Neurology Reviews

Scientists have developed a biodegradable implant that helps chemotherapy drugs penetrate the blood-brain barrier in mice and deliver a direct hit on brain tumors.

It’s the latest advance in a rapidly growing field using ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves undetectable to humans – to fight cancer and other diseases.

The problem addressed by the researchers is the blood-brain barrier, a nearly impenetrable blood vessel lining that keeps harmful molecules from passing into the brain from the blood. But this lining can also block chemo drugs from reaching cancer cells.

So the scientists implanted 1-cm² devices into the skulls of mice, directly behind the tumor site. The implants generate ultrasound waves, loosening the barrier and allowing the drugs to reach the tumor. The sound waves leave healthy tissue undamaged.

“You inject the drug into the body and turn on the ultrasound at the same time. You’re going to hit precisely at the tumor area every single time you use it,” said lead study author Thanh Nguyen, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.

The drug used in the study was paclitaxel, which normally struggles to get through the blood-brain barrier. The tumors shrank, and the mice doubled their lifetime, compared with untreated mice. The mice showed no bad health effects 6 months later. 
 

Breaking through the blood-brain barrier 

The biodegradable implant is made of glycine, an amino acid that’s also strongly piezoelectric, meaning it vibrates when subjected to an electrical current. To make it, researchers cultivated glycine crystals, shattered them into pieces, and finally used a process called electrospinning, which applies a high electrical voltage to the nanocrystals. 

Voltage flows to the implant via an external device. The resulting ultrasound causes the tightly adhered cells of the blood-brain barrier to vibrate, stretching them out and creating space for pores to form. 

“That allows in very tiny particles, including chemo drugs,” said Dr. Nguyen. 

His earlier biodegradable implant broke apart from the force, but the new glycine implant is more flexible, stable, and highly piezoelectric. It could be implanted after a patient has surgery to remove a brain tumor, to continue treating residual cancer cells. The implant dissolves harmlessly in the body over time, and doctors can control its lifespan. 
 

A new wave of uses for ultrasound 

Dr. Nguyen’s study builds on similar efforts, including a recent clinical trial of a nonbiodegradable implant for treating brain tumors. Ultrasound can focus energy on precise targets in the body.

It’s like “using a magnifying glass to focus multiple beams of light on a point and burn a hole in a leaf,” said Neal Kassell, MD, founder and chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. This approach spares adjacent normal tissue.  

Doctors now understand more than 30 ways that ultrasound interacts with tissue – from destroying abnormal tissue to delivering drugs more effectively to stimulating an immune response. A decade ago, only five such interactions were known.

This opens the door for treating “a wide spectrum of medical disorders,” from neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to difficult-to-treat cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and even addiction, said Dr. Kassell. 

Dr. Kassell envisions using focused ultrasound to treat brain tumors as an alternative (or complement) to surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy. In the meantime, implants have helped show “the effectiveness of opening the blood-brain barrier.”

Dr. Nguyen’s team plans on testing the safety and efficacy of their implant in pigs next. Eventually, Dr. Nguyen hopes to develop a patch with an array of implants to target different areas of the brain. 

One study coauthor is cofounder of PiezoBioMembrane and SingleTimeMicroneedles. The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Scientists have developed a biodegradable implant that helps chemotherapy drugs penetrate the blood-brain barrier in mice and deliver a direct hit on brain tumors.

It’s the latest advance in a rapidly growing field using ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves undetectable to humans – to fight cancer and other diseases.

The problem addressed by the researchers is the blood-brain barrier, a nearly impenetrable blood vessel lining that keeps harmful molecules from passing into the brain from the blood. But this lining can also block chemo drugs from reaching cancer cells.

So the scientists implanted 1-cm² devices into the skulls of mice, directly behind the tumor site. The implants generate ultrasound waves, loosening the barrier and allowing the drugs to reach the tumor. The sound waves leave healthy tissue undamaged.

“You inject the drug into the body and turn on the ultrasound at the same time. You’re going to hit precisely at the tumor area every single time you use it,” said lead study author Thanh Nguyen, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.

The drug used in the study was paclitaxel, which normally struggles to get through the blood-brain barrier. The tumors shrank, and the mice doubled their lifetime, compared with untreated mice. The mice showed no bad health effects 6 months later. 
 

Breaking through the blood-brain barrier 

The biodegradable implant is made of glycine, an amino acid that’s also strongly piezoelectric, meaning it vibrates when subjected to an electrical current. To make it, researchers cultivated glycine crystals, shattered them into pieces, and finally used a process called electrospinning, which applies a high electrical voltage to the nanocrystals. 

Voltage flows to the implant via an external device. The resulting ultrasound causes the tightly adhered cells of the blood-brain barrier to vibrate, stretching them out and creating space for pores to form. 

“That allows in very tiny particles, including chemo drugs,” said Dr. Nguyen. 

His earlier biodegradable implant broke apart from the force, but the new glycine implant is more flexible, stable, and highly piezoelectric. It could be implanted after a patient has surgery to remove a brain tumor, to continue treating residual cancer cells. The implant dissolves harmlessly in the body over time, and doctors can control its lifespan. 
 

A new wave of uses for ultrasound 

Dr. Nguyen’s study builds on similar efforts, including a recent clinical trial of a nonbiodegradable implant for treating brain tumors. Ultrasound can focus energy on precise targets in the body.

It’s like “using a magnifying glass to focus multiple beams of light on a point and burn a hole in a leaf,” said Neal Kassell, MD, founder and chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. This approach spares adjacent normal tissue.  

Doctors now understand more than 30 ways that ultrasound interacts with tissue – from destroying abnormal tissue to delivering drugs more effectively to stimulating an immune response. A decade ago, only five such interactions were known.

This opens the door for treating “a wide spectrum of medical disorders,” from neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to difficult-to-treat cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and even addiction, said Dr. Kassell. 

Dr. Kassell envisions using focused ultrasound to treat brain tumors as an alternative (or complement) to surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy. In the meantime, implants have helped show “the effectiveness of opening the blood-brain barrier.”

Dr. Nguyen’s team plans on testing the safety and efficacy of their implant in pigs next. Eventually, Dr. Nguyen hopes to develop a patch with an array of implants to target different areas of the brain. 

One study coauthor is cofounder of PiezoBioMembrane and SingleTimeMicroneedles. The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Scientists have developed a biodegradable implant that helps chemotherapy drugs penetrate the blood-brain barrier in mice and deliver a direct hit on brain tumors.

It’s the latest advance in a rapidly growing field using ultrasound – high-frequency sound waves undetectable to humans – to fight cancer and other diseases.

The problem addressed by the researchers is the blood-brain barrier, a nearly impenetrable blood vessel lining that keeps harmful molecules from passing into the brain from the blood. But this lining can also block chemo drugs from reaching cancer cells.

So the scientists implanted 1-cm² devices into the skulls of mice, directly behind the tumor site. The implants generate ultrasound waves, loosening the barrier and allowing the drugs to reach the tumor. The sound waves leave healthy tissue undamaged.

“You inject the drug into the body and turn on the ultrasound at the same time. You’re going to hit precisely at the tumor area every single time you use it,” said lead study author Thanh Nguyen, PhD, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Connecticut, Storrs.

The drug used in the study was paclitaxel, which normally struggles to get through the blood-brain barrier. The tumors shrank, and the mice doubled their lifetime, compared with untreated mice. The mice showed no bad health effects 6 months later. 
 

Breaking through the blood-brain barrier 

The biodegradable implant is made of glycine, an amino acid that’s also strongly piezoelectric, meaning it vibrates when subjected to an electrical current. To make it, researchers cultivated glycine crystals, shattered them into pieces, and finally used a process called electrospinning, which applies a high electrical voltage to the nanocrystals. 

Voltage flows to the implant via an external device. The resulting ultrasound causes the tightly adhered cells of the blood-brain barrier to vibrate, stretching them out and creating space for pores to form. 

“That allows in very tiny particles, including chemo drugs,” said Dr. Nguyen. 

His earlier biodegradable implant broke apart from the force, but the new glycine implant is more flexible, stable, and highly piezoelectric. It could be implanted after a patient has surgery to remove a brain tumor, to continue treating residual cancer cells. The implant dissolves harmlessly in the body over time, and doctors can control its lifespan. 
 

A new wave of uses for ultrasound 

Dr. Nguyen’s study builds on similar efforts, including a recent clinical trial of a nonbiodegradable implant for treating brain tumors. Ultrasound can focus energy on precise targets in the body.

It’s like “using a magnifying glass to focus multiple beams of light on a point and burn a hole in a leaf,” said Neal Kassell, MD, founder and chairman of the Focused Ultrasound Foundation. This approach spares adjacent normal tissue.  

Doctors now understand more than 30 ways that ultrasound interacts with tissue – from destroying abnormal tissue to delivering drugs more effectively to stimulating an immune response. A decade ago, only five such interactions were known.

This opens the door for treating “a wide spectrum of medical disorders,” from neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s to difficult-to-treat cancers of the prostate and pancreas, and even addiction, said Dr. Kassell. 

Dr. Kassell envisions using focused ultrasound to treat brain tumors as an alternative (or complement) to surgery, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or radiation therapy. In the meantime, implants have helped show “the effectiveness of opening the blood-brain barrier.”

Dr. Nguyen’s team plans on testing the safety and efficacy of their implant in pigs next. Eventually, Dr. Nguyen hopes to develop a patch with an array of implants to target different areas of the brain. 

One study coauthor is cofounder of PiezoBioMembrane and SingleTimeMicroneedles. The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

As millions of Americans face another year of long COVID, some are finding they are unable to return to work or cannot work as they did before they got sick and are turning to doctors for help with documenting their disability.

For those who can return to work, a doctor’s diagnosis of long COVID is key to gaining access to workplace accommodations, such as working flex hours or remotely. For those who cannot work, a note from the doctor is the first step to collecting disability payments.

With no definitive blood tests or scans for long COVID that could confirm a diagnosis, some say doctors may feel uncomfortable in this role, which puts them in a tough spot, said Wes Ely, MD, MPH, codirector of the critical illness, brain dysfunction and survivorship center at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Doctors typically are not taught to deal with vagueness in diagnostics.

“Long COVID falls straight into the gray zone,” he said. There are no tests and a long list of common symptoms. “It makes a lot of doctors feel super insecure,” he said.

Now, patients and their advocates are calling for doctors to be more open-minded about how they assess those with long COVID and other chronic illnesses. Although their disability may not be visible, many with long COVID struggle to function. If they need help, they say, they need a doctor to confirm their limitations – test results or no test results.

Better documentation of patient-reported symptoms would go a long way, according to a perspective published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“There’s a long history of people with disabilities being forced to ask doctors to legitimize their symptoms,” said study author Zackary Berger, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Dr. Berger believes doctors should learn to listen more closely to patients, turn their narratives into patient notes, and use the new International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10) code, a worldwide system for identifying and generating data on diseases, when they diagnose long COVID. He also thinks doctors should become advocates for their patients.

The Americans With Disabilities Act allows employers to request medical proof of disability, “and thereby assigns physicians the gate-keeping role of determining patients’ eligibility for reasonable accommodations,” according to the analysis. Those accommodations may mean a handicapped parking space or extra days working remotely.

Without a definitive diagnostic test, long COVID joins fibromyalgia and ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), which lack biomarkers or imaging tests to support a diagnosis, they write.

“These diagnoses are therefore contentious, and government agencies, employers, and many physicians do not accept these conditions as real,” they write.

Physicians make a good faith effort in trying to understand long COVID, but both doctors and the courts like to see evidence, said Michael Ashley Stein, JD, PHD, director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Dr. Stein and others say that doctors should listen closely to their patients’ descriptions of their symptoms.

“In the absence of agreed-upon biomarkers, doctors need to listen to their patients and look for other [indications] and other consistent evidence of conditions, and then work from there rather than dismiss the existence of these conditions,” he said.

Dr. Ely said he and others were taught in medical school that if it doesn’t come up on a diagnostic test, there’s no problem. “I am absolutely complicit,” he said. “I’m part of the community that did that for so many years.”

Dr. Ely agreed that the demand for clinical test results does not work for long COVID and chronic diseases such as ME/CFS. People come in with complaints and they get a typical medical workup with labs, he said, and the labs look normal on paper.

“And [the doctor is] thinking: ‘I don’t know what is wrong with this person and there’s nothing on paper I can treat. I don’t know if I even believe in long COVID.’ ”

At the same time, patients might need support from a doctor to get accommodations at work under the ADA, such as flexible hours. Or doctors’ notes may be required if a patient is trying to collect private disability insurance, workers compensation, or federal disability payments through Social Security.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on diagnosing long COVID, updated last December, point out that normal laboratory or imaging findings do not rule out long COVID.

In addition, 12 key symptoms of long COVID were identified in May by scientists working with the RECOVER Initiative, the federal government’s long COVID research program. These symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, gastrointestinal symptoms, loss of or change in smell or taste, chest pain, and abnormal movements.

Still, patients with long COVID seeking help also face the “disability con,” a term coined by the second author of the NEJM article, Doron Dorfman, a professor at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, N.J.

“Nowadays, when people think disability, they immediately think fraud,” he said.

Prof. Dorfman thinks the perception that many people are faking disabilities to gain an unfair advantage is the biggest barrier for anyone seeking help. The disability system is “preventing people who deserve legal rights from actually obtaining them,” he said.

He urged doctors to believe their patients. One way is to try to “translate the person’s narrative into medical language.”

His coauthor Dr. Berger did not agree with the argument that doctors cannot diagnose without tests.

“Any clinician knows that lab tests are not everything,” he said. “There are conditions that don’t have specific biomarkers that we diagnose all the time.” He cited acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections as examples.

Benefits lawyers have taken note of the complexities for people with long COVID who seek help through the ADA and federal disability program.

One law firm noted: “The government safety net is not designed to help an emerging disease with no clear diagnosis or treatment plans. Insurance carriers are denying claims, and long-term disability benefits are being denied.”

About 16 million working-age Americans have long COVID, according to an update of a 2022 report by the Brookings Institute. Up to 4 million of these people are out of work because of the condition, the study found. The research is based on newly collected U.S. Census Bureau data that show 24% of those with long COVID report “significant activity limitations.”

Dr. Ely said he sees progress in this area. Many of these issues have come up at the committee convened by the National Academy of Science to look at the working definition of long COVID. NAS, a Washington research group, held a public meeting on their findings on June 22.
 

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

As millions of Americans face another year of long COVID, some are finding they are unable to return to work or cannot work as they did before they got sick and are turning to doctors for help with documenting their disability.

For those who can return to work, a doctor’s diagnosis of long COVID is key to gaining access to workplace accommodations, such as working flex hours or remotely. For those who cannot work, a note from the doctor is the first step to collecting disability payments.

With no definitive blood tests or scans for long COVID that could confirm a diagnosis, some say doctors may feel uncomfortable in this role, which puts them in a tough spot, said Wes Ely, MD, MPH, codirector of the critical illness, brain dysfunction and survivorship center at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Doctors typically are not taught to deal with vagueness in diagnostics.

“Long COVID falls straight into the gray zone,” he said. There are no tests and a long list of common symptoms. “It makes a lot of doctors feel super insecure,” he said.

Now, patients and their advocates are calling for doctors to be more open-minded about how they assess those with long COVID and other chronic illnesses. Although their disability may not be visible, many with long COVID struggle to function. If they need help, they say, they need a doctor to confirm their limitations – test results or no test results.

Better documentation of patient-reported symptoms would go a long way, according to a perspective published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“There’s a long history of people with disabilities being forced to ask doctors to legitimize their symptoms,” said study author Zackary Berger, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Dr. Berger believes doctors should learn to listen more closely to patients, turn their narratives into patient notes, and use the new International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10) code, a worldwide system for identifying and generating data on diseases, when they diagnose long COVID. He also thinks doctors should become advocates for their patients.

The Americans With Disabilities Act allows employers to request medical proof of disability, “and thereby assigns physicians the gate-keeping role of determining patients’ eligibility for reasonable accommodations,” according to the analysis. Those accommodations may mean a handicapped parking space or extra days working remotely.

Without a definitive diagnostic test, long COVID joins fibromyalgia and ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), which lack biomarkers or imaging tests to support a diagnosis, they write.

“These diagnoses are therefore contentious, and government agencies, employers, and many physicians do not accept these conditions as real,” they write.

Physicians make a good faith effort in trying to understand long COVID, but both doctors and the courts like to see evidence, said Michael Ashley Stein, JD, PHD, director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Dr. Stein and others say that doctors should listen closely to their patients’ descriptions of their symptoms.

“In the absence of agreed-upon biomarkers, doctors need to listen to their patients and look for other [indications] and other consistent evidence of conditions, and then work from there rather than dismiss the existence of these conditions,” he said.

Dr. Ely said he and others were taught in medical school that if it doesn’t come up on a diagnostic test, there’s no problem. “I am absolutely complicit,” he said. “I’m part of the community that did that for so many years.”

Dr. Ely agreed that the demand for clinical test results does not work for long COVID and chronic diseases such as ME/CFS. People come in with complaints and they get a typical medical workup with labs, he said, and the labs look normal on paper.

“And [the doctor is] thinking: ‘I don’t know what is wrong with this person and there’s nothing on paper I can treat. I don’t know if I even believe in long COVID.’ ”

At the same time, patients might need support from a doctor to get accommodations at work under the ADA, such as flexible hours. Or doctors’ notes may be required if a patient is trying to collect private disability insurance, workers compensation, or federal disability payments through Social Security.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on diagnosing long COVID, updated last December, point out that normal laboratory or imaging findings do not rule out long COVID.

In addition, 12 key symptoms of long COVID were identified in May by scientists working with the RECOVER Initiative, the federal government’s long COVID research program. These symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, gastrointestinal symptoms, loss of or change in smell or taste, chest pain, and abnormal movements.

Still, patients with long COVID seeking help also face the “disability con,” a term coined by the second author of the NEJM article, Doron Dorfman, a professor at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, N.J.

“Nowadays, when people think disability, they immediately think fraud,” he said.

Prof. Dorfman thinks the perception that many people are faking disabilities to gain an unfair advantage is the biggest barrier for anyone seeking help. The disability system is “preventing people who deserve legal rights from actually obtaining them,” he said.

He urged doctors to believe their patients. One way is to try to “translate the person’s narrative into medical language.”

His coauthor Dr. Berger did not agree with the argument that doctors cannot diagnose without tests.

“Any clinician knows that lab tests are not everything,” he said. “There are conditions that don’t have specific biomarkers that we diagnose all the time.” He cited acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections as examples.

Benefits lawyers have taken note of the complexities for people with long COVID who seek help through the ADA and federal disability program.

One law firm noted: “The government safety net is not designed to help an emerging disease with no clear diagnosis or treatment plans. Insurance carriers are denying claims, and long-term disability benefits are being denied.”

About 16 million working-age Americans have long COVID, according to an update of a 2022 report by the Brookings Institute. Up to 4 million of these people are out of work because of the condition, the study found. The research is based on newly collected U.S. Census Bureau data that show 24% of those with long COVID report “significant activity limitations.”

Dr. Ely said he sees progress in this area. Many of these issues have come up at the committee convened by the National Academy of Science to look at the working definition of long COVID. NAS, a Washington research group, held a public meeting on their findings on June 22.
 

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

As millions of Americans face another year of long COVID, some are finding they are unable to return to work or cannot work as they did before they got sick and are turning to doctors for help with documenting their disability.

For those who can return to work, a doctor’s diagnosis of long COVID is key to gaining access to workplace accommodations, such as working flex hours or remotely. For those who cannot work, a note from the doctor is the first step to collecting disability payments.

With no definitive blood tests or scans for long COVID that could confirm a diagnosis, some say doctors may feel uncomfortable in this role, which puts them in a tough spot, said Wes Ely, MD, MPH, codirector of the critical illness, brain dysfunction and survivorship center at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Doctors typically are not taught to deal with vagueness in diagnostics.

“Long COVID falls straight into the gray zone,” he said. There are no tests and a long list of common symptoms. “It makes a lot of doctors feel super insecure,” he said.

Now, patients and their advocates are calling for doctors to be more open-minded about how they assess those with long COVID and other chronic illnesses. Although their disability may not be visible, many with long COVID struggle to function. If they need help, they say, they need a doctor to confirm their limitations – test results or no test results.

Better documentation of patient-reported symptoms would go a long way, according to a perspective published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“There’s a long history of people with disabilities being forced to ask doctors to legitimize their symptoms,” said study author Zackary Berger, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Dr. Berger believes doctors should learn to listen more closely to patients, turn their narratives into patient notes, and use the new International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10) code, a worldwide system for identifying and generating data on diseases, when they diagnose long COVID. He also thinks doctors should become advocates for their patients.

The Americans With Disabilities Act allows employers to request medical proof of disability, “and thereby assigns physicians the gate-keeping role of determining patients’ eligibility for reasonable accommodations,” according to the analysis. Those accommodations may mean a handicapped parking space or extra days working remotely.

Without a definitive diagnostic test, long COVID joins fibromyalgia and ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome), which lack biomarkers or imaging tests to support a diagnosis, they write.

“These diagnoses are therefore contentious, and government agencies, employers, and many physicians do not accept these conditions as real,” they write.

Physicians make a good faith effort in trying to understand long COVID, but both doctors and the courts like to see evidence, said Michael Ashley Stein, JD, PHD, director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Dr. Stein and others say that doctors should listen closely to their patients’ descriptions of their symptoms.

“In the absence of agreed-upon biomarkers, doctors need to listen to their patients and look for other [indications] and other consistent evidence of conditions, and then work from there rather than dismiss the existence of these conditions,” he said.

Dr. Ely said he and others were taught in medical school that if it doesn’t come up on a diagnostic test, there’s no problem. “I am absolutely complicit,” he said. “I’m part of the community that did that for so many years.”

Dr. Ely agreed that the demand for clinical test results does not work for long COVID and chronic diseases such as ME/CFS. People come in with complaints and they get a typical medical workup with labs, he said, and the labs look normal on paper.

“And [the doctor is] thinking: ‘I don’t know what is wrong with this person and there’s nothing on paper I can treat. I don’t know if I even believe in long COVID.’ ”

At the same time, patients might need support from a doctor to get accommodations at work under the ADA, such as flexible hours. Or doctors’ notes may be required if a patient is trying to collect private disability insurance, workers compensation, or federal disability payments through Social Security.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on diagnosing long COVID, updated last December, point out that normal laboratory or imaging findings do not rule out long COVID.

In addition, 12 key symptoms of long COVID were identified in May by scientists working with the RECOVER Initiative, the federal government’s long COVID research program. These symptoms include fatigue, brain fog, dizziness, gastrointestinal symptoms, loss of or change in smell or taste, chest pain, and abnormal movements.

Still, patients with long COVID seeking help also face the “disability con,” a term coined by the second author of the NEJM article, Doron Dorfman, a professor at Seton Hall Law School in Newark, N.J.

“Nowadays, when people think disability, they immediately think fraud,” he said.

Prof. Dorfman thinks the perception that many people are faking disabilities to gain an unfair advantage is the biggest barrier for anyone seeking help. The disability system is “preventing people who deserve legal rights from actually obtaining them,” he said.

He urged doctors to believe their patients. One way is to try to “translate the person’s narrative into medical language.”

His coauthor Dr. Berger did not agree with the argument that doctors cannot diagnose without tests.

“Any clinician knows that lab tests are not everything,” he said. “There are conditions that don’t have specific biomarkers that we diagnose all the time.” He cited acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infections as examples.

Benefits lawyers have taken note of the complexities for people with long COVID who seek help through the ADA and federal disability program.

One law firm noted: “The government safety net is not designed to help an emerging disease with no clear diagnosis or treatment plans. Insurance carriers are denying claims, and long-term disability benefits are being denied.”

About 16 million working-age Americans have long COVID, according to an update of a 2022 report by the Brookings Institute. Up to 4 million of these people are out of work because of the condition, the study found. The research is based on newly collected U.S. Census Bureau data that show 24% of those with long COVID report “significant activity limitations.”

Dr. Ely said he sees progress in this area. Many of these issues have come up at the committee convened by the National Academy of Science to look at the working definition of long COVID. NAS, a Washington research group, held a public meeting on their findings on June 22.
 

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Since May, physicians in 21 states are no longer being asked broad mental health or substance abuse questions when they apply for a medical license. That’s a major shift that could ease doctors’ concerns about seeking treatment, according to the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes› Foundation, a physician burnout prevention group that tracks such changes.

The foundation was named in honor of Lorna Breen, MD, an emergency medicine physician in New York City who died by suicide in April 2020 as the pandemic unfolded. The rate of suicide among physicians is twice that of the general population.

“The issue is not whether a physician may have had a serious or a mild mental illness ... but whether they have any disabilities that may affect their current work,” said Peter Yellowlees, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Asking about any past mental illness episodes, which may have occurred years previously ... is simply discriminatory and is an example of the stigma associated with mental disorders.”

The Breen Foundation has been working with state medical boards and hospitals to remove stigmatizing mental health and substance abuse questions from licensing and credentialing applications.

Dr. Breen had told her sister and brother-in-law shortly before her suicide that she was afraid she could lose her license and the career she loved if the medical board found out that she had received inpatient mental health treatment, said J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, her brother-in-law and cofounder and president of the foundation.

She wasn’t aware that New York was a state that didn’t ask physicians questions about their mental health, said Mr. Feist.

“That’s why we want to make it very clear to physicians which states continue to ask these questions and which ones don’t,” Mr. Feist said.

Many physicians share Dr. Breen’s concern about professional consequences.

Four in 10 physicians said that they did not seek help for burnout or depression because they worried that their employer or state medical board would find out, according to the Medscape ‘I Cry but No One Cares’: Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023.

One Oregon emergency department physician said that informing her state medical board about an episode of mania resulted in public disclosures, a 4-month long investigation, lost income, and poorer work evaluations. Looking back on her decision to be transparent with the board, Susan Haney, MD, said that she was naive. “The board is not your friend.”

Fearing for her career, now-retired ob.gyn. Robyn Alley-Hay, MD, never disclosed on licensing applications that in the 1990s, she had been hospitalized and treated for depression. She stopped practicing medicine in 2014 and now works as a life coach.

“I hated those questions because I felt I could never tell the whole truth,” Dr. Alley-Hay said. “But I could always truthfully answer ‘no’ to questions about impairment. That was a line that I wouldn’t cross – if you’re impaired, you shouldn’t be practicing.”
 

Does the focus on current impairment protect the public?

New York, Texas, California, Montana, Illinois, and North Carolina are among the 21 states that either ask no health-related questions or ask only a single question to address physical and mental health, said Mr. Feist.

Most of these changes align with the 2018 Federation of State Medical Boards recommendations, said Joe Knickrehm, FSMB vice president of communications. “Application questions must focus only on current impairment and not on illness, diagnosis, or previous treatment in order to be compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act,” states the FSMB.

Mental health questions were often added to licensing and credentialing applications out of a “misplaced desire to protect patients and families from clinicians who might not be fit to give care. Yet there is no evidence they serve that function,” said Mr. Feist.

Marian Hollingsworth, a patient safety advocate in California, says medical boards have a responsibility to ensure that doctors pose no risk or a negligible risk to the public. She questioned whether the medical boards can adequately protect the public if they only ask about medical conditions rather than mental illness or substance abuse.

“There’s a fine line between privacy and right to know for public protection. I would want to see the approving medical board have assurance from a treating professional that this physician is stable and is doing well with continued treatment,” said Ms. Hollingsworth.
 

Legislation requires that mental health questions be removed

In March, Virginia became the first state to enact a law that requires all health care profession regulatory boards, including medical boards, to remove or replace mental health questions on licensing, certification, and registration applications.

The law requires that boards use the following wording if they replace mental health questions: “Do you have any reason to believe you would pose a risk to the safety or well-being of patients?” “Are you able to perform the essential functions of your job with or without reasonable accommodations?”

The Illinois General Assembly passed a more limited bill in May that requires medical boards to remove or replace mental health questions on its licensing applications. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D) is expected to sign the bill.

The Virginia Healthcare and Hospital Association, which represents more than 100 hospitals and health systems in the state, partnered with the Medical Society of Virginia and the Virginia Nurses Association to advocate for the new legislation.

“The reason that the Virginia coalition pushed for the law was because the state’s medical boards weren’t acting quickly enough. Although state laws vary about what medical boards can do, legislation isn’t necessary in most states to change licensing questions,” said Mr. Feist.

Virginia hospitals began working last year with the foundation to change their mental health questions on credentialing applications. About 20% of Virginia’s hospitals have completed the process, including four large health systems: Inova, UVA Health, Centerra, and Children’s Hospitals of King’s Daughters, said Mr. Feist.

The foundation also challenged Lisa MacLean, MD, a psychiatrist and chief clinical wellness officer at the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit, to review their credentialing application for any stigmatizing mental health questions.

Dr. MacLean told the American Medical Association that she had found one question that needed to be changed but that it took time to get through the hospital›s approval process. Ultimately, the wording was changed from “a diagnosis or treatment of a physical, mental, chemical dependency or emotional condition” to “a diagnosis or treatment of any condition which could impair your ability to practice medicine.”
 

National medical organizations back changes

The Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, has emphasized since 2020 that it doesn’t require hospitals to ask about an applicant’s mental health history.

“We strongly encourage organizations to not ask about past history of mental health conditions or treatment,” the Commission said in a statement. “It is critical that we ensure health care workers can feel free to access mental health resources.”

The Joint Commission said it supports the FSMB recommendations and the AMA’s recommendation that questions about clinicians’ mental health be limited to “conditions that currently impair the clinicians’ ability to perform their job.”

More than 40 professional medical organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Psychiatric Association, signed a joint statement in 2020 calling for changes in disclosure rules about mental health.

“The backing of major organizations is helpful because it’s changing the conversation that occurs within and outside the house of medicine,” said Mr. Feist.
 

Should doctors answer mental health questions?

Many states continue to ask questions about hospitalization and mental health diagnoses or treatment on their licensing and credentialing applications.

Yellowlees advises doctors to “be honest and not lie or deny past mental health problems, as medical boards tend to take a very serious view of physicians who do not tell the truth.”

However, the questions asked by medical boards can vary by state. “If it’s possible, physicians can give accurate but minimal information while trying to focus mainly on their current work capacity,” said Dr. Yellowlees.

He also suggested that physicians who are uncertain about how to respond to mental health questions consider obtaining advice from lawyers accustomed to working with the relevant medical boards.

Physicians who want to get involved in removing licensing and credentialing barriers to mental health care can find resources here and here.

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

Mr. Jones has Alzheimer’s disease, recently diagnosed.

His wife is a retired hospice nurse, who’s seen plenty of patients and families deal with the illness over the years.

She came in recently, just herself, to go over his treatment options and what can be reasonably expected with them. So we went through the usual suspects, new and old.

I intermittently stopped to ask if she had any questions. At one such break she suddenly said:

“I’d rather he die now than be treated with any of these.”

I tried to address her safety concerns with the different medications, but that wasn’t the issue. Her real, and understandable, point is that none of them are cures. They don’t even stop the disease. Realistically, all we’re doing is slowing things down for maybe a year at most.

Families are different, and no one can really know how they’ll react in this situation until it happens.

Some will want me to do a full-court press, because another year of time is more family gatherings and independence, maybe a grandchild’s birth or wedding, or just being able to keep someone at home longer before starting to look into the cost of memory care.

Others, like Mrs. Jones, don’t see a point. The disease is incurable. Why bother to prolong it when the end is the same? Is it worth adding another year of medications, adult diapers, and the occasional 911 call if they wander off?

That’s a valid view, too. She wasn’t advocating a cause, such as euthanasia, but she did have legitimate concerns.

For all the marketing hype over Leqembi today or Cognex (remember that?) in 1989, the issue is the same. We have new and shinier toys, but still no cures. Whether it’s worth it to prolong life (or suffering) is a glass half-full or half-empty question that only patients and their families can answer.

It ain’t easy.

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

Mr. Jones has Alzheimer’s disease, recently diagnosed.

His wife is a retired hospice nurse, who’s seen plenty of patients and families deal with the illness over the years.

She came in recently, just herself, to go over his treatment options and what can be reasonably expected with them. So we went through the usual suspects, new and old.

I intermittently stopped to ask if she had any questions. At one such break she suddenly said:

“I’d rather he die now than be treated with any of these.”

I tried to address her safety concerns with the different medications, but that wasn’t the issue. Her real, and understandable, point is that none of them are cures. They don’t even stop the disease. Realistically, all we’re doing is slowing things down for maybe a year at most.

Families are different, and no one can really know how they’ll react in this situation until it happens.

Some will want me to do a full-court press, because another year of time is more family gatherings and independence, maybe a grandchild’s birth or wedding, or just being able to keep someone at home longer before starting to look into the cost of memory care.

Others, like Mrs. Jones, don’t see a point. The disease is incurable. Why bother to prolong it when the end is the same? Is it worth adding another year of medications, adult diapers, and the occasional 911 call if they wander off?

That’s a valid view, too. She wasn’t advocating a cause, such as euthanasia, but she did have legitimate concerns.

For all the marketing hype over Leqembi today or Cognex (remember that?) in 1989, the issue is the same. We have new and shinier toys, but still no cures. Whether it’s worth it to prolong life (or suffering) is a glass half-full or half-empty question that only patients and their families can answer.

It ain’t easy.

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

Mr. Jones has Alzheimer’s disease, recently diagnosed.

His wife is a retired hospice nurse, who’s seen plenty of patients and families deal with the illness over the years.

She came in recently, just herself, to go over his treatment options and what can be reasonably expected with them. So we went through the usual suspects, new and old.

I intermittently stopped to ask if she had any questions. At one such break she suddenly said:

“I’d rather he die now than be treated with any of these.”

I tried to address her safety concerns with the different medications, but that wasn’t the issue. Her real, and understandable, point is that none of them are cures. They don’t even stop the disease. Realistically, all we’re doing is slowing things down for maybe a year at most.

Families are different, and no one can really know how they’ll react in this situation until it happens.

Some will want me to do a full-court press, because another year of time is more family gatherings and independence, maybe a grandchild’s birth or wedding, or just being able to keep someone at home longer before starting to look into the cost of memory care.

Others, like Mrs. Jones, don’t see a point. The disease is incurable. Why bother to prolong it when the end is the same? Is it worth adding another year of medications, adult diapers, and the occasional 911 call if they wander off?

That’s a valid view, too. She wasn’t advocating a cause, such as euthanasia, but she did have legitimate concerns.

For all the marketing hype over Leqembi today or Cognex (remember that?) in 1989, the issue is the same. We have new and shinier toys, but still no cures. Whether it’s worth it to prolong life (or suffering) is a glass half-full or half-empty question that only patients and their families can answer.

It ain’t easy.

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

Topline

A new study provides early evidence of sex differences in rapid effects of stress systems on the cognitive control of negative emotions.

Methodology

• The study included 80 healthy participants, mean age 24 years.
• Half the subjects immersed their nondominant hand (including the wrist) in ice water for up to 3 minutes; the other half, which served as the control group, immersed their hand in warm water for 3 minutes.
• Participants were asked to deliberately downregulate emotional responses to high-intensity negative pictures.
• Participants regularly provided saliva samples to check cortisol levels and were monitored for cardiovascular activity.
• Researchers assessed pupil dilation, which along with subject ratings of their affective state served as emotion regulation (ER) outcome measures.

Takeaway

• In men, stress rapidly improved the ability to downregulate emotional arousal via distraction that was fully mediated by cortisol.
• In women, sympathetic nervous system (SNS) reactivity was linked to decreased regulatory performances.
• Direct stress effects on ER were smaller than expected.

In practice

The study contributes to a “better understanding of the neuroendocrinological mechanisms of stress effects on ER that may help to develop adequate preventive and curative interventions of stress- and emotion-related disorders,” the researchers write.

Source

The study was conducted by Katja Langer, Valerie Jentsch, and Oliver Wolf from the Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). It was published in the May 2023 issue of Psychoneuroendocrinology.

Limitations

The results have some inconsistencies. The ER paradigm is somewhat artificial and not fully comparable with emotional trigger and regulatory requirements in everyday life. The study did not directly assess levels of catecholamines such as adrenaline and noradrenaline.

Disclosures

The study received support from the German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors have no reported conflicts of interest.

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

Topline

A new study provides early evidence of sex differences in rapid effects of stress systems on the cognitive control of negative emotions.

Methodology

• The study included 80 healthy participants, mean age 24 years.
• Half the subjects immersed their nondominant hand (including the wrist) in ice water for up to 3 minutes; the other half, which served as the control group, immersed their hand in warm water for 3 minutes.
• Participants were asked to deliberately downregulate emotional responses to high-intensity negative pictures.
• Participants regularly provided saliva samples to check cortisol levels and were monitored for cardiovascular activity.
• Researchers assessed pupil dilation, which along with subject ratings of their affective state served as emotion regulation (ER) outcome measures.

Takeaway

• In men, stress rapidly improved the ability to downregulate emotional arousal via distraction that was fully mediated by cortisol.
• In women, sympathetic nervous system (SNS) reactivity was linked to decreased regulatory performances.
• Direct stress effects on ER were smaller than expected.

In practice

The study contributes to a “better understanding of the neuroendocrinological mechanisms of stress effects on ER that may help to develop adequate preventive and curative interventions of stress- and emotion-related disorders,” the researchers write.

Source

The study was conducted by Katja Langer, Valerie Jentsch, and Oliver Wolf from the Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). It was published in the May 2023 issue of Psychoneuroendocrinology.

Limitations

The results have some inconsistencies. The ER paradigm is somewhat artificial and not fully comparable with emotional trigger and regulatory requirements in everyday life. The study did not directly assess levels of catecholamines such as adrenaline and noradrenaline.

Disclosures

The study received support from the German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors have no reported conflicts of interest.

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

Topline

A new study provides early evidence of sex differences in rapid effects of stress systems on the cognitive control of negative emotions.

Methodology

• The study included 80 healthy participants, mean age 24 years.
• Half the subjects immersed their nondominant hand (including the wrist) in ice water for up to 3 minutes; the other half, which served as the control group, immersed their hand in warm water for 3 minutes.
• Participants were asked to deliberately downregulate emotional responses to high-intensity negative pictures.
• Participants regularly provided saliva samples to check cortisol levels and were monitored for cardiovascular activity.
• Researchers assessed pupil dilation, which along with subject ratings of their affective state served as emotion regulation (ER) outcome measures.

Takeaway

• In men, stress rapidly improved the ability to downregulate emotional arousal via distraction that was fully mediated by cortisol.
• In women, sympathetic nervous system (SNS) reactivity was linked to decreased regulatory performances.
• Direct stress effects on ER were smaller than expected.

In practice

The study contributes to a “better understanding of the neuroendocrinological mechanisms of stress effects on ER that may help to develop adequate preventive and curative interventions of stress- and emotion-related disorders,” the researchers write.

Source

The study was conducted by Katja Langer, Valerie Jentsch, and Oliver Wolf from the Department of Cognitive Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). It was published in the May 2023 issue of Psychoneuroendocrinology.

Limitations

The results have some inconsistencies. The ER paradigm is somewhat artificial and not fully comparable with emotional trigger and regulatory requirements in everyday life. The study did not directly assess levels of catecholamines such as adrenaline and noradrenaline.

Disclosures

The study received support from the German Research Foundation (DFG). The authors have no reported conflicts of interest.

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

Changes in movement detected passively by smartwatches can help flag Parkinson’s disease (PD) years before symptom onset, new research shows.

An analysis of wearable motion-tracking data from UK Biobank participants showed a strong correlation between reduced daytime movement over 1 week and a clinical diagnosis of PD up to 7 years later.

“Smartwatch data is easily accessible and low cost. By using this type of data, we would potentially be able to identify individuals in the very early stages of Parkinson’s disease within the general population,” lead researcher Cynthia Sandor, PhD, from Cardiff (Wales) University, said in a statement.

“We have shown here that a single week of data captured can predict events up to 7 years in the future. With these results we could develop a valuable screening tool to aid in the early detection of Parkinson’s,” she added.

“This has implications both for research, in improving recruitment into clinical trials, and in clinical practice, in allowing patients to access treatments at an earlier stage, in future when such treatments become available,” said Dr. Sandor.

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.
 

Novel biomarker for PD

Using machine learning, the researchers analyzed accelerometry data from 103,712 UK Biobank participants who wore a medical-grade smartwatch for a 7-day period during 2013-2016.

At the time of or within 2 years after accelerometry data collection, 273 participants were diagnosed with PD. An additional 196 individuals received a new PD diagnosis more than 2 years after accelerometry data collection (the prodromal group).

The patients with prodromal symptoms of PD and those who were diagnosed with PD showed a significantly reduced daytime acceleration profile up to 7 years before diagnosis, compared with age- and sex-matched healthy control persons, the researchers found.

The reduction in acceleration both before and following diagnosis was unique to patients with PD, “suggesting this measure to be disease specific with potential for use in early identification of individuals likely to be diagnosed with PD,” they wrote.

Accelerometry data proved more accurate than other risk factors (lifestyle, genetics, blood chemistry) or recognized prodromal symptoms of PD in predicting whether an individual would develop PD.

“Our results suggest that accelerometry collected with wearable devices in the general population could be used to identify those at elevated risk for PD on an unprecedented scale and, importantly, individuals who will likely convert within the next few years can be included in studies for neuroprotective treatments,” the researchers conclude in their article.

High-quality research

In a statement from the U.K.-based nonprofit Science Media Centre, José López Barneo, MD, PhD, with the University of Seville (Spain), said this “good quality” study “fits well with current knowledge.”

Dr. Barneo noted that other investigators have also observed that slowness of movement is a characteristic feature of some people who subsequently develop PD.

But these studies involved preselected cohorts of persons at risk of developing PD, or they were carried out in a hospital that required healthcare staff to conduct the movement analysis. In contrast, the current study was conducted in a very large cohort from the general U.K. population.

Also weighing in, José Luis Lanciego, MD, PhD, with the University of Navarra (Spain), said the “main value of this study is that it has demonstrated that accelerometry measurements obtained using wearable devices (such as a smartwatch or other similar devices) are more useful than the assessment of any other potentially prodromal symptom in identifying which people in the [general] population are at increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease in the future, as well as being able to estimate how many years it will take to start suffering from this neurodegenerative process.

“In these diseases, early diagnosis is to some extent questionable, as early diagnosis is of little use if neuroprotective treatment is not available,” Dr. Lanciego noted.

“However, it is of great importance for use in clinical trials aimed at evaluating the efficacy of new potentially neuroprotective treatments whose main objective is to slow down – and, ideally, even halt ― the clinical progression that typically characterizes Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Lanciego added.

The study was funded by the UK Dementia Research Institute, the Welsh government, and Cardiff University. Dr. Sandor, Dr. Barneo, and Dr. Lanciego have no relevant disclosures.

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

Changes in movement detected passively by smartwatches can help flag Parkinson’s disease (PD) years before symptom onset, new research shows.

An analysis of wearable motion-tracking data from UK Biobank participants showed a strong correlation between reduced daytime movement over 1 week and a clinical diagnosis of PD up to 7 years later.

“Smartwatch data is easily accessible and low cost. By using this type of data, we would potentially be able to identify individuals in the very early stages of Parkinson’s disease within the general population,” lead researcher Cynthia Sandor, PhD, from Cardiff (Wales) University, said in a statement.

“We have shown here that a single week of data captured can predict events up to 7 years in the future. With these results we could develop a valuable screening tool to aid in the early detection of Parkinson’s,” she added.

“This has implications both for research, in improving recruitment into clinical trials, and in clinical practice, in allowing patients to access treatments at an earlier stage, in future when such treatments become available,” said Dr. Sandor.

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.
 

Novel biomarker for PD

Using machine learning, the researchers analyzed accelerometry data from 103,712 UK Biobank participants who wore a medical-grade smartwatch for a 7-day period during 2013-2016.

At the time of or within 2 years after accelerometry data collection, 273 participants were diagnosed with PD. An additional 196 individuals received a new PD diagnosis more than 2 years after accelerometry data collection (the prodromal group).

The patients with prodromal symptoms of PD and those who were diagnosed with PD showed a significantly reduced daytime acceleration profile up to 7 years before diagnosis, compared with age- and sex-matched healthy control persons, the researchers found.

The reduction in acceleration both before and following diagnosis was unique to patients with PD, “suggesting this measure to be disease specific with potential for use in early identification of individuals likely to be diagnosed with PD,” they wrote.

Accelerometry data proved more accurate than other risk factors (lifestyle, genetics, blood chemistry) or recognized prodromal symptoms of PD in predicting whether an individual would develop PD.

“Our results suggest that accelerometry collected with wearable devices in the general population could be used to identify those at elevated risk for PD on an unprecedented scale and, importantly, individuals who will likely convert within the next few years can be included in studies for neuroprotective treatments,” the researchers conclude in their article.

High-quality research

In a statement from the U.K.-based nonprofit Science Media Centre, José López Barneo, MD, PhD, with the University of Seville (Spain), said this “good quality” study “fits well with current knowledge.”

Dr. Barneo noted that other investigators have also observed that slowness of movement is a characteristic feature of some people who subsequently develop PD.

But these studies involved preselected cohorts of persons at risk of developing PD, or they were carried out in a hospital that required healthcare staff to conduct the movement analysis. In contrast, the current study was conducted in a very large cohort from the general U.K. population.

Also weighing in, José Luis Lanciego, MD, PhD, with the University of Navarra (Spain), said the “main value of this study is that it has demonstrated that accelerometry measurements obtained using wearable devices (such as a smartwatch or other similar devices) are more useful than the assessment of any other potentially prodromal symptom in identifying which people in the [general] population are at increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease in the future, as well as being able to estimate how many years it will take to start suffering from this neurodegenerative process.

“In these diseases, early diagnosis is to some extent questionable, as early diagnosis is of little use if neuroprotective treatment is not available,” Dr. Lanciego noted.

“However, it is of great importance for use in clinical trials aimed at evaluating the efficacy of new potentially neuroprotective treatments whose main objective is to slow down – and, ideally, even halt ― the clinical progression that typically characterizes Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Lanciego added.

The study was funded by the UK Dementia Research Institute, the Welsh government, and Cardiff University. Dr. Sandor, Dr. Barneo, and Dr. Lanciego have no relevant disclosures.

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

Changes in movement detected passively by smartwatches can help flag Parkinson’s disease (PD) years before symptom onset, new research shows.

An analysis of wearable motion-tracking data from UK Biobank participants showed a strong correlation between reduced daytime movement over 1 week and a clinical diagnosis of PD up to 7 years later.

“Smartwatch data is easily accessible and low cost. By using this type of data, we would potentially be able to identify individuals in the very early stages of Parkinson’s disease within the general population,” lead researcher Cynthia Sandor, PhD, from Cardiff (Wales) University, said in a statement.

“We have shown here that a single week of data captured can predict events up to 7 years in the future. With these results we could develop a valuable screening tool to aid in the early detection of Parkinson’s,” she added.

“This has implications both for research, in improving recruitment into clinical trials, and in clinical practice, in allowing patients to access treatments at an earlier stage, in future when such treatments become available,” said Dr. Sandor.

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.
 

Novel biomarker for PD

Using machine learning, the researchers analyzed accelerometry data from 103,712 UK Biobank participants who wore a medical-grade smartwatch for a 7-day period during 2013-2016.

At the time of or within 2 years after accelerometry data collection, 273 participants were diagnosed with PD. An additional 196 individuals received a new PD diagnosis more than 2 years after accelerometry data collection (the prodromal group).

The patients with prodromal symptoms of PD and those who were diagnosed with PD showed a significantly reduced daytime acceleration profile up to 7 years before diagnosis, compared with age- and sex-matched healthy control persons, the researchers found.

The reduction in acceleration both before and following diagnosis was unique to patients with PD, “suggesting this measure to be disease specific with potential for use in early identification of individuals likely to be diagnosed with PD,” they wrote.

Accelerometry data proved more accurate than other risk factors (lifestyle, genetics, blood chemistry) or recognized prodromal symptoms of PD in predicting whether an individual would develop PD.

“Our results suggest that accelerometry collected with wearable devices in the general population could be used to identify those at elevated risk for PD on an unprecedented scale and, importantly, individuals who will likely convert within the next few years can be included in studies for neuroprotective treatments,” the researchers conclude in their article.

High-quality research

In a statement from the U.K.-based nonprofit Science Media Centre, José López Barneo, MD, PhD, with the University of Seville (Spain), said this “good quality” study “fits well with current knowledge.”

Dr. Barneo noted that other investigators have also observed that slowness of movement is a characteristic feature of some people who subsequently develop PD.

But these studies involved preselected cohorts of persons at risk of developing PD, or they were carried out in a hospital that required healthcare staff to conduct the movement analysis. In contrast, the current study was conducted in a very large cohort from the general U.K. population.

Also weighing in, José Luis Lanciego, MD, PhD, with the University of Navarra (Spain), said the “main value of this study is that it has demonstrated that accelerometry measurements obtained using wearable devices (such as a smartwatch or other similar devices) are more useful than the assessment of any other potentially prodromal symptom in identifying which people in the [general] population are at increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease in the future, as well as being able to estimate how many years it will take to start suffering from this neurodegenerative process.

“In these diseases, early diagnosis is to some extent questionable, as early diagnosis is of little use if neuroprotective treatment is not available,” Dr. Lanciego noted.

“However, it is of great importance for use in clinical trials aimed at evaluating the efficacy of new potentially neuroprotective treatments whose main objective is to slow down – and, ideally, even halt ― the clinical progression that typically characterizes Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Lanciego added.

The study was funded by the UK Dementia Research Institute, the Welsh government, and Cardiff University. Dr. Sandor, Dr. Barneo, and Dr. Lanciego have no relevant disclosures.

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

Coffee’s ability to boost alertness is commonly attributed to caffeine, but new research suggests there may be other underlying mechanisms that explain this effect.

“There is a widespread anticipation that coffee boosts alertness and psychomotor performance. By gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying this biological phenomenon, we pave the way for investigating the factors that can influence it and even exploring the potential advantages of those mechanisms,” study investigator Nuno Sousa, MD, PhD, with the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, said in a statement.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.
 

Caffeine can’t take all the credit

Certain compounds in coffee, including caffeine and chlorogenic acids, have well-documented psychoactive effects, but the psychological impact of coffee/caffeine consumption as a whole remains a matter of debate.

The researchers investigated the neurobiological impact of coffee drinking on brain connectivity using resting-state functional MRI (fMRI).

They recruited 47 generally healthy adults (mean age, 30 years; 31 women) who regularly drank a minimum of one cup of coffee per day. Participants refrained from eating or drinking caffeinated beverages for at least 3 hours prior to undergoing fMRI.

To tease out the specific impact of caffeinated coffee intake, 30 habitual coffee drinkers (mean age, 32 years; 27 women) were given hot water containing the same amount of caffeine, but they were not given coffee.

The investigators conducted two fMRI scans – one before, and one 30 minutes after drinking coffee or caffeine-infused water.

Both drinking coffee and drinking plain caffeine in water led to a decrease in functional connectivity of the brain’s default mode network, which is typically active during self-reflection in resting states.

This finding suggests that consuming either coffee or caffeine heightened individuals’ readiness to transition from a state of rest to engaging in task-related activities, the researchers noted.

However, drinking a cup of coffee also boosted connectivity in the higher visual network and the right executive control network, which are linked to working memory, cognitive control, and goal-directed behavior – something that did not occur from drinking caffeinated water.

“Put simply, individuals exhibited a heightened state of preparedness, being more responsive and attentive to external stimuli after drinking coffee,” said first author Maria Picó-Pérez, PhD, with the University of Minho.

Given that some of the effects of coffee also occurred with caffeine alone, it’s “plausible to assume that other caffeinated beverages may share similar effects,” she added.

Still, certain effects were specific to coffee drinking, “likely influenced by factors such as the distinct aroma and taste of coffee or the psychological expectations associated with consuming this particular beverage,” the researcher wrote.

The investigators report that the observations could provide a scientific foundation for the common belief that coffee increases alertness and cognitive functioning. Further research is needed to differentiate the effects of caffeine from the overall experience of drinking coffee.

A limitation of the study is the absence of a nondrinker control sample (to rule out the withdrawal effect) or an alternative group that consumed decaffeinated coffee (to rule out the placebo effect of coffee intake) – something that should be considered in future studies, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the Institute for the Scientific Information on Coffee. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Coffee’s ability to boost alertness is commonly attributed to caffeine, but new research suggests there may be other underlying mechanisms that explain this effect.

“There is a widespread anticipation that coffee boosts alertness and psychomotor performance. By gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying this biological phenomenon, we pave the way for investigating the factors that can influence it and even exploring the potential advantages of those mechanisms,” study investigator Nuno Sousa, MD, PhD, with the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, said in a statement.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.
 

Caffeine can’t take all the credit

Certain compounds in coffee, including caffeine and chlorogenic acids, have well-documented psychoactive effects, but the psychological impact of coffee/caffeine consumption as a whole remains a matter of debate.

The researchers investigated the neurobiological impact of coffee drinking on brain connectivity using resting-state functional MRI (fMRI).

They recruited 47 generally healthy adults (mean age, 30 years; 31 women) who regularly drank a minimum of one cup of coffee per day. Participants refrained from eating or drinking caffeinated beverages for at least 3 hours prior to undergoing fMRI.

To tease out the specific impact of caffeinated coffee intake, 30 habitual coffee drinkers (mean age, 32 years; 27 women) were given hot water containing the same amount of caffeine, but they were not given coffee.

The investigators conducted two fMRI scans – one before, and one 30 minutes after drinking coffee or caffeine-infused water.

Both drinking coffee and drinking plain caffeine in water led to a decrease in functional connectivity of the brain’s default mode network, which is typically active during self-reflection in resting states.

This finding suggests that consuming either coffee or caffeine heightened individuals’ readiness to transition from a state of rest to engaging in task-related activities, the researchers noted.

However, drinking a cup of coffee also boosted connectivity in the higher visual network and the right executive control network, which are linked to working memory, cognitive control, and goal-directed behavior – something that did not occur from drinking caffeinated water.

“Put simply, individuals exhibited a heightened state of preparedness, being more responsive and attentive to external stimuli after drinking coffee,” said first author Maria Picó-Pérez, PhD, with the University of Minho.

Given that some of the effects of coffee also occurred with caffeine alone, it’s “plausible to assume that other caffeinated beverages may share similar effects,” she added.

Still, certain effects were specific to coffee drinking, “likely influenced by factors such as the distinct aroma and taste of coffee or the psychological expectations associated with consuming this particular beverage,” the researcher wrote.

The investigators report that the observations could provide a scientific foundation for the common belief that coffee increases alertness and cognitive functioning. Further research is needed to differentiate the effects of caffeine from the overall experience of drinking coffee.

A limitation of the study is the absence of a nondrinker control sample (to rule out the withdrawal effect) or an alternative group that consumed decaffeinated coffee (to rule out the placebo effect of coffee intake) – something that should be considered in future studies, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the Institute for the Scientific Information on Coffee. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Coffee’s ability to boost alertness is commonly attributed to caffeine, but new research suggests there may be other underlying mechanisms that explain this effect.

“There is a widespread anticipation that coffee boosts alertness and psychomotor performance. By gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying this biological phenomenon, we pave the way for investigating the factors that can influence it and even exploring the potential advantages of those mechanisms,” study investigator Nuno Sousa, MD, PhD, with the University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, said in a statement.

The study was published online in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience.
 

Caffeine can’t take all the credit

Certain compounds in coffee, including caffeine and chlorogenic acids, have well-documented psychoactive effects, but the psychological impact of coffee/caffeine consumption as a whole remains a matter of debate.

The researchers investigated the neurobiological impact of coffee drinking on brain connectivity using resting-state functional MRI (fMRI).

They recruited 47 generally healthy adults (mean age, 30 years; 31 women) who regularly drank a minimum of one cup of coffee per day. Participants refrained from eating or drinking caffeinated beverages for at least 3 hours prior to undergoing fMRI.

To tease out the specific impact of caffeinated coffee intake, 30 habitual coffee drinkers (mean age, 32 years; 27 women) were given hot water containing the same amount of caffeine, but they were not given coffee.

The investigators conducted two fMRI scans – one before, and one 30 minutes after drinking coffee or caffeine-infused water.

Both drinking coffee and drinking plain caffeine in water led to a decrease in functional connectivity of the brain’s default mode network, which is typically active during self-reflection in resting states.

This finding suggests that consuming either coffee or caffeine heightened individuals’ readiness to transition from a state of rest to engaging in task-related activities, the researchers noted.

However, drinking a cup of coffee also boosted connectivity in the higher visual network and the right executive control network, which are linked to working memory, cognitive control, and goal-directed behavior – something that did not occur from drinking caffeinated water.

“Put simply, individuals exhibited a heightened state of preparedness, being more responsive and attentive to external stimuli after drinking coffee,” said first author Maria Picó-Pérez, PhD, with the University of Minho.

Given that some of the effects of coffee also occurred with caffeine alone, it’s “plausible to assume that other caffeinated beverages may share similar effects,” she added.

Still, certain effects were specific to coffee drinking, “likely influenced by factors such as the distinct aroma and taste of coffee or the psychological expectations associated with consuming this particular beverage,” the researcher wrote.

The investigators report that the observations could provide a scientific foundation for the common belief that coffee increases alertness and cognitive functioning. Further research is needed to differentiate the effects of caffeine from the overall experience of drinking coffee.

A limitation of the study is the absence of a nondrinker control sample (to rule out the withdrawal effect) or an alternative group that consumed decaffeinated coffee (to rule out the placebo effect of coffee intake) – something that should be considered in future studies, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the Institute for the Scientific Information on Coffee. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A headline recently caught my eye about flying cars close to being a reality. Since this is pretty much the dream of everyone who grew up watching “The Jetsons,” I paused to read it.

Of course, it wasn’t quite what I hoped. Battery-powered short-range helicopter services to fly people to airports – to alleviate traffic congestion – have received Food and Drug Administration approval for testing.

In other words, they are still years away, I’m not going to be at the controls, and I won’t be taking them to my office anytime soon. (Granted, it’s only 5 minutes from my house, but wouldn’t you rather fly?)

Maybe it’s hyperbole, maybe clickbait, maybe just an enthusiastic writer, or a little of each.

On a similar note, a recent article titled, “A tiny patch may someday do your patients’ lab work,” about patches with microneedles to measure interstitial fluid, got my attention.

It certainly sounds promising, and more reasonable than the Theranos scam. This has interesting potential as a way to track lab values without repeated needle sticks.

But “someday” is the key word here. The technology is promising. For some conditions it certainly has the potential to improve patient care without frequent lab trips and blood draws.

But the point is ... it ain’t here yet. At the end of the article it says it may be available for some things within 2 years, with more indications over the next decade.

I’m not knocking the technology. That’s great news. But I’m seeing patients today. If I can’t offer it to them now, it doesn’t matter to me.

Maybe I’m a skeptic, but I’ve seen too many initially promising treatments or tests go nowhere when they move into large-scale trials. A lot of things seem like great ideas that don’t work out.

I think the microneedle patch probably has a future for certain conditions, and when it gets here it will be great for those who need it. But that won’t be tomorrow, or even 2024.

But, as with someday flying to work, I’m not holding my breath for it, either.

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

A headline recently caught my eye about flying cars close to being a reality. Since this is pretty much the dream of everyone who grew up watching “The Jetsons,” I paused to read it.

Of course, it wasn’t quite what I hoped. Battery-powered short-range helicopter services to fly people to airports – to alleviate traffic congestion – have received Food and Drug Administration approval for testing.

In other words, they are still years away, I’m not going to be at the controls, and I won’t be taking them to my office anytime soon. (Granted, it’s only 5 minutes from my house, but wouldn’t you rather fly?)

Maybe it’s hyperbole, maybe clickbait, maybe just an enthusiastic writer, or a little of each.

On a similar note, a recent article titled, “A tiny patch may someday do your patients’ lab work,” about patches with microneedles to measure interstitial fluid, got my attention.

It certainly sounds promising, and more reasonable than the Theranos scam. This has interesting potential as a way to track lab values without repeated needle sticks.

But “someday” is the key word here. The technology is promising. For some conditions it certainly has the potential to improve patient care without frequent lab trips and blood draws.

But the point is ... it ain’t here yet. At the end of the article it says it may be available for some things within 2 years, with more indications over the next decade.

I’m not knocking the technology. That’s great news. But I’m seeing patients today. If I can’t offer it to them now, it doesn’t matter to me.

Maybe I’m a skeptic, but I’ve seen too many initially promising treatments or tests go nowhere when they move into large-scale trials. A lot of things seem like great ideas that don’t work out.

I think the microneedle patch probably has a future for certain conditions, and when it gets here it will be great for those who need it. But that won’t be tomorrow, or even 2024.

But, as with someday flying to work, I’m not holding my breath for it, either.

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

A headline recently caught my eye about flying cars close to being a reality. Since this is pretty much the dream of everyone who grew up watching “The Jetsons,” I paused to read it.

Of course, it wasn’t quite what I hoped. Battery-powered short-range helicopter services to fly people to airports – to alleviate traffic congestion – have received Food and Drug Administration approval for testing.

In other words, they are still years away, I’m not going to be at the controls, and I won’t be taking them to my office anytime soon. (Granted, it’s only 5 minutes from my house, but wouldn’t you rather fly?)

Maybe it’s hyperbole, maybe clickbait, maybe just an enthusiastic writer, or a little of each.

On a similar note, a recent article titled, “A tiny patch may someday do your patients’ lab work,” about patches with microneedles to measure interstitial fluid, got my attention.

It certainly sounds promising, and more reasonable than the Theranos scam. This has interesting potential as a way to track lab values without repeated needle sticks.

But “someday” is the key word here. The technology is promising. For some conditions it certainly has the potential to improve patient care without frequent lab trips and blood draws.

But the point is ... it ain’t here yet. At the end of the article it says it may be available for some things within 2 years, with more indications over the next decade.

I’m not knocking the technology. That’s great news. But I’m seeing patients today. If I can’t offer it to them now, it doesn’t matter to me.

Maybe I’m a skeptic, but I’ve seen too many initially promising treatments or tests go nowhere when they move into large-scale trials. A lot of things seem like great ideas that don’t work out.

I think the microneedle patch probably has a future for certain conditions, and when it gets here it will be great for those who need it. But that won’t be tomorrow, or even 2024.

But, as with someday flying to work, I’m not holding my breath for it, either.

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

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

“I’ve been hit in the head by a walking stick,” a primary care receptionist reported.

“A mother came in and was screaming and swearing at me because she couldn’t get an appointment for her daughters,” another receptionist reported.

“I’ve had people throw a bag of syringes at me because we don’t accept syringes,” said another.

Reports such as these are part of the literature supporting a review that finds patient aggression against receptionists is a serious safety concern for primary care offices and affects delivery of health care.

The review was published online in the BMJ’s Family Medicine and Community Health journal.

“Receptionists in general practice deserve evidence-based measures to improve their working conditions and well-being,” say the authors, led by Fiona Willer, PhD, of the Centre for Community Health and Wellbeing at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Though the study looked primarily at European and Australian practices, physicians in the United States say the incidences are familiar.
 

Cause often lack of access

Dr. Willer and colleagues point out that the root cause of patient regression is typically related to operational factors, such as inefficient scheduling or lack of access to the medical providers.

“However, reception staff are placed in the unenviable position of having to deal with the aftermath of the poor function of these systems without having the status or autonomy to overhaul them,” the authors note.

Authors analyzed 20 studies on aggression against receptionists.

Among the findings:

• All studies reported that patient hostility and verbal abuse of receptionists “was a frequent, routine, and relatively unavoidable occurrence in general practice.”
• Nine studies reported acts of physical violence toward receptionists, with all reporting that physical abuse occurred much less frequently than verbal abuse.
• Some acts were very severe, including being hit, shaken, held at gunpoint, stalked, and threatened with a razorblade.

The studies also discussed ways to prevent potential aggression or react to it, including:

• Regular staff training for managing patient aggression.
• Designing clinics with “safe rooms” and “cool down” spaces.
• Providing clear acrylic shields between receptionists and patients.
• Developing formal policy/procedure/protocol/action guides relating to management of patients.
•  

Behavior can interrupt health care delivery

Carrie Janiski, DO, regional medical director at Golden Valley Health Centers in California, who was not part of the review, said she has seen the aggressive behavior the authors document in her practice’s lobby, “including yelling, name-calling, and threatening language or physical behavior.”

The instances disrupt health care delivery to the patient, who is often in crisis, and all patients and staff in the clinic, she said.

“The patient needs help and the aggressive way they are seeking it could cause harm to others or prevent them from receiving all the help they need,” she said.

She says in practices she has worked in, some effective mitigation strategies have included open-access scheduling, increased walk-in availability for appointments, de-escalation training for front-line staff, and office and exam room layout designed for safety.

She added that incident review is important and should include a process for patient dismissal from the practice.

Dustin Arnold, DO, an internal medicine specialist and chief medical officer at UnityPoint Health-St. Luke’s Hospital, Cedar Rapids, IA, said he agrees with the authors on the urgency for action.

“This is an urgent concern for practices across the country. Your receptionist is the face of your practice, and you should invest in them,” said Dr. Arnold, who was not part of the review.

He said he has seen “verbal abuse and generalized incivility” from patients against receptionists in practices where he has worked.

He said the measure the authors list that he thinks is most effective is staff de-escalation training.

“However, the best preventative measure is for the physician to be on time and minimize cancellation of appointments,” he said. “These are the two primary triggers of a patient becoming disruptive.”

He said his practice has installed a panic button at the front desk and built an alert into the electronic health record indicating that a patient has shown disruptive behavior in the past.

The authors conclude: “Staff training and protocols to manage patient aggression and ongoing structured staff support should be considered essential in general practice. Evidence-based strategies to prevent, manage, and mitigate the harms of patient aggression towards general practice reception staff are urgently needed.”

The authors and Dr. Janiski and Dr. Arnold declared no relevant financial relationships.

[email protected]

A new European consensus statement offers expert guidance on which biomarkers to use for patients presenting with cognitive complaints.

Led by Giovanni B. Frisoni, MD, laboratory of neuroimaging of aging, University of Geneva, and director of the memory clinic at Geneva University Hospital, the multidisciplinary task force set out to define a patient-centered diagnostic workflow for the rational and cost-effective use of biomarkers in memory clinics.

The new algorithm is part of a consensus statement presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2023. An interim update was published in June in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Which biomarker?

Many biomarkers can aid diagnosis, said Dr. Frisoni; the challenge is choosing which biomarker to use for an individual patient.

A literature-based search, he said, yields a number of recommendations, but the vast majority of these are either disease based or biomarker based. The task force notes that “in vivo biomarkers enable early etiological diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders. While they have good analytical validity, their clinical validity and utility are uncertain.”

“When you have a patient in front of you, you don’ t know whether they have Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Frisoni said.

“You have a differential diagnosis to make, and you have a number of biomarkers – a number of weapons in your armamentarium – you have to choose. You can’t use all of them – we would like to, but we cannot.”

He added that trying to determine from the literature which biomarker is most appropriate given individual clinical conditions and all of the potential combinations is impossible.

“You will not find evidence of the comparative diagnostic value and the added diagnostic value” of one test vs, another, he noted.

“Is CSF [cerebrospinal fluid] better than amyloid PET in a particular clinical situation? What do I gain in terms of positive and negative predictive value in all the possible clinical conditions that I encounter in my clinical practice?”

Dr. Frisoni said the reality is that clinicians in memory clinics end up using biomarkers that are “based on clinical opportunities.”

For instance, “if you have a proficient nuclear medic, you use PET a lot.” In contrast, “if you have a proficient laboratory medic,” CSF markers will be favored – a situation that he said is “not ideal” and has resulted in large discrepancies in diagnostic approaches across Europe.
 

Harmonizing clinical practice

In a bid to harmonize clinical practice, 22 European experts from 11 European scientific societies and the executive director of Alzheimer Europe set out to develop a multidisciplinary consensus algorithm for the biomarker-based diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders in general, rather than specific neurocognitive disorders.

They used the Delphi method, in which a systematic literature review of the literature was followed by the drafting of a series of clinical statements by an executive board. These were then presented to the expert panel. If a majority consensus was reached on a given statement, it was considered closed. Questions for which there was no consensus were revised and presented to the panel again. The process was repeated until a consensus was reached.

A total of 56 statements underwent six rounds of discussion. A final online meeting led to the development of a diagnostic algorithm for patients who attend memory clinics for cognitive complaints.

The algorithm features three potential assessment waves. Wave 1 defines 11 clinical profiles that are based on the results of clinical and neuropsychological assessments, blood exams, brain imaging, and, in specific cases, electroencephalography. Wave 2 defines first-line biomarkers based on Wave 1 clinical profiles, and Wave 3 defines the second-line biomarker based on Wave 2 biomarker results.

When a patient’s clinical profile suggests Alzheimer’s disease and, in undefined cases, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are used first line. When CSF is inconclusive, 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is used second line.

When the clinical profile suggests frontotemporal lobar degeneration or motor tauopathies, FDG-PET is first line and CSF biomarkers second line in atypical metabolic patter cases. When the clinical profile suggests Lewy body disease, dopamine transporter SPECT is first line and cardia I23I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy is second line.

Dr. Frisoni noted that the panel strongly recommends performing biomarker tests for patients younger than 70. For those aged 70-85 years, biomarker testing is only recommended for patients with specific clinical features. For patients older than 85, biomarker testing is recommended only in “exceptional circumstances.”

Dr. Frisoni noted that the consensus document has a number of limitations.

“First of all, we could not capture all the theoretical possible combinations” of potential diagnosis and relevant biomarker tests. “There are so many that it’s virtually impossible.”

He also noted that the agreement among the panel for the use of some markers was “relatively low” at “barely 50%,” while for others, the agreement was approximately 70%.

The consensus document also does not explicitly address patients with “mixed pathologies,” which are common. In addition, it does not include emerging biomarkers, such as neurofilament light polypeptide levels, an indicator of axonal compromise.

“Last, but not least,” Dr. Frisoni said, the consensus document requires validation.

“This is a paper and pencil exercise. We, as self-appointed experts, can recommend ... whatever we want, but we must check whether what we write is applicable, feasible.”

In other words, it must be determined whether the “real patient journey” fits with the “ideal patient journey” set out in the consensus document.

This kind of validation, Dr. Frisoni said, is “usually not done for this type of exercise,” but “we want to do it in this case.”
 

Pros and cons

Bogdan Draganski, MD, consultant in neurology at the department of clinical neurosciences and director of the neuroimaging research laboratory, University Hospital of Lausanne (Switzerland), who cochaired the session, told this news organization that he was “swaying between two extremes” when considering the usefulness of the consensus document.

On one hand, the “reductionist approach” of breaking down a “complex issue into an algorithm” via the Delphi method risks introducing subjective bias.

He said machine learning and artificial intelligence could answer some of the questions posed by clinicians and, by extension, the statements included in the Delphi process by assessing the available data in a more objective manner.

On the other hand, Dr. Draganski said that reducing the options available to clinicians when making a differential diagnosis into the current algorithm is, pragmatically speaking, a “good approach.”

From this standpoint, the danger of using machine learning to answer clinical questions is that it “doesn’t take the responsibility” for the final decision, which means “we’re closing the loop of subjective decision-making for an individual doctor.”

He also applauded the idea of trying to provide more uniform patient assessment across Europe, although he believes “we have a long way to go” before it can deliver on the promise of personalized medicine.

Like Dr. Frisoni, Dr. Draganski noted the fact that patients with potential neurocognitive disorders often have multiple pathologies, which can include cardiovascular problems, depression, and cancer and that that could affect the choice of diagnostic biomarkers.

The second issue, he said, concerns implementation of the consensus document, which is a political decision that centers around “how politicians will define ‘uniformity’ and equal access to technological or nontechnological platforms.”

Achieving uniformity will require a pan-regional collaboration, he noted.

The task force was supported by unrestricted grants from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Biogen International GmbH, Eisai Europe Limited, Life Molecular Imaging GmbH, and OM Pharma Suisse SA. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new European consensus statement offers expert guidance on which biomarkers to use for patients presenting with cognitive complaints.

Led by Giovanni B. Frisoni, MD, laboratory of neuroimaging of aging, University of Geneva, and director of the memory clinic at Geneva University Hospital, the multidisciplinary task force set out to define a patient-centered diagnostic workflow for the rational and cost-effective use of biomarkers in memory clinics.

The new algorithm is part of a consensus statement presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2023. An interim update was published in June in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Which biomarker?

Many biomarkers can aid diagnosis, said Dr. Frisoni; the challenge is choosing which biomarker to use for an individual patient.

A literature-based search, he said, yields a number of recommendations, but the vast majority of these are either disease based or biomarker based. The task force notes that “in vivo biomarkers enable early etiological diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders. While they have good analytical validity, their clinical validity and utility are uncertain.”

“When you have a patient in front of you, you don’ t know whether they have Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Frisoni said.

“You have a differential diagnosis to make, and you have a number of biomarkers – a number of weapons in your armamentarium – you have to choose. You can’t use all of them – we would like to, but we cannot.”

He added that trying to determine from the literature which biomarker is most appropriate given individual clinical conditions and all of the potential combinations is impossible.

“You will not find evidence of the comparative diagnostic value and the added diagnostic value” of one test vs, another, he noted.

“Is CSF [cerebrospinal fluid] better than amyloid PET in a particular clinical situation? What do I gain in terms of positive and negative predictive value in all the possible clinical conditions that I encounter in my clinical practice?”

Dr. Frisoni said the reality is that clinicians in memory clinics end up using biomarkers that are “based on clinical opportunities.”

For instance, “if you have a proficient nuclear medic, you use PET a lot.” In contrast, “if you have a proficient laboratory medic,” CSF markers will be favored – a situation that he said is “not ideal” and has resulted in large discrepancies in diagnostic approaches across Europe.
 

Harmonizing clinical practice

In a bid to harmonize clinical practice, 22 European experts from 11 European scientific societies and the executive director of Alzheimer Europe set out to develop a multidisciplinary consensus algorithm for the biomarker-based diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders in general, rather than specific neurocognitive disorders.

They used the Delphi method, in which a systematic literature review of the literature was followed by the drafting of a series of clinical statements by an executive board. These were then presented to the expert panel. If a majority consensus was reached on a given statement, it was considered closed. Questions for which there was no consensus were revised and presented to the panel again. The process was repeated until a consensus was reached.

A total of 56 statements underwent six rounds of discussion. A final online meeting led to the development of a diagnostic algorithm for patients who attend memory clinics for cognitive complaints.

The algorithm features three potential assessment waves. Wave 1 defines 11 clinical profiles that are based on the results of clinical and neuropsychological assessments, blood exams, brain imaging, and, in specific cases, electroencephalography. Wave 2 defines first-line biomarkers based on Wave 1 clinical profiles, and Wave 3 defines the second-line biomarker based on Wave 2 biomarker results.

When a patient’s clinical profile suggests Alzheimer’s disease and, in undefined cases, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are used first line. When CSF is inconclusive, 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is used second line.

When the clinical profile suggests frontotemporal lobar degeneration or motor tauopathies, FDG-PET is first line and CSF biomarkers second line in atypical metabolic patter cases. When the clinical profile suggests Lewy body disease, dopamine transporter SPECT is first line and cardia I23I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy is second line.

Dr. Frisoni noted that the panel strongly recommends performing biomarker tests for patients younger than 70. For those aged 70-85 years, biomarker testing is only recommended for patients with specific clinical features. For patients older than 85, biomarker testing is recommended only in “exceptional circumstances.”

Dr. Frisoni noted that the consensus document has a number of limitations.

“First of all, we could not capture all the theoretical possible combinations” of potential diagnosis and relevant biomarker tests. “There are so many that it’s virtually impossible.”

He also noted that the agreement among the panel for the use of some markers was “relatively low” at “barely 50%,” while for others, the agreement was approximately 70%.

The consensus document also does not explicitly address patients with “mixed pathologies,” which are common. In addition, it does not include emerging biomarkers, such as neurofilament light polypeptide levels, an indicator of axonal compromise.

“Last, but not least,” Dr. Frisoni said, the consensus document requires validation.

“This is a paper and pencil exercise. We, as self-appointed experts, can recommend ... whatever we want, but we must check whether what we write is applicable, feasible.”

In other words, it must be determined whether the “real patient journey” fits with the “ideal patient journey” set out in the consensus document.

This kind of validation, Dr. Frisoni said, is “usually not done for this type of exercise,” but “we want to do it in this case.”
 

Pros and cons

Bogdan Draganski, MD, consultant in neurology at the department of clinical neurosciences and director of the neuroimaging research laboratory, University Hospital of Lausanne (Switzerland), who cochaired the session, told this news organization that he was “swaying between two extremes” when considering the usefulness of the consensus document.

On one hand, the “reductionist approach” of breaking down a “complex issue into an algorithm” via the Delphi method risks introducing subjective bias.

He said machine learning and artificial intelligence could answer some of the questions posed by clinicians and, by extension, the statements included in the Delphi process by assessing the available data in a more objective manner.

On the other hand, Dr. Draganski said that reducing the options available to clinicians when making a differential diagnosis into the current algorithm is, pragmatically speaking, a “good approach.”

From this standpoint, the danger of using machine learning to answer clinical questions is that it “doesn’t take the responsibility” for the final decision, which means “we’re closing the loop of subjective decision-making for an individual doctor.”

He also applauded the idea of trying to provide more uniform patient assessment across Europe, although he believes “we have a long way to go” before it can deliver on the promise of personalized medicine.

Like Dr. Frisoni, Dr. Draganski noted the fact that patients with potential neurocognitive disorders often have multiple pathologies, which can include cardiovascular problems, depression, and cancer and that that could affect the choice of diagnostic biomarkers.

The second issue, he said, concerns implementation of the consensus document, which is a political decision that centers around “how politicians will define ‘uniformity’ and equal access to technological or nontechnological platforms.”

Achieving uniformity will require a pan-regional collaboration, he noted.

The task force was supported by unrestricted grants from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Biogen International GmbH, Eisai Europe Limited, Life Molecular Imaging GmbH, and OM Pharma Suisse SA. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new European consensus statement offers expert guidance on which biomarkers to use for patients presenting with cognitive complaints.

Led by Giovanni B. Frisoni, MD, laboratory of neuroimaging of aging, University of Geneva, and director of the memory clinic at Geneva University Hospital, the multidisciplinary task force set out to define a patient-centered diagnostic workflow for the rational and cost-effective use of biomarkers in memory clinics.

The new algorithm is part of a consensus statement presented at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2023. An interim update was published in June in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Which biomarker?

Many biomarkers can aid diagnosis, said Dr. Frisoni; the challenge is choosing which biomarker to use for an individual patient.

A literature-based search, he said, yields a number of recommendations, but the vast majority of these are either disease based or biomarker based. The task force notes that “in vivo biomarkers enable early etiological diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders. While they have good analytical validity, their clinical validity and utility are uncertain.”

“When you have a patient in front of you, you don’ t know whether they have Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Frisoni said.

“You have a differential diagnosis to make, and you have a number of biomarkers – a number of weapons in your armamentarium – you have to choose. You can’t use all of them – we would like to, but we cannot.”

He added that trying to determine from the literature which biomarker is most appropriate given individual clinical conditions and all of the potential combinations is impossible.

“You will not find evidence of the comparative diagnostic value and the added diagnostic value” of one test vs, another, he noted.

“Is CSF [cerebrospinal fluid] better than amyloid PET in a particular clinical situation? What do I gain in terms of positive and negative predictive value in all the possible clinical conditions that I encounter in my clinical practice?”

Dr. Frisoni said the reality is that clinicians in memory clinics end up using biomarkers that are “based on clinical opportunities.”

For instance, “if you have a proficient nuclear medic, you use PET a lot.” In contrast, “if you have a proficient laboratory medic,” CSF markers will be favored – a situation that he said is “not ideal” and has resulted in large discrepancies in diagnostic approaches across Europe.
 

Harmonizing clinical practice

In a bid to harmonize clinical practice, 22 European experts from 11 European scientific societies and the executive director of Alzheimer Europe set out to develop a multidisciplinary consensus algorithm for the biomarker-based diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders in general, rather than specific neurocognitive disorders.

They used the Delphi method, in which a systematic literature review of the literature was followed by the drafting of a series of clinical statements by an executive board. These were then presented to the expert panel. If a majority consensus was reached on a given statement, it was considered closed. Questions for which there was no consensus were revised and presented to the panel again. The process was repeated until a consensus was reached.

A total of 56 statements underwent six rounds of discussion. A final online meeting led to the development of a diagnostic algorithm for patients who attend memory clinics for cognitive complaints.

The algorithm features three potential assessment waves. Wave 1 defines 11 clinical profiles that are based on the results of clinical and neuropsychological assessments, blood exams, brain imaging, and, in specific cases, electroencephalography. Wave 2 defines first-line biomarkers based on Wave 1 clinical profiles, and Wave 3 defines the second-line biomarker based on Wave 2 biomarker results.

When a patient’s clinical profile suggests Alzheimer’s disease and, in undefined cases, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are used first line. When CSF is inconclusive, 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is used second line.

When the clinical profile suggests frontotemporal lobar degeneration or motor tauopathies, FDG-PET is first line and CSF biomarkers second line in atypical metabolic patter cases. When the clinical profile suggests Lewy body disease, dopamine transporter SPECT is first line and cardia I23I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy is second line.

Dr. Frisoni noted that the panel strongly recommends performing biomarker tests for patients younger than 70. For those aged 70-85 years, biomarker testing is only recommended for patients with specific clinical features. For patients older than 85, biomarker testing is recommended only in “exceptional circumstances.”

Dr. Frisoni noted that the consensus document has a number of limitations.

“First of all, we could not capture all the theoretical possible combinations” of potential diagnosis and relevant biomarker tests. “There are so many that it’s virtually impossible.”

He also noted that the agreement among the panel for the use of some markers was “relatively low” at “barely 50%,” while for others, the agreement was approximately 70%.

The consensus document also does not explicitly address patients with “mixed pathologies,” which are common. In addition, it does not include emerging biomarkers, such as neurofilament light polypeptide levels, an indicator of axonal compromise.

“Last, but not least,” Dr. Frisoni said, the consensus document requires validation.

“This is a paper and pencil exercise. We, as self-appointed experts, can recommend ... whatever we want, but we must check whether what we write is applicable, feasible.”

In other words, it must be determined whether the “real patient journey” fits with the “ideal patient journey” set out in the consensus document.

This kind of validation, Dr. Frisoni said, is “usually not done for this type of exercise,” but “we want to do it in this case.”
 

Pros and cons

Bogdan Draganski, MD, consultant in neurology at the department of clinical neurosciences and director of the neuroimaging research laboratory, University Hospital of Lausanne (Switzerland), who cochaired the session, told this news organization that he was “swaying between two extremes” when considering the usefulness of the consensus document.

On one hand, the “reductionist approach” of breaking down a “complex issue into an algorithm” via the Delphi method risks introducing subjective bias.

He said machine learning and artificial intelligence could answer some of the questions posed by clinicians and, by extension, the statements included in the Delphi process by assessing the available data in a more objective manner.

On the other hand, Dr. Draganski said that reducing the options available to clinicians when making a differential diagnosis into the current algorithm is, pragmatically speaking, a “good approach.”

From this standpoint, the danger of using machine learning to answer clinical questions is that it “doesn’t take the responsibility” for the final decision, which means “we’re closing the loop of subjective decision-making for an individual doctor.”

He also applauded the idea of trying to provide more uniform patient assessment across Europe, although he believes “we have a long way to go” before it can deliver on the promise of personalized medicine.

Like Dr. Frisoni, Dr. Draganski noted the fact that patients with potential neurocognitive disorders often have multiple pathologies, which can include cardiovascular problems, depression, and cancer and that that could affect the choice of diagnostic biomarkers.

The second issue, he said, concerns implementation of the consensus document, which is a political decision that centers around “how politicians will define ‘uniformity’ and equal access to technological or nontechnological platforms.”

Achieving uniformity will require a pan-regional collaboration, he noted.

The task force was supported by unrestricted grants from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Biogen International GmbH, Eisai Europe Limited, Life Molecular Imaging GmbH, and OM Pharma Suisse SA. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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