Key clinical point: Passive smoking during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for atopic dermatitis (AD) in offspring; however, the association between active smoking during pregnancy and AD in offspring remains unestablished.

Major finding: Passive smoking during pregnancy led to a higher risk for AD in offspring (odds ratio [OR] 1.52; 95% CI 1.36-1.70); however, active smoking during pregnancy did not increase the risk for AD in offspring (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.86-1.07).

Study details: This meta-analysis of 15 observational studies included children or mother-child pairs who underwent either questionnaire-based or physician assessment for AD diagnosis and questionnaire-based assessment or cotinine level measurement for evaluating exposure to active or passive smoking.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Key Scientific and Technological Research Projects of Henan Province and the Key Scientific Research Projects in Universities of Henan Province, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chao L, Liang W, Zhao X, et al. Maternal tobacco exposure during pregnancy and atopic dermatitis in offspring: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 (Ma 14). doi: 10.1111/jdv.19958 Source

Key clinical point: Passive smoking during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for atopic dermatitis (AD) in offspring; however, the association between active smoking during pregnancy and AD in offspring remains unestablished.

Major finding: Passive smoking during pregnancy led to a higher risk for AD in offspring (odds ratio [OR] 1.52; 95% CI 1.36-1.70); however, active smoking during pregnancy did not increase the risk for AD in offspring (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.86-1.07).

Study details: This meta-analysis of 15 observational studies included children or mother-child pairs who underwent either questionnaire-based or physician assessment for AD diagnosis and questionnaire-based assessment or cotinine level measurement for evaluating exposure to active or passive smoking.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Key Scientific and Technological Research Projects of Henan Province and the Key Scientific Research Projects in Universities of Henan Province, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chao L, Liang W, Zhao X, et al. Maternal tobacco exposure during pregnancy and atopic dermatitis in offspring: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 (Ma 14). doi: 10.1111/jdv.19958 Source

Key clinical point: Passive smoking during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for atopic dermatitis (AD) in offspring; however, the association between active smoking during pregnancy and AD in offspring remains unestablished.

Major finding: Passive smoking during pregnancy led to a higher risk for AD in offspring (odds ratio [OR] 1.52; 95% CI 1.36-1.70); however, active smoking during pregnancy did not increase the risk for AD in offspring (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.86-1.07).

Study details: This meta-analysis of 15 observational studies included children or mother-child pairs who underwent either questionnaire-based or physician assessment for AD diagnosis and questionnaire-based assessment or cotinine level measurement for evaluating exposure to active or passive smoking.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Key Scientific and Technological Research Projects of Henan Province and the Key Scientific Research Projects in Universities of Henan Province, China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chao L, Liang W, Zhao X, et al. Maternal tobacco exposure during pregnancy and atopic dermatitis in offspring: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 (Ma 14). doi: 10.1111/jdv.19958 Source

Key clinical point: In children with atopic dermatitis (AD), weekly vitamin D3 (VD3) supplementation vs placebo for 6 weeks failed to decrease the clinical severity of AD or alter type 2 immunity biomarkers.

Major finding: At 6 weeks, the change in the Severity Scoring of AD (SCORAD) index was similar in the VD3 (−5.3 ± 11.6) and placebo (−5.5 ± 9.9; P = .91) groups. No significant between-group differences were observed for change in type 2 immunity blood biomarkers, such as eosinophil counts, total immunoglobulin E (IgE), and specific IgE against staphylococcal enterotoxin A and B (all P > .05).

Study details: This randomized controlled trial included 101 children with AD (age 2-17 years) who were randomly assigned to receive weekly oral VD3 (8000, 12,000, and 16,000 IU for ages 2-5.9, 6-11.9, and 12-17.9 years, respectively; n = 53) or placebo (n = 48) for 6 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Fondo de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico, Chile. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Borzutzky A, Iturriaga C, Pérez-Mateluna G, et al. Effect of weekly vitamin D supplementation on the severity of atopic dermatitis and type 2 immunity biomarkers in children: A randomized controlled trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 (Mar 14). doi: 10.1111/jdv.19959 Source

Key clinical point: In children with atopic dermatitis (AD), weekly vitamin D3 (VD3) supplementation vs placebo for 6 weeks failed to decrease the clinical severity of AD or alter type 2 immunity biomarkers.

Major finding: At 6 weeks, the change in the Severity Scoring of AD (SCORAD) index was similar in the VD3 (−5.3 ± 11.6) and placebo (−5.5 ± 9.9; P = .91) groups. No significant between-group differences were observed for change in type 2 immunity blood biomarkers, such as eosinophil counts, total immunoglobulin E (IgE), and specific IgE against staphylococcal enterotoxin A and B (all P > .05).

Study details: This randomized controlled trial included 101 children with AD (age 2-17 years) who were randomly assigned to receive weekly oral VD3 (8000, 12,000, and 16,000 IU for ages 2-5.9, 6-11.9, and 12-17.9 years, respectively; n = 53) or placebo (n = 48) for 6 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Fondo de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico, Chile. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Borzutzky A, Iturriaga C, Pérez-Mateluna G, et al. Effect of weekly vitamin D supplementation on the severity of atopic dermatitis and type 2 immunity biomarkers in children: A randomized controlled trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 (Mar 14). doi: 10.1111/jdv.19959 Source

Key clinical point: In children with atopic dermatitis (AD), weekly vitamin D3 (VD3) supplementation vs placebo for 6 weeks failed to decrease the clinical severity of AD or alter type 2 immunity biomarkers.

Major finding: At 6 weeks, the change in the Severity Scoring of AD (SCORAD) index was similar in the VD3 (−5.3 ± 11.6) and placebo (−5.5 ± 9.9; P = .91) groups. No significant between-group differences were observed for change in type 2 immunity blood biomarkers, such as eosinophil counts, total immunoglobulin E (IgE), and specific IgE against staphylococcal enterotoxin A and B (all P > .05).

Study details: This randomized controlled trial included 101 children with AD (age 2-17 years) who were randomly assigned to receive weekly oral VD3 (8000, 12,000, and 16,000 IU for ages 2-5.9, 6-11.9, and 12-17.9 years, respectively; n = 53) or placebo (n = 48) for 6 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Fondo de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico, Chile. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Borzutzky A, Iturriaga C, Pérez-Mateluna G, et al. Effect of weekly vitamin D supplementation on the severity of atopic dermatitis and type 2 immunity biomarkers in children: A randomized controlled trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024 (Mar 14). doi: 10.1111/jdv.19959 Source

Key clinical point: Tralokinumab-mediated inhibition of interleukin (IL)-13 improved epidermal pathology and reduced the expression of key atopic dermatitis (AD) biomarkers in the serum of patients with moderate to severe AD.

Major finding: At week 16, tralokinumab vs placebo led to a significantly greater decrease from baseline in serum levels of type 2 biomarkers (CCL17/TARC, periostin, immunoglobulin E, and IL-22; all P < .05), a greater mean percentage change in the Eczema Area Severity Index score (−55.6 vs −36.7), and improved expression of genes dysregulated in AD (46.6% vs 16.4%; P < .001).

Study details: This study involved the collection of blood samples from 802 patients with moderate to severe AD randomized in the ECZTRA 1 and ECZTEND trials, followed by the selection of a subset of 299 patients with relevant samples available who had received tralokinumab (n = 223) or placebo (n = 76).

Disclosures: LEO Pharma A/S funded both ECZTRA 1 and the ongoing ECZTEND trial. Six authors declared being employees or shareholders of LEO Pharma. Several authors declared receiving research grants from or having other ties with various sources, including LEO Pharma.

Source: Guttman-Yassky E, Kabashima K, Staumont-Salle D, et al. Targeting IL-13 with tralokinumab normalizes type 2 inflammation in atopic dermatitis both early and at 2 years. Allergy. 2024 (Apr 2). doi: 10.1111/all.16108 Source

Key clinical point: Tralokinumab-mediated inhibition of interleukin (IL)-13 improved epidermal pathology and reduced the expression of key atopic dermatitis (AD) biomarkers in the serum of patients with moderate to severe AD.

Major finding: At week 16, tralokinumab vs placebo led to a significantly greater decrease from baseline in serum levels of type 2 biomarkers (CCL17/TARC, periostin, immunoglobulin E, and IL-22; all P < .05), a greater mean percentage change in the Eczema Area Severity Index score (−55.6 vs −36.7), and improved expression of genes dysregulated in AD (46.6% vs 16.4%; P < .001).

Study details: This study involved the collection of blood samples from 802 patients with moderate to severe AD randomized in the ECZTRA 1 and ECZTEND trials, followed by the selection of a subset of 299 patients with relevant samples available who had received tralokinumab (n = 223) or placebo (n = 76).

Disclosures: LEO Pharma A/S funded both ECZTRA 1 and the ongoing ECZTEND trial. Six authors declared being employees or shareholders of LEO Pharma. Several authors declared receiving research grants from or having other ties with various sources, including LEO Pharma.

Source: Guttman-Yassky E, Kabashima K, Staumont-Salle D, et al. Targeting IL-13 with tralokinumab normalizes type 2 inflammation in atopic dermatitis both early and at 2 years. Allergy. 2024 (Apr 2). doi: 10.1111/all.16108 Source

Key clinical point: Tralokinumab-mediated inhibition of interleukin (IL)-13 improved epidermal pathology and reduced the expression of key atopic dermatitis (AD) biomarkers in the serum of patients with moderate to severe AD.

Major finding: At week 16, tralokinumab vs placebo led to a significantly greater decrease from baseline in serum levels of type 2 biomarkers (CCL17/TARC, periostin, immunoglobulin E, and IL-22; all P < .05), a greater mean percentage change in the Eczema Area Severity Index score (−55.6 vs −36.7), and improved expression of genes dysregulated in AD (46.6% vs 16.4%; P < .001).

Study details: This study involved the collection of blood samples from 802 patients with moderate to severe AD randomized in the ECZTRA 1 and ECZTEND trials, followed by the selection of a subset of 299 patients with relevant samples available who had received tralokinumab (n = 223) or placebo (n = 76).

Disclosures: LEO Pharma A/S funded both ECZTRA 1 and the ongoing ECZTEND trial. Six authors declared being employees or shareholders of LEO Pharma. Several authors declared receiving research grants from or having other ties with various sources, including LEO Pharma.

Source: Guttman-Yassky E, Kabashima K, Staumont-Salle D, et al. Targeting IL-13 with tralokinumab normalizes type 2 inflammation in atopic dermatitis both early and at 2 years. Allergy. 2024 (Apr 2). doi: 10.1111/all.16108 Source

Key clinical point: Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) at age 3 years showed an increased subsequent risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Crohn's disease (CD), and ulcerative colitis (UC); however, atopic manifestations were not associated with IBD.

Major finding: The presence of AD at age 3 years significantly increased the risk for IBD (pooled adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.46; 95% CI 1.13-1.88), CD (pooled aHR 1.53; 95% CI 1.04-2.26), and UC (pooled aHR 1.78; 95% CI 1.15-2.75) later in life. Any atopic manifestation by age 3 years was not associated with IBD (pooled aHR 1.20; 95% CI 0.95-1.52).

Study details: This study included 83,311 children from the All Babies in Southeast Sweden (1997-1999) and the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child (1999-2008) birth cohorts with questionnaire-based prospectively collected parent-reported information on asthma, AD, etc., developed by 3 years of age who were followed up from birth until 2021 or a diagnosis of IBD.

Disclosure: This study was supported by The Swedish Research Council and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lerchova T, Størdal K, Andersson B, Ludvigsson J, Mårild K. Atopic dermatitis in early childhood and risk of inflammatory bowel disease: A Scandinavian birth cohort study. J Pediatr. 2024;270:14027 (Mar21). doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2024.114027. Source

Key clinical point: Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) at age 3 years showed an increased subsequent risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Crohn's disease (CD), and ulcerative colitis (UC); however, atopic manifestations were not associated with IBD.

Major finding: The presence of AD at age 3 years significantly increased the risk for IBD (pooled adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.46; 95% CI 1.13-1.88), CD (pooled aHR 1.53; 95% CI 1.04-2.26), and UC (pooled aHR 1.78; 95% CI 1.15-2.75) later in life. Any atopic manifestation by age 3 years was not associated with IBD (pooled aHR 1.20; 95% CI 0.95-1.52).

Study details: This study included 83,311 children from the All Babies in Southeast Sweden (1997-1999) and the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child (1999-2008) birth cohorts with questionnaire-based prospectively collected parent-reported information on asthma, AD, etc., developed by 3 years of age who were followed up from birth until 2021 or a diagnosis of IBD.

Disclosure: This study was supported by The Swedish Research Council and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lerchova T, Størdal K, Andersson B, Ludvigsson J, Mårild K. Atopic dermatitis in early childhood and risk of inflammatory bowel disease: A Scandinavian birth cohort study. J Pediatr. 2024;270:14027 (Mar21). doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2024.114027. Source

Key clinical point: Children with atopic dermatitis (AD) at age 3 years showed an increased subsequent risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Crohn's disease (CD), and ulcerative colitis (UC); however, atopic manifestations were not associated with IBD.

Major finding: The presence of AD at age 3 years significantly increased the risk for IBD (pooled adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.46; 95% CI 1.13-1.88), CD (pooled aHR 1.53; 95% CI 1.04-2.26), and UC (pooled aHR 1.78; 95% CI 1.15-2.75) later in life. Any atopic manifestation by age 3 years was not associated with IBD (pooled aHR 1.20; 95% CI 0.95-1.52).

Study details: This study included 83,311 children from the All Babies in Southeast Sweden (1997-1999) and the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child (1999-2008) birth cohorts with questionnaire-based prospectively collected parent-reported information on asthma, AD, etc., developed by 3 years of age who were followed up from birth until 2021 or a diagnosis of IBD.

Disclosure: This study was supported by The Swedish Research Council and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lerchova T, Størdal K, Andersson B, Ludvigsson J, Mårild K. Atopic dermatitis in early childhood and risk of inflammatory bowel disease: A Scandinavian birth cohort study. J Pediatr. 2024;270:14027 (Mar21). doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2024.114027. Source

DENVER — Treatment with AXS-05, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, demonstrated rapid, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvement in agitation related to Alzheimer’s disease and was generally well tolerated in the phase 3 ACCORD trial. 

More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo. 

“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York. 

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Common and Disruptive

Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.

A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo. 

ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation. 

In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.

A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.

In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).

“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported. 

AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).

Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).

Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.

One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation. 
 

Promising Agent 

Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.

“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.

He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions. 

“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained. 

The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. 

“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said. 

“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added. 

Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication. 

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.

“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. 

Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”

The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Treatment with AXS-05, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, demonstrated rapid, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvement in agitation related to Alzheimer’s disease and was generally well tolerated in the phase 3 ACCORD trial. 

More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo. 

“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York. 

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Common and Disruptive

Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.

A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo. 

ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation. 

In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.

A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.

In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).

“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported. 

AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).

Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).

Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.

One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation. 
 

Promising Agent 

Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.

“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.

He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions. 

“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained. 

The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. 

“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said. 

“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added. 

Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication. 

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.

“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. 

Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”

The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER — Treatment with AXS-05, a combination of dextromethorphan and bupropion, demonstrated rapid, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvement in agitation related to Alzheimer’s disease and was generally well tolerated in the phase 3 ACCORD trial. 

More than half of participants in the open-label extension period of the randomized clinical trial responded to the medication, which was associated with a 3.6-fold lower risk for relapse compared with placebo. 

“The positive efficacy and favorable safety results with AXS-05 support its potential to fulfill a high unmet need for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease agitation,” said Anton P. Porsteinsson, MD, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Care, Research and Education Program, University of Rochester, New York. 

The findings were presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology. 
 

Common and Disruptive

Agitation is reported in up to 70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and is characterized by emotional distress, aggressive behaviors, disruptive irritability, and disinhibition. Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation has been associated with increased caregiver burden, decreased functioning, accelerated cognitive decline, earlier nursing home placement, and increased mortality.

A previous phase 2/3 study of AXS-05 showed that the investigative agent led to rapid and significantly improvement in Alzheimer’s disease agitation, as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score, compared with placebo. 

ACCORD was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease agitation. 

In the open-label period, 178 adults with probable Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation received AXS-05 (titrated to 45 mg dextromethorphan/105 mg bupropion twice daily) for up to 9 weeks.

A total of 108 (61%) patients had a sustained response, with 30% or more improvement from baseline in the CMAI total score and improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change that were both maintained for 4 or more consecutive weeks. These patients entered the double-blind phase and were randomly allocated to receive twice-daily AXS-05 or placebo for up to 26 weeks.

In the double-blind period, AXS-05 “substantially and statistically” increased the time to relapse of agitation symptoms compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; P = .014).

“The risk of relapse was 3.6-fold lower with AXS-05 compared with placebo,” Dr. Porsteinsson reported. 

AXS-05 was also associated with a significantly lower relapse rate compared with placebo (7.5% vs 25.9%; P = .018).

Rates of discontinuation in the double-blind period owing to adverse events (AEs) were low (0% for AXS-05 and 1.9% for placebo). Three serious AEs were reported: one in the AXS-05 group (fecaloma), which was not related to study medication, and two in the placebo group (cardiac arrest, femur fracture).

Falls were reported in four participants in the AXS-05 group, none of which were related to study medication or associated with serious AEs, and in two participants in the placebo group, one of which was associated with femur fracture.

One death was reported in the placebo group. There was no evidence of cognitive decline with AXS-05, and treatment was not associated with sedation. 
 

Promising Agent 

Commenting on this research, Glen R. Finney, MD, director of the Geisinger Memory and Cognition Clinic in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, said the data “look promising as a safe way to help address acute agitation and reduce agitation reoccurrence.

“Agitation is a common, distressing, and sometimes safety issue for people fighting Alzheimer’s disease, and there’s very little evidence for efficacy and significant side effect issues for current medical management of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Finney, who was not part of the study.

He noted that first-line strategies for addressing agitation involve behavioral and environmental interventions. 

“See if there’s a reason for the agitation and address that. Look for triggers for agitation and avoid those. Find places, things, and interactions that help people with Alzheimer’s disease avoid agitation: familiar locations, music, simple engaging activities. Reassurance, redirection, and distraction can help de-escalate agitation. Provide a safe environment that reduces safety risks,” Dr. Finney explained. 

The next step, when medically appropriate, is trying acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine, and then adding memantine, a weak N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist. 

“These medications can help reduce the risk of agitation,” Dr. Finney said. 

“Beyond that, the evidence becomes weaker for any specific treatments, and that is where treatments with emerging evidence of efficacy and safety like dextromethorphan-bupropion become important,” Dr. Finney added. 

Last May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti) for Alzheimer’s disease-related agitation, making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication. 

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that older patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk for death.

“There’s certainly a need to have multiple options for treating agitation in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease,” said Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association. 

Dr. Edelmayer, who was not part of the study, noted that in the ACCORD study, AXS-05 “significantly delayed the relapse or prevented the relapse with Alzheimer’s disease agitation compared with the placebo group and it was generally well tolerated, but it will be important to make sure that there’s more thorough review of the data overall to be sure that it’s both safe and effective.”

The study was funded by Axsome Therapeutics, the manufacturer of AXS-05. Dr. Porsteinsson has disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Finney and Dr. Edelmayer have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Key novel genetic signatures in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) strongly correlate with improved survival outcomes in treatment with the anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel).

“Our transcriptomic analysis of ZUMA-7 dataset identified novel gene expression signatures predictive of outcome with axi-cel,” the authors reported in research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research earlier in April. “These gene expression signatures could support risk-stratification of LBCL patients.”

The results are from a subanalysis of the phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial in which patients with early relapsed or primary refractory LBCL were treated with axi-cel, administered as a one-time dose in the second-line setting.

Long-term results from the trial showed a 4-year overall survival of 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46.0% with the standard of care (P = .03), with a median rate of progression-free survival of 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months in the standard-second-line treatment.

In the study, the authors noted that, “although the use of axi-cel resulted in long-term survival in more than half of treated patients, it is important to continue to strive to improve patient outcomes.”

Following up on that, senior author Simone Filosto, of Kite, a Gilead Company, of Santa Monica, California, and colleagues launched their analysis of the genetic profiles of those who did and did not have favorable responses, using data from the ZUMA-7 trial.

Using gene expression profiling with the IO-360 Nanostring gene expression panel of 769 genes, they evaluated pretreated LBCL tumor samples from 134 of the patients treated with axi-cel.

After multivariate adjustment, the results showed that those with a distinctive 6-transcript genetic expression signature, consisting of CD19, CD45RA, CCL22, KLRK1, SOX11, and SIGLEC5, had a significantly higher rate of event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; P = 1.82 x 10^-8), as well as progression-free survival (HR, 0.27; P = 1.35 x 10^-7) after treatment with axi-cel, compared with those who did not have the signature.

The authors speculated that “the 6-gene expression signature may capture lymphomas with abundant adhesion molecules, a relatively low inflammation, and abundant expression of the targeted antigen (CD19).”

Conversely, the analysis showed that increased levels of an unfavorable 17-transcript gene expression signature had a strong negative correlation with event-free survival (HR, 6.19; P = 1.51 x 10^-13) and progression-free survival (HR, 7.58; P = 2.70 x 10^-14).

The 17-transcript signature included CD45RO, BCL2, IL-18R1, TNFSF4 [OX40L], KLRB1 [CD161], KIR3DL2, ITGB8, DUSP5, GPC4, PSMB5, RPS6KB1, SERPINA9, NBN, GLUD1, ESR1, ARID1A, and SLC16A1.

“The 17-gene expression signature is consistent with a high level of immune infiltration and inflammation paralleled by the activation of immune-escape mechanisms, such as the upregulation of anti-apoptotic genes,” the authors explain.

Of note, the 17-gene expression signature was elevated among 18 patients who progressed after axi-cel treatment.

Importantly, the gene expression signatures were not associated with outcomes observed among patients receiving second-line standard of care in the ZUMA-7 trial. And the signatures also did not correspond with outcomes following first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy reported in two online datasets, indicating their predictive rather than prognostic value.

Commenting on the findings, Marco Ruella, MD, noted that “stratifying the [CAR T-treated] patients is extremely important given that only a subset of them, 30%-40%, will experience long-term remission.”

“In an ideal scenario, we would want to treat only the patients who would benefit from such a complex and expensive therapy,” underscored Dr. Ruella, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology/Oncology and the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies and Scientific Director of the Lymphoma Program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

A key caveat is that the results need more validation before they true gain clinical value, he noted.

“We need more data before we can use such a score in the clinic as we would need to be absolutely confident on the predictive value of such a score in additional confirmatory cohorts.”

Furthermore, caution is warranted in avoiding excluding any patients unnecessarily, he added.

“Only if there are approximately zero chances of response would we be able to exclude a patient from a treatment,” Dr. Ruella noted. “If the chance of long-term cure are minimal but still present, it might still make sense for the patient.” 

Nevertheless, such findings advance the understanding of the therapy’s implication in a meaningful way, he said.

“I think this study [and similar others] are important studies that help us better understand the mechanisms of relapse,” he said.

“Translationally, we are getting closer to reaching a point where we can precisely predict outcomes and, perhaps in the future, select the patients that would benefit the most from these treatments.”

Dr. Filosto and other authors are employees of Kite, which manufactures axi-cel. Dr. Ruella treats patients with CAR T products that have been licensed to Novartis, Kite, and Vittoria Bio.

Key novel genetic signatures in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) strongly correlate with improved survival outcomes in treatment with the anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel).

“Our transcriptomic analysis of ZUMA-7 dataset identified novel gene expression signatures predictive of outcome with axi-cel,” the authors reported in research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research earlier in April. “These gene expression signatures could support risk-stratification of LBCL patients.”

The results are from a subanalysis of the phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial in which patients with early relapsed or primary refractory LBCL were treated with axi-cel, administered as a one-time dose in the second-line setting.

Long-term results from the trial showed a 4-year overall survival of 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46.0% with the standard of care (P = .03), with a median rate of progression-free survival of 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months in the standard-second-line treatment.

In the study, the authors noted that, “although the use of axi-cel resulted in long-term survival in more than half of treated patients, it is important to continue to strive to improve patient outcomes.”

Following up on that, senior author Simone Filosto, of Kite, a Gilead Company, of Santa Monica, California, and colleagues launched their analysis of the genetic profiles of those who did and did not have favorable responses, using data from the ZUMA-7 trial.

Using gene expression profiling with the IO-360 Nanostring gene expression panel of 769 genes, they evaluated pretreated LBCL tumor samples from 134 of the patients treated with axi-cel.

After multivariate adjustment, the results showed that those with a distinctive 6-transcript genetic expression signature, consisting of CD19, CD45RA, CCL22, KLRK1, SOX11, and SIGLEC5, had a significantly higher rate of event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; P = 1.82 x 10^-8), as well as progression-free survival (HR, 0.27; P = 1.35 x 10^-7) after treatment with axi-cel, compared with those who did not have the signature.

The authors speculated that “the 6-gene expression signature may capture lymphomas with abundant adhesion molecules, a relatively low inflammation, and abundant expression of the targeted antigen (CD19).”

Conversely, the analysis showed that increased levels of an unfavorable 17-transcript gene expression signature had a strong negative correlation with event-free survival (HR, 6.19; P = 1.51 x 10^-13) and progression-free survival (HR, 7.58; P = 2.70 x 10^-14).

The 17-transcript signature included CD45RO, BCL2, IL-18R1, TNFSF4 [OX40L], KLRB1 [CD161], KIR3DL2, ITGB8, DUSP5, GPC4, PSMB5, RPS6KB1, SERPINA9, NBN, GLUD1, ESR1, ARID1A, and SLC16A1.

“The 17-gene expression signature is consistent with a high level of immune infiltration and inflammation paralleled by the activation of immune-escape mechanisms, such as the upregulation of anti-apoptotic genes,” the authors explain.

Of note, the 17-gene expression signature was elevated among 18 patients who progressed after axi-cel treatment.

Importantly, the gene expression signatures were not associated with outcomes observed among patients receiving second-line standard of care in the ZUMA-7 trial. And the signatures also did not correspond with outcomes following first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy reported in two online datasets, indicating their predictive rather than prognostic value.

Commenting on the findings, Marco Ruella, MD, noted that “stratifying the [CAR T-treated] patients is extremely important given that only a subset of them, 30%-40%, will experience long-term remission.”

“In an ideal scenario, we would want to treat only the patients who would benefit from such a complex and expensive therapy,” underscored Dr. Ruella, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology/Oncology and the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies and Scientific Director of the Lymphoma Program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

A key caveat is that the results need more validation before they true gain clinical value, he noted.

“We need more data before we can use such a score in the clinic as we would need to be absolutely confident on the predictive value of such a score in additional confirmatory cohorts.”

Furthermore, caution is warranted in avoiding excluding any patients unnecessarily, he added.

“Only if there are approximately zero chances of response would we be able to exclude a patient from a treatment,” Dr. Ruella noted. “If the chance of long-term cure are minimal but still present, it might still make sense for the patient.” 

Nevertheless, such findings advance the understanding of the therapy’s implication in a meaningful way, he said.

“I think this study [and similar others] are important studies that help us better understand the mechanisms of relapse,” he said.

“Translationally, we are getting closer to reaching a point where we can precisely predict outcomes and, perhaps in the future, select the patients that would benefit the most from these treatments.”

Dr. Filosto and other authors are employees of Kite, which manufactures axi-cel. Dr. Ruella treats patients with CAR T products that have been licensed to Novartis, Kite, and Vittoria Bio.

Key novel genetic signatures in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) strongly correlate with improved survival outcomes in treatment with the anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel).

“Our transcriptomic analysis of ZUMA-7 dataset identified novel gene expression signatures predictive of outcome with axi-cel,” the authors reported in research presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research earlier in April. “These gene expression signatures could support risk-stratification of LBCL patients.”

The results are from a subanalysis of the phase 3 ZUMA-7 trial in which patients with early relapsed or primary refractory LBCL were treated with axi-cel, administered as a one-time dose in the second-line setting.

Long-term results from the trial showed a 4-year overall survival of 54.6% with axi-cel versus 46.0% with the standard of care (P = .03), with a median rate of progression-free survival of 14.7 months with axi-cel versus 3.7 months in the standard-second-line treatment.

In the study, the authors noted that, “although the use of axi-cel resulted in long-term survival in more than half of treated patients, it is important to continue to strive to improve patient outcomes.”

Following up on that, senior author Simone Filosto, of Kite, a Gilead Company, of Santa Monica, California, and colleagues launched their analysis of the genetic profiles of those who did and did not have favorable responses, using data from the ZUMA-7 trial.

Using gene expression profiling with the IO-360 Nanostring gene expression panel of 769 genes, they evaluated pretreated LBCL tumor samples from 134 of the patients treated with axi-cel.

After multivariate adjustment, the results showed that those with a distinctive 6-transcript genetic expression signature, consisting of CD19, CD45RA, CCL22, KLRK1, SOX11, and SIGLEC5, had a significantly higher rate of event-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.27; P = 1.82 x 10^-8), as well as progression-free survival (HR, 0.27; P = 1.35 x 10^-7) after treatment with axi-cel, compared with those who did not have the signature.

The authors speculated that “the 6-gene expression signature may capture lymphomas with abundant adhesion molecules, a relatively low inflammation, and abundant expression of the targeted antigen (CD19).”

Conversely, the analysis showed that increased levels of an unfavorable 17-transcript gene expression signature had a strong negative correlation with event-free survival (HR, 6.19; P = 1.51 x 10^-13) and progression-free survival (HR, 7.58; P = 2.70 x 10^-14).

The 17-transcript signature included CD45RO, BCL2, IL-18R1, TNFSF4 [OX40L], KLRB1 [CD161], KIR3DL2, ITGB8, DUSP5, GPC4, PSMB5, RPS6KB1, SERPINA9, NBN, GLUD1, ESR1, ARID1A, and SLC16A1.

“The 17-gene expression signature is consistent with a high level of immune infiltration and inflammation paralleled by the activation of immune-escape mechanisms, such as the upregulation of anti-apoptotic genes,” the authors explain.

Of note, the 17-gene expression signature was elevated among 18 patients who progressed after axi-cel treatment.

Importantly, the gene expression signatures were not associated with outcomes observed among patients receiving second-line standard of care in the ZUMA-7 trial. And the signatures also did not correspond with outcomes following first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy reported in two online datasets, indicating their predictive rather than prognostic value.

Commenting on the findings, Marco Ruella, MD, noted that “stratifying the [CAR T-treated] patients is extremely important given that only a subset of them, 30%-40%, will experience long-term remission.”

“In an ideal scenario, we would want to treat only the patients who would benefit from such a complex and expensive therapy,” underscored Dr. Ruella, assistant professor in the Division of Hematology/Oncology and the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies and Scientific Director of the Lymphoma Program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

A key caveat is that the results need more validation before they true gain clinical value, he noted.

“We need more data before we can use such a score in the clinic as we would need to be absolutely confident on the predictive value of such a score in additional confirmatory cohorts.”

Furthermore, caution is warranted in avoiding excluding any patients unnecessarily, he added.

“Only if there are approximately zero chances of response would we be able to exclude a patient from a treatment,” Dr. Ruella noted. “If the chance of long-term cure are minimal but still present, it might still make sense for the patient.” 

Nevertheless, such findings advance the understanding of the therapy’s implication in a meaningful way, he said.

“I think this study [and similar others] are important studies that help us better understand the mechanisms of relapse,” he said.

“Translationally, we are getting closer to reaching a point where we can precisely predict outcomes and, perhaps in the future, select the patients that would benefit the most from these treatments.”

Dr. Filosto and other authors are employees of Kite, which manufactures axi-cel. Dr. Ruella treats patients with CAR T products that have been licensed to Novartis, Kite, and Vittoria Bio.

WIESBADEN, GERMANY — Crowded waiting rooms, long wait times, irritable patients, and aggression toward nursing staff and doctors are increasingly the reality in German emergency rooms. Clearly, emergencies belong in the emergency room. However, “In about half of all patients in the emergency room, there is no urgent medical emergency,” Norbert Schütz, MD, director of geriatrics and rheumatology at Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital in Wiesbaden, Germany, said at a press conference for the 130th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM).

“In our daily medical practice, we repeatedly experience people either accessing our emergency departments and ambulances too quickly or lingering at home for too long when they have severe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz, who organized the Patient Day during the Internist Congress.
 

DGIM Educates Patients

What is an emergency? “I think the public is quite well informed about conditions associated with loss of consciousness, severe pain, chest pain, or paralysis: Think stroke or heart attack. This is undoubtedly a success of recent years. The difficulty arises with everything in between. For instance, should I go to the hospital with severe headaches?” asked Dr. Schütz.

When is a patient a case for the emergency room, the physician on-call service, or the general practitioner? At the Patient Day in Wiesbaden, DGIM aims to educate and train interested parties with a dedicated lecture. The focus is on recognizing an emergency, specifically emergencies in children and mental illnesses.

“Our Patient Day aims to contribute to making the right decisions. We want to inform, answer questions, and alleviate fears,” said Dr. Schütz. Interested parties can refresh their emergency knowledge, tour ambulances, and have the equipment explained. The public also has the opportunity to learn about resuscitation techniques theoretically and practically.

“In general, the general practitioner should always be the first point of contact. They know their patients best and have the most background information,” explained Dr. Schütz. A trusting relationship is crucial for correctly assessing an unclear medical situation. “Should, for whatever reason, the general practitioner not be reachable, the physician on-call service can be reached,” said Dr. Schütz. It may happen, however, that neither the general practitioner nor the on-call physician is immediately available.
 

What Are Emergencies?

In cases of severe health impairment, urgency is required, and a severe emergency should be assumed in the following cases:

• Chest pain
• Circulatory disorder
• Disorders of consciousness
• Breathing difficulties
• Sudden weakness or numbness/paralysis
• Severe bleeding
• Allergic shock

“In such cases, the emergency departments of the hospitals are available around the clock, and if necessary, an emergency doctor should be present during transportation to the hospital,” said Dr. Schütz.

Classifying emergencies is challenging, especially with children. “Children often find it difficult to clearly categorize or describe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz. A situation is critical if, for example, the child’s breathing or consciousness is impaired.

Mental emergencies pose a particular challenge for patients and relatives because the patient and relatives are often overwhelmed by the situation. If there are suicidal thoughts, the patient should present him- or herself immediately to an emergency room.

“Patients who come to the emergency room because they cannot get appointments with their general practitioner or specialist, for whatever reason, are no emergency. We also see this in the emergency room from time to time,” said Dr. Schütz. Emergency rooms are not intended for this purpose. “And generally, these are not emergencies.”
 

Four of 10 Cases

The number of patients in emergency rooms has steadily increased in recent years. Statistically, only 4 out of 10 cases are genuine emergencies, as detailed surveys of patients in the emergency rooms of northern German hospitals have shown.

In the PiNo Nord cross-sectional study, Martin Scherer, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany, and his team examined the reasons why patients visit the emergency room. They interviewed 1175 patients in five hospitals and documented the medical diagnoses. Patients classified as “immediately” or “very urgently” in need of treatment were excluded.

The surveyed patients were on average 41.8 years old, 52.9% were men, and 54.7% of the patients indicated a low urgency of treatment. About 41% of the patients visited the emergency room on their own initiative, 17% stated they were referred or entrusted by their general practitioner, and 8% were referred by a specialist in the emergency room.

The strongest predictors for low subjective treatment urgency were musculoskeletal trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.18), skin afflictions (OR, 2.15), and the unavailability of an open general practitioner’s office (OR, 1.70).

According to Dr. Scherer and his colleagues, the reasons for visiting an emergency room are diverse and can be based on the perceived structural conditions and individual patient preferences in addition to the urgency of the health problem.
 

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

WIESBADEN, GERMANY — Crowded waiting rooms, long wait times, irritable patients, and aggression toward nursing staff and doctors are increasingly the reality in German emergency rooms. Clearly, emergencies belong in the emergency room. However, “In about half of all patients in the emergency room, there is no urgent medical emergency,” Norbert Schütz, MD, director of geriatrics and rheumatology at Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital in Wiesbaden, Germany, said at a press conference for the 130th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM).

“In our daily medical practice, we repeatedly experience people either accessing our emergency departments and ambulances too quickly or lingering at home for too long when they have severe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz, who organized the Patient Day during the Internist Congress.
 

DGIM Educates Patients

What is an emergency? “I think the public is quite well informed about conditions associated with loss of consciousness, severe pain, chest pain, or paralysis: Think stroke or heart attack. This is undoubtedly a success of recent years. The difficulty arises with everything in between. For instance, should I go to the hospital with severe headaches?” asked Dr. Schütz.

When is a patient a case for the emergency room, the physician on-call service, or the general practitioner? At the Patient Day in Wiesbaden, DGIM aims to educate and train interested parties with a dedicated lecture. The focus is on recognizing an emergency, specifically emergencies in children and mental illnesses.

“Our Patient Day aims to contribute to making the right decisions. We want to inform, answer questions, and alleviate fears,” said Dr. Schütz. Interested parties can refresh their emergency knowledge, tour ambulances, and have the equipment explained. The public also has the opportunity to learn about resuscitation techniques theoretically and practically.

“In general, the general practitioner should always be the first point of contact. They know their patients best and have the most background information,” explained Dr. Schütz. A trusting relationship is crucial for correctly assessing an unclear medical situation. “Should, for whatever reason, the general practitioner not be reachable, the physician on-call service can be reached,” said Dr. Schütz. It may happen, however, that neither the general practitioner nor the on-call physician is immediately available.
 

What Are Emergencies?

In cases of severe health impairment, urgency is required, and a severe emergency should be assumed in the following cases:

• Chest pain
• Circulatory disorder
• Disorders of consciousness
• Breathing difficulties
• Sudden weakness or numbness/paralysis
• Severe bleeding
• Allergic shock

“In such cases, the emergency departments of the hospitals are available around the clock, and if necessary, an emergency doctor should be present during transportation to the hospital,” said Dr. Schütz.

Classifying emergencies is challenging, especially with children. “Children often find it difficult to clearly categorize or describe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz. A situation is critical if, for example, the child’s breathing or consciousness is impaired.

Mental emergencies pose a particular challenge for patients and relatives because the patient and relatives are often overwhelmed by the situation. If there are suicidal thoughts, the patient should present him- or herself immediately to an emergency room.

“Patients who come to the emergency room because they cannot get appointments with their general practitioner or specialist, for whatever reason, are no emergency. We also see this in the emergency room from time to time,” said Dr. Schütz. Emergency rooms are not intended for this purpose. “And generally, these are not emergencies.”
 

Four of 10 Cases

The number of patients in emergency rooms has steadily increased in recent years. Statistically, only 4 out of 10 cases are genuine emergencies, as detailed surveys of patients in the emergency rooms of northern German hospitals have shown.

In the PiNo Nord cross-sectional study, Martin Scherer, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany, and his team examined the reasons why patients visit the emergency room. They interviewed 1175 patients in five hospitals and documented the medical diagnoses. Patients classified as “immediately” or “very urgently” in need of treatment were excluded.

The surveyed patients were on average 41.8 years old, 52.9% were men, and 54.7% of the patients indicated a low urgency of treatment. About 41% of the patients visited the emergency room on their own initiative, 17% stated they were referred or entrusted by their general practitioner, and 8% were referred by a specialist in the emergency room.

The strongest predictors for low subjective treatment urgency were musculoskeletal trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.18), skin afflictions (OR, 2.15), and the unavailability of an open general practitioner’s office (OR, 1.70).

According to Dr. Scherer and his colleagues, the reasons for visiting an emergency room are diverse and can be based on the perceived structural conditions and individual patient preferences in addition to the urgency of the health problem.
 

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

WIESBADEN, GERMANY — Crowded waiting rooms, long wait times, irritable patients, and aggression toward nursing staff and doctors are increasingly the reality in German emergency rooms. Clearly, emergencies belong in the emergency room. However, “In about half of all patients in the emergency room, there is no urgent medical emergency,” Norbert Schütz, MD, director of geriatrics and rheumatology at Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital in Wiesbaden, Germany, said at a press conference for the 130th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM).

“In our daily medical practice, we repeatedly experience people either accessing our emergency departments and ambulances too quickly or lingering at home for too long when they have severe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz, who organized the Patient Day during the Internist Congress.
 

DGIM Educates Patients

What is an emergency? “I think the public is quite well informed about conditions associated with loss of consciousness, severe pain, chest pain, or paralysis: Think stroke or heart attack. This is undoubtedly a success of recent years. The difficulty arises with everything in between. For instance, should I go to the hospital with severe headaches?” asked Dr. Schütz.

When is a patient a case for the emergency room, the physician on-call service, or the general practitioner? At the Patient Day in Wiesbaden, DGIM aims to educate and train interested parties with a dedicated lecture. The focus is on recognizing an emergency, specifically emergencies in children and mental illnesses.

“Our Patient Day aims to contribute to making the right decisions. We want to inform, answer questions, and alleviate fears,” said Dr. Schütz. Interested parties can refresh their emergency knowledge, tour ambulances, and have the equipment explained. The public also has the opportunity to learn about resuscitation techniques theoretically and practically.

“In general, the general practitioner should always be the first point of contact. They know their patients best and have the most background information,” explained Dr. Schütz. A trusting relationship is crucial for correctly assessing an unclear medical situation. “Should, for whatever reason, the general practitioner not be reachable, the physician on-call service can be reached,” said Dr. Schütz. It may happen, however, that neither the general practitioner nor the on-call physician is immediately available.
 

What Are Emergencies?

In cases of severe health impairment, urgency is required, and a severe emergency should be assumed in the following cases:

• Chest pain
• Circulatory disorder
• Disorders of consciousness
• Breathing difficulties
• Sudden weakness or numbness/paralysis
• Severe bleeding
• Allergic shock

“In such cases, the emergency departments of the hospitals are available around the clock, and if necessary, an emergency doctor should be present during transportation to the hospital,” said Dr. Schütz.

Classifying emergencies is challenging, especially with children. “Children often find it difficult to clearly categorize or describe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz. A situation is critical if, for example, the child’s breathing or consciousness is impaired.

Mental emergencies pose a particular challenge for patients and relatives because the patient and relatives are often overwhelmed by the situation. If there are suicidal thoughts, the patient should present him- or herself immediately to an emergency room.

“Patients who come to the emergency room because they cannot get appointments with their general practitioner or specialist, for whatever reason, are no emergency. We also see this in the emergency room from time to time,” said Dr. Schütz. Emergency rooms are not intended for this purpose. “And generally, these are not emergencies.”
 

Four of 10 Cases

The number of patients in emergency rooms has steadily increased in recent years. Statistically, only 4 out of 10 cases are genuine emergencies, as detailed surveys of patients in the emergency rooms of northern German hospitals have shown.

In the PiNo Nord cross-sectional study, Martin Scherer, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany, and his team examined the reasons why patients visit the emergency room. They interviewed 1175 patients in five hospitals and documented the medical diagnoses. Patients classified as “immediately” or “very urgently” in need of treatment were excluded.

The surveyed patients were on average 41.8 years old, 52.9% were men, and 54.7% of the patients indicated a low urgency of treatment. About 41% of the patients visited the emergency room on their own initiative, 17% stated they were referred or entrusted by their general practitioner, and 8% were referred by a specialist in the emergency room.

The strongest predictors for low subjective treatment urgency were musculoskeletal trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.18), skin afflictions (OR, 2.15), and the unavailability of an open general practitioner’s office (OR, 1.70).

According to Dr. Scherer and his colleagues, the reasons for visiting an emergency room are diverse and can be based on the perceived structural conditions and individual patient preferences in addition to the urgency of the health problem.
 

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

Approximately one third of pregnant individuals with syphilis were inadequately treated or not treated for syphilis despite receiving timely prenatal care, based on data from nearly 1500 patients.

Although congenital syphilis is preventable with treatment before or early in pregnancy, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a doubling of syphilis rates in the United States between 2018 and 2021 wrote Ayzsa Tannis, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

To better understand factors contributing to inadequate syphilis treatment during pregnancy, the researchers examined data from 1476 individuals with syphilis during pregnancy. The study population came from six jurisdictions that participated in the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network, and sources included case investigations, medical records, and links between laboratory data and vital records.

The researchers characterized the status of syphilis during pregnancy as adequate, inadequate, or not treated based on the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. Prenatal care was defined as timely (at least 30 days prior to pregnancy outcome), nontimely (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome), and no prenatal care. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Of the 1476 individuals studied, 855 (57.9%) were adequately treated for syphilis and 621 (42.1%) were inadequately or not treated.

Overall, 82% of the study population received timely prenatal care. However, 32.1% of those who received timely prenatal care were inadequately treated, including 14.8% who received no syphilis treatment. Individuals with nontimely or no prenatal care were significantly more likely to receive inadequate or no treatment for syphilis than those who received timely care (risk ratio, 2.50 and 2.73, respectively).

The findings were consistent with previous studies of missed opportunities for prevention and treatment, the researchers noted. Factors behind nontimely treatment (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome) may include intermittent shortages of benzathine penicillin G, the standard treatment for syphilis, as well as the lack of time and administrative support for clinicians to communicate with patients and health departments, and to expedite treatment, the researchers wrote.

The results were limited by several factors including the use of data from six US jurisdictions that may not generalize to other areas, the variations in reporting years for the different jurisdictions, and variation in mandates for syphilis screening during pregnancy, the researchers noted.

More research is needed to improve syphilis testing itself, and to develop more treatment options, the researchers concluded. Partnerships among public health, patient advocacy groups, prenatal care clinicians, and other clinicians outside the prenatal care setting also are needed for effective intervention in pregnant individuals with syphilis, they said.

The study was carried out as part of the regular work of the CDC, supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement and through contractual mechanisms including the Local Health Department Initiative to Chickasaw Health Consulting. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately one third of pregnant individuals with syphilis were inadequately treated or not treated for syphilis despite receiving timely prenatal care, based on data from nearly 1500 patients.

Although congenital syphilis is preventable with treatment before or early in pregnancy, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a doubling of syphilis rates in the United States between 2018 and 2021 wrote Ayzsa Tannis, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

To better understand factors contributing to inadequate syphilis treatment during pregnancy, the researchers examined data from 1476 individuals with syphilis during pregnancy. The study population came from six jurisdictions that participated in the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network, and sources included case investigations, medical records, and links between laboratory data and vital records.

The researchers characterized the status of syphilis during pregnancy as adequate, inadequate, or not treated based on the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. Prenatal care was defined as timely (at least 30 days prior to pregnancy outcome), nontimely (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome), and no prenatal care. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Of the 1476 individuals studied, 855 (57.9%) were adequately treated for syphilis and 621 (42.1%) were inadequately or not treated.

Overall, 82% of the study population received timely prenatal care. However, 32.1% of those who received timely prenatal care were inadequately treated, including 14.8% who received no syphilis treatment. Individuals with nontimely or no prenatal care were significantly more likely to receive inadequate or no treatment for syphilis than those who received timely care (risk ratio, 2.50 and 2.73, respectively).

The findings were consistent with previous studies of missed opportunities for prevention and treatment, the researchers noted. Factors behind nontimely treatment (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome) may include intermittent shortages of benzathine penicillin G, the standard treatment for syphilis, as well as the lack of time and administrative support for clinicians to communicate with patients and health departments, and to expedite treatment, the researchers wrote.

The results were limited by several factors including the use of data from six US jurisdictions that may not generalize to other areas, the variations in reporting years for the different jurisdictions, and variation in mandates for syphilis screening during pregnancy, the researchers noted.

More research is needed to improve syphilis testing itself, and to develop more treatment options, the researchers concluded. Partnerships among public health, patient advocacy groups, prenatal care clinicians, and other clinicians outside the prenatal care setting also are needed for effective intervention in pregnant individuals with syphilis, they said.

The study was carried out as part of the regular work of the CDC, supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement and through contractual mechanisms including the Local Health Department Initiative to Chickasaw Health Consulting. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately one third of pregnant individuals with syphilis were inadequately treated or not treated for syphilis despite receiving timely prenatal care, based on data from nearly 1500 patients.

Although congenital syphilis is preventable with treatment before or early in pregnancy, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show a doubling of syphilis rates in the United States between 2018 and 2021 wrote Ayzsa Tannis, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

To better understand factors contributing to inadequate syphilis treatment during pregnancy, the researchers examined data from 1476 individuals with syphilis during pregnancy. The study population came from six jurisdictions that participated in the Surveillance for Emerging Threats to Pregnant People and Infants Network, and sources included case investigations, medical records, and links between laboratory data and vital records.

The researchers characterized the status of syphilis during pregnancy as adequate, inadequate, or not treated based on the CDC’s Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021. Prenatal care was defined as timely (at least 30 days prior to pregnancy outcome), nontimely (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome), and no prenatal care. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Of the 1476 individuals studied, 855 (57.9%) were adequately treated for syphilis and 621 (42.1%) were inadequately or not treated.

Overall, 82% of the study population received timely prenatal care. However, 32.1% of those who received timely prenatal care were inadequately treated, including 14.8% who received no syphilis treatment. Individuals with nontimely or no prenatal care were significantly more likely to receive inadequate or no treatment for syphilis than those who received timely care (risk ratio, 2.50 and 2.73, respectively).

The findings were consistent with previous studies of missed opportunities for prevention and treatment, the researchers noted. Factors behind nontimely treatment (less than 30 days before pregnancy outcome) may include intermittent shortages of benzathine penicillin G, the standard treatment for syphilis, as well as the lack of time and administrative support for clinicians to communicate with patients and health departments, and to expedite treatment, the researchers wrote.

The results were limited by several factors including the use of data from six US jurisdictions that may not generalize to other areas, the variations in reporting years for the different jurisdictions, and variation in mandates for syphilis screening during pregnancy, the researchers noted.

More research is needed to improve syphilis testing itself, and to develop more treatment options, the researchers concluded. Partnerships among public health, patient advocacy groups, prenatal care clinicians, and other clinicians outside the prenatal care setting also are needed for effective intervention in pregnant individuals with syphilis, they said.

The study was carried out as part of the regular work of the CDC, supported by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement and through contractual mechanisms including the Local Health Department Initiative to Chickasaw Health Consulting. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

*The first thing Ann Garment, MD, wants all clinicians to know about buprenorphine is that [where state law permits] any prescriber with a DEA registration number “is able to prescribe buprenorphine and should be ready and willing to prescribe” the medication.

*A change in federal law means that for most providers “there is no longer any extra paperwork or training required to prescribe buprenorphine,” said Dr. Garment, clinical associate professor at New York University and chief of general internal medicine at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, during a presentation on April 19 at the American College of Physicians (ACP-IM) Internal Medicine Meeting 2024.

Dr. Garment, who specializes in opioid use disorder (OUD), described the current “third wave” of increasing opioid overdose deaths fueled by the increase of synthetic opioids in the drug supply. The third wave started in 2013 with the rise in use of fentanyl and tramadol. The 107,000 number of overdose deaths in the United States in 2021 was more than six times that in 1999, and 75% involved opioids.

“Now, more than ever,” Dr. Garment said, “opioid use disorder should be treated from the primary care setting.”
 

How to Identify OUD

Dr. Garment recommended asking a single question to screen for OUD: “How many times in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a prescription medication for nonmedical reasons?”

If the patient says any number above zero, that should trigger suspicion of active OUD. “It’s less sensitive for picking up on people who have a prior opioid use disorder history or are only exhibiting risky opioid use that wouldn’t constitute opioid use disorder yet,” she said.

If someone screens positive, to verify OUD, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders identifies criteria for any substance abuse disorder with two general themes: Loss of control and continued use despite negative consequences.

“If you have a patient who is getting prescribed opioids and they have opioid tolerance or withdrawal, that does not mean they have opioid use disorder,” she said.
 

Medication for OUD

Medication is the top treatment for OUD, according to Dr. Garment. Psychosocial treatments can help some but not all people with OUD, she said. “It is not a requirement for a patient to engage in psychosocial treatment in order to get a medication for opioid use disorder, so please do not let that be a barrier for your patients,” she said.

Buprenorphine has advantages over other medications for OUD, including methadone and naltrexone.

Methadone must be obtained daily at a methadone clinic instead of at a local pharmacy. And escalating doses of methadone carry an increased risk for overdose and respiratory problems and potential drug-drug interactions, Dr. Garment added.

One downside with naltrexone is loss of tolerance, she said. If a patient has been using naltrexone to treat OUD and they decide to resume taking opioids, “they no longer can use the same amount of opioids that they were using before” because they have lost their tolerance and now are at a risk for overdose with their usual amount, she said. What’s more, naltrexone has not been shown to reduce overdose deaths.

Finally, she said, buprenorphine, “is an incredibly safe medication. If anyone in this room has ever prescribed coumadin or insulin, I’m going to tell you: This is much safer.”

• The drug is a partial, as opposed to full, opioid agonist, so as the dose increases, the patient experiences less withdrawal and fewer opioid cravings. As a result, they will hit a ceiling effect that avoids euphoria, respiratory depression, or overdose.
• Buprenorphine is “stickier” than other OUD medications: “If I’m taking buprenorphine and I decide to use some [oxycodone], what’s going to happen is that very little of that, if any, is going to get bound to my opioid receptors because buprenorphine is so sticky and adherent, it’s not going to let other opioids on.”
• Most buprenorphine is co-formulated with naloxone, an opioid antagonist. If a patient tries to get high from buprenorphine and tries to snort or inject it, naloxone will kick in and cancel out the buprenorphine.

Dr. Garment said she obtains urine screens ideally twice a year. If other drugs show up on the test, she said, she speaks with the patient about their drug use. “It’s never a reason to discharge someone from a practice,” she said.

Dr. Garment reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on April 29, 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

*The first thing Ann Garment, MD, wants all clinicians to know about buprenorphine is that [where state law permits] any prescriber with a DEA registration number “is able to prescribe buprenorphine and should be ready and willing to prescribe” the medication.

*A change in federal law means that for most providers “there is no longer any extra paperwork or training required to prescribe buprenorphine,” said Dr. Garment, clinical associate professor at New York University and chief of general internal medicine at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, during a presentation on April 19 at the American College of Physicians (ACP-IM) Internal Medicine Meeting 2024.

Dr. Garment, who specializes in opioid use disorder (OUD), described the current “third wave” of increasing opioid overdose deaths fueled by the increase of synthetic opioids in the drug supply. The third wave started in 2013 with the rise in use of fentanyl and tramadol. The 107,000 number of overdose deaths in the United States in 2021 was more than six times that in 1999, and 75% involved opioids.

“Now, more than ever,” Dr. Garment said, “opioid use disorder should be treated from the primary care setting.”
 

How to Identify OUD

Dr. Garment recommended asking a single question to screen for OUD: “How many times in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a prescription medication for nonmedical reasons?”

If the patient says any number above zero, that should trigger suspicion of active OUD. “It’s less sensitive for picking up on people who have a prior opioid use disorder history or are only exhibiting risky opioid use that wouldn’t constitute opioid use disorder yet,” she said.

If someone screens positive, to verify OUD, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders identifies criteria for any substance abuse disorder with two general themes: Loss of control and continued use despite negative consequences.

“If you have a patient who is getting prescribed opioids and they have opioid tolerance or withdrawal, that does not mean they have opioid use disorder,” she said.
 

Medication for OUD

Medication is the top treatment for OUD, according to Dr. Garment. Psychosocial treatments can help some but not all people with OUD, she said. “It is not a requirement for a patient to engage in psychosocial treatment in order to get a medication for opioid use disorder, so please do not let that be a barrier for your patients,” she said.

Buprenorphine has advantages over other medications for OUD, including methadone and naltrexone.

Methadone must be obtained daily at a methadone clinic instead of at a local pharmacy. And escalating doses of methadone carry an increased risk for overdose and respiratory problems and potential drug-drug interactions, Dr. Garment added.

One downside with naltrexone is loss of tolerance, she said. If a patient has been using naltrexone to treat OUD and they decide to resume taking opioids, “they no longer can use the same amount of opioids that they were using before” because they have lost their tolerance and now are at a risk for overdose with their usual amount, she said. What’s more, naltrexone has not been shown to reduce overdose deaths.

Finally, she said, buprenorphine, “is an incredibly safe medication. If anyone in this room has ever prescribed coumadin or insulin, I’m going to tell you: This is much safer.”

• The drug is a partial, as opposed to full, opioid agonist, so as the dose increases, the patient experiences less withdrawal and fewer opioid cravings. As a result, they will hit a ceiling effect that avoids euphoria, respiratory depression, or overdose.
• Buprenorphine is “stickier” than other OUD medications: “If I’m taking buprenorphine and I decide to use some [oxycodone], what’s going to happen is that very little of that, if any, is going to get bound to my opioid receptors because buprenorphine is so sticky and adherent, it’s not going to let other opioids on.”
• Most buprenorphine is co-formulated with naloxone, an opioid antagonist. If a patient tries to get high from buprenorphine and tries to snort or inject it, naloxone will kick in and cancel out the buprenorphine.

Dr. Garment said she obtains urine screens ideally twice a year. If other drugs show up on the test, she said, she speaks with the patient about their drug use. “It’s never a reason to discharge someone from a practice,” she said.

Dr. Garment reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on April 29, 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

*The first thing Ann Garment, MD, wants all clinicians to know about buprenorphine is that [where state law permits] any prescriber with a DEA registration number “is able to prescribe buprenorphine and should be ready and willing to prescribe” the medication.

*A change in federal law means that for most providers “there is no longer any extra paperwork or training required to prescribe buprenorphine,” said Dr. Garment, clinical associate professor at New York University and chief of general internal medicine at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, during a presentation on April 19 at the American College of Physicians (ACP-IM) Internal Medicine Meeting 2024.

Dr. Garment, who specializes in opioid use disorder (OUD), described the current “third wave” of increasing opioid overdose deaths fueled by the increase of synthetic opioids in the drug supply. The third wave started in 2013 with the rise in use of fentanyl and tramadol. The 107,000 number of overdose deaths in the United States in 2021 was more than six times that in 1999, and 75% involved opioids.

“Now, more than ever,” Dr. Garment said, “opioid use disorder should be treated from the primary care setting.”
 

How to Identify OUD

Dr. Garment recommended asking a single question to screen for OUD: “How many times in the past year have you used an illegal drug or used a prescription medication for nonmedical reasons?”

If the patient says any number above zero, that should trigger suspicion of active OUD. “It’s less sensitive for picking up on people who have a prior opioid use disorder history or are only exhibiting risky opioid use that wouldn’t constitute opioid use disorder yet,” she said.

If someone screens positive, to verify OUD, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders identifies criteria for any substance abuse disorder with two general themes: Loss of control and continued use despite negative consequences.

“If you have a patient who is getting prescribed opioids and they have opioid tolerance or withdrawal, that does not mean they have opioid use disorder,” she said.
 

Medication for OUD

Medication is the top treatment for OUD, according to Dr. Garment. Psychosocial treatments can help some but not all people with OUD, she said. “It is not a requirement for a patient to engage in psychosocial treatment in order to get a medication for opioid use disorder, so please do not let that be a barrier for your patients,” she said.

Buprenorphine has advantages over other medications for OUD, including methadone and naltrexone.

Methadone must be obtained daily at a methadone clinic instead of at a local pharmacy. And escalating doses of methadone carry an increased risk for overdose and respiratory problems and potential drug-drug interactions, Dr. Garment added.

One downside with naltrexone is loss of tolerance, she said. If a patient has been using naltrexone to treat OUD and they decide to resume taking opioids, “they no longer can use the same amount of opioids that they were using before” because they have lost their tolerance and now are at a risk for overdose with their usual amount, she said. What’s more, naltrexone has not been shown to reduce overdose deaths.

Finally, she said, buprenorphine, “is an incredibly safe medication. If anyone in this room has ever prescribed coumadin or insulin, I’m going to tell you: This is much safer.”

• The drug is a partial, as opposed to full, opioid agonist, so as the dose increases, the patient experiences less withdrawal and fewer opioid cravings. As a result, they will hit a ceiling effect that avoids euphoria, respiratory depression, or overdose.
• Buprenorphine is “stickier” than other OUD medications: “If I’m taking buprenorphine and I decide to use some [oxycodone], what’s going to happen is that very little of that, if any, is going to get bound to my opioid receptors because buprenorphine is so sticky and adherent, it’s not going to let other opioids on.”
• Most buprenorphine is co-formulated with naloxone, an opioid antagonist. If a patient tries to get high from buprenorphine and tries to snort or inject it, naloxone will kick in and cancel out the buprenorphine.

Dr. Garment said she obtains urine screens ideally twice a year. If other drugs show up on the test, she said, she speaks with the patient about their drug use. “It’s never a reason to discharge someone from a practice,” she said.

Dr. Garment reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

*This story was updated on April 29, 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.