Neurology Reviews

It’s been estimated that up to one-third of people who survive acute SARS-CoV-2 infection will suffer a post-viral syndrome with lingering neurologic and other symptoms – now known as long COVID or neurological postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC).

However, new research suggests that may be an underestimate and that far more people may be suffering from long COVID without ever having tested positive for the virus. Researchers found a significant proportion of patients in their small study who had never tested positive for COVID-19 but who were having symptoms of long COVID nevertheless showed evidence of immune responses consistent with previous exposure.

“We estimate that millions of people got COVID in the U.S. during the first year of the pandemic and then developed long COVID, yet they did not get a positive COVID diagnosis because of testing limitations,” Igor J. Koralnik, MD, of Northwestern Medicine Comprehensive COVID-19 Center in Chicago, said in an interview.

He noted that many post-COVID-19 clinics in the United States don’t accept people with long COVID symptoms who do not have a positive test result.

Patients with long COVID symptoms but without laboratory evidence of prior infection, “who have often been rejected and stigmatized, should feel vindicated by the results of our study,” Dr. Koralnik said.

“We think that those patients deserve the same clinical care as those with a positive test, as well as inclusion in research studies. This is what we are doing at Northwestern Medicine’s Comprehensive COVID[-19] Center,” Dr. Koralnik added.

The study was published online in the journal Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation.

Delayed care

The researchers measured SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses against nucleocapsid protein and spike proteins, which indicate a prior COVID-19 infection, in 29 patients with post-viral syndrome after suspected COVID-19, including neurologic symptoms such as cognitive impairment, headache, and fatigue, but who did not have a confirmed positive COVID-19 test.

They did the same in 32 age- and sex-matched COVID long haulers with confirmed Neuro-PASC and 18 healthy controls with none of the symptoms of long COVID and no known exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or positive test result.

They found that 12 of the 29 patients (41%) with post-viral syndrome (but no positive COVID-19 test) had detectable humoral and cellular immune responses consistent with prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Three-quarters harbored antinucleocapsid and 50% harbored antispike responses.

“Our data suggest that at least 4 million people with post-viral syndrome similar to long COVID may indeed have detectable immune responses to support a COVID diagnosis,” Dr. Koralnik said in a news release.

The 12 patients with post-viral syndrome but without a confirmed COVID-19 test had neurologic symptoms similar to those of patients with confirmed Neuro-PASC.

However, lack of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis likely contributed to the 5-month delay in the median time from symptom onset to clinic visit, the researchers said. They were evaluated at a median of 10.7 months vs. 5.4 months for Neuro-PASC patients.

Dr. Koralnik said in an interview that the “most important take-home message” of the study is that patients with post-viral syndrome often present with clinical manifestations similar to those of confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, suggesting that a positive result by commercially available SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test should not be a prerequisite for accessing care.

Patients with post-viral syndrome may benefit from the same clinical care as confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, and the absence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test should not preclude or delay treatment, he added.
 

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

This article was updated 8/28/23.

It’s been estimated that up to one-third of people who survive acute SARS-CoV-2 infection will suffer a post-viral syndrome with lingering neurologic and other symptoms – now known as long COVID or neurological postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC).

However, new research suggests that may be an underestimate and that far more people may be suffering from long COVID without ever having tested positive for the virus. Researchers found a significant proportion of patients in their small study who had never tested positive for COVID-19 but who were having symptoms of long COVID nevertheless showed evidence of immune responses consistent with previous exposure.

“We estimate that millions of people got COVID in the U.S. during the first year of the pandemic and then developed long COVID, yet they did not get a positive COVID diagnosis because of testing limitations,” Igor J. Koralnik, MD, of Northwestern Medicine Comprehensive COVID-19 Center in Chicago, said in an interview.

He noted that many post-COVID-19 clinics in the United States don’t accept people with long COVID symptoms who do not have a positive test result.

Patients with long COVID symptoms but without laboratory evidence of prior infection, “who have often been rejected and stigmatized, should feel vindicated by the results of our study,” Dr. Koralnik said.

“We think that those patients deserve the same clinical care as those with a positive test, as well as inclusion in research studies. This is what we are doing at Northwestern Medicine’s Comprehensive COVID[-19] Center,” Dr. Koralnik added.

The study was published online in the journal Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation.

Delayed care

The researchers measured SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses against nucleocapsid protein and spike proteins, which indicate a prior COVID-19 infection, in 29 patients with post-viral syndrome after suspected COVID-19, including neurologic symptoms such as cognitive impairment, headache, and fatigue, but who did not have a confirmed positive COVID-19 test.

They did the same in 32 age- and sex-matched COVID long haulers with confirmed Neuro-PASC and 18 healthy controls with none of the symptoms of long COVID and no known exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or positive test result.

They found that 12 of the 29 patients (41%) with post-viral syndrome (but no positive COVID-19 test) had detectable humoral and cellular immune responses consistent with prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Three-quarters harbored antinucleocapsid and 50% harbored antispike responses.

“Our data suggest that at least 4 million people with post-viral syndrome similar to long COVID may indeed have detectable immune responses to support a COVID diagnosis,” Dr. Koralnik said in a news release.

The 12 patients with post-viral syndrome but without a confirmed COVID-19 test had neurologic symptoms similar to those of patients with confirmed Neuro-PASC.

However, lack of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis likely contributed to the 5-month delay in the median time from symptom onset to clinic visit, the researchers said. They were evaluated at a median of 10.7 months vs. 5.4 months for Neuro-PASC patients.

Dr. Koralnik said in an interview that the “most important take-home message” of the study is that patients with post-viral syndrome often present with clinical manifestations similar to those of confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, suggesting that a positive result by commercially available SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test should not be a prerequisite for accessing care.

Patients with post-viral syndrome may benefit from the same clinical care as confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, and the absence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test should not preclude or delay treatment, he added.
 

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

This article was updated 8/28/23.

It’s been estimated that up to one-third of people who survive acute SARS-CoV-2 infection will suffer a post-viral syndrome with lingering neurologic and other symptoms – now known as long COVID or neurological postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Neuro-PASC).

However, new research suggests that may be an underestimate and that far more people may be suffering from long COVID without ever having tested positive for the virus. Researchers found a significant proportion of patients in their small study who had never tested positive for COVID-19 but who were having symptoms of long COVID nevertheless showed evidence of immune responses consistent with previous exposure.

“We estimate that millions of people got COVID in the U.S. during the first year of the pandemic and then developed long COVID, yet they did not get a positive COVID diagnosis because of testing limitations,” Igor J. Koralnik, MD, of Northwestern Medicine Comprehensive COVID-19 Center in Chicago, said in an interview.

He noted that many post-COVID-19 clinics in the United States don’t accept people with long COVID symptoms who do not have a positive test result.

Patients with long COVID symptoms but without laboratory evidence of prior infection, “who have often been rejected and stigmatized, should feel vindicated by the results of our study,” Dr. Koralnik said.

“We think that those patients deserve the same clinical care as those with a positive test, as well as inclusion in research studies. This is what we are doing at Northwestern Medicine’s Comprehensive COVID[-19] Center,” Dr. Koralnik added.

The study was published online in the journal Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation.

Delayed care

The researchers measured SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses against nucleocapsid protein and spike proteins, which indicate a prior COVID-19 infection, in 29 patients with post-viral syndrome after suspected COVID-19, including neurologic symptoms such as cognitive impairment, headache, and fatigue, but who did not have a confirmed positive COVID-19 test.

They did the same in 32 age- and sex-matched COVID long haulers with confirmed Neuro-PASC and 18 healthy controls with none of the symptoms of long COVID and no known exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or positive test result.

They found that 12 of the 29 patients (41%) with post-viral syndrome (but no positive COVID-19 test) had detectable humoral and cellular immune responses consistent with prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Three-quarters harbored antinucleocapsid and 50% harbored antispike responses.

“Our data suggest that at least 4 million people with post-viral syndrome similar to long COVID may indeed have detectable immune responses to support a COVID diagnosis,” Dr. Koralnik said in a news release.

The 12 patients with post-viral syndrome but without a confirmed COVID-19 test had neurologic symptoms similar to those of patients with confirmed Neuro-PASC.

However, lack of a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis likely contributed to the 5-month delay in the median time from symptom onset to clinic visit, the researchers said. They were evaluated at a median of 10.7 months vs. 5.4 months for Neuro-PASC patients.

Dr. Koralnik said in an interview that the “most important take-home message” of the study is that patients with post-viral syndrome often present with clinical manifestations similar to those of confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, suggesting that a positive result by commercially available SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test should not be a prerequisite for accessing care.

Patients with post-viral syndrome may benefit from the same clinical care as confirmed patients with Neuro-PASC, and the absence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test should not preclude or delay treatment, he added.
 

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

This article was updated 8/28/23.

A consumer watchdog group is pressing for broader public access to a confidential federal database that tracks disciplinary records for physicians in a new report, arguing that extra public scrutiny could pressure state medical boards to be more aggressive watchdogs.

Public Citizen’s report includes an analysis of how frequently medical boards sanctioned physicians in 2019, 2020, and 2021. These sanctions include license revocations, suspensions, voluntary surrenders of licenses, and limitations on practice while under investigation.

The report used data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), a federal repository of reports about state licensure, discipline, and certification actions as well as medical malpractice payments. The database is closed to the public, but hospitals, malpractice insurers, and investigators can query it.

According to Public Citizen’s calculations, states most likely to take serious disciplinary action against physicians were:

• Michigan: 1.74 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians per year
• Ohio: 1.61
• North Dakota: 1.60
• Colorado: 1.55
• Arizona: 1.53
• The states least likely to do so were:
• Nevada: 0.24 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians per year
• New Hampshire: 0.25
• Georgia: 0.27
• Indiana: 0.28
• Nebraska: 0.32
• California, the largest U.S. state by both population and number of physicians, landed near the middle, ranking 27th with a rate of 0.83 serious actions per 1,000 physicians, Public Citizen said.

“There is no evidence that physicians in any state are, overall, more or less likely to be incompetent or miscreant than the physicians in any other state,” said Robert Oshel, PhD, a former NPDB associate director for research and an author of the report.

The differences instead reflect variations in boards’ enforcement of medical practice laws, domination of licensing boards by physicians, and inadequate budgets, he noted.

Public Citizen said Congress should change federal law to let members of the public get information from the NPDB to do a background check on physicians whom they are considering seeing or are already seeing. This would not only help individuals but also would spur state licensing boards to do their own checks with the NPDB, the group said.

“If licensing boards routinely queried the NPDB, they would not be faulted by the public and state legislators for not knowing about malpractice payments or disciplinary actions affecting their licensees and therefore not taking reasonable actions concerning their licensees found to have poor records,” the report said.
 

Questioning NPDB access for consumers

Michelle Mello, JD, PhD, a professor of law and health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University, has studied the current applications of the NPDB. In 2019, she published an article in The New England Journal of Medicine examining changes in practice patterns for clinicians who faced multiple malpractice claims.

Dr. Mello questioned what benefit consumers would get from direct access to the NPDB’s information.

“It provides almost no context for the information it reports, making it even harder for patients to make sense of what they see there,” Dr. Mello said in an interview.

Hospitals are already required to routinely query the NPDB. This legal requirement should be expanded to include licensing boards, which the report called “the last line of defense for the public from incompetent and miscreant physicians,” Public Citizen said.

“Ideally, this amendment should include free continuous query access by medical boards for all their licensees,” the report said. “In the absence of any action by Congress, individual state legislatures should require their licensing boards to query all their licensees or enroll in continuous query, as a few states already do.”

The Federation of State Medical Boards agreed with some of the other suggestions Public Citizen offered in the report. The two concur on the need for increased funding to state medical boards to ensure that they have adequate resources and staffing to fulfill their duties, FSMB said in a statement.

But FSMB disagreed with Public Citizens’ approach to ranking boards, saying it could mislead. The report lacks context about how boards’ funding and authority vary, Humayun Chaudhry, DO, FSMB’s chief executive officer, said. He also questioned the decision to focus only on serious disciplinary actions.

“The Public Citizen report does not take into account the wide range of disciplinary steps boards can take such as letters of reprimand or fines, which are often enough to stop problem behaviors – preempting further problems in the future,” Dr. Chaudhry said.
 

D.C. gets worst rating

The District of Columbia earned the worst mark in the Public Citizen ranking, holding the 51st spot, the same place it held in the group’s similar ranking on actions taken in the 2017-2019 period. There were 0.19 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians a year in Washington, Public Citizen said.

In an email to this news organization, Dr. Oshel said that the Public Citizen analysis focused on the number of licensed physicians in each state and D.C. that can be obtained and compared reliably. It avoided using the term “practicing physicians” owing in part to doubts about the reliability of these counts, he said.

As many as 20% of physicians nationwide are focused primarily on work outside of clinical care, Dr. Oshel estimated. In D.C., perhaps 40% of physicians may fall into this category. Of the more than 13,700 physicians licensed in D.C., there may be only about 8,126 actively practicing, according to Dr. Oshel.

But even using that lower estimate of practicing physicians would only raise D.C.’s ranking to 46, signaling a need for stepped-up enforcement, Dr. Oshel said.

“[Whether it’s] 46th or 51st, both are bad,” Dr. Oshel said.

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

A consumer watchdog group is pressing for broader public access to a confidential federal database that tracks disciplinary records for physicians in a new report, arguing that extra public scrutiny could pressure state medical boards to be more aggressive watchdogs.

Public Citizen’s report includes an analysis of how frequently medical boards sanctioned physicians in 2019, 2020, and 2021. These sanctions include license revocations, suspensions, voluntary surrenders of licenses, and limitations on practice while under investigation.

The report used data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), a federal repository of reports about state licensure, discipline, and certification actions as well as medical malpractice payments. The database is closed to the public, but hospitals, malpractice insurers, and investigators can query it.

According to Public Citizen’s calculations, states most likely to take serious disciplinary action against physicians were:

• Michigan: 1.74 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians per year
• Ohio: 1.61
• North Dakota: 1.60
• Colorado: 1.55
• Arizona: 1.53
• The states least likely to do so were:
• Nevada: 0.24 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians per year
• New Hampshire: 0.25
• Georgia: 0.27
• Indiana: 0.28
• Nebraska: 0.32
• California, the largest U.S. state by both population and number of physicians, landed near the middle, ranking 27th with a rate of 0.83 serious actions per 1,000 physicians, Public Citizen said.

“There is no evidence that physicians in any state are, overall, more or less likely to be incompetent or miscreant than the physicians in any other state,” said Robert Oshel, PhD, a former NPDB associate director for research and an author of the report.

The differences instead reflect variations in boards’ enforcement of medical practice laws, domination of licensing boards by physicians, and inadequate budgets, he noted.

Public Citizen said Congress should change federal law to let members of the public get information from the NPDB to do a background check on physicians whom they are considering seeing or are already seeing. This would not only help individuals but also would spur state licensing boards to do their own checks with the NPDB, the group said.

“If licensing boards routinely queried the NPDB, they would not be faulted by the public and state legislators for not knowing about malpractice payments or disciplinary actions affecting their licensees and therefore not taking reasonable actions concerning their licensees found to have poor records,” the report said.
 

Questioning NPDB access for consumers

Michelle Mello, JD, PhD, a professor of law and health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University, has studied the current applications of the NPDB. In 2019, she published an article in The New England Journal of Medicine examining changes in practice patterns for clinicians who faced multiple malpractice claims.

Dr. Mello questioned what benefit consumers would get from direct access to the NPDB’s information.

“It provides almost no context for the information it reports, making it even harder for patients to make sense of what they see there,” Dr. Mello said in an interview.

Hospitals are already required to routinely query the NPDB. This legal requirement should be expanded to include licensing boards, which the report called “the last line of defense for the public from incompetent and miscreant physicians,” Public Citizen said.

“Ideally, this amendment should include free continuous query access by medical boards for all their licensees,” the report said. “In the absence of any action by Congress, individual state legislatures should require their licensing boards to query all their licensees or enroll in continuous query, as a few states already do.”

The Federation of State Medical Boards agreed with some of the other suggestions Public Citizen offered in the report. The two concur on the need for increased funding to state medical boards to ensure that they have adequate resources and staffing to fulfill their duties, FSMB said in a statement.

But FSMB disagreed with Public Citizens’ approach to ranking boards, saying it could mislead. The report lacks context about how boards’ funding and authority vary, Humayun Chaudhry, DO, FSMB’s chief executive officer, said. He also questioned the decision to focus only on serious disciplinary actions.

“The Public Citizen report does not take into account the wide range of disciplinary steps boards can take such as letters of reprimand or fines, which are often enough to stop problem behaviors – preempting further problems in the future,” Dr. Chaudhry said.
 

D.C. gets worst rating

The District of Columbia earned the worst mark in the Public Citizen ranking, holding the 51st spot, the same place it held in the group’s similar ranking on actions taken in the 2017-2019 period. There were 0.19 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians a year in Washington, Public Citizen said.

In an email to this news organization, Dr. Oshel said that the Public Citizen analysis focused on the number of licensed physicians in each state and D.C. that can be obtained and compared reliably. It avoided using the term “practicing physicians” owing in part to doubts about the reliability of these counts, he said.

As many as 20% of physicians nationwide are focused primarily on work outside of clinical care, Dr. Oshel estimated. In D.C., perhaps 40% of physicians may fall into this category. Of the more than 13,700 physicians licensed in D.C., there may be only about 8,126 actively practicing, according to Dr. Oshel.

But even using that lower estimate of practicing physicians would only raise D.C.’s ranking to 46, signaling a need for stepped-up enforcement, Dr. Oshel said.

“[Whether it’s] 46th or 51st, both are bad,” Dr. Oshel said.

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

A consumer watchdog group is pressing for broader public access to a confidential federal database that tracks disciplinary records for physicians in a new report, arguing that extra public scrutiny could pressure state medical boards to be more aggressive watchdogs.

Public Citizen’s report includes an analysis of how frequently medical boards sanctioned physicians in 2019, 2020, and 2021. These sanctions include license revocations, suspensions, voluntary surrenders of licenses, and limitations on practice while under investigation.

The report used data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), a federal repository of reports about state licensure, discipline, and certification actions as well as medical malpractice payments. The database is closed to the public, but hospitals, malpractice insurers, and investigators can query it.

According to Public Citizen’s calculations, states most likely to take serious disciplinary action against physicians were:

• Michigan: 1.74 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians per year
• Ohio: 1.61
• North Dakota: 1.60
• Colorado: 1.55
• Arizona: 1.53
• The states least likely to do so were:
• Nevada: 0.24 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians per year
• New Hampshire: 0.25
• Georgia: 0.27
• Indiana: 0.28
• Nebraska: 0.32
• California, the largest U.S. state by both population and number of physicians, landed near the middle, ranking 27th with a rate of 0.83 serious actions per 1,000 physicians, Public Citizen said.

“There is no evidence that physicians in any state are, overall, more or less likely to be incompetent or miscreant than the physicians in any other state,” said Robert Oshel, PhD, a former NPDB associate director for research and an author of the report.

The differences instead reflect variations in boards’ enforcement of medical practice laws, domination of licensing boards by physicians, and inadequate budgets, he noted.

Public Citizen said Congress should change federal law to let members of the public get information from the NPDB to do a background check on physicians whom they are considering seeing or are already seeing. This would not only help individuals but also would spur state licensing boards to do their own checks with the NPDB, the group said.

“If licensing boards routinely queried the NPDB, they would not be faulted by the public and state legislators for not knowing about malpractice payments or disciplinary actions affecting their licensees and therefore not taking reasonable actions concerning their licensees found to have poor records,” the report said.
 

Questioning NPDB access for consumers

Michelle Mello, JD, PhD, a professor of law and health policy at Stanford (Calif.) University, has studied the current applications of the NPDB. In 2019, she published an article in The New England Journal of Medicine examining changes in practice patterns for clinicians who faced multiple malpractice claims.

Dr. Mello questioned what benefit consumers would get from direct access to the NPDB’s information.

“It provides almost no context for the information it reports, making it even harder for patients to make sense of what they see there,” Dr. Mello said in an interview.

Hospitals are already required to routinely query the NPDB. This legal requirement should be expanded to include licensing boards, which the report called “the last line of defense for the public from incompetent and miscreant physicians,” Public Citizen said.

“Ideally, this amendment should include free continuous query access by medical boards for all their licensees,” the report said. “In the absence of any action by Congress, individual state legislatures should require their licensing boards to query all their licensees or enroll in continuous query, as a few states already do.”

The Federation of State Medical Boards agreed with some of the other suggestions Public Citizen offered in the report. The two concur on the need for increased funding to state medical boards to ensure that they have adequate resources and staffing to fulfill their duties, FSMB said in a statement.

But FSMB disagreed with Public Citizens’ approach to ranking boards, saying it could mislead. The report lacks context about how boards’ funding and authority vary, Humayun Chaudhry, DO, FSMB’s chief executive officer, said. He also questioned the decision to focus only on serious disciplinary actions.

“The Public Citizen report does not take into account the wide range of disciplinary steps boards can take such as letters of reprimand or fines, which are often enough to stop problem behaviors – preempting further problems in the future,” Dr. Chaudhry said.
 

D.C. gets worst rating

The District of Columbia earned the worst mark in the Public Citizen ranking, holding the 51st spot, the same place it held in the group’s similar ranking on actions taken in the 2017-2019 period. There were 0.19 serious disciplinary actions per 1,000 physicians a year in Washington, Public Citizen said.

In an email to this news organization, Dr. Oshel said that the Public Citizen analysis focused on the number of licensed physicians in each state and D.C. that can be obtained and compared reliably. It avoided using the term “practicing physicians” owing in part to doubts about the reliability of these counts, he said.

As many as 20% of physicians nationwide are focused primarily on work outside of clinical care, Dr. Oshel estimated. In D.C., perhaps 40% of physicians may fall into this category. Of the more than 13,700 physicians licensed in D.C., there may be only about 8,126 actively practicing, according to Dr. Oshel.

But even using that lower estimate of practicing physicians would only raise D.C.’s ranking to 46, signaling a need for stepped-up enforcement, Dr. Oshel said.

“[Whether it’s] 46th or 51st, both are bad,” Dr. Oshel said.

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

Changes in retinal tissues known to be associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) may occur up to 7 years before clinical symptoms of the disease appear, a new study suggests. 

Researchers used artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze data from two population-level data sets and the world’s largest database of retinal images and associated clinical data to detect the retinal changes in patients with PD and in healthy individuals who developed the disease years later. 

Prior research had shown that PD is associated with a thinning of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) in the retina, something that investigators confirmed in this new study. But they also identified changes in the inner nuclear layer (INL), which is a new finding. 

The study is the largest to date on retinal markers in PD and the first to show these changes in living patients.

“I think we are still several years away from converting these findings into individual level prediction for patients,” lead author, Siegfried Wagner, MD, MsC, Honorary Clinical Senior Research Fellow at Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College of London Institute of Ophthalmology in London, told this news organization. “The most important takeaway is that there are observable differences in the retina of individuals who go on to develop Parkinson’s disease.”

The findings were published online in Neurology. 
 

Another look at OCT

Researchers used data from retinal eye scans taken by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive three-dimensional imaging technology that is widely used by opticians. 

Other studies have used OCT to detect retinal changes in multiple sclerosis and cognitive decline. 

For this research, investigators identified markers in people with PD using ophthalmic imaging data from 700 patients and 105,770 controls who participated in the retrospective AlzEye study. 

After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, hypertension, and diabetes, individuals with PD had significantly thinner GCIPL and reduced thickness of the INL.

To evaluate retinal changes in patients before a PD diagnosis, researchers then turned to 50,405 participants in the UK Biobank with no history of PD who received a retinal scan as part of their baseline visit. Of that group, 53 were diagnosed with PD during the study period. 

Researchers found an association between new diagnoses of PD and reduced thickness of the GCIPL (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .002) and thinner INL, especially at the inferior subfield (HR, 0.66; P = .002). That association persisted even in people whose clinical symptoms developed within 2 years of the retinal scan. 

“We wonder if the reduced INL thickness is indicating a direct dopaminergic impairment occurring within the inner retina,” Dr. Wagner said. “Dopaminergic amacrine cells only account for a small proportion of the cells in this layer but previous work in the laboratory shows observable abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Too early for diagnostics?

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer, American Parkinson Disease Association, noted that the changes in the retinal thickness identified in the study were too small to be useful in the clinic as a screening tool for early PD. 

“In order for that to happen, the specificity and sensitivity needs to be established,” she said. “Both specificity and sensitivity need to be high enough so that the test can be used to give clinically meaningful results – and reliably tell an individual with PD that he or she does have the disease and individual without PD that he or she doesn’t have the disease.”

Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed. Valeria Koska, MD, and Philipp Albrecht, MD, both of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf in Germany, noted that though the effect sizes of retinal changes were small, the study “sets new standards for the role of retinal morphology as potential biomarker in neurodegenerative disease.”

The study was funded by Fight for Sight UK, Medical Research Council, UK Research & Innovation, Basque Health Department, and the Wellcome Trust Study. Dr. Wagner reported funding from the Medical Research Council and the Rank Prize. Dr. Gilbert is employed by the American Parkinson Disease Association. Dr. Albrecht has received grant and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Allergan, Biogen, Celgene, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Roche, and Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koska reported no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Changes in retinal tissues known to be associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) may occur up to 7 years before clinical symptoms of the disease appear, a new study suggests. 

Researchers used artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze data from two population-level data sets and the world’s largest database of retinal images and associated clinical data to detect the retinal changes in patients with PD and in healthy individuals who developed the disease years later. 

Prior research had shown that PD is associated with a thinning of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) in the retina, something that investigators confirmed in this new study. But they also identified changes in the inner nuclear layer (INL), which is a new finding. 

The study is the largest to date on retinal markers in PD and the first to show these changes in living patients.

“I think we are still several years away from converting these findings into individual level prediction for patients,” lead author, Siegfried Wagner, MD, MsC, Honorary Clinical Senior Research Fellow at Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College of London Institute of Ophthalmology in London, told this news organization. “The most important takeaway is that there are observable differences in the retina of individuals who go on to develop Parkinson’s disease.”

The findings were published online in Neurology. 
 

Another look at OCT

Researchers used data from retinal eye scans taken by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive three-dimensional imaging technology that is widely used by opticians. 

Other studies have used OCT to detect retinal changes in multiple sclerosis and cognitive decline. 

For this research, investigators identified markers in people with PD using ophthalmic imaging data from 700 patients and 105,770 controls who participated in the retrospective AlzEye study. 

After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, hypertension, and diabetes, individuals with PD had significantly thinner GCIPL and reduced thickness of the INL.

To evaluate retinal changes in patients before a PD diagnosis, researchers then turned to 50,405 participants in the UK Biobank with no history of PD who received a retinal scan as part of their baseline visit. Of that group, 53 were diagnosed with PD during the study period. 

Researchers found an association between new diagnoses of PD and reduced thickness of the GCIPL (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .002) and thinner INL, especially at the inferior subfield (HR, 0.66; P = .002). That association persisted even in people whose clinical symptoms developed within 2 years of the retinal scan. 

“We wonder if the reduced INL thickness is indicating a direct dopaminergic impairment occurring within the inner retina,” Dr. Wagner said. “Dopaminergic amacrine cells only account for a small proportion of the cells in this layer but previous work in the laboratory shows observable abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Too early for diagnostics?

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer, American Parkinson Disease Association, noted that the changes in the retinal thickness identified in the study were too small to be useful in the clinic as a screening tool for early PD. 

“In order for that to happen, the specificity and sensitivity needs to be established,” she said. “Both specificity and sensitivity need to be high enough so that the test can be used to give clinically meaningful results – and reliably tell an individual with PD that he or she does have the disease and individual without PD that he or she doesn’t have the disease.”

Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed. Valeria Koska, MD, and Philipp Albrecht, MD, both of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf in Germany, noted that though the effect sizes of retinal changes were small, the study “sets new standards for the role of retinal morphology as potential biomarker in neurodegenerative disease.”

The study was funded by Fight for Sight UK, Medical Research Council, UK Research & Innovation, Basque Health Department, and the Wellcome Trust Study. Dr. Wagner reported funding from the Medical Research Council and the Rank Prize. Dr. Gilbert is employed by the American Parkinson Disease Association. Dr. Albrecht has received grant and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Allergan, Biogen, Celgene, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Roche, and Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koska reported no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Changes in retinal tissues known to be associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) may occur up to 7 years before clinical symptoms of the disease appear, a new study suggests. 

Researchers used artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze data from two population-level data sets and the world’s largest database of retinal images and associated clinical data to detect the retinal changes in patients with PD and in healthy individuals who developed the disease years later. 

Prior research had shown that PD is associated with a thinning of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) in the retina, something that investigators confirmed in this new study. But they also identified changes in the inner nuclear layer (INL), which is a new finding. 

The study is the largest to date on retinal markers in PD and the first to show these changes in living patients.

“I think we are still several years away from converting these findings into individual level prediction for patients,” lead author, Siegfried Wagner, MD, MsC, Honorary Clinical Senior Research Fellow at Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College of London Institute of Ophthalmology in London, told this news organization. “The most important takeaway is that there are observable differences in the retina of individuals who go on to develop Parkinson’s disease.”

The findings were published online in Neurology. 
 

Another look at OCT

Researchers used data from retinal eye scans taken by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive three-dimensional imaging technology that is widely used by opticians. 

Other studies have used OCT to detect retinal changes in multiple sclerosis and cognitive decline. 

For this research, investigators identified markers in people with PD using ophthalmic imaging data from 700 patients and 105,770 controls who participated in the retrospective AlzEye study. 

After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, hypertension, and diabetes, individuals with PD had significantly thinner GCIPL and reduced thickness of the INL.

To evaluate retinal changes in patients before a PD diagnosis, researchers then turned to 50,405 participants in the UK Biobank with no history of PD who received a retinal scan as part of their baseline visit. Of that group, 53 were diagnosed with PD during the study period. 

Researchers found an association between new diagnoses of PD and reduced thickness of the GCIPL (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .002) and thinner INL, especially at the inferior subfield (HR, 0.66; P = .002). That association persisted even in people whose clinical symptoms developed within 2 years of the retinal scan. 

“We wonder if the reduced INL thickness is indicating a direct dopaminergic impairment occurring within the inner retina,” Dr. Wagner said. “Dopaminergic amacrine cells only account for a small proportion of the cells in this layer but previous work in the laboratory shows observable abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Too early for diagnostics?

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer, American Parkinson Disease Association, noted that the changes in the retinal thickness identified in the study were too small to be useful in the clinic as a screening tool for early PD. 

“In order for that to happen, the specificity and sensitivity needs to be established,” she said. “Both specificity and sensitivity need to be high enough so that the test can be used to give clinically meaningful results – and reliably tell an individual with PD that he or she does have the disease and individual without PD that he or she doesn’t have the disease.”

Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed. Valeria Koska, MD, and Philipp Albrecht, MD, both of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf in Germany, noted that though the effect sizes of retinal changes were small, the study “sets new standards for the role of retinal morphology as potential biomarker in neurodegenerative disease.”

The study was funded by Fight for Sight UK, Medical Research Council, UK Research & Innovation, Basque Health Department, and the Wellcome Trust Study. Dr. Wagner reported funding from the Medical Research Council and the Rank Prize. Dr. Gilbert is employed by the American Parkinson Disease Association. Dr. Albrecht has received grant and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Allergan, Biogen, Celgene, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Roche, and Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koska reported no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved natalizumab-sztn injection (Tyruko, Sandoz), the first biosimilar to Biogen’s Tysabri (natalizumab), to treat adults with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing remitting MS, and active secondary progressive disease.

“Biosimilar medications offer additional effective treatment options that have the potential to increase access for people living with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. [This] approval could have a meaningful impact for patients managing their disease,” Paul R. Lee, MD, PhD, director of the division of neurology II, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The natalizumab biosimilar is given using the same dosing and administration schedule. Like the reference product, it is indicated for adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease unresponsive to other medications.

The approval of the natalizumab biosimilar is based on results of the phase 3 Antelope trial, which showed no clinically meaningful differences between it and the reference product.

The trial included 264 adults (mean age, 36 years; 61% women) with relapsing remitting MS from 48 centers in seven Eastern European countries.

All were randomly assigned to receive intravenous infusions every 4 weeks of 300 mg of the natalizumab biosimilar or the reference product for a total of 12 infusions.

At 24 and 48 weeks, there were no between-group differences in annualized relapse rates or Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, which were similar between treatment groups at baseline. There were also no significant differences in safety, tolerability, or immunogenicity.

The prescribing information for both natalizumab products includes a boxed warning about the increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), a viral infection of the brain that usually leads to death or severe disability.

Risk factors for the development of PML include the presence of antibodies to the JC virus, longer duration of therapy, and prior use of immunosuppressants.

“These factors should be considered in the context of expected benefit when initiating and continuing treatment with natalizumab products, and health care providers should monitor patients and withhold treatment immediately at the first sign or symptom suggestive of PML,” the FDA advises.

Because of the risks of PML, natalizumab products are available only through a restricted drug distribution program under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

In a statement, Sandoz said it’s committed to having the product available in the United States “as soon as possible.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved natalizumab-sztn injection (Tyruko, Sandoz), the first biosimilar to Biogen’s Tysabri (natalizumab), to treat adults with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing remitting MS, and active secondary progressive disease.

“Biosimilar medications offer additional effective treatment options that have the potential to increase access for people living with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. [This] approval could have a meaningful impact for patients managing their disease,” Paul R. Lee, MD, PhD, director of the division of neurology II, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The natalizumab biosimilar is given using the same dosing and administration schedule. Like the reference product, it is indicated for adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease unresponsive to other medications.

The approval of the natalizumab biosimilar is based on results of the phase 3 Antelope trial, which showed no clinically meaningful differences between it and the reference product.

The trial included 264 adults (mean age, 36 years; 61% women) with relapsing remitting MS from 48 centers in seven Eastern European countries.

All were randomly assigned to receive intravenous infusions every 4 weeks of 300 mg of the natalizumab biosimilar or the reference product for a total of 12 infusions.

At 24 and 48 weeks, there were no between-group differences in annualized relapse rates or Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, which were similar between treatment groups at baseline. There were also no significant differences in safety, tolerability, or immunogenicity.

The prescribing information for both natalizumab products includes a boxed warning about the increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), a viral infection of the brain that usually leads to death or severe disability.

Risk factors for the development of PML include the presence of antibodies to the JC virus, longer duration of therapy, and prior use of immunosuppressants.

“These factors should be considered in the context of expected benefit when initiating and continuing treatment with natalizumab products, and health care providers should monitor patients and withhold treatment immediately at the first sign or symptom suggestive of PML,” the FDA advises.

Because of the risks of PML, natalizumab products are available only through a restricted drug distribution program under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

In a statement, Sandoz said it’s committed to having the product available in the United States “as soon as possible.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved natalizumab-sztn injection (Tyruko, Sandoz), the first biosimilar to Biogen’s Tysabri (natalizumab), to treat adults with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, including clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing remitting MS, and active secondary progressive disease.

“Biosimilar medications offer additional effective treatment options that have the potential to increase access for people living with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. [This] approval could have a meaningful impact for patients managing their disease,” Paul R. Lee, MD, PhD, director of the division of neurology II, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The natalizumab biosimilar is given using the same dosing and administration schedule. Like the reference product, it is indicated for adults with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease unresponsive to other medications.

The approval of the natalizumab biosimilar is based on results of the phase 3 Antelope trial, which showed no clinically meaningful differences between it and the reference product.

The trial included 264 adults (mean age, 36 years; 61% women) with relapsing remitting MS from 48 centers in seven Eastern European countries.

All were randomly assigned to receive intravenous infusions every 4 weeks of 300 mg of the natalizumab biosimilar or the reference product for a total of 12 infusions.

At 24 and 48 weeks, there were no between-group differences in annualized relapse rates or Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, which were similar between treatment groups at baseline. There were also no significant differences in safety, tolerability, or immunogenicity.

The prescribing information for both natalizumab products includes a boxed warning about the increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), a viral infection of the brain that usually leads to death or severe disability.

Risk factors for the development of PML include the presence of antibodies to the JC virus, longer duration of therapy, and prior use of immunosuppressants.

“These factors should be considered in the context of expected benefit when initiating and continuing treatment with natalizumab products, and health care providers should monitor patients and withhold treatment immediately at the first sign or symptom suggestive of PML,” the FDA advises.

Because of the risks of PML, natalizumab products are available only through a restricted drug distribution program under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

In a statement, Sandoz said it’s committed to having the product available in the United States “as soon as possible.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

Early in his career as a pain researcher, Daniel Whibley, PhD, was struck by an article that drew parallels between methods of torture and the experiences of patients with insomnia and chronic pain.

The author of that article, Nicole Tang, DPhil, observed that two methods used by torturers – pain infliction and sleep deprivation – harm people in ways that also are experienced by many patients with pain and sleep conditions.

Patients are “essentially living in this perpetually undesirable, at best, situation where both of these features are playing out in their lives,” said Dr. Whibley, a research assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The problems create a “kind of vicious circle,” he said. Pain disrupts sleep. Insufficient sleep worsens pain.

Studies have established important relationships between the conditions, but investigators are still trying to clarify the mechanisms that connect them and the best ways to intervene to improve patient outcomes.

To that end, Dr. Whibley has developed an intervention known as Move & Snooze to benefit patients with pain associated with osteoarthritis.

The program includes remote exercise coaching and an automated 6-week course of digital cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). Dr. Whibley’s hypothesis is that addressing sleep disturbances will help patients stay engaged with the physical activity component of the program and help with pain management.

He and his colleagues have tested the intervention in a feasibility study and are in the process of securing grant funding to test it in a large, nationwide trial.
 

Losing sleep for science

Michael Smith, PhD, is examining the sleep-pain connection from a different angle.

Dr. Smith, the director of the Behavioral Medicine Research Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, is recruiting healthy adults to endure restless nights and painful stimuli.

His team is conducting a study known as Sleep-MOR that aims to reveal how different types of sleep disturbances influence pain and a person’s response to opioids.

Nearly three dozen participants have completed the study so far, Dr. Smith said, out of what he hopes will be 200 in all.

Participants are randomly assigned to sleep normally or to undergo an experimental condition that is designed to mimic the sleep disturbances of insomnia or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

In a “forced awakening” group, participants are awakened for 20-minute intervals every hour and for a full hour-long window during the night. In this condition, they could sleep for about four hours in all. Forced awakening is intended to represent insomnia

A “sleep fragmentation” group is meant to represent patients with OSA. About 30 times per hour, tones and tactile buzzers rouse sleeping participants without fully waking them up. Although the experiment involves brief arousals such as those experienced by patients with OSA, it does not capture another important feature of sleep apnea – the cessation of breathing, Dr. Smith noted.

The next day, researchers perform pain testing and brain imaging and see how opioid receptors respond to pain medication.

“Some of the forms of sleep loss that we are studying may actually alter the efficacy of the binding of those receptors, and that might then require you to have higher doses of an opioid to get the same effect,” Dr. Smith said. “That’s our hypothesis.”

If that bears out, disturbed sleep may play a role in the development of opioid use disorder and have implications for patients who receive opioids after surgery, he said.

In the lab, researchers examine pain thresholds using techniques such as thermal pain testing, in which a thermode attached to a participant’s arm heats up. The temperature “slowly goes up and the patient just says: ‘Ouch,’ when it first hurts. Then we have their pain threshold,” Dr. Smith said.
 

A bidirectional relationship

Epidemiologic studies have found that, if you follow women who do not have pain, those with complaints about sleep are more than twice as likely to develop fibromyalgia.

Dr. Smith’s group and others have shown that if you deprive a healthy person of sleep, they become more sensitive to pain.

Inflammation could be one possible reason for this effect. In one study, participants who experienced forced awakening experienced less slow-wave sleep, which was tied to more inflammation in the morning. Increased inflammation was linked to greater pain sensitivity.

“We are starting to piece together some of the pathways. That’s just one,” Dr. Smith said.

A recent study by researchers at Harvard University and elsewhere investigated how sleep disturbances affected three pain pathways. In that study, the results varied by sex. The data indicate that optimal treatment approaches might differ for men and women, the researchers said.
 

Waking up to the problem

Sleep problems can be neglected in medical school and in the clinic. “People just have other things to focus on that they clearly know what they can do about it,” Dr. Smith said.

But clinicians should not hesitate to screen for conditions such as insomnia or OSA and refer patients to a specialist. If a patient has had pain for 6 months and treatments are not working, the chance that they have a treatable sleep disorder “is very high, above 50%,” Dr. Smith said. Many could have more than one sleep disorder, he added.

Continuous positive airway pressure for OSA and CBT for insomnia can improve sleep. Dr. Smith said he expects these measures will improve overall pain management as well.

If treating a sleep disorder fails to help with pain, however, it may still help prevent other sleep-related problems, such as depression, poor glucose control, and heart disease. It also could improve patients’ ability to function day to day, he said.

Evidence on whether treating sleep problems reduces pain has so far been mixed.

“We’ve done some studies showing that if you have CBT-I and you have knee arthritis, improvements in the amount of time you spend awake at night translate into improvements in pain at 6 months. There is a signal there, but it’s not as strong as we would like,” he said. “It may be that it takes longer than anyone would like” to have an effect.

A structured intervention such as CBT-I is likely more beneficial than education about sleep hygiene alone in resolving sleep disturbances, Dr. Whibley said. CBT-I includes active components such as sleep restriction therapy and stimulus control therapy and is recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine as the first-line treatment for chronic insomnia (J Clin Sleep Med. 2008 Oct 15;4[5]:487-504).

Patients should consider the role that sleep may play in their chronic pain condition, he said.

“An increasing number of researchers and clinicians are becoming more interested in this as a foundational pillar of health, alongside activity and diet,” Dr. Whibley said. “Sleep is recognized as just as important but doesn’t seem to get the airtime.”

Clinicians, he added, should regularly assess their patients’ sleep and know where to refer those whom they feel would benefit from more advanced management: “They [should] know that they have at least got it on their radar to check as one of the important pillars of health that you should be able to control.”
 

Sleep trials seeking pain patients

Researchers around the United States are conducting dozens of studies related to sleep and pain. The following trials are recruiting participants, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.

Sleep and Pain Interventions in Women With Fibromyalgia (SPIN-II). Investigators at the University of Missouri–Columbia are examining two cognitive-behavioral treatments for women with fibromyalgia and insomnia. “This trial will yield important information about the roles of sleep, arousal, and brain structure and function in the development and maintenance of chronic pain in women with fibromyalgia,” the researchers say.

Prospective Randomized Trial of CPAP for SDB in Patients Who Use Opioids (PRESTO). At the University of California, San Diego, researchers are investigating whether patients with chronic pain who use opioids and have sleep-disordered breathing may benefit from treatment with continuous positive airway pressure. They plan to assess the intervention’s effects on sleep quality, pain, and quality of life. They also will see which patients are least likely to benefit from this treatment approach.

Latent Aging Mechanisms in Pain and Sleep (LAMPS). Researchers at the University of Florida are studying the effects of oral gamma-aminobutyric acid in older adults with chronic pain and sleep difficulties.

Sleep and Pain in Sickle Cell Disease. At Johns Hopkins University, investigators are evaluating how behavioral sleep interventions influence pain and brain function in patients with sickle cell disease.

Pain in Long COVID-19: The Role of Sleep. Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are conducting an observational study of patients with long COVID who have pain and sleep disturbances. The study aims “to understand the role of sleep in the development and persistence of pain symptoms in long COVID.”

Intervention for Sleep and Pain in Youth: A Randomized Controlled Trial (I-SPY-RCT). Adolescents with migraine are being recruited by a team at Seattle Children’s Hospital for a randomized controlled trial. The study will examine the effects of CBT-I as well as the combined effect of CBT-I and pain interventions on reducing insomnia symptoms and headache-related disability in this population.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early in his career as a pain researcher, Daniel Whibley, PhD, was struck by an article that drew parallels between methods of torture and the experiences of patients with insomnia and chronic pain.

The author of that article, Nicole Tang, DPhil, observed that two methods used by torturers – pain infliction and sleep deprivation – harm people in ways that also are experienced by many patients with pain and sleep conditions.

Patients are “essentially living in this perpetually undesirable, at best, situation where both of these features are playing out in their lives,” said Dr. Whibley, a research assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The problems create a “kind of vicious circle,” he said. Pain disrupts sleep. Insufficient sleep worsens pain.

Studies have established important relationships between the conditions, but investigators are still trying to clarify the mechanisms that connect them and the best ways to intervene to improve patient outcomes.

To that end, Dr. Whibley has developed an intervention known as Move & Snooze to benefit patients with pain associated with osteoarthritis.

The program includes remote exercise coaching and an automated 6-week course of digital cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). Dr. Whibley’s hypothesis is that addressing sleep disturbances will help patients stay engaged with the physical activity component of the program and help with pain management.

He and his colleagues have tested the intervention in a feasibility study and are in the process of securing grant funding to test it in a large, nationwide trial.
 

Losing sleep for science

Michael Smith, PhD, is examining the sleep-pain connection from a different angle.

Dr. Smith, the director of the Behavioral Medicine Research Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, is recruiting healthy adults to endure restless nights and painful stimuli.

His team is conducting a study known as Sleep-MOR that aims to reveal how different types of sleep disturbances influence pain and a person’s response to opioids.

Nearly three dozen participants have completed the study so far, Dr. Smith said, out of what he hopes will be 200 in all.

Participants are randomly assigned to sleep normally or to undergo an experimental condition that is designed to mimic the sleep disturbances of insomnia or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

In a “forced awakening” group, participants are awakened for 20-minute intervals every hour and for a full hour-long window during the night. In this condition, they could sleep for about four hours in all. Forced awakening is intended to represent insomnia

A “sleep fragmentation” group is meant to represent patients with OSA. About 30 times per hour, tones and tactile buzzers rouse sleeping participants without fully waking them up. Although the experiment involves brief arousals such as those experienced by patients with OSA, it does not capture another important feature of sleep apnea – the cessation of breathing, Dr. Smith noted.

The next day, researchers perform pain testing and brain imaging and see how opioid receptors respond to pain medication.

“Some of the forms of sleep loss that we are studying may actually alter the efficacy of the binding of those receptors, and that might then require you to have higher doses of an opioid to get the same effect,” Dr. Smith said. “That’s our hypothesis.”

If that bears out, disturbed sleep may play a role in the development of opioid use disorder and have implications for patients who receive opioids after surgery, he said.

In the lab, researchers examine pain thresholds using techniques such as thermal pain testing, in which a thermode attached to a participant’s arm heats up. The temperature “slowly goes up and the patient just says: ‘Ouch,’ when it first hurts. Then we have their pain threshold,” Dr. Smith said.
 

A bidirectional relationship

Epidemiologic studies have found that, if you follow women who do not have pain, those with complaints about sleep are more than twice as likely to develop fibromyalgia.

Dr. Smith’s group and others have shown that if you deprive a healthy person of sleep, they become more sensitive to pain.

Inflammation could be one possible reason for this effect. In one study, participants who experienced forced awakening experienced less slow-wave sleep, which was tied to more inflammation in the morning. Increased inflammation was linked to greater pain sensitivity.

“We are starting to piece together some of the pathways. That’s just one,” Dr. Smith said.

A recent study by researchers at Harvard University and elsewhere investigated how sleep disturbances affected three pain pathways. In that study, the results varied by sex. The data indicate that optimal treatment approaches might differ for men and women, the researchers said.
 

Waking up to the problem

Sleep problems can be neglected in medical school and in the clinic. “People just have other things to focus on that they clearly know what they can do about it,” Dr. Smith said.

But clinicians should not hesitate to screen for conditions such as insomnia or OSA and refer patients to a specialist. If a patient has had pain for 6 months and treatments are not working, the chance that they have a treatable sleep disorder “is very high, above 50%,” Dr. Smith said. Many could have more than one sleep disorder, he added.

Continuous positive airway pressure for OSA and CBT for insomnia can improve sleep. Dr. Smith said he expects these measures will improve overall pain management as well.

If treating a sleep disorder fails to help with pain, however, it may still help prevent other sleep-related problems, such as depression, poor glucose control, and heart disease. It also could improve patients’ ability to function day to day, he said.

Evidence on whether treating sleep problems reduces pain has so far been mixed.

“We’ve done some studies showing that if you have CBT-I and you have knee arthritis, improvements in the amount of time you spend awake at night translate into improvements in pain at 6 months. There is a signal there, but it’s not as strong as we would like,” he said. “It may be that it takes longer than anyone would like” to have an effect.

A structured intervention such as CBT-I is likely more beneficial than education about sleep hygiene alone in resolving sleep disturbances, Dr. Whibley said. CBT-I includes active components such as sleep restriction therapy and stimulus control therapy and is recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine as the first-line treatment for chronic insomnia (J Clin Sleep Med. 2008 Oct 15;4[5]:487-504).

Patients should consider the role that sleep may play in their chronic pain condition, he said.

“An increasing number of researchers and clinicians are becoming more interested in this as a foundational pillar of health, alongside activity and diet,” Dr. Whibley said. “Sleep is recognized as just as important but doesn’t seem to get the airtime.”

Clinicians, he added, should regularly assess their patients’ sleep and know where to refer those whom they feel would benefit from more advanced management: “They [should] know that they have at least got it on their radar to check as one of the important pillars of health that you should be able to control.”
 

Sleep trials seeking pain patients

Researchers around the United States are conducting dozens of studies related to sleep and pain. The following trials are recruiting participants, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.

Sleep and Pain Interventions in Women With Fibromyalgia (SPIN-II). Investigators at the University of Missouri–Columbia are examining two cognitive-behavioral treatments for women with fibromyalgia and insomnia. “This trial will yield important information about the roles of sleep, arousal, and brain structure and function in the development and maintenance of chronic pain in women with fibromyalgia,” the researchers say.

Prospective Randomized Trial of CPAP for SDB in Patients Who Use Opioids (PRESTO). At the University of California, San Diego, researchers are investigating whether patients with chronic pain who use opioids and have sleep-disordered breathing may benefit from treatment with continuous positive airway pressure. They plan to assess the intervention’s effects on sleep quality, pain, and quality of life. They also will see which patients are least likely to benefit from this treatment approach.

Latent Aging Mechanisms in Pain and Sleep (LAMPS). Researchers at the University of Florida are studying the effects of oral gamma-aminobutyric acid in older adults with chronic pain and sleep difficulties.

Sleep and Pain in Sickle Cell Disease. At Johns Hopkins University, investigators are evaluating how behavioral sleep interventions influence pain and brain function in patients with sickle cell disease.

Pain in Long COVID-19: The Role of Sleep. Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are conducting an observational study of patients with long COVID who have pain and sleep disturbances. The study aims “to understand the role of sleep in the development and persistence of pain symptoms in long COVID.”

Intervention for Sleep and Pain in Youth: A Randomized Controlled Trial (I-SPY-RCT). Adolescents with migraine are being recruited by a team at Seattle Children’s Hospital for a randomized controlled trial. The study will examine the effects of CBT-I as well as the combined effect of CBT-I and pain interventions on reducing insomnia symptoms and headache-related disability in this population.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early in his career as a pain researcher, Daniel Whibley, PhD, was struck by an article that drew parallels between methods of torture and the experiences of patients with insomnia and chronic pain.

The author of that article, Nicole Tang, DPhil, observed that two methods used by torturers – pain infliction and sleep deprivation – harm people in ways that also are experienced by many patients with pain and sleep conditions.

Patients are “essentially living in this perpetually undesirable, at best, situation where both of these features are playing out in their lives,” said Dr. Whibley, a research assistant professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The problems create a “kind of vicious circle,” he said. Pain disrupts sleep. Insufficient sleep worsens pain.

Studies have established important relationships between the conditions, but investigators are still trying to clarify the mechanisms that connect them and the best ways to intervene to improve patient outcomes.

To that end, Dr. Whibley has developed an intervention known as Move & Snooze to benefit patients with pain associated with osteoarthritis.

The program includes remote exercise coaching and an automated 6-week course of digital cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). Dr. Whibley’s hypothesis is that addressing sleep disturbances will help patients stay engaged with the physical activity component of the program and help with pain management.

He and his colleagues have tested the intervention in a feasibility study and are in the process of securing grant funding to test it in a large, nationwide trial.
 

Losing sleep for science

Michael Smith, PhD, is examining the sleep-pain connection from a different angle.

Dr. Smith, the director of the Behavioral Medicine Research Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, is recruiting healthy adults to endure restless nights and painful stimuli.

His team is conducting a study known as Sleep-MOR that aims to reveal how different types of sleep disturbances influence pain and a person’s response to opioids.

Nearly three dozen participants have completed the study so far, Dr. Smith said, out of what he hopes will be 200 in all.

Participants are randomly assigned to sleep normally or to undergo an experimental condition that is designed to mimic the sleep disturbances of insomnia or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

In a “forced awakening” group, participants are awakened for 20-minute intervals every hour and for a full hour-long window during the night. In this condition, they could sleep for about four hours in all. Forced awakening is intended to represent insomnia

A “sleep fragmentation” group is meant to represent patients with OSA. About 30 times per hour, tones and tactile buzzers rouse sleeping participants without fully waking them up. Although the experiment involves brief arousals such as those experienced by patients with OSA, it does not capture another important feature of sleep apnea – the cessation of breathing, Dr. Smith noted.

The next day, researchers perform pain testing and brain imaging and see how opioid receptors respond to pain medication.

“Some of the forms of sleep loss that we are studying may actually alter the efficacy of the binding of those receptors, and that might then require you to have higher doses of an opioid to get the same effect,” Dr. Smith said. “That’s our hypothesis.”

If that bears out, disturbed sleep may play a role in the development of opioid use disorder and have implications for patients who receive opioids after surgery, he said.

In the lab, researchers examine pain thresholds using techniques such as thermal pain testing, in which a thermode attached to a participant’s arm heats up. The temperature “slowly goes up and the patient just says: ‘Ouch,’ when it first hurts. Then we have their pain threshold,” Dr. Smith said.
 

A bidirectional relationship

Epidemiologic studies have found that, if you follow women who do not have pain, those with complaints about sleep are more than twice as likely to develop fibromyalgia.

Dr. Smith’s group and others have shown that if you deprive a healthy person of sleep, they become more sensitive to pain.

Inflammation could be one possible reason for this effect. In one study, participants who experienced forced awakening experienced less slow-wave sleep, which was tied to more inflammation in the morning. Increased inflammation was linked to greater pain sensitivity.

“We are starting to piece together some of the pathways. That’s just one,” Dr. Smith said.

A recent study by researchers at Harvard University and elsewhere investigated how sleep disturbances affected three pain pathways. In that study, the results varied by sex. The data indicate that optimal treatment approaches might differ for men and women, the researchers said.
 

Waking up to the problem

Sleep problems can be neglected in medical school and in the clinic. “People just have other things to focus on that they clearly know what they can do about it,” Dr. Smith said.

But clinicians should not hesitate to screen for conditions such as insomnia or OSA and refer patients to a specialist. If a patient has had pain for 6 months and treatments are not working, the chance that they have a treatable sleep disorder “is very high, above 50%,” Dr. Smith said. Many could have more than one sleep disorder, he added.

Continuous positive airway pressure for OSA and CBT for insomnia can improve sleep. Dr. Smith said he expects these measures will improve overall pain management as well.

If treating a sleep disorder fails to help with pain, however, it may still help prevent other sleep-related problems, such as depression, poor glucose control, and heart disease. It also could improve patients’ ability to function day to day, he said.

Evidence on whether treating sleep problems reduces pain has so far been mixed.

“We’ve done some studies showing that if you have CBT-I and you have knee arthritis, improvements in the amount of time you spend awake at night translate into improvements in pain at 6 months. There is a signal there, but it’s not as strong as we would like,” he said. “It may be that it takes longer than anyone would like” to have an effect.

A structured intervention such as CBT-I is likely more beneficial than education about sleep hygiene alone in resolving sleep disturbances, Dr. Whibley said. CBT-I includes active components such as sleep restriction therapy and stimulus control therapy and is recommended by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine as the first-line treatment for chronic insomnia (J Clin Sleep Med. 2008 Oct 15;4[5]:487-504).

Patients should consider the role that sleep may play in their chronic pain condition, he said.

“An increasing number of researchers and clinicians are becoming more interested in this as a foundational pillar of health, alongside activity and diet,” Dr. Whibley said. “Sleep is recognized as just as important but doesn’t seem to get the airtime.”

Clinicians, he added, should regularly assess their patients’ sleep and know where to refer those whom they feel would benefit from more advanced management: “They [should] know that they have at least got it on their radar to check as one of the important pillars of health that you should be able to control.”
 

Sleep trials seeking pain patients

Researchers around the United States are conducting dozens of studies related to sleep and pain. The following trials are recruiting participants, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.

Sleep and Pain Interventions in Women With Fibromyalgia (SPIN-II). Investigators at the University of Missouri–Columbia are examining two cognitive-behavioral treatments for women with fibromyalgia and insomnia. “This trial will yield important information about the roles of sleep, arousal, and brain structure and function in the development and maintenance of chronic pain in women with fibromyalgia,” the researchers say.

Prospective Randomized Trial of CPAP for SDB in Patients Who Use Opioids (PRESTO). At the University of California, San Diego, researchers are investigating whether patients with chronic pain who use opioids and have sleep-disordered breathing may benefit from treatment with continuous positive airway pressure. They plan to assess the intervention’s effects on sleep quality, pain, and quality of life. They also will see which patients are least likely to benefit from this treatment approach.

Latent Aging Mechanisms in Pain and Sleep (LAMPS). Researchers at the University of Florida are studying the effects of oral gamma-aminobutyric acid in older adults with chronic pain and sleep difficulties.

Sleep and Pain in Sickle Cell Disease. At Johns Hopkins University, investigators are evaluating how behavioral sleep interventions influence pain and brain function in patients with sickle cell disease.

Pain in Long COVID-19: The Role of Sleep. Researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are conducting an observational study of patients with long COVID who have pain and sleep disturbances. The study aims “to understand the role of sleep in the development and persistence of pain symptoms in long COVID.”

Intervention for Sleep and Pain in Youth: A Randomized Controlled Trial (I-SPY-RCT). Adolescents with migraine are being recruited by a team at Seattle Children’s Hospital for a randomized controlled trial. The study will examine the effects of CBT-I as well as the combined effect of CBT-I and pain interventions on reducing insomnia symptoms and headache-related disability in this population.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The invitation came to my house, addressed to “residential customer.” It was for my wife and me to attend a free dinner at a swanky local restaurant to learn about “revolutionary” treatments for memory loss. It was presented by a “wellness expert.”

Of course, I just had to check out the website.

The dinner was hosted by an internist pushing an unproven (except for the usual small noncontrolled studies) treatment. Although not stated, I’m sure when you call you’ll find out this is not covered by insurance; not Food and Drug Administration approved to treat, cure, diagnose, prevent any disease; your mileage may vary, etc.

The website was full of testimonials as to how well the treatments worked, primarily from people in their 20s-40s who are, realistically, unlikely to have a pathologically serious cause for memory problems. The site also mentions that you can use it to treat traumatic brain injury, ADHD, learning disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, PTSD, Parkinson’s disease, autism, dementia, and stroke, though it does clearly state that such use is not FDA approved.

Prices (I assume all cash pay) for the treatment weren’t listed. I guess you have to come to the “free” dinner for those, or submit an online form to the office.

I’m not going to say the advertised treatment doesn’t work. It might, for at least some of those things. A PubMed search tells me it’s under investigation for several of them.

But that doesn’t mean it works. It might, but a lot of things that look promising in early trials end up failing in the long run. So, at least to me, this is no different than people selling various over-the-counter supplements online with all kinds of extravagant claims and testimonials.

I also have to question a treatment targeting young people for memory loss. In neurology we see a lot of that, and know that true pathology is rare. Most of these patients have root issues with depression, or anxiety, or stress that are affecting their memory. That doesn’t make their memory issues any less real, but they shouldn’t be lumped in with neurodegenerative diseases. They need to be correctly diagnosed and treated for what they are.

Maybe it’s just me, but I often see this sort of thing as kind of sketchy – generating business for unproven treatments by selling fear – you need to do something NOW to keep from getting worse. And, of course there’s always the mysterious “they.” The treatments “they” offer don’t work. Why aren’t “they” telling you what really does?

Looking at the restaurant’s online menu, dinners are around $75 per person and the invitation says “seats are limited.” Doing some mental math gives you an idea how many diners need to come, what percentage of them need to sign up for the treatment, and how much it costs to recoup the investment.

Let the buyer beware.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The invitation came to my house, addressed to “residential customer.” It was for my wife and me to attend a free dinner at a swanky local restaurant to learn about “revolutionary” treatments for memory loss. It was presented by a “wellness expert.”

Of course, I just had to check out the website.

The dinner was hosted by an internist pushing an unproven (except for the usual small noncontrolled studies) treatment. Although not stated, I’m sure when you call you’ll find out this is not covered by insurance; not Food and Drug Administration approved to treat, cure, diagnose, prevent any disease; your mileage may vary, etc.

The website was full of testimonials as to how well the treatments worked, primarily from people in their 20s-40s who are, realistically, unlikely to have a pathologically serious cause for memory problems. The site also mentions that you can use it to treat traumatic brain injury, ADHD, learning disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, PTSD, Parkinson’s disease, autism, dementia, and stroke, though it does clearly state that such use is not FDA approved.

Prices (I assume all cash pay) for the treatment weren’t listed. I guess you have to come to the “free” dinner for those, or submit an online form to the office.

I’m not going to say the advertised treatment doesn’t work. It might, for at least some of those things. A PubMed search tells me it’s under investigation for several of them.

But that doesn’t mean it works. It might, but a lot of things that look promising in early trials end up failing in the long run. So, at least to me, this is no different than people selling various over-the-counter supplements online with all kinds of extravagant claims and testimonials.

I also have to question a treatment targeting young people for memory loss. In neurology we see a lot of that, and know that true pathology is rare. Most of these patients have root issues with depression, or anxiety, or stress that are affecting their memory. That doesn’t make their memory issues any less real, but they shouldn’t be lumped in with neurodegenerative diseases. They need to be correctly diagnosed and treated for what they are.

Maybe it’s just me, but I often see this sort of thing as kind of sketchy – generating business for unproven treatments by selling fear – you need to do something NOW to keep from getting worse. And, of course there’s always the mysterious “they.” The treatments “they” offer don’t work. Why aren’t “they” telling you what really does?

Looking at the restaurant’s online menu, dinners are around $75 per person and the invitation says “seats are limited.” Doing some mental math gives you an idea how many diners need to come, what percentage of them need to sign up for the treatment, and how much it costs to recoup the investment.

Let the buyer beware.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The invitation came to my house, addressed to “residential customer.” It was for my wife and me to attend a free dinner at a swanky local restaurant to learn about “revolutionary” treatments for memory loss. It was presented by a “wellness expert.”

Of course, I just had to check out the website.

The dinner was hosted by an internist pushing an unproven (except for the usual small noncontrolled studies) treatment. Although not stated, I’m sure when you call you’ll find out this is not covered by insurance; not Food and Drug Administration approved to treat, cure, diagnose, prevent any disease; your mileage may vary, etc.

The website was full of testimonials as to how well the treatments worked, primarily from people in their 20s-40s who are, realistically, unlikely to have a pathologically serious cause for memory problems. The site also mentions that you can use it to treat traumatic brain injury, ADHD, learning disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, PTSD, Parkinson’s disease, autism, dementia, and stroke, though it does clearly state that such use is not FDA approved.

Prices (I assume all cash pay) for the treatment weren’t listed. I guess you have to come to the “free” dinner for those, or submit an online form to the office.

I’m not going to say the advertised treatment doesn’t work. It might, for at least some of those things. A PubMed search tells me it’s under investigation for several of them.

But that doesn’t mean it works. It might, but a lot of things that look promising in early trials end up failing in the long run. So, at least to me, this is no different than people selling various over-the-counter supplements online with all kinds of extravagant claims and testimonials.

I also have to question a treatment targeting young people for memory loss. In neurology we see a lot of that, and know that true pathology is rare. Most of these patients have root issues with depression, or anxiety, or stress that are affecting their memory. That doesn’t make their memory issues any less real, but they shouldn’t be lumped in with neurodegenerative diseases. They need to be correctly diagnosed and treated for what they are.

Maybe it’s just me, but I often see this sort of thing as kind of sketchy – generating business for unproven treatments by selling fear – you need to do something NOW to keep from getting worse. And, of course there’s always the mysterious “they.” The treatments “they” offer don’t work. Why aren’t “they” telling you what really does?

Looking at the restaurant’s online menu, dinners are around $75 per person and the invitation says “seats are limited.” Doing some mental math gives you an idea how many diners need to come, what percentage of them need to sign up for the treatment, and how much it costs to recoup the investment.

Let the buyer beware.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.

They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.

According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.

“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.

Matched cohort study

The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.

The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).

Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.

The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.

While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.

Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.” 

The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.

They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.

According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.

“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.

Matched cohort study

The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.

The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).

Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.

The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.

While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.

Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.” 

The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.

They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.

According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.

“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.

Matched cohort study

The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.

The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).

Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.

The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.

While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.

Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.” 

The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

An insurance industry lobbying campaign persuaded federal officials to allow insurers to charge physicians fees for the privilege of being paid electronically, even though it can cost more to mail paper checks, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica. 

The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.

But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.

According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.

The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.

Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.

When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.

“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
 

Predatory practices

It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.

In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”

So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.

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

An insurance industry lobbying campaign persuaded federal officials to allow insurers to charge physicians fees for the privilege of being paid electronically, even though it can cost more to mail paper checks, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica. 

The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.

But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.

According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.

The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.

Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.

When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.

“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
 

Predatory practices

It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.

In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”

So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.

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

An insurance industry lobbying campaign persuaded federal officials to allow insurers to charge physicians fees for the privilege of being paid electronically, even though it can cost more to mail paper checks, according to a new investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica. 

The Affordable Care Act requires that health plans give providers the option of being paid electronically to improve efficiency and save money. In 2017, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance that prohibited insurers and their payment processing vendors from “engaging in unfair business practices that do not support an efficient healthcare system,” according to a recent Medical Group Management Association position paper.

But that guidance, which appeared to forbid requiring fees to receive payments online, disappeared from the CMS site 6 months later.

According to ProPublica’s reporting, the change was the result of a quiet insurance industry lobbying campaign led by Matthew Albright, a former CMS employee who left government service to work for Zelis, a payment processing company co-owned by private equity giant Bain Capital.

The details of the lobbying effort were discovered by Alex Shteynshlyuger, a New York urologist, who through public records requests received the email correspondence between Mr. Albright and CMS and shared that material with ProPublica.

Mr. Albright had been able to influence CMS policy to protect what ProPublica called a “crucial revenue stream” for payment processors. The fee notice was removed just 3 days after Mr. Albright requested the change, ProPublica found.

When CMS resisted further changes, including eliminating guidance forbidding insurers and payment processors from charging excess fees for online payments, Mr. Albright brought in a law firm. The threat of a lawsuit by deep-pocketed Zelis was enough to bring CMS in line, ProPublica reported. Today, these fees can cost larger medical practices more than $1 million a year, according to the MGMA report.

“It took less than a decade for a new industry of middlemen, owned by private equity funds and giant conglomerates like UnitedHealth Group, to cash in,” writes Cezary Podkul, the author of the ProPublica report.
 

Predatory practices

It might seem that avoiding the fees would be as simple as requesting to be paid by check. However, a 2021 poll by the MGMA found that 57% of doctors were being charged these fees when they hadn’t agreed to them. According to the ProPublica report, physicians who have requested to be paid by check often find themselves being bounced back to electronic fund transfer (EFT) payments, where they are again charged fees.

In October 2021, more than 90 physician organizations, including the American Medical Association and the MGMA, signed a letter calling on the Biden administration to reinstate guidance to protect physicians’ right to receive EFT payments without paying fees. The letter describes the practice as “outrageous” and analogous to “an employee being required to enroll in a program that would deduct a percentage of each paycheck to receive direct deposit payments from an employer.”

So far, however, the situation remains unchanged. The language on the CMS site has changed, though. In 2022, the guidelines were adjusted to clarify that EFT fees are allowed.

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

You’ve practiced medicine for years without issues, but now you are facing a medical malpractice case. No worries – you’ve had professional liability insurance all this time, so surely there’s nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly, your medical malpractice insurer will cover the costs of defending you. Or will they? One case casts questions on just this issue.

Professional liability insurance

According to the American Medical Association, almost one in three physicians (31%) have had a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against them at some point in their careers. These numbers only increase the longer a physician practices; almost half of doctors 55 and over have been sued, compared with less than 10% of physicians under 40.

And while the majority of cases are dropped or dismissed, and the small minority of cases that do go to trial are mostly won by the defense, the cost of defending these cases can be extremely high. Physicians have medical malpractice insurance to defray these costs.

Malpractice insurance generally covers the costs of attorney fees, court costs, arbitration, compensatory damages, and settlements related to patient injury or death. Insurance sometimes, but not always, pays for the costs of malpractice lawsuits arising out of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.

But it is what the policies don’t pay for that should be of most interest to practitioners.
 

Exclusions to medical malpractice insurance

All professional liability insurance policies contain exclusions, and it is essential that you know what they are. While the exclusions may vary by policy, most malpractice insurance policies exclude claims stemming from:

• Reckless or intentional acts.
• Illegal/criminal activities, including theft.
• Misrepresentation, including dishonesty, fraudulent activity, falsification, and misrepresentation on forms.
• Practicing under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Altering patient or hospital records.
• Sexual misconduct.
• Cyber security issues, which typically require a separate cyber liability policy to protect against cyber attacks and data breaches affecting patient medical records.

It’s essential to know what your specific policy’s exclusions are, or you may be surprised to find that your malpractice liability insurance doesn’t cover you when you expected that it would. Such was the situation in a recently decided case.

Also essential is knowing what type of coverage your policy provides – claims-made or occurrence-based. Occurrence policies offer lifetime coverage for incidents that occurred during the policy period, no matter when the claim is made. Claims-made policies cover only incidents that occur and are reported within the policy’s time period (unless a “tail” policy is purchased to extend the reporting period).
 

The case

Dr. P was a neurologist specializing in pain management. He had a professional liability insurance policy with an insurance company. In 2012, Dr. P’s insurance agent saw a television news story about the physician being accused by the state medical board for overprescribing opioids, resulting in the deaths of 17 patients. The next day, the agent obtained copies of documents from the state medical board, including a summary suspension order and a notice of contemplated action.

The notice of contemplated action specified that Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care through injudicious prescribing, leading to approximately 17 patient deaths due to drug toxicity. Because the agent realized that lawsuits could be filed against Dr. P for the deaths, she sent the insurance company the paperwork from the medical board so the insurer would be aware of the potential claims.

However, when the insurer received the information, it did not investigate or seek more information as it was required to do. The insurer failed to get medical records, or specific patient names, and none of the 17 deaths were recorded in the insurance company’s claims system (a failure to follow company procedure). Instead, the insurance company decided to cancel Dr. P’s policy effective the following month.

The company sent Dr. P a cancellation letter advising him that his policy was being terminated due to “license suspension, nature of allegations, and practice profile,” and offered him a tail policy to purchase.

The insurance company did not advise Dr. P that he should ensure all potential claims were reported, including the 17 deaths, before his policy expired. The company also did not advise him that he had a claims-made policy and what that meant regarding future lawsuits that might be filed after his policy period expired.

A year later, Dr. P was sued in two wrongful death lawsuits by the families of two of the 17 opioid-related deaths. When he was served with the papers, he promptly notified the insurance company. The insurance company issued a denial letter, incorrectly asserting that the 17 drug-toxicity deaths that they were aware of did not qualify as claims under Dr. P’s policy.

After his insurance company failed to represent him, Dr. P divorced his wife of 35 years and filed for bankruptcy. The only creditors with claims were the two families who had sued him. The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against the insurance company on behalf of Dr. P for the insurer’s failure to defend and indemnify Dr. P against the wrongful death lawsuits. In 2017, the bankruptcy trustee settled the two wrongful death cases by paying the families a certain amount of cash and assigning the insurance bad faith lawsuit to them.
 

Court and jury decide

In 2020, the case against the insurance company ended up in court. By 2022, the court had decided some of the issues and left some for the jury to determine.

The court found that the insurance company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify Dr. P, committed unfair insurance claims practices, and committed bad faith in failing to defend the physician. The court limited the compensation to the amount of cash that had been paid to settle the two cases, and any fees and costs that Dr. P had incurred defending himself.

However, this still left the jury to decide whether the insurance company had committed bad faith in failing to indemnify (secure a person against legal liability for his/her actions) Dr. P, whether it had violated the state’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and whether punitive damages should be levied against the insurer.

The jury trial ended in a stunning $52 million verdict against the insurance company after less than 2 hours of deliberation. The jury found that the insurance company had acted in bad faith and willfully violated the Unfair Insurances Practices Act.

While the jury ultimately decided against the insurance company and sent it a strong message with a large verdict, Dr. P’s career was still over. He had stopped practicing medicine, was bankrupt, and his personal life was in shambles. The litigation had taken about a decade. Sometimes a win isn’t a victory.
 

Protecting yourself

The best way to protect yourself from a situation in which your insurer will not defend you is to really know and understand your insurance policy. Is it occurrence-based or claims-made insurance? What exactly does it cover? How are claims supposed to be made? Your professional liability insurance can be extremely important if you get sued, so it is equally important to choose it carefully and to really understand what is being covered.

Other ways to protect yourself:

• Know your agent. Your agent is key to explaining your policy as well as helping in the event that you need to make a claim. Dr. P’s agent saw a news story about him on television, which is why she submitted the information to the insurance company. Dr. P would have been far better off calling the agent directly when he was being investigated by the state medical board to explain the situation and seek advice.
• Be aware of exclusions to your policy. Many – such as criminal acts, reckless or intentional acts, or practicing under the influence – were mentioned earlier in this article. Some may be unexpected, so it is extremely important that you understand the specific exclusions to your particular policy.
• Be aware of your state law, and how changes might affect you. For example, in states that have outlawed or criminalized abortion, an insurance company would probably not have to represent a policy holder who was sued for malpractice involving an abortion. On the other hand, be aware that not treating a patient who needs life-saving care because you are afraid of running afoul of the law can also get you in trouble if the patient is harmed by not being treated. (For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is currently investigating two hospitals that failed to provide necessary stabilizing abortion care to a patient with an emergency medication condition resulting from a miscarriage.)
• Know how your policy defines ‘intentional’ acts (which are typically excluded from coverage). This is important. In some jurisdictions, the insured clinician has to merely intend to commit the acts in order for the claim to be excluded. In other jurisdictions, the insured doctor has to intend to cause the resulting damage. This can result in a very different outcome.
• The best thing doctors can do is to really understand what the policy covers and be prepared to make some noise if the company is not covering something that it should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you think your insurer is doing something wrong, and if the answers don’t satisfy you, consult an attorney.

The future

In the fall of 2022, at least partially in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision regarding abortion, one professional liability company (Physician’s Insurance) launched criminal defense reimbursement coverage for physicians and hospitals to pay for defense costs incurred in responding to criminal allegations arising directly from patient care.

The add-on Criminal Defense Reimbursement Endorsement was made available in Washington State in January 2023, and will be offered in other states pending regulatory approval. It reimburses defense costs up to $250,000 when criminal actions have arisen from direct patient care.

In a press release announcing the new coverage, Physician’s Insurance CEO Bill Cotter explained the company’s reasoning in providing it: “The already challenging environment for physicians and hospitals has been made even more difficult as they now navigate the legal ramifications of increased criminal medical negligence claims as seen in the case of the Nashville nurse at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the potential for criminal state claims arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the subsequent state criminalization of healthcare practices that have long been the professionally accepted standard of care.”

Expect to see more insurance companies offering new coverage options for physicians in the future as they recognize that physicians may be facing more than just medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of patient care.
 

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

You’ve practiced medicine for years without issues, but now you are facing a medical malpractice case. No worries – you’ve had professional liability insurance all this time, so surely there’s nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly, your medical malpractice insurer will cover the costs of defending you. Or will they? One case casts questions on just this issue.

Professional liability insurance

According to the American Medical Association, almost one in three physicians (31%) have had a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against them at some point in their careers. These numbers only increase the longer a physician practices; almost half of doctors 55 and over have been sued, compared with less than 10% of physicians under 40.

And while the majority of cases are dropped or dismissed, and the small minority of cases that do go to trial are mostly won by the defense, the cost of defending these cases can be extremely high. Physicians have medical malpractice insurance to defray these costs.

Malpractice insurance generally covers the costs of attorney fees, court costs, arbitration, compensatory damages, and settlements related to patient injury or death. Insurance sometimes, but not always, pays for the costs of malpractice lawsuits arising out of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.

But it is what the policies don’t pay for that should be of most interest to practitioners.
 

Exclusions to medical malpractice insurance

All professional liability insurance policies contain exclusions, and it is essential that you know what they are. While the exclusions may vary by policy, most malpractice insurance policies exclude claims stemming from:

• Reckless or intentional acts.
• Illegal/criminal activities, including theft.
• Misrepresentation, including dishonesty, fraudulent activity, falsification, and misrepresentation on forms.
• Practicing under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Altering patient or hospital records.
• Sexual misconduct.
• Cyber security issues, which typically require a separate cyber liability policy to protect against cyber attacks and data breaches affecting patient medical records.

It’s essential to know what your specific policy’s exclusions are, or you may be surprised to find that your malpractice liability insurance doesn’t cover you when you expected that it would. Such was the situation in a recently decided case.

Also essential is knowing what type of coverage your policy provides – claims-made or occurrence-based. Occurrence policies offer lifetime coverage for incidents that occurred during the policy period, no matter when the claim is made. Claims-made policies cover only incidents that occur and are reported within the policy’s time period (unless a “tail” policy is purchased to extend the reporting period).
 

The case

Dr. P was a neurologist specializing in pain management. He had a professional liability insurance policy with an insurance company. In 2012, Dr. P’s insurance agent saw a television news story about the physician being accused by the state medical board for overprescribing opioids, resulting in the deaths of 17 patients. The next day, the agent obtained copies of documents from the state medical board, including a summary suspension order and a notice of contemplated action.

The notice of contemplated action specified that Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care through injudicious prescribing, leading to approximately 17 patient deaths due to drug toxicity. Because the agent realized that lawsuits could be filed against Dr. P for the deaths, she sent the insurance company the paperwork from the medical board so the insurer would be aware of the potential claims.

However, when the insurer received the information, it did not investigate or seek more information as it was required to do. The insurer failed to get medical records, or specific patient names, and none of the 17 deaths were recorded in the insurance company’s claims system (a failure to follow company procedure). Instead, the insurance company decided to cancel Dr. P’s policy effective the following month.

The company sent Dr. P a cancellation letter advising him that his policy was being terminated due to “license suspension, nature of allegations, and practice profile,” and offered him a tail policy to purchase.

The insurance company did not advise Dr. P that he should ensure all potential claims were reported, including the 17 deaths, before his policy expired. The company also did not advise him that he had a claims-made policy and what that meant regarding future lawsuits that might be filed after his policy period expired.

A year later, Dr. P was sued in two wrongful death lawsuits by the families of two of the 17 opioid-related deaths. When he was served with the papers, he promptly notified the insurance company. The insurance company issued a denial letter, incorrectly asserting that the 17 drug-toxicity deaths that they were aware of did not qualify as claims under Dr. P’s policy.

After his insurance company failed to represent him, Dr. P divorced his wife of 35 years and filed for bankruptcy. The only creditors with claims were the two families who had sued him. The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against the insurance company on behalf of Dr. P for the insurer’s failure to defend and indemnify Dr. P against the wrongful death lawsuits. In 2017, the bankruptcy trustee settled the two wrongful death cases by paying the families a certain amount of cash and assigning the insurance bad faith lawsuit to them.
 

Court and jury decide

In 2020, the case against the insurance company ended up in court. By 2022, the court had decided some of the issues and left some for the jury to determine.

The court found that the insurance company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify Dr. P, committed unfair insurance claims practices, and committed bad faith in failing to defend the physician. The court limited the compensation to the amount of cash that had been paid to settle the two cases, and any fees and costs that Dr. P had incurred defending himself.

However, this still left the jury to decide whether the insurance company had committed bad faith in failing to indemnify (secure a person against legal liability for his/her actions) Dr. P, whether it had violated the state’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and whether punitive damages should be levied against the insurer.

The jury trial ended in a stunning $52 million verdict against the insurance company after less than 2 hours of deliberation. The jury found that the insurance company had acted in bad faith and willfully violated the Unfair Insurances Practices Act.

While the jury ultimately decided against the insurance company and sent it a strong message with a large verdict, Dr. P’s career was still over. He had stopped practicing medicine, was bankrupt, and his personal life was in shambles. The litigation had taken about a decade. Sometimes a win isn’t a victory.
 

Protecting yourself

The best way to protect yourself from a situation in which your insurer will not defend you is to really know and understand your insurance policy. Is it occurrence-based or claims-made insurance? What exactly does it cover? How are claims supposed to be made? Your professional liability insurance can be extremely important if you get sued, so it is equally important to choose it carefully and to really understand what is being covered.

Other ways to protect yourself:

• Know your agent. Your agent is key to explaining your policy as well as helping in the event that you need to make a claim. Dr. P’s agent saw a news story about him on television, which is why she submitted the information to the insurance company. Dr. P would have been far better off calling the agent directly when he was being investigated by the state medical board to explain the situation and seek advice.
• Be aware of exclusions to your policy. Many – such as criminal acts, reckless or intentional acts, or practicing under the influence – were mentioned earlier in this article. Some may be unexpected, so it is extremely important that you understand the specific exclusions to your particular policy.
• Be aware of your state law, and how changes might affect you. For example, in states that have outlawed or criminalized abortion, an insurance company would probably not have to represent a policy holder who was sued for malpractice involving an abortion. On the other hand, be aware that not treating a patient who needs life-saving care because you are afraid of running afoul of the law can also get you in trouble if the patient is harmed by not being treated. (For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is currently investigating two hospitals that failed to provide necessary stabilizing abortion care to a patient with an emergency medication condition resulting from a miscarriage.)
• Know how your policy defines ‘intentional’ acts (which are typically excluded from coverage). This is important. In some jurisdictions, the insured clinician has to merely intend to commit the acts in order for the claim to be excluded. In other jurisdictions, the insured doctor has to intend to cause the resulting damage. This can result in a very different outcome.
• The best thing doctors can do is to really understand what the policy covers and be prepared to make some noise if the company is not covering something that it should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you think your insurer is doing something wrong, and if the answers don’t satisfy you, consult an attorney.

The future

In the fall of 2022, at least partially in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision regarding abortion, one professional liability company (Physician’s Insurance) launched criminal defense reimbursement coverage for physicians and hospitals to pay for defense costs incurred in responding to criminal allegations arising directly from patient care.

The add-on Criminal Defense Reimbursement Endorsement was made available in Washington State in January 2023, and will be offered in other states pending regulatory approval. It reimburses defense costs up to $250,000 when criminal actions have arisen from direct patient care.

In a press release announcing the new coverage, Physician’s Insurance CEO Bill Cotter explained the company’s reasoning in providing it: “The already challenging environment for physicians and hospitals has been made even more difficult as they now navigate the legal ramifications of increased criminal medical negligence claims as seen in the case of the Nashville nurse at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the potential for criminal state claims arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the subsequent state criminalization of healthcare practices that have long been the professionally accepted standard of care.”

Expect to see more insurance companies offering new coverage options for physicians in the future as they recognize that physicians may be facing more than just medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of patient care.
 

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

You’ve practiced medicine for years without issues, but now you are facing a medical malpractice case. No worries – you’ve had professional liability insurance all this time, so surely there’s nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly, your medical malpractice insurer will cover the costs of defending you. Or will they? One case casts questions on just this issue.

Professional liability insurance

According to the American Medical Association, almost one in three physicians (31%) have had a medical malpractice lawsuit filed against them at some point in their careers. These numbers only increase the longer a physician practices; almost half of doctors 55 and over have been sued, compared with less than 10% of physicians under 40.

And while the majority of cases are dropped or dismissed, and the small minority of cases that do go to trial are mostly won by the defense, the cost of defending these cases can be extremely high. Physicians have medical malpractice insurance to defray these costs.

Malpractice insurance generally covers the costs of attorney fees, court costs, arbitration, compensatory damages, and settlements related to patient injury or death. Insurance sometimes, but not always, pays for the costs of malpractice lawsuits arising out of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations.

But it is what the policies don’t pay for that should be of most interest to practitioners.
 

Exclusions to medical malpractice insurance

All professional liability insurance policies contain exclusions, and it is essential that you know what they are. While the exclusions may vary by policy, most malpractice insurance policies exclude claims stemming from:

• Reckless or intentional acts.
• Illegal/criminal activities, including theft.
• Misrepresentation, including dishonesty, fraudulent activity, falsification, and misrepresentation on forms.
• Practicing under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
• Altering patient or hospital records.
• Sexual misconduct.
• Cyber security issues, which typically require a separate cyber liability policy to protect against cyber attacks and data breaches affecting patient medical records.

It’s essential to know what your specific policy’s exclusions are, or you may be surprised to find that your malpractice liability insurance doesn’t cover you when you expected that it would. Such was the situation in a recently decided case.

Also essential is knowing what type of coverage your policy provides – claims-made or occurrence-based. Occurrence policies offer lifetime coverage for incidents that occurred during the policy period, no matter when the claim is made. Claims-made policies cover only incidents that occur and are reported within the policy’s time period (unless a “tail” policy is purchased to extend the reporting period).
 

The case

Dr. P was a neurologist specializing in pain management. He had a professional liability insurance policy with an insurance company. In 2012, Dr. P’s insurance agent saw a television news story about the physician being accused by the state medical board for overprescribing opioids, resulting in the deaths of 17 patients. The next day, the agent obtained copies of documents from the state medical board, including a summary suspension order and a notice of contemplated action.

The notice of contemplated action specified that Dr. P had deviated from the standard of care through injudicious prescribing, leading to approximately 17 patient deaths due to drug toxicity. Because the agent realized that lawsuits could be filed against Dr. P for the deaths, she sent the insurance company the paperwork from the medical board so the insurer would be aware of the potential claims.

However, when the insurer received the information, it did not investigate or seek more information as it was required to do. The insurer failed to get medical records, or specific patient names, and none of the 17 deaths were recorded in the insurance company’s claims system (a failure to follow company procedure). Instead, the insurance company decided to cancel Dr. P’s policy effective the following month.

The company sent Dr. P a cancellation letter advising him that his policy was being terminated due to “license suspension, nature of allegations, and practice profile,” and offered him a tail policy to purchase.

The insurance company did not advise Dr. P that he should ensure all potential claims were reported, including the 17 deaths, before his policy expired. The company also did not advise him that he had a claims-made policy and what that meant regarding future lawsuits that might be filed after his policy period expired.

A year later, Dr. P was sued in two wrongful death lawsuits by the families of two of the 17 opioid-related deaths. When he was served with the papers, he promptly notified the insurance company. The insurance company issued a denial letter, incorrectly asserting that the 17 drug-toxicity deaths that they were aware of did not qualify as claims under Dr. P’s policy.

After his insurance company failed to represent him, Dr. P divorced his wife of 35 years and filed for bankruptcy. The only creditors with claims were the two families who had sued him. The bankruptcy trustee filed a lawsuit against the insurance company on behalf of Dr. P for the insurer’s failure to defend and indemnify Dr. P against the wrongful death lawsuits. In 2017, the bankruptcy trustee settled the two wrongful death cases by paying the families a certain amount of cash and assigning the insurance bad faith lawsuit to them.
 

Court and jury decide

In 2020, the case against the insurance company ended up in court. By 2022, the court had decided some of the issues and left some for the jury to determine.

The court found that the insurance company had breached its obligation to defend and indemnify Dr. P, committed unfair insurance claims practices, and committed bad faith in failing to defend the physician. The court limited the compensation to the amount of cash that had been paid to settle the two cases, and any fees and costs that Dr. P had incurred defending himself.

However, this still left the jury to decide whether the insurance company had committed bad faith in failing to indemnify (secure a person against legal liability for his/her actions) Dr. P, whether it had violated the state’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act, and whether punitive damages should be levied against the insurer.

The jury trial ended in a stunning $52 million verdict against the insurance company after less than 2 hours of deliberation. The jury found that the insurance company had acted in bad faith and willfully violated the Unfair Insurances Practices Act.

While the jury ultimately decided against the insurance company and sent it a strong message with a large verdict, Dr. P’s career was still over. He had stopped practicing medicine, was bankrupt, and his personal life was in shambles. The litigation had taken about a decade. Sometimes a win isn’t a victory.
 

Protecting yourself

The best way to protect yourself from a situation in which your insurer will not defend you is to really know and understand your insurance policy. Is it occurrence-based or claims-made insurance? What exactly does it cover? How are claims supposed to be made? Your professional liability insurance can be extremely important if you get sued, so it is equally important to choose it carefully and to really understand what is being covered.

Other ways to protect yourself:

• Know your agent. Your agent is key to explaining your policy as well as helping in the event that you need to make a claim. Dr. P’s agent saw a news story about him on television, which is why she submitted the information to the insurance company. Dr. P would have been far better off calling the agent directly when he was being investigated by the state medical board to explain the situation and seek advice.
• Be aware of exclusions to your policy. Many – such as criminal acts, reckless or intentional acts, or practicing under the influence – were mentioned earlier in this article. Some may be unexpected, so it is extremely important that you understand the specific exclusions to your particular policy.
• Be aware of your state law, and how changes might affect you. For example, in states that have outlawed or criminalized abortion, an insurance company would probably not have to represent a policy holder who was sued for malpractice involving an abortion. On the other hand, be aware that not treating a patient who needs life-saving care because you are afraid of running afoul of the law can also get you in trouble if the patient is harmed by not being treated. (For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is currently investigating two hospitals that failed to provide necessary stabilizing abortion care to a patient with an emergency medication condition resulting from a miscarriage.)
• Know how your policy defines ‘intentional’ acts (which are typically excluded from coverage). This is important. In some jurisdictions, the insured clinician has to merely intend to commit the acts in order for the claim to be excluded. In other jurisdictions, the insured doctor has to intend to cause the resulting damage. This can result in a very different outcome.
• The best thing doctors can do is to really understand what the policy covers and be prepared to make some noise if the company is not covering something that it should. Don’t be afraid to ask questions if you think your insurer is doing something wrong, and if the answers don’t satisfy you, consult an attorney.

The future

In the fall of 2022, at least partially in response to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision regarding abortion, one professional liability company (Physician’s Insurance) launched criminal defense reimbursement coverage for physicians and hospitals to pay for defense costs incurred in responding to criminal allegations arising directly from patient care.

The add-on Criminal Defense Reimbursement Endorsement was made available in Washington State in January 2023, and will be offered in other states pending regulatory approval. It reimburses defense costs up to $250,000 when criminal actions have arisen from direct patient care.

In a press release announcing the new coverage, Physician’s Insurance CEO Bill Cotter explained the company’s reasoning in providing it: “The already challenging environment for physicians and hospitals has been made even more difficult as they now navigate the legal ramifications of increased criminal medical negligence claims as seen in the case of the Nashville nurse at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, the potential for criminal state claims arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the subsequent state criminalization of healthcare practices that have long been the professionally accepted standard of care.”

Expect to see more insurance companies offering new coverage options for physicians in the future as they recognize that physicians may be facing more than just medical malpractice lawsuits arising out of patient care.
 

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