name ASMs, cenobamate (Xcopri), which is approved in the United States for partial-onset seizures, had the highest mean price between 2020 and 2023 ($35.59). For generic ASMs, topiramate had the highest mean price in the same time period ($6.64).

Looking at formulation-based cost differences, the study found generic immediate-release formulations were significantly cheaper than extended-release or delayed-release counterparts, with cost differences reaching as high as 7751.20%.

The study also showed the COVID-19 pandemic led to a 24.4% increase in brand-name ASM prices and a 23.1% decrease in generic ASM prices.

The results underscore the need to raise awareness of drug pricing dynamics and call for targeted policy interventions to alleviate the rising cost burden on patients, said Javarayee.

He emphasized that such price increases are unsustainable. “Addressing these disparities is critical not only for improving patient adherence and outcomes but also for reducing the overall economic strain on the healthcare system.”

 

‘Tip of the Iceberg’

Reached for a comment, Tim Welty, a pharmacist in Des Moines, Iowa, who specializes in epilepsy drugs, agreed that the issue of medication costs needs to be addressed.

“I absolutely think physicians and others need to advocate for transparency in pricing,” he said. It’s not unusual for physician requests to have newer ASMs covered for their patients to be denied, he added.

Welty also noted Congress is currently considering bills that address the lack of transparency in the way medications are reimbursed.

This new study doesn’t reveal what patients are paying for their medications, he said. “These data tell me the national average of the cost to the pharmacy, but don’t tell me what the patient is actually paying, or what the insurance companies are actually paying for these medications.”

A “hot topic” in the industry is the role of pharmacy benefit managers, who are contracted by health insurance companies to manage medication portfolios, in influencing drug prices.

Drug pricing is a complicated topic. “There’s a lot more behind this; this is just like a tip of the iceberg,” said Welty.

Also commenting, Jacqueline French, MD, professor, NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, New York City, said the much higher ASM prices are “very problematic,” particularly for drugs that don’t have a generic.

“I wonder how much the drugs for orphan indications, which are usually higher priced, influenced the numbers.”

The good news, though, is that many people “can safely take generics if they’re available,” said French.

The investigators and Welty reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Long COVID can have an enormous impact on people’s ability to work, particularly if they do not have workplace accommodations and support. Although some patients experience symptoms so severe that they cannot work under any conditions, medical providers and employers can help ensure many patients with long COVID can stay in the workforce.

Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems. By the end of 2023, at least 400 million people worldwide were estimated to have long COVID.

As members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers and health advocates living with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions, we have published one of the first research studies of people with long COVID and their desire to work, the specific needs they have, and what doctors and employers can do to create a path for returning to the workforce. 

In our recent paper, we document the barriers and facilitators that individuals living with long COVID experience when attempting to return to work. Our recommendations are based on these findings and include recommendations for both medical providers and employers. 

If you are a medical provider:

• Ensure you adequately document your patients’ COVID cases, any long COVID diagnoses, and the functional impairment that long COVID causes. Remember that you can diagnose a patient with long COVID on the basis of their symptoms, and clinical guidelines do not require a record of a positive COVID-19 test, which many patients lack owing to testing barriers.
• Keep up to date on research on long COVID and related infection-associated chronic conditions — for example, through the Project ECHO Long COVID and Fatiguing Illness Recovery Program — and learn about pacing and other treatment options.

If you are an employer: 

• Utilize a return-to-work model in which any worker with suspected or confirmed COVID discusses support they may need with their employer when they return to work, with additional check-in dates scheduled to reevaluate supports as needed. Planning for this collaborative and iterative evaluation of return-to-work supports for all workers with COVID-19 is important because it may not be immediately clear to a worker whether they have developed long COVID or are generally recuperating from the illness.
• Do not require medical documentation of a SARS-CoV-2 infection or a Long COVID diagnosis to access accommodations — this is owing to disparities in accessing documentation.
• Tailor job responsibilities, provide remote options, allow flexible hours, and provide longer-range deadlines to account for symptoms for people with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions.
• Provide accommodations to any caregivers of people with long COVID in your workplace.
• If requiring in-person work, make the workplace as safe as possible through ventilation and masking requirements, which will help ensure fewer of your workers develop long COVID, and those already with infection-associated chronic conditions will not get worse.

Our findings and recommendations are specific to long COVID, but they can and should apply to other disabilities. Given that our study’s sample was predominately White and working in jobs that did not require substantial physical labor, additional recommendations may be needed for other populations and workers who have labor-intensive jobs.

 

510 Study Participants

Long COVID is characterized as a relapsing-remitting illness, often described as episodic, in which an individual’s symptoms may fluctuate. Symptoms can become more or less severe depending on tasks, exertion, and social support in addition to physiologic processes and medical intervention. In our paper, we illustrate how the long COVID return-to-work experience and individuals’ symptoms can be shaped by workplace, home, and medical environments. 

We randomly selected 510 participants from a global survey of people living with long COVID and systematically analyzed their open-ended responses using established qualitative analysis methods. In this study, we specifically analyzed what patients wrote about their return-to-work experiences, considering how work experiences and relapsing and remitting long COVID symptoms intersected with personal lives and medical care. 

Most of the study participants identified as White, were 30-60 years old (ie, in their key earning years), and had at least a baccalaureate degree. Participants lived in the United States (38%), United Kingdom (25%), continental Europe (8%), Canada (4%), or other countries (25%). Most participants worked in professions that did not require substantial physical labor, and individuals in those fields may experience even greater return-to-work barriers than are reported in this study.

 

Key Findings

Through our qualitative analysis, we identified four primary return-to-work themes: 

1. People living with long COVID have a strong desire and financial need to return to work. 

The participants in our study described how they had experienced financial hardship because they could not successfully return to work and may have incurred new expenses with long COVID. They also often wrote how they wanted to return to work because their jobs provided meaning and structure for their lives. Some people in this study shared how they had tried to return to their jobs but relapsed. As a result, they considered leaving the workforce.

2. Workers’ long COVID symptoms intersect with organization of work and home life.

Most of the people in our study were employed in positions that did not require substantial physical labor. Even so, workers described how their long COVID symptoms were exacerbated by some job tasks. Computer screen time; reading dense material or writing (including emails); and conversations and meetings, regardless of whether they were in-person or via phone or video conferencing, could trigger or make symptoms worse. Workers who needed to stand for long periods of time, such as teachers and healthcare workers, and workers who needed to do lifting as part of their jobs described how these requirements were too taxing and could lead to relapses.

Because of the relapsing and remitting nature of many long COVID symptoms, people reported how it could be difficult to predict how job tasks, long hours, or pressing deadlines may exacerbate symptoms, which would require them to take time off work. For these participants, “pushing through” symptoms only made the symptoms worse. However, people in the study who were allowed to work from home reported how pacing, elevating their legs, and conserving energy (especially by not commuting) was key to doing their jobs well.

Some people in the study described how they were only able to return to work because they had substantial support from family or partners at home. These individuals shared how the people they lived with did most of the cooking, cleaning, and other household tasks so that the person living with long COVID could conserve their energy for work. This reorganization of home life notably shifted household tasks and caregiving to other people in the household, but without this shift, the individual’s long COVID symptoms may be too severe to work.

3. People with long COVID experience disbelief and stigma at work and healthcare settings.

Some people in our study described how their colleagues, supervisors, and human resource managers insinuated that they were fabricating or exaggerating their symptoms. This made it hard for workers to communicate what support they needed and could limit access to necessary work accommodations.

Many people in our study also described how medical providers did not believe that they had long COVID despite experiencing debilitating symptoms, often because they did not have a positive COVID-19 test to prove they had had an acute infection. Many people with long COVID may not have a positive COVID-19 test because:

• They could not access a test because testing access was limited at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are transportation and cost barriers to tests, many health insurance providers no longer cover tests; and there are fewer public testing sites since the World Health Organization declared an end to the public health emergency;
• There is a high probability of false-negative results for viral and antibody tests (especially during the first wave of the pandemic and for individuals with limited immune response); and
• People can develop long COVID after asymptomatic acute infection.

Although healthcare providers can provide a long COVID diagnosis without a positive COVID-19 test on the basis of a patient’s presentation of symptoms and clinical history, many people in our study said that their providers would not provide this diagnosis, which restricted access to worker’s compensation, paid time off, and job accommodations.

Many people in the study also reported that their medical providers misdiagnosed them with a mental health disorder, such as anxiety, instead of long COVID. Although some people with long COVID may experience poor mental health as a natural consequence of dealing with a debilitating medical condition or may have neuropsychiatric symptoms as part of their long COVID, long COVID is not caused by an underlying psychiatric illness.

4. Support of medical providers is key to successful return to work for people living with long COVID.

Some people in our study described how they were able to get workplace accommodations or access workers’ compensation or sick leave because their medical providers recognized they had long COVID and provided them with this documentation. Some of these participants did not have a positive COVID-19 test, but their medical providers were able to diagnose them with long COVID on the basis of symptom presentation and clinical history. This documentation was critical for helping workers remain financially stable and able to return to work.

 

Conclusion

While we continue to search for treatment and cures for long COVID and work to provide a robust social safety net, it is crucial to address the stigma, inaccessibility, and lack of support often experienced by patients in their workplaces. Disabled people have long faced these issues; long COVID may be an opportunity to revolutionize the workplace to ensure an inclusive and accessible environment that can improve the lives of all workers.

For more on how to best be inclusive of employees with long COVID, read Harvard Business Review’s “Long Covid at Work: A Manager’s Guide” and visit the Job Accommodation Network webpage dedicated to long COVID.

Additional discussion about our study and applying the findings to improve work and medical care can be found by listening to the Healthy Work podcast episode titled “Supporting Long COVID at Work.” 

 

Elisabeth Stelson, Gina Assaf, and Lisa McCorkell are members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers. Dr Stelson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Gina Assaf is Research Lead, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC. Lisa McCorkell is a long COVID patient; Cofounder, Team Lead, Researcher, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Long COVID can have an enormous impact on people’s ability to work, particularly if they do not have workplace accommodations and support. Although some patients experience symptoms so severe that they cannot work under any conditions, medical providers and employers can help ensure many patients with long COVID can stay in the workforce.

Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems. By the end of 2023, at least 400 million people worldwide were estimated to have long COVID.

As members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers and health advocates living with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions, we have published one of the first research studies of people with long COVID and their desire to work, the specific needs they have, and what doctors and employers can do to create a path for returning to the workforce. 

In our recent paper, we document the barriers and facilitators that individuals living with long COVID experience when attempting to return to work. Our recommendations are based on these findings and include recommendations for both medical providers and employers. 

If you are a medical provider:

• Ensure you adequately document your patients’ COVID cases, any long COVID diagnoses, and the functional impairment that long COVID causes. Remember that you can diagnose a patient with long COVID on the basis of their symptoms, and clinical guidelines do not require a record of a positive COVID-19 test, which many patients lack owing to testing barriers.
• Keep up to date on research on long COVID and related infection-associated chronic conditions — for example, through the Project ECHO Long COVID and Fatiguing Illness Recovery Program — and learn about pacing and other treatment options.

If you are an employer: 

• Utilize a return-to-work model in which any worker with suspected or confirmed COVID discusses support they may need with their employer when they return to work, with additional check-in dates scheduled to reevaluate supports as needed. Planning for this collaborative and iterative evaluation of return-to-work supports for all workers with COVID-19 is important because it may not be immediately clear to a worker whether they have developed long COVID or are generally recuperating from the illness.
• Do not require medical documentation of a SARS-CoV-2 infection or a Long COVID diagnosis to access accommodations — this is owing to disparities in accessing documentation.
• Tailor job responsibilities, provide remote options, allow flexible hours, and provide longer-range deadlines to account for symptoms for people with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions.
• Provide accommodations to any caregivers of people with long COVID in your workplace.
• If requiring in-person work, make the workplace as safe as possible through ventilation and masking requirements, which will help ensure fewer of your workers develop long COVID, and those already with infection-associated chronic conditions will not get worse.

Our findings and recommendations are specific to long COVID, but they can and should apply to other disabilities. Given that our study’s sample was predominately White and working in jobs that did not require substantial physical labor, additional recommendations may be needed for other populations and workers who have labor-intensive jobs.

 

510 Study Participants

Long COVID is characterized as a relapsing-remitting illness, often described as episodic, in which an individual’s symptoms may fluctuate. Symptoms can become more or less severe depending on tasks, exertion, and social support in addition to physiologic processes and medical intervention. In our paper, we illustrate how the long COVID return-to-work experience and individuals’ symptoms can be shaped by workplace, home, and medical environments. 

We randomly selected 510 participants from a global survey of people living with long COVID and systematically analyzed their open-ended responses using established qualitative analysis methods. In this study, we specifically analyzed what patients wrote about their return-to-work experiences, considering how work experiences and relapsing and remitting long COVID symptoms intersected with personal lives and medical care. 

Most of the study participants identified as White, were 30-60 years old (ie, in their key earning years), and had at least a baccalaureate degree. Participants lived in the United States (38%), United Kingdom (25%), continental Europe (8%), Canada (4%), or other countries (25%). Most participants worked in professions that did not require substantial physical labor, and individuals in those fields may experience even greater return-to-work barriers than are reported in this study.

 

Key Findings

Through our qualitative analysis, we identified four primary return-to-work themes: 

1. People living with long COVID have a strong desire and financial need to return to work. 

The participants in our study described how they had experienced financial hardship because they could not successfully return to work and may have incurred new expenses with long COVID. They also often wrote how they wanted to return to work because their jobs provided meaning and structure for their lives. Some people in this study shared how they had tried to return to their jobs but relapsed. As a result, they considered leaving the workforce.

2. Workers’ long COVID symptoms intersect with organization of work and home life.

Most of the people in our study were employed in positions that did not require substantial physical labor. Even so, workers described how their long COVID symptoms were exacerbated by some job tasks. Computer screen time; reading dense material or writing (including emails); and conversations and meetings, regardless of whether they were in-person or via phone or video conferencing, could trigger or make symptoms worse. Workers who needed to stand for long periods of time, such as teachers and healthcare workers, and workers who needed to do lifting as part of their jobs described how these requirements were too taxing and could lead to relapses.

Because of the relapsing and remitting nature of many long COVID symptoms, people reported how it could be difficult to predict how job tasks, long hours, or pressing deadlines may exacerbate symptoms, which would require them to take time off work. For these participants, “pushing through” symptoms only made the symptoms worse. However, people in the study who were allowed to work from home reported how pacing, elevating their legs, and conserving energy (especially by not commuting) was key to doing their jobs well.

Some people in the study described how they were only able to return to work because they had substantial support from family or partners at home. These individuals shared how the people they lived with did most of the cooking, cleaning, and other household tasks so that the person living with long COVID could conserve their energy for work. This reorganization of home life notably shifted household tasks and caregiving to other people in the household, but without this shift, the individual’s long COVID symptoms may be too severe to work.

3. People with long COVID experience disbelief and stigma at work and healthcare settings.

Some people in our study described how their colleagues, supervisors, and human resource managers insinuated that they were fabricating or exaggerating their symptoms. This made it hard for workers to communicate what support they needed and could limit access to necessary work accommodations.

Many people in our study also described how medical providers did not believe that they had long COVID despite experiencing debilitating symptoms, often because they did not have a positive COVID-19 test to prove they had had an acute infection. Many people with long COVID may not have a positive COVID-19 test because:

• They could not access a test because testing access was limited at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are transportation and cost barriers to tests, many health insurance providers no longer cover tests; and there are fewer public testing sites since the World Health Organization declared an end to the public health emergency;
• There is a high probability of false-negative results for viral and antibody tests (especially during the first wave of the pandemic and for individuals with limited immune response); and
• People can develop long COVID after asymptomatic acute infection.

Although healthcare providers can provide a long COVID diagnosis without a positive COVID-19 test on the basis of a patient’s presentation of symptoms and clinical history, many people in our study said that their providers would not provide this diagnosis, which restricted access to worker’s compensation, paid time off, and job accommodations.

Many people in the study also reported that their medical providers misdiagnosed them with a mental health disorder, such as anxiety, instead of long COVID. Although some people with long COVID may experience poor mental health as a natural consequence of dealing with a debilitating medical condition or may have neuropsychiatric symptoms as part of their long COVID, long COVID is not caused by an underlying psychiatric illness.

4. Support of medical providers is key to successful return to work for people living with long COVID.

Some people in our study described how they were able to get workplace accommodations or access workers’ compensation or sick leave because their medical providers recognized they had long COVID and provided them with this documentation. Some of these participants did not have a positive COVID-19 test, but their medical providers were able to diagnose them with long COVID on the basis of symptom presentation and clinical history. This documentation was critical for helping workers remain financially stable and able to return to work.

 

Conclusion

While we continue to search for treatment and cures for long COVID and work to provide a robust social safety net, it is crucial to address the stigma, inaccessibility, and lack of support often experienced by patients in their workplaces. Disabled people have long faced these issues; long COVID may be an opportunity to revolutionize the workplace to ensure an inclusive and accessible environment that can improve the lives of all workers.

For more on how to best be inclusive of employees with long COVID, read Harvard Business Review’s “Long Covid at Work: A Manager’s Guide” and visit the Job Accommodation Network webpage dedicated to long COVID.

Additional discussion about our study and applying the findings to improve work and medical care can be found by listening to the Healthy Work podcast episode titled “Supporting Long COVID at Work.” 

 

Elisabeth Stelson, Gina Assaf, and Lisa McCorkell are members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers. Dr Stelson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Gina Assaf is Research Lead, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC. Lisa McCorkell is a long COVID patient; Cofounder, Team Lead, Researcher, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Long COVID can have an enormous impact on people’s ability to work, particularly if they do not have workplace accommodations and support. Although some patients experience symptoms so severe that they cannot work under any conditions, medical providers and employers can help ensure many patients with long COVID can stay in the workforce.

Long COVID is an infection-associated chronic condition that occurs after SARS-CoV-2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems. By the end of 2023, at least 400 million people worldwide were estimated to have long COVID.

As members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers and health advocates living with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions, we have published one of the first research studies of people with long COVID and their desire to work, the specific needs they have, and what doctors and employers can do to create a path for returning to the workforce. 

In our recent paper, we document the barriers and facilitators that individuals living with long COVID experience when attempting to return to work. Our recommendations are based on these findings and include recommendations for both medical providers and employers. 

If you are a medical provider:

• Ensure you adequately document your patients’ COVID cases, any long COVID diagnoses, and the functional impairment that long COVID causes. Remember that you can diagnose a patient with long COVID on the basis of their symptoms, and clinical guidelines do not require a record of a positive COVID-19 test, which many patients lack owing to testing barriers.
• Keep up to date on research on long COVID and related infection-associated chronic conditions — for example, through the Project ECHO Long COVID and Fatiguing Illness Recovery Program — and learn about pacing and other treatment options.

If you are an employer: 

• Utilize a return-to-work model in which any worker with suspected or confirmed COVID discusses support they may need with their employer when they return to work, with additional check-in dates scheduled to reevaluate supports as needed. Planning for this collaborative and iterative evaluation of return-to-work supports for all workers with COVID-19 is important because it may not be immediately clear to a worker whether they have developed long COVID or are generally recuperating from the illness.
• Do not require medical documentation of a SARS-CoV-2 infection or a Long COVID diagnosis to access accommodations — this is owing to disparities in accessing documentation.
• Tailor job responsibilities, provide remote options, allow flexible hours, and provide longer-range deadlines to account for symptoms for people with long COVID and other infection-associated chronic conditions.
• Provide accommodations to any caregivers of people with long COVID in your workplace.
• If requiring in-person work, make the workplace as safe as possible through ventilation and masking requirements, which will help ensure fewer of your workers develop long COVID, and those already with infection-associated chronic conditions will not get worse.

Our findings and recommendations are specific to long COVID, but they can and should apply to other disabilities. Given that our study’s sample was predominately White and working in jobs that did not require substantial physical labor, additional recommendations may be needed for other populations and workers who have labor-intensive jobs.

 

510 Study Participants

Long COVID is characterized as a relapsing-remitting illness, often described as episodic, in which an individual’s symptoms may fluctuate. Symptoms can become more or less severe depending on tasks, exertion, and social support in addition to physiologic processes and medical intervention. In our paper, we illustrate how the long COVID return-to-work experience and individuals’ symptoms can be shaped by workplace, home, and medical environments. 

We randomly selected 510 participants from a global survey of people living with long COVID and systematically analyzed their open-ended responses using established qualitative analysis methods. In this study, we specifically analyzed what patients wrote about their return-to-work experiences, considering how work experiences and relapsing and remitting long COVID symptoms intersected with personal lives and medical care. 

Most of the study participants identified as White, were 30-60 years old (ie, in their key earning years), and had at least a baccalaureate degree. Participants lived in the United States (38%), United Kingdom (25%), continental Europe (8%), Canada (4%), or other countries (25%). Most participants worked in professions that did not require substantial physical labor, and individuals in those fields may experience even greater return-to-work barriers than are reported in this study.

 

Key Findings

Through our qualitative analysis, we identified four primary return-to-work themes: 

1. People living with long COVID have a strong desire and financial need to return to work. 

The participants in our study described how they had experienced financial hardship because they could not successfully return to work and may have incurred new expenses with long COVID. They also often wrote how they wanted to return to work because their jobs provided meaning and structure for their lives. Some people in this study shared how they had tried to return to their jobs but relapsed. As a result, they considered leaving the workforce.

2. Workers’ long COVID symptoms intersect with organization of work and home life.

Most of the people in our study were employed in positions that did not require substantial physical labor. Even so, workers described how their long COVID symptoms were exacerbated by some job tasks. Computer screen time; reading dense material or writing (including emails); and conversations and meetings, regardless of whether they were in-person or via phone or video conferencing, could trigger or make symptoms worse. Workers who needed to stand for long periods of time, such as teachers and healthcare workers, and workers who needed to do lifting as part of their jobs described how these requirements were too taxing and could lead to relapses.

Because of the relapsing and remitting nature of many long COVID symptoms, people reported how it could be difficult to predict how job tasks, long hours, or pressing deadlines may exacerbate symptoms, which would require them to take time off work. For these participants, “pushing through” symptoms only made the symptoms worse. However, people in the study who were allowed to work from home reported how pacing, elevating their legs, and conserving energy (especially by not commuting) was key to doing their jobs well.

Some people in the study described how they were only able to return to work because they had substantial support from family or partners at home. These individuals shared how the people they lived with did most of the cooking, cleaning, and other household tasks so that the person living with long COVID could conserve their energy for work. This reorganization of home life notably shifted household tasks and caregiving to other people in the household, but without this shift, the individual’s long COVID symptoms may be too severe to work.

3. People with long COVID experience disbelief and stigma at work and healthcare settings.

Some people in our study described how their colleagues, supervisors, and human resource managers insinuated that they were fabricating or exaggerating their symptoms. This made it hard for workers to communicate what support they needed and could limit access to necessary work accommodations.

Many people in our study also described how medical providers did not believe that they had long COVID despite experiencing debilitating symptoms, often because they did not have a positive COVID-19 test to prove they had had an acute infection. Many people with long COVID may not have a positive COVID-19 test because:

• They could not access a test because testing access was limited at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there are transportation and cost barriers to tests, many health insurance providers no longer cover tests; and there are fewer public testing sites since the World Health Organization declared an end to the public health emergency;
• There is a high probability of false-negative results for viral and antibody tests (especially during the first wave of the pandemic and for individuals with limited immune response); and
• People can develop long COVID after asymptomatic acute infection.

Although healthcare providers can provide a long COVID diagnosis without a positive COVID-19 test on the basis of a patient’s presentation of symptoms and clinical history, many people in our study said that their providers would not provide this diagnosis, which restricted access to worker’s compensation, paid time off, and job accommodations.

Many people in the study also reported that their medical providers misdiagnosed them with a mental health disorder, such as anxiety, instead of long COVID. Although some people with long COVID may experience poor mental health as a natural consequence of dealing with a debilitating medical condition or may have neuropsychiatric symptoms as part of their long COVID, long COVID is not caused by an underlying psychiatric illness.

4. Support of medical providers is key to successful return to work for people living with long COVID.

Some people in our study described how they were able to get workplace accommodations or access workers’ compensation or sick leave because their medical providers recognized they had long COVID and provided them with this documentation. Some of these participants did not have a positive COVID-19 test, but their medical providers were able to diagnose them with long COVID on the basis of symptom presentation and clinical history. This documentation was critical for helping workers remain financially stable and able to return to work.

 

Conclusion

While we continue to search for treatment and cures for long COVID and work to provide a robust social safety net, it is crucial to address the stigma, inaccessibility, and lack of support often experienced by patients in their workplaces. Disabled people have long faced these issues; long COVID may be an opportunity to revolutionize the workplace to ensure an inclusive and accessible environment that can improve the lives of all workers.

For more on how to best be inclusive of employees with long COVID, read Harvard Business Review’s “Long Covid at Work: A Manager’s Guide” and visit the Job Accommodation Network webpage dedicated to long COVID.

Additional discussion about our study and applying the findings to improve work and medical care can be found by listening to the Healthy Work podcast episode titled “Supporting Long COVID at Work.” 

 

Elisabeth Stelson, Gina Assaf, and Lisa McCorkell are members of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative, an international group of more than 60 researchers. Dr Stelson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Gina Assaf is Research Lead, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC. Lisa McCorkell is a long COVID patient; Cofounder, Team Lead, Researcher, Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Washington, DC.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — The majority of women with epilepsy are inadequately educated about the potential risks associated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs), which include teratogenicity and a reduction in the efficacy of hormonal birth control, early results of a new survey suggested.

In addition, only about a third of survey respondents indicated that they were taking folic acid if pregnant or planning to be or using an effective contraceptive if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

“Physicians should see it as inside their scope to ask about the family planning aspect of things because it’s relevant to their patients’ neurologic care,” first study author Tori Valachovic, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, New York, told this news organization.

She noted patients may be taking ASMs not just for seizures but potentially to manage migraines or a mood disorder.

The findings were presented on December 8 at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Unique Survey

Research shows that about half of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and the number is even higher among people with epilepsy, said senior author Sarah Betstadt, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Rochester. That may be because women aren’t appropriately counseled about ASMs, possibly reducing the effectiveness of their hormonal birth control, she said.

The American Academy of Neurology recommends women with seizure disorders who could become pregnant receive yearly counseling about reproductive health, including ASM teratogenicity and interactions with hormonal contraceptive medications.

The study included 107 women aged 18-49 years at two general neurology outpatient clinics who were taking an ASM and completed a survey between July 2023 and May 2024. Of these, six were pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and 69 were using a barrier, hormonal, or implant form of contraception.

Researchers collected medical histories for each respondent, including how long they had had a seizure disorder, how often they experienced seizures, what anti-seizure drugs they were taking, the type of birth control they used, their pregnancy intentions, and whether they were taking folic acid.

The survey was unique in that questions were personalized. Previous surveys have asked general questions, but for the current survey, patients were required to input their specific ASM and specific birth control, so it was also a test of their knowledge of their specific medications, said Valachovic.

When responding to questions about the safety of their ASMs for pregnancy or whether there were interactions between ASMs and birth control, about two thirds (67.3%) of the participants answered at least one question incorrectly.

The study found 36.2% of those using a barrier, hormonal, or implant contraceptive answered at least one question incorrectly regarding whether their ASM decreased birth control effectiveness.

ASMs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, higher doses of topiramate (over 200 mg daily), and oxcarbazepine can make hormonal contraceptives such as pills, patches, and rings less effective, noted Valachovic.

There’s also a bidirectional relationship at play, she added. Hormonal contraceptives can make ASMs such as lamotrigine, valproate, zonisamide, and rufinamide less effective because they decrease the levels of the ASMs.

For questions specifically about the teratogenicity of their medications, about 56.1% of participants did not answer correctly.

ASMs that increase the risk for birth defects include valproic acid (a drug that would be at the top of the list), topiramate, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin, said Valachovic.

However, she added, “It’s a little bit more nuanced” than simply saying, “Don’t take this medication during pregnancy” because the first aim is to control seizures. “Uncontrolled seizures are more dangerous for the fetus and the expectant mother than any ASM,” she explained.

Neurologists and reproductive healthcare providers should work together to better disseminate relevant information to their female patients who could become pregnant, said Betstadt. “We need to have better ways to collaborate. And I think we have to start with educating neurologists,” who care for these women throughout their journey with epilepsy and who during that time may become pregnant.

They “should be talking to their patients annually about whether they plan to be pregnant,” so they can educate them and make them aware of dangers to the fetus with certain medications and the effect of ASMs on birth control, added Betstadt, whose practice focuses on complex family planning.

“Our hope is that patients will have better care that’s in line with their reproductive goals,” she said.

 

No Trickle-Down Effect

Commenting for this news organization, Alison M. Pack, MD, professor of neurology and Epilepsy Division Chief, Columbia University, New York City, said the study underlines an important quandary: Despite guidelines on risks of combining ASMs and hormonal birth control, this information doesn’t seem to be “trickling down” to women with epilepsy.

“I think part of it is just the state of healthcare delivery these days,” where clinicians are expected to accomplish more and more within a 20-30–minute follow-up visit. It’s tough, too, to keep up with all the potential drug interactions involved with newer ASMs, she said.

“I also think it speaks to the complexity” of healthcare for young women with epilepsy, which involves not just neurologists but obstetricians, gynecologists, and primary care doctors, she added.

Pack doesn’t think epilepsy specialists “integrate” enough with these other specialties. “You need to communicate with the gynecologist; you need to open that line of communication.”

She believes advanced practice providers could play a role in reducing the complexity of treating young women with epilepsy by regularly reviewing how patients are adhering to recommended protocols.

But she pointed out that “in the overall picture, most women with epilepsy do have normal, healthy pregnancies.”

The investigators and Pack reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

LOS ANGELES — The majority of women with epilepsy are inadequately educated about the potential risks associated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs), which include teratogenicity and a reduction in the efficacy of hormonal birth control, early results of a new survey suggested.

In addition, only about a third of survey respondents indicated that they were taking folic acid if pregnant or planning to be or using an effective contraceptive if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

“Physicians should see it as inside their scope to ask about the family planning aspect of things because it’s relevant to their patients’ neurologic care,” first study author Tori Valachovic, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, New York, told this news organization.

She noted patients may be taking ASMs not just for seizures but potentially to manage migraines or a mood disorder.

The findings were presented on December 8 at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Unique Survey

Research shows that about half of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and the number is even higher among people with epilepsy, said senior author Sarah Betstadt, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Rochester. That may be because women aren’t appropriately counseled about ASMs, possibly reducing the effectiveness of their hormonal birth control, she said.

The American Academy of Neurology recommends women with seizure disorders who could become pregnant receive yearly counseling about reproductive health, including ASM teratogenicity and interactions with hormonal contraceptive medications.

The study included 107 women aged 18-49 years at two general neurology outpatient clinics who were taking an ASM and completed a survey between July 2023 and May 2024. Of these, six were pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and 69 were using a barrier, hormonal, or implant form of contraception.

Researchers collected medical histories for each respondent, including how long they had had a seizure disorder, how often they experienced seizures, what anti-seizure drugs they were taking, the type of birth control they used, their pregnancy intentions, and whether they were taking folic acid.

The survey was unique in that questions were personalized. Previous surveys have asked general questions, but for the current survey, patients were required to input their specific ASM and specific birth control, so it was also a test of their knowledge of their specific medications, said Valachovic.

When responding to questions about the safety of their ASMs for pregnancy or whether there were interactions between ASMs and birth control, about two thirds (67.3%) of the participants answered at least one question incorrectly.

The study found 36.2% of those using a barrier, hormonal, or implant contraceptive answered at least one question incorrectly regarding whether their ASM decreased birth control effectiveness.

ASMs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, higher doses of topiramate (over 200 mg daily), and oxcarbazepine can make hormonal contraceptives such as pills, patches, and rings less effective, noted Valachovic.

There’s also a bidirectional relationship at play, she added. Hormonal contraceptives can make ASMs such as lamotrigine, valproate, zonisamide, and rufinamide less effective because they decrease the levels of the ASMs.

For questions specifically about the teratogenicity of their medications, about 56.1% of participants did not answer correctly.

ASMs that increase the risk for birth defects include valproic acid (a drug that would be at the top of the list), topiramate, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin, said Valachovic.

However, she added, “It’s a little bit more nuanced” than simply saying, “Don’t take this medication during pregnancy” because the first aim is to control seizures. “Uncontrolled seizures are more dangerous for the fetus and the expectant mother than any ASM,” she explained.

Neurologists and reproductive healthcare providers should work together to better disseminate relevant information to their female patients who could become pregnant, said Betstadt. “We need to have better ways to collaborate. And I think we have to start with educating neurologists,” who care for these women throughout their journey with epilepsy and who during that time may become pregnant.

They “should be talking to their patients annually about whether they plan to be pregnant,” so they can educate them and make them aware of dangers to the fetus with certain medications and the effect of ASMs on birth control, added Betstadt, whose practice focuses on complex family planning.

“Our hope is that patients will have better care that’s in line with their reproductive goals,” she said.

 

No Trickle-Down Effect

Commenting for this news organization, Alison M. Pack, MD, professor of neurology and Epilepsy Division Chief, Columbia University, New York City, said the study underlines an important quandary: Despite guidelines on risks of combining ASMs and hormonal birth control, this information doesn’t seem to be “trickling down” to women with epilepsy.

“I think part of it is just the state of healthcare delivery these days,” where clinicians are expected to accomplish more and more within a 20-30–minute follow-up visit. It’s tough, too, to keep up with all the potential drug interactions involved with newer ASMs, she said.

“I also think it speaks to the complexity” of healthcare for young women with epilepsy, which involves not just neurologists but obstetricians, gynecologists, and primary care doctors, she added.

Pack doesn’t think epilepsy specialists “integrate” enough with these other specialties. “You need to communicate with the gynecologist; you need to open that line of communication.”

She believes advanced practice providers could play a role in reducing the complexity of treating young women with epilepsy by regularly reviewing how patients are adhering to recommended protocols.

But she pointed out that “in the overall picture, most women with epilepsy do have normal, healthy pregnancies.”

The investigators and Pack reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

LOS ANGELES — The majority of women with epilepsy are inadequately educated about the potential risks associated with anti-seizure medications (ASMs), which include teratogenicity and a reduction in the efficacy of hormonal birth control, early results of a new survey suggested.

In addition, only about a third of survey respondents indicated that they were taking folic acid if pregnant or planning to be or using an effective contraceptive if they wanted to avoid pregnancy.

“Physicians should see it as inside their scope to ask about the family planning aspect of things because it’s relevant to their patients’ neurologic care,” first study author Tori Valachovic, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, New York, told this news organization.

She noted patients may be taking ASMs not just for seizures but potentially to manage migraines or a mood disorder.

The findings were presented on December 8 at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

Unique Survey

Research shows that about half of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and the number is even higher among people with epilepsy, said senior author Sarah Betstadt, MD, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Rochester. That may be because women aren’t appropriately counseled about ASMs, possibly reducing the effectiveness of their hormonal birth control, she said.

The American Academy of Neurology recommends women with seizure disorders who could become pregnant receive yearly counseling about reproductive health, including ASM teratogenicity and interactions with hormonal contraceptive medications.

The study included 107 women aged 18-49 years at two general neurology outpatient clinics who were taking an ASM and completed a survey between July 2023 and May 2024. Of these, six were pregnant or planning to become pregnant, and 69 were using a barrier, hormonal, or implant form of contraception.

Researchers collected medical histories for each respondent, including how long they had had a seizure disorder, how often they experienced seizures, what anti-seizure drugs they were taking, the type of birth control they used, their pregnancy intentions, and whether they were taking folic acid.

The survey was unique in that questions were personalized. Previous surveys have asked general questions, but for the current survey, patients were required to input their specific ASM and specific birth control, so it was also a test of their knowledge of their specific medications, said Valachovic.

When responding to questions about the safety of their ASMs for pregnancy or whether there were interactions between ASMs and birth control, about two thirds (67.3%) of the participants answered at least one question incorrectly.

The study found 36.2% of those using a barrier, hormonal, or implant contraceptive answered at least one question incorrectly regarding whether their ASM decreased birth control effectiveness.

ASMs such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, phenobarbital, higher doses of topiramate (over 200 mg daily), and oxcarbazepine can make hormonal contraceptives such as pills, patches, and rings less effective, noted Valachovic.

There’s also a bidirectional relationship at play, she added. Hormonal contraceptives can make ASMs such as lamotrigine, valproate, zonisamide, and rufinamide less effective because they decrease the levels of the ASMs.

For questions specifically about the teratogenicity of their medications, about 56.1% of participants did not answer correctly.

ASMs that increase the risk for birth defects include valproic acid (a drug that would be at the top of the list), topiramate, carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin, said Valachovic.

However, she added, “It’s a little bit more nuanced” than simply saying, “Don’t take this medication during pregnancy” because the first aim is to control seizures. “Uncontrolled seizures are more dangerous for the fetus and the expectant mother than any ASM,” she explained.

Neurologists and reproductive healthcare providers should work together to better disseminate relevant information to their female patients who could become pregnant, said Betstadt. “We need to have better ways to collaborate. And I think we have to start with educating neurologists,” who care for these women throughout their journey with epilepsy and who during that time may become pregnant.

They “should be talking to their patients annually about whether they plan to be pregnant,” so they can educate them and make them aware of dangers to the fetus with certain medications and the effect of ASMs on birth control, added Betstadt, whose practice focuses on complex family planning.

“Our hope is that patients will have better care that’s in line with their reproductive goals,” she said.

 

No Trickle-Down Effect

Commenting for this news organization, Alison M. Pack, MD, professor of neurology and Epilepsy Division Chief, Columbia University, New York City, said the study underlines an important quandary: Despite guidelines on risks of combining ASMs and hormonal birth control, this information doesn’t seem to be “trickling down” to women with epilepsy.

“I think part of it is just the state of healthcare delivery these days,” where clinicians are expected to accomplish more and more within a 20-30–minute follow-up visit. It’s tough, too, to keep up with all the potential drug interactions involved with newer ASMs, she said.

“I also think it speaks to the complexity” of healthcare for young women with epilepsy, which involves not just neurologists but obstetricians, gynecologists, and primary care doctors, she added.

Pack doesn’t think epilepsy specialists “integrate” enough with these other specialties. “You need to communicate with the gynecologist; you need to open that line of communication.”

She believes advanced practice providers could play a role in reducing the complexity of treating young women with epilepsy by regularly reviewing how patients are adhering to recommended protocols.

But she pointed out that “in the overall picture, most women with epilepsy do have normal, healthy pregnancies.”

The investigators and Pack reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

LOS ANGELES — Only about 27% of patients newly diagnosed with focal epilepsy are seizure-free on initial anti-seizure medications (ASMs), new research suggested.

This is sobering information to pass on to patients with focal epilepsy who may have high expectations based on prior data. “Patients tend to expect things to happen quickly, said study investigator Sarah Barnard, MD, a research fellow at the School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

The study was presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

An International Collaboration

The study is part of the International Human Epilepsy Project (HEP), which focuses on new-onset focal epilepsy, one of the most common forms of the disorder. The researchers are aiming to identify factors that influence treatment response in this population.

For example, they will investigate how specific medications and coexisting conditions affect treatment outcomes. Ultimately, the goal is to enable the development of individualized treatment plans for patients, leading to faster and more effective improvements or potential cures for the condition.

“The investigators wanted to focus in on focal epilepsy and exclude patients with more severe phenotypes, such as those with developmental delays or significant brain injury,” said Barnard. Individuals with focal epilepsy are generally healthy, she added.

In addition, previous studies may have used differing definitions of seizure freedom, said Barnard.

The study included 448 patients, median age about 33 years and 60% women, with focal epilepsy who were enrolled at 34 tertiary epilepsy centers in the United States, Europe, and Australia within 4 months of initiating ASM treatment.

Participants were followed for up to 6 years (the median was 3.13 years). The median age at seizure onset was 29 years, and the median age of treatment initiation was 32 years. The most common first-line ASMs were levetiracetam (56.9%) and lamotrigine (16.5%).

Researchers used updated International League Against Epilepsy definitions. Seizure freedom is defined as no seizures for 12 months or three times the longest pretreatment seizure-free interval, whichever is longer.

Results showed that only 27% of patients were seizure-free in the first year after diagnosis even accounting for a 2-month “medication adjustment” period.

 

Managing Expectations

Although the study excluded individuals with more severe types of epilepsy, “we still identified a substantial proportion of treatment-resistant cases, suggesting that much more complex factors are at play,” said Jacqueline French, MD, a study coinvestigator and professor at the NYU Langone’s Comprehensive Epilepsy Center in New York City.

“I don’t think we adequately prepare our patients for the challenges of the first year, which can be quite turbulent,” French said.

However, the seizure freedom rate in this study is lower than previous estimates. “It’s much less than what was predicted in other studies, some of which quote around 50%-55% seizure freedom on the first ASM,” said Barnard.

It’s not clear why there’s such a difference, although it may be related to a predominance in the HEP study of patients taking levetiracetam as the first-line ASM. “We didn’t directly look at the rate of treatment response or seizure freedom on levetiracetam,” which is something that will be addressed in a follow-up study, Barnard added.

The difference could be due to the study including only focal epilepsy patients, “who usually have a different treatment regime,” or it could be related to using updated definitions in this study, she said.

Results also showed that patients are at high risk during the first year of treatment, with two thirds experiencing ongoing or worsening seizures during this period. “People have ongoing seizures for the first year, even if they go on to become seizure-free,” Barnard noted.

Experiencing ongoing seizures has potential implications for driving and for employment, she added.

A self-reported history of a psychological disorder was a risk factor for increased treatment resistance. Upon enrollment, each participant completed the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, which Barnard said is a diagnostic, rather than a screening, tool.

One of the team’s next research steps is to look more closely at the role of depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and suicidality on treatment response in this patient population, said Barnard.

 

Important for Patient Counseling

Commenting on the research, Patrick Kwan, MD, PhD, professor, Department of Neuroscience, Monash University, said the research is “very important” in terms of patient counseling.

“For someone newly diagnosed with epilepsy, starting the first medication can be both daunting and confusing, with many uncertainties,” said Kwan. “That’s why it’s valuable to know that nearly a third of patients may not respond to initial treatment.”

He noted that the patients in the study were recruited from major centers, which could attract a specific subset of individuals. “It’s possible that this patient population might represent more severe cases,” he explained.

Kwan also emphasized that the study did not examine the “patterns” of prescription drug choices, adding that he agreed this should be addressed in future analyses.

The researchers and Kwan reported no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — Only about 27% of patients newly diagnosed with focal epilepsy are seizure-free on initial anti-seizure medications (ASMs), new research suggested.

This is sobering information to pass on to patients with focal epilepsy who may have high expectations based on prior data. “Patients tend to expect things to happen quickly, said study investigator Sarah Barnard, MD, a research fellow at the School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

The study was presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

An International Collaboration

The study is part of the International Human Epilepsy Project (HEP), which focuses on new-onset focal epilepsy, one of the most common forms of the disorder. The researchers are aiming to identify factors that influence treatment response in this population.

For example, they will investigate how specific medications and coexisting conditions affect treatment outcomes. Ultimately, the goal is to enable the development of individualized treatment plans for patients, leading to faster and more effective improvements or potential cures for the condition.

“The investigators wanted to focus in on focal epilepsy and exclude patients with more severe phenotypes, such as those with developmental delays or significant brain injury,” said Barnard. Individuals with focal epilepsy are generally healthy, she added.

In addition, previous studies may have used differing definitions of seizure freedom, said Barnard.

The study included 448 patients, median age about 33 years and 60% women, with focal epilepsy who were enrolled at 34 tertiary epilepsy centers in the United States, Europe, and Australia within 4 months of initiating ASM treatment.

Participants were followed for up to 6 years (the median was 3.13 years). The median age at seizure onset was 29 years, and the median age of treatment initiation was 32 years. The most common first-line ASMs were levetiracetam (56.9%) and lamotrigine (16.5%).

Researchers used updated International League Against Epilepsy definitions. Seizure freedom is defined as no seizures for 12 months or three times the longest pretreatment seizure-free interval, whichever is longer.

Results showed that only 27% of patients were seizure-free in the first year after diagnosis even accounting for a 2-month “medication adjustment” period.

 

Managing Expectations

Although the study excluded individuals with more severe types of epilepsy, “we still identified a substantial proportion of treatment-resistant cases, suggesting that much more complex factors are at play,” said Jacqueline French, MD, a study coinvestigator and professor at the NYU Langone’s Comprehensive Epilepsy Center in New York City.

“I don’t think we adequately prepare our patients for the challenges of the first year, which can be quite turbulent,” French said.

However, the seizure freedom rate in this study is lower than previous estimates. “It’s much less than what was predicted in other studies, some of which quote around 50%-55% seizure freedom on the first ASM,” said Barnard.

It’s not clear why there’s such a difference, although it may be related to a predominance in the HEP study of patients taking levetiracetam as the first-line ASM. “We didn’t directly look at the rate of treatment response or seizure freedom on levetiracetam,” which is something that will be addressed in a follow-up study, Barnard added.

The difference could be due to the study including only focal epilepsy patients, “who usually have a different treatment regime,” or it could be related to using updated definitions in this study, she said.

Results also showed that patients are at high risk during the first year of treatment, with two thirds experiencing ongoing or worsening seizures during this period. “People have ongoing seizures for the first year, even if they go on to become seizure-free,” Barnard noted.

Experiencing ongoing seizures has potential implications for driving and for employment, she added.

A self-reported history of a psychological disorder was a risk factor for increased treatment resistance. Upon enrollment, each participant completed the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, which Barnard said is a diagnostic, rather than a screening, tool.

One of the team’s next research steps is to look more closely at the role of depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and suicidality on treatment response in this patient population, said Barnard.

 

Important for Patient Counseling

Commenting on the research, Patrick Kwan, MD, PhD, professor, Department of Neuroscience, Monash University, said the research is “very important” in terms of patient counseling.

“For someone newly diagnosed with epilepsy, starting the first medication can be both daunting and confusing, with many uncertainties,” said Kwan. “That’s why it’s valuable to know that nearly a third of patients may not respond to initial treatment.”

He noted that the patients in the study were recruited from major centers, which could attract a specific subset of individuals. “It’s possible that this patient population might represent more severe cases,” he explained.

Kwan also emphasized that the study did not examine the “patterns” of prescription drug choices, adding that he agreed this should be addressed in future analyses.

The researchers and Kwan reported no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES — Only about 27% of patients newly diagnosed with focal epilepsy are seizure-free on initial anti-seizure medications (ASMs), new research suggested.

This is sobering information to pass on to patients with focal epilepsy who may have high expectations based on prior data. “Patients tend to expect things to happen quickly, said study investigator Sarah Barnard, MD, a research fellow at the School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

The study was presented at the American Epilepsy Society (AES) 78th Annual Meeting 2024.

 

An International Collaboration

The study is part of the International Human Epilepsy Project (HEP), which focuses on new-onset focal epilepsy, one of the most common forms of the disorder. The researchers are aiming to identify factors that influence treatment response in this population.

For example, they will investigate how specific medications and coexisting conditions affect treatment outcomes. Ultimately, the goal is to enable the development of individualized treatment plans for patients, leading to faster and more effective improvements or potential cures for the condition.

“The investigators wanted to focus in on focal epilepsy and exclude patients with more severe phenotypes, such as those with developmental delays or significant brain injury,” said Barnard. Individuals with focal epilepsy are generally healthy, she added.

In addition, previous studies may have used differing definitions of seizure freedom, said Barnard.

The study included 448 patients, median age about 33 years and 60% women, with focal epilepsy who were enrolled at 34 tertiary epilepsy centers in the United States, Europe, and Australia within 4 months of initiating ASM treatment.

Participants were followed for up to 6 years (the median was 3.13 years). The median age at seizure onset was 29 years, and the median age of treatment initiation was 32 years. The most common first-line ASMs were levetiracetam (56.9%) and lamotrigine (16.5%).

Researchers used updated International League Against Epilepsy definitions. Seizure freedom is defined as no seizures for 12 months or three times the longest pretreatment seizure-free interval, whichever is longer.

Results showed that only 27% of patients were seizure-free in the first year after diagnosis even accounting for a 2-month “medication adjustment” period.

 

Managing Expectations

Although the study excluded individuals with more severe types of epilepsy, “we still identified a substantial proportion of treatment-resistant cases, suggesting that much more complex factors are at play,” said Jacqueline French, MD, a study coinvestigator and professor at the NYU Langone’s Comprehensive Epilepsy Center in New York City.

“I don’t think we adequately prepare our patients for the challenges of the first year, which can be quite turbulent,” French said.

However, the seizure freedom rate in this study is lower than previous estimates. “It’s much less than what was predicted in other studies, some of which quote around 50%-55% seizure freedom on the first ASM,” said Barnard.

It’s not clear why there’s such a difference, although it may be related to a predominance in the HEP study of patients taking levetiracetam as the first-line ASM. “We didn’t directly look at the rate of treatment response or seizure freedom on levetiracetam,” which is something that will be addressed in a follow-up study, Barnard added.

The difference could be due to the study including only focal epilepsy patients, “who usually have a different treatment regime,” or it could be related to using updated definitions in this study, she said.

Results also showed that patients are at high risk during the first year of treatment, with two thirds experiencing ongoing or worsening seizures during this period. “People have ongoing seizures for the first year, even if they go on to become seizure-free,” Barnard noted.

Experiencing ongoing seizures has potential implications for driving and for employment, she added.

A self-reported history of a psychological disorder was a risk factor for increased treatment resistance. Upon enrollment, each participant completed the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, which Barnard said is a diagnostic, rather than a screening, tool.

One of the team’s next research steps is to look more closely at the role of depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and suicidality on treatment response in this patient population, said Barnard.

 

Important for Patient Counseling

Commenting on the research, Patrick Kwan, MD, PhD, professor, Department of Neuroscience, Monash University, said the research is “very important” in terms of patient counseling.

“For someone newly diagnosed with epilepsy, starting the first medication can be both daunting and confusing, with many uncertainties,” said Kwan. “That’s why it’s valuable to know that nearly a third of patients may not respond to initial treatment.”

He noted that the patients in the study were recruited from major centers, which could attract a specific subset of individuals. “It’s possible that this patient population might represent more severe cases,” he explained.

Kwan also emphasized that the study did not examine the “patterns” of prescription drug choices, adding that he agreed this should be addressed in future analyses.

The researchers and Kwan reported no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.