The current trend of smaller medical practices consolidating into larger and larger ones has again called attention to the dicey issue of dismissing patients from a practice.

One might assume that, just as patients are free to accept or reject their doctors, physicians have an equal right to reject their patients; to a certain extent, that is true. There are no specific laws prohibiting a provider from terminating a patient relationship for any reason, other than a discriminatory one – race, nationality, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. However, the evolution of ever-larger practice environments has raised new questions.

While verbal abuse, inappropriate treatment demands (particularly for controlled substances), refusal to adhere to mutually agreed treatment plans, and failure to keep appointments or pay bills remain the most common reasons for dismissal, evolving practice environments may require us to modify our responses.

What happens, for example, when a patient is banned from a large clinic that employs most of that community’s physicians, or is the only practice in town with the specialists required by that patient? The medical profession does have an obligation to not exclude such patients from care.

In a large cross-specialty system or consolidated specialist practice, firing a patient has a very different level of consequences than in a small office. There must be a balance between separating patients and doctors who don’t get along and seeing that the patient in question receives competent treatment. The physician, as the professional, has a higher standard to live up to with respect to handling this kind of situation.

If the problem is a personality conflict, the solution may be as simple as transferring the patient to another caregiver within the practice. While it does not make sense for a patient to continue seeing a doctor who does not want to see them, it also does not make sense to ban a patient from a large system where there could well be one or more other doctors who would be a good match. If a patient is unable to pay outstanding bills, a large clinic might prohibit them from making new appointments until they have worked out a payment plan rather than firing them outright.

If you are part of a large practice, take the time to research your group’s official policies for dealing with such situations. If there is no written policy, you might want to start that discussion with your colleagues.

The point is that in any practice, large or small, firing a patient should be a last resort. Try to make every effort to resolve the problem amicably. Communicate with the patient in question, explain your concerns, and discuss options for resolution. Take time to listen to the patient, as they may have an explanation (rational or not) for their objectionable behavior.

You can also send a letter, repeating your concerns and proposed solutions, as further documentation of your efforts to achieve an amicable resolution. All verbal and written warnings must, of course, be documented. If the patient has a managed care policy, we review the managed care contract, which sometimes includes specific requirements for dismissal of its patients.

When such efforts fail, we send the patient two letters – one certified with return receipt, the other by conventional first class, in case the patient refuses the certified copy – explaining the reason for dismissal, and that care will be discontinued in 30 days from the letter’s date. (Most attorneys and medical associations agree that 30 days is sufficient reasonable notice.) We offer to provide care during the interim period, include a list of names and contact information for potential alternate providers, and offer to transfer records after receiving written permission.

Following these precautions will usually protect you from charges of “patient abandonment,” which is generally defined as the unilateral severance by the physician of the physician-patient relationship without giving the patient sufficient advance notice to obtain the services of another practitioner, and at a time when the patient still requires medical attention.

Some states have their own unique definitions of patient abandonment. You should check with your state’s health department, and your attorney, for any unusual requirements in your state, because violating them could lead to intervention by your state licensing board. There is also the risk of civil litigation, which is typically not covered by malpractice policies, and may not be covered by your general liability policy either.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The current trend of smaller medical practices consolidating into larger and larger ones has again called attention to the dicey issue of dismissing patients from a practice.

One might assume that, just as patients are free to accept or reject their doctors, physicians have an equal right to reject their patients; to a certain extent, that is true. There are no specific laws prohibiting a provider from terminating a patient relationship for any reason, other than a discriminatory one – race, nationality, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. However, the evolution of ever-larger practice environments has raised new questions.

While verbal abuse, inappropriate treatment demands (particularly for controlled substances), refusal to adhere to mutually agreed treatment plans, and failure to keep appointments or pay bills remain the most common reasons for dismissal, evolving practice environments may require us to modify our responses.

What happens, for example, when a patient is banned from a large clinic that employs most of that community’s physicians, or is the only practice in town with the specialists required by that patient? The medical profession does have an obligation to not exclude such patients from care.

In a large cross-specialty system or consolidated specialist practice, firing a patient has a very different level of consequences than in a small office. There must be a balance between separating patients and doctors who don’t get along and seeing that the patient in question receives competent treatment. The physician, as the professional, has a higher standard to live up to with respect to handling this kind of situation.

If the problem is a personality conflict, the solution may be as simple as transferring the patient to another caregiver within the practice. While it does not make sense for a patient to continue seeing a doctor who does not want to see them, it also does not make sense to ban a patient from a large system where there could well be one or more other doctors who would be a good match. If a patient is unable to pay outstanding bills, a large clinic might prohibit them from making new appointments until they have worked out a payment plan rather than firing them outright.

If you are part of a large practice, take the time to research your group’s official policies for dealing with such situations. If there is no written policy, you might want to start that discussion with your colleagues.

The point is that in any practice, large or small, firing a patient should be a last resort. Try to make every effort to resolve the problem amicably. Communicate with the patient in question, explain your concerns, and discuss options for resolution. Take time to listen to the patient, as they may have an explanation (rational or not) for their objectionable behavior.

You can also send a letter, repeating your concerns and proposed solutions, as further documentation of your efforts to achieve an amicable resolution. All verbal and written warnings must, of course, be documented. If the patient has a managed care policy, we review the managed care contract, which sometimes includes specific requirements for dismissal of its patients.

When such efforts fail, we send the patient two letters – one certified with return receipt, the other by conventional first class, in case the patient refuses the certified copy – explaining the reason for dismissal, and that care will be discontinued in 30 days from the letter’s date. (Most attorneys and medical associations agree that 30 days is sufficient reasonable notice.) We offer to provide care during the interim period, include a list of names and contact information for potential alternate providers, and offer to transfer records after receiving written permission.

Following these precautions will usually protect you from charges of “patient abandonment,” which is generally defined as the unilateral severance by the physician of the physician-patient relationship without giving the patient sufficient advance notice to obtain the services of another practitioner, and at a time when the patient still requires medical attention.

Some states have their own unique definitions of patient abandonment. You should check with your state’s health department, and your attorney, for any unusual requirements in your state, because violating them could lead to intervention by your state licensing board. There is also the risk of civil litigation, which is typically not covered by malpractice policies, and may not be covered by your general liability policy either.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The current trend of smaller medical practices consolidating into larger and larger ones has again called attention to the dicey issue of dismissing patients from a practice.

One might assume that, just as patients are free to accept or reject their doctors, physicians have an equal right to reject their patients; to a certain extent, that is true. There are no specific laws prohibiting a provider from terminating a patient relationship for any reason, other than a discriminatory one – race, nationality, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. However, the evolution of ever-larger practice environments has raised new questions.

While verbal abuse, inappropriate treatment demands (particularly for controlled substances), refusal to adhere to mutually agreed treatment plans, and failure to keep appointments or pay bills remain the most common reasons for dismissal, evolving practice environments may require us to modify our responses.

What happens, for example, when a patient is banned from a large clinic that employs most of that community’s physicians, or is the only practice in town with the specialists required by that patient? The medical profession does have an obligation to not exclude such patients from care.

In a large cross-specialty system or consolidated specialist practice, firing a patient has a very different level of consequences than in a small office. There must be a balance between separating patients and doctors who don’t get along and seeing that the patient in question receives competent treatment. The physician, as the professional, has a higher standard to live up to with respect to handling this kind of situation.

If the problem is a personality conflict, the solution may be as simple as transferring the patient to another caregiver within the practice. While it does not make sense for a patient to continue seeing a doctor who does not want to see them, it also does not make sense to ban a patient from a large system where there could well be one or more other doctors who would be a good match. If a patient is unable to pay outstanding bills, a large clinic might prohibit them from making new appointments until they have worked out a payment plan rather than firing them outright.

If you are part of a large practice, take the time to research your group’s official policies for dealing with such situations. If there is no written policy, you might want to start that discussion with your colleagues.

The point is that in any practice, large or small, firing a patient should be a last resort. Try to make every effort to resolve the problem amicably. Communicate with the patient in question, explain your concerns, and discuss options for resolution. Take time to listen to the patient, as they may have an explanation (rational or not) for their objectionable behavior.

You can also send a letter, repeating your concerns and proposed solutions, as further documentation of your efforts to achieve an amicable resolution. All verbal and written warnings must, of course, be documented. If the patient has a managed care policy, we review the managed care contract, which sometimes includes specific requirements for dismissal of its patients.

When such efforts fail, we send the patient two letters – one certified with return receipt, the other by conventional first class, in case the patient refuses the certified copy – explaining the reason for dismissal, and that care will be discontinued in 30 days from the letter’s date. (Most attorneys and medical associations agree that 30 days is sufficient reasonable notice.) We offer to provide care during the interim period, include a list of names and contact information for potential alternate providers, and offer to transfer records after receiving written permission.

Following these precautions will usually protect you from charges of “patient abandonment,” which is generally defined as the unilateral severance by the physician of the physician-patient relationship without giving the patient sufficient advance notice to obtain the services of another practitioner, and at a time when the patient still requires medical attention.

Some states have their own unique definitions of patient abandonment. You should check with your state’s health department, and your attorney, for any unusual requirements in your state, because violating them could lead to intervention by your state licensing board. There is also the risk of civil litigation, which is typically not covered by malpractice policies, and may not be covered by your general liability policy either.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) issued a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of biliary strictures, or abnormal narrowing in the liver’s ductal drainage system.

The recommendations provide guidance on the care of patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, with a focus on diagnosis and drainage. Although some of the principles may apply to intrahepatic strictures, the guideline doesn’t specifically address them. The new guideline is considered separate from the 2015 ACG guideline related to primary sclerosing cholangitis.

“The appropriate diagnosis and management of biliary strictures is still a big clinical challenge and has important implications in endoscopic, surgical, and oncological decision-making,” co-author Jennifer Maranki, MD, a professor of medicine and director of endoscopy at Penn State Hershey Medical Center, said in an interview.

“We wanted to provide the best possible guidance to gastroenterologists based on the available body of literature, with key shifts in diagnosis and management based on currently available modalities and tools,” she said.

The guideline was published in the March issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

The recommendations were developed by a diverse group of authors from across the United States in recognition of the potential influence of commercial and intellectual conflicts of interest. The panel used a systematic process that involved structured literature searches by librarians and independent appraisal of the quality of evidence by dedicated methodologists, the authors write.

Overall, the team outlined 11 recommendations and 12 key concepts. A strong recommendation was made when the benefits of the test or intervention clearly outweighed the potential disadvantages. A conditional recommendation was made when some uncertainty remained about the balance of benefits and harms. Key concepts address important clinical questions that lack adequate evidence to inform recommendations. They are based on indirect evidence and expert opinion.

Epidemiology and diagnosis

The burden of biliary strictures is difficult to estimate, owing to the lack of a specific administrative code. The estimated cost of caring for biliary disease in the United States is about $16.9 billion annually, although this figure includes costs associated with gallbladder disease, choledocholithiasis, and other (nonobstructive) biliary disorders, the authors write.

Among the 57,000 new cases of pancreatic cancer each year, at least 60% will cause obstructive jaundice, resulting in about 34,000 annual cases of malignant extrahepatic biliary stricture, the team notes. In addition, about 3,000 cases of malignant perihilar stricture are expected in the United States each year. Patients may also seek care for benign strictures associated with chronic pancreatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, autoimmune disease, and post-cholecystectomy injury.

Under the first key concept, the authors note that biliary strictures in adults are more likely to be malignant than benign, except in certain well-defined scenarios. This underscores the importance of having a high index of clinical suspicion during evaluation, they add.

In general, a definitive tissue diagnosis is necessary to guide oncologic and endoscopic care for most strictures that aren’t surgically resectable at the time of presentation. For patients with extrahepatic biliary stricture due to an apparent or suspected pancreatic mass, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle sampling (aspiration or biopsy) is recommended over endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as the preferred method of evaluation for malignancy.

For patients with suspected malignant perihilar stricture, multimodality sampling is recommended over brush cytology alone at the time of the index ERCP.

Guidance on drainage

For management, the principal objective is to restore the physiologic flow of bile into the duodenum. Although there is wide variability in the difficulty and risk of drainage, depending on location and complexity, perihilar strictures are generally more challenging and are riskier to drain than extrahepatic strictures. The goals should be to alleviate symptoms, reduce serum bilirubin to a level such that chemotherapy can be safely administered, and optimize surgical outcomes.

For benign extrahepatic biliary strictures, ERCP is the preferred modality for durable treatment. Fully covered self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement is recommended over multiple plastic stents to reduce the number of procedures required for long-term treatment.

For extrahepatic strictures due to resectable pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma, the authors recommend against routine preoperative biliary drainage. However, drainage is warranted for some patients, including those with acute cholangitis, severe pruritus, very high serum bilirubin levels, those undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, and those for whom surgery is delayed.

For malignant extrahepatic strictures that are unresectable or borderline resectable, SEMS placement is recommended over plastic stents. The evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against uncovered SEMS versus fully covered SEMS.

For perihilar strictures due to suspected malignancy, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. In addition, for malignant perihilar strictures, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against plastic stents versus uncovered SEMS.

For perihilar strictures due to cholangiocarcinoma in cases in which resection or transplantation is not possible, adjuvant endobiliary ablation plus plastic stent placement is recommended over plastic stent placement alone.

Overall, for patients with a biliary stricture for which ERCP is indicated but is unsuccessful or impossible, EUS-guided biliary access and drainage is recommended over PTBD, because it is associated with fewer adverse events. However, these interventional EUS procedures should be performed by an endoscopist with substantial experience.

“The workup of biliary strictures is challenging, invasive, and costly, requiring multiple diagnostic tools with highly variable yields,” co-author Victoria Gomez, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of bariatric endoscopy at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

“Providers caring for these patients must be up to date with the most current evidence so that they can make the safest and most well-informed decisions for their patients,” she said. “These include considerations such as limiting the use of anesthesia, using tests that will result in the highest diagnostic yield, and providing effective therapies to decompress biliary obstruction.”

Future questions

Additional research is needed in several areas to strengthen recommendations and advance the field, the study authors write.

“Biliary strictures without an associated mass are a diagnostic challenge, and there are exciting opportunities to understand how new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, can be used to improve our assessment,” co-author Anna Tavakkoli, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine in digestive and liver diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“Also, we highlighted several controversies in the drainage of perihilar strictures, including whether to use ERCP versus percutaneous drainage, whether metallic or plastic stents are better, and what the optimal stent placement should be,” she said. “Future multicenter studies are needed to address these key controversies.”

Although fully covered SEMS placement remains effective for benign biliary strictures, multiple plastic stents may be a better alternative in some cases. Such cases include those in which the stricture is close to the hilum, those in which the gallbladder is intact and in which crossing the cystic duct orifice cannot be avoided, those in which a fully covered SEMS has previously migrated or was not well tolerated, and those in which stricture has recurred after removal of a fully covered SEMS.

‘Comprehensive list’

“Overall, the authors have done a commendable job putting together a comprehensive list of recommendations that will invariably alter the practice of many therapeutic endoscopists for the diagnosis and management of biliary strictures,” Matthew Fasullo, DO, an advanced endoscopy and gastroenterology fellow at New York University Medical Center, told this news organization.

Dr. Fasullo, who wasn’t involved with the guideline, has published on advances in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment for post-transplant biliary complications.

“The fact that ... cholangioscopy-directed biopsies after an initial negative evaluation via ERCP reveal malignancy in 54% of cases underscores the need for best practice guidelines and supports advancements in diagnostics to confidently rule in or out cancer,” he said.

“The movement toward multimodality sampling at the time of initial evaluation with a combination of brushing, fluoroscopy-directed biopsies, cholangioscopy-directed biopsies, and fluorescence in situ hybridization should become universally adopted in those with an ambiguous diagnosis,” he added. “As technology continues to improve, next-generation sequencing will prove to be an invaluable adjunct to the current pathological evaluation.”

The authors received no financial support for the guideline. One author has a consultant role for Takeda Pharmaceuticals and is an advisory board member role for Advarra. The other authors and Dr. Fasullo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) issued a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of biliary strictures, or abnormal narrowing in the liver’s ductal drainage system.

The recommendations provide guidance on the care of patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, with a focus on diagnosis and drainage. Although some of the principles may apply to intrahepatic strictures, the guideline doesn’t specifically address them. The new guideline is considered separate from the 2015 ACG guideline related to primary sclerosing cholangitis.

“The appropriate diagnosis and management of biliary strictures is still a big clinical challenge and has important implications in endoscopic, surgical, and oncological decision-making,” co-author Jennifer Maranki, MD, a professor of medicine and director of endoscopy at Penn State Hershey Medical Center, said in an interview.

“We wanted to provide the best possible guidance to gastroenterologists based on the available body of literature, with key shifts in diagnosis and management based on currently available modalities and tools,” she said.

The guideline was published in the March issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

The recommendations were developed by a diverse group of authors from across the United States in recognition of the potential influence of commercial and intellectual conflicts of interest. The panel used a systematic process that involved structured literature searches by librarians and independent appraisal of the quality of evidence by dedicated methodologists, the authors write.

Overall, the team outlined 11 recommendations and 12 key concepts. A strong recommendation was made when the benefits of the test or intervention clearly outweighed the potential disadvantages. A conditional recommendation was made when some uncertainty remained about the balance of benefits and harms. Key concepts address important clinical questions that lack adequate evidence to inform recommendations. They are based on indirect evidence and expert opinion.

Epidemiology and diagnosis

The burden of biliary strictures is difficult to estimate, owing to the lack of a specific administrative code. The estimated cost of caring for biliary disease in the United States is about $16.9 billion annually, although this figure includes costs associated with gallbladder disease, choledocholithiasis, and other (nonobstructive) biliary disorders, the authors write.

Among the 57,000 new cases of pancreatic cancer each year, at least 60% will cause obstructive jaundice, resulting in about 34,000 annual cases of malignant extrahepatic biliary stricture, the team notes. In addition, about 3,000 cases of malignant perihilar stricture are expected in the United States each year. Patients may also seek care for benign strictures associated with chronic pancreatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, autoimmune disease, and post-cholecystectomy injury.

Under the first key concept, the authors note that biliary strictures in adults are more likely to be malignant than benign, except in certain well-defined scenarios. This underscores the importance of having a high index of clinical suspicion during evaluation, they add.

In general, a definitive tissue diagnosis is necessary to guide oncologic and endoscopic care for most strictures that aren’t surgically resectable at the time of presentation. For patients with extrahepatic biliary stricture due to an apparent or suspected pancreatic mass, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle sampling (aspiration or biopsy) is recommended over endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as the preferred method of evaluation for malignancy.

For patients with suspected malignant perihilar stricture, multimodality sampling is recommended over brush cytology alone at the time of the index ERCP.

Guidance on drainage

For management, the principal objective is to restore the physiologic flow of bile into the duodenum. Although there is wide variability in the difficulty and risk of drainage, depending on location and complexity, perihilar strictures are generally more challenging and are riskier to drain than extrahepatic strictures. The goals should be to alleviate symptoms, reduce serum bilirubin to a level such that chemotherapy can be safely administered, and optimize surgical outcomes.

For benign extrahepatic biliary strictures, ERCP is the preferred modality for durable treatment. Fully covered self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement is recommended over multiple plastic stents to reduce the number of procedures required for long-term treatment.

For extrahepatic strictures due to resectable pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma, the authors recommend against routine preoperative biliary drainage. However, drainage is warranted for some patients, including those with acute cholangitis, severe pruritus, very high serum bilirubin levels, those undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, and those for whom surgery is delayed.

For malignant extrahepatic strictures that are unresectable or borderline resectable, SEMS placement is recommended over plastic stents. The evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against uncovered SEMS versus fully covered SEMS.

For perihilar strictures due to suspected malignancy, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. In addition, for malignant perihilar strictures, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against plastic stents versus uncovered SEMS.

For perihilar strictures due to cholangiocarcinoma in cases in which resection or transplantation is not possible, adjuvant endobiliary ablation plus plastic stent placement is recommended over plastic stent placement alone.

Overall, for patients with a biliary stricture for which ERCP is indicated but is unsuccessful or impossible, EUS-guided biliary access and drainage is recommended over PTBD, because it is associated with fewer adverse events. However, these interventional EUS procedures should be performed by an endoscopist with substantial experience.

“The workup of biliary strictures is challenging, invasive, and costly, requiring multiple diagnostic tools with highly variable yields,” co-author Victoria Gomez, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of bariatric endoscopy at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

“Providers caring for these patients must be up to date with the most current evidence so that they can make the safest and most well-informed decisions for their patients,” she said. “These include considerations such as limiting the use of anesthesia, using tests that will result in the highest diagnostic yield, and providing effective therapies to decompress biliary obstruction.”

Future questions

Additional research is needed in several areas to strengthen recommendations and advance the field, the study authors write.

“Biliary strictures without an associated mass are a diagnostic challenge, and there are exciting opportunities to understand how new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, can be used to improve our assessment,” co-author Anna Tavakkoli, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine in digestive and liver diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“Also, we highlighted several controversies in the drainage of perihilar strictures, including whether to use ERCP versus percutaneous drainage, whether metallic or plastic stents are better, and what the optimal stent placement should be,” she said. “Future multicenter studies are needed to address these key controversies.”

Although fully covered SEMS placement remains effective for benign biliary strictures, multiple plastic stents may be a better alternative in some cases. Such cases include those in which the stricture is close to the hilum, those in which the gallbladder is intact and in which crossing the cystic duct orifice cannot be avoided, those in which a fully covered SEMS has previously migrated or was not well tolerated, and those in which stricture has recurred after removal of a fully covered SEMS.

‘Comprehensive list’

“Overall, the authors have done a commendable job putting together a comprehensive list of recommendations that will invariably alter the practice of many therapeutic endoscopists for the diagnosis and management of biliary strictures,” Matthew Fasullo, DO, an advanced endoscopy and gastroenterology fellow at New York University Medical Center, told this news organization.

Dr. Fasullo, who wasn’t involved with the guideline, has published on advances in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment for post-transplant biliary complications.

“The fact that ... cholangioscopy-directed biopsies after an initial negative evaluation via ERCP reveal malignancy in 54% of cases underscores the need for best practice guidelines and supports advancements in diagnostics to confidently rule in or out cancer,” he said.

“The movement toward multimodality sampling at the time of initial evaluation with a combination of brushing, fluoroscopy-directed biopsies, cholangioscopy-directed biopsies, and fluorescence in situ hybridization should become universally adopted in those with an ambiguous diagnosis,” he added. “As technology continues to improve, next-generation sequencing will prove to be an invaluable adjunct to the current pathological evaluation.”

The authors received no financial support for the guideline. One author has a consultant role for Takeda Pharmaceuticals and is an advisory board member role for Advarra. The other authors and Dr. Fasullo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) issued a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of biliary strictures, or abnormal narrowing in the liver’s ductal drainage system.

The recommendations provide guidance on the care of patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, with a focus on diagnosis and drainage. Although some of the principles may apply to intrahepatic strictures, the guideline doesn’t specifically address them. The new guideline is considered separate from the 2015 ACG guideline related to primary sclerosing cholangitis.

“The appropriate diagnosis and management of biliary strictures is still a big clinical challenge and has important implications in endoscopic, surgical, and oncological decision-making,” co-author Jennifer Maranki, MD, a professor of medicine and director of endoscopy at Penn State Hershey Medical Center, said in an interview.

“We wanted to provide the best possible guidance to gastroenterologists based on the available body of literature, with key shifts in diagnosis and management based on currently available modalities and tools,” she said.

The guideline was published in the March issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

The recommendations were developed by a diverse group of authors from across the United States in recognition of the potential influence of commercial and intellectual conflicts of interest. The panel used a systematic process that involved structured literature searches by librarians and independent appraisal of the quality of evidence by dedicated methodologists, the authors write.

Overall, the team outlined 11 recommendations and 12 key concepts. A strong recommendation was made when the benefits of the test or intervention clearly outweighed the potential disadvantages. A conditional recommendation was made when some uncertainty remained about the balance of benefits and harms. Key concepts address important clinical questions that lack adequate evidence to inform recommendations. They are based on indirect evidence and expert opinion.

Epidemiology and diagnosis

The burden of biliary strictures is difficult to estimate, owing to the lack of a specific administrative code. The estimated cost of caring for biliary disease in the United States is about $16.9 billion annually, although this figure includes costs associated with gallbladder disease, choledocholithiasis, and other (nonobstructive) biliary disorders, the authors write.

Among the 57,000 new cases of pancreatic cancer each year, at least 60% will cause obstructive jaundice, resulting in about 34,000 annual cases of malignant extrahepatic biliary stricture, the team notes. In addition, about 3,000 cases of malignant perihilar stricture are expected in the United States each year. Patients may also seek care for benign strictures associated with chronic pancreatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, autoimmune disease, and post-cholecystectomy injury.

Under the first key concept, the authors note that biliary strictures in adults are more likely to be malignant than benign, except in certain well-defined scenarios. This underscores the importance of having a high index of clinical suspicion during evaluation, they add.

In general, a definitive tissue diagnosis is necessary to guide oncologic and endoscopic care for most strictures that aren’t surgically resectable at the time of presentation. For patients with extrahepatic biliary stricture due to an apparent or suspected pancreatic mass, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle sampling (aspiration or biopsy) is recommended over endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as the preferred method of evaluation for malignancy.

For patients with suspected malignant perihilar stricture, multimodality sampling is recommended over brush cytology alone at the time of the index ERCP.

Guidance on drainage

For management, the principal objective is to restore the physiologic flow of bile into the duodenum. Although there is wide variability in the difficulty and risk of drainage, depending on location and complexity, perihilar strictures are generally more challenging and are riskier to drain than extrahepatic strictures. The goals should be to alleviate symptoms, reduce serum bilirubin to a level such that chemotherapy can be safely administered, and optimize surgical outcomes.

For benign extrahepatic biliary strictures, ERCP is the preferred modality for durable treatment. Fully covered self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement is recommended over multiple plastic stents to reduce the number of procedures required for long-term treatment.

For extrahepatic strictures due to resectable pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma, the authors recommend against routine preoperative biliary drainage. However, drainage is warranted for some patients, including those with acute cholangitis, severe pruritus, very high serum bilirubin levels, those undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, and those for whom surgery is delayed.

For malignant extrahepatic strictures that are unresectable or borderline resectable, SEMS placement is recommended over plastic stents. The evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against uncovered SEMS versus fully covered SEMS.

For perihilar strictures due to suspected malignancy, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. In addition, for malignant perihilar strictures, the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against plastic stents versus uncovered SEMS.

For perihilar strictures due to cholangiocarcinoma in cases in which resection or transplantation is not possible, adjuvant endobiliary ablation plus plastic stent placement is recommended over plastic stent placement alone.

Overall, for patients with a biliary stricture for which ERCP is indicated but is unsuccessful or impossible, EUS-guided biliary access and drainage is recommended over PTBD, because it is associated with fewer adverse events. However, these interventional EUS procedures should be performed by an endoscopist with substantial experience.

“The workup of biliary strictures is challenging, invasive, and costly, requiring multiple diagnostic tools with highly variable yields,” co-author Victoria Gomez, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of bariatric endoscopy at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

“Providers caring for these patients must be up to date with the most current evidence so that they can make the safest and most well-informed decisions for their patients,” she said. “These include considerations such as limiting the use of anesthesia, using tests that will result in the highest diagnostic yield, and providing effective therapies to decompress biliary obstruction.”

Future questions

Additional research is needed in several areas to strengthen recommendations and advance the field, the study authors write.

“Biliary strictures without an associated mass are a diagnostic challenge, and there are exciting opportunities to understand how new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, can be used to improve our assessment,” co-author Anna Tavakkoli, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine in digestive and liver diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“Also, we highlighted several controversies in the drainage of perihilar strictures, including whether to use ERCP versus percutaneous drainage, whether metallic or plastic stents are better, and what the optimal stent placement should be,” she said. “Future multicenter studies are needed to address these key controversies.”

Although fully covered SEMS placement remains effective for benign biliary strictures, multiple plastic stents may be a better alternative in some cases. Such cases include those in which the stricture is close to the hilum, those in which the gallbladder is intact and in which crossing the cystic duct orifice cannot be avoided, those in which a fully covered SEMS has previously migrated or was not well tolerated, and those in which stricture has recurred after removal of a fully covered SEMS.

‘Comprehensive list’

“Overall, the authors have done a commendable job putting together a comprehensive list of recommendations that will invariably alter the practice of many therapeutic endoscopists for the diagnosis and management of biliary strictures,” Matthew Fasullo, DO, an advanced endoscopy and gastroenterology fellow at New York University Medical Center, told this news organization.

Dr. Fasullo, who wasn’t involved with the guideline, has published on advances in pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment for post-transplant biliary complications.

“The fact that ... cholangioscopy-directed biopsies after an initial negative evaluation via ERCP reveal malignancy in 54% of cases underscores the need for best practice guidelines and supports advancements in diagnostics to confidently rule in or out cancer,” he said.

“The movement toward multimodality sampling at the time of initial evaluation with a combination of brushing, fluoroscopy-directed biopsies, cholangioscopy-directed biopsies, and fluorescence in situ hybridization should become universally adopted in those with an ambiguous diagnosis,” he added. “As technology continues to improve, next-generation sequencing will prove to be an invaluable adjunct to the current pathological evaluation.”

The authors received no financial support for the guideline. One author has a consultant role for Takeda Pharmaceuticals and is an advisory board member role for Advarra. The other authors and Dr. Fasullo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) commonly develop skin lesions linked to their condition, but until now few researchers looked at how common they are.

Almost one-third of patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease develop skin lesions – such as psoriasis, eczema, and erythema nodosum – related to their condition, according to the prospective, single-center study.

“Skin lesions in IBD patients are much more prevalent than it is generally accepted. The lesions may be related to the pathogenesis of IBD, but it is very important to know that the modern biological therapies may also cause skin lesions,” said senior study author Laimas Jonaitis, MD, PhD, professor in the department of gastroenterology at Lithuanian University of Health Sciences in Kaunas.

“If the gastroenterologist is experienced and has enough competence, he or she may establish the diagnosis, but in all other cases it is wise and advisable to refer the patient to the dermatologist,” Dr. Jonaitis said. A referral should include the history and full treatment for IBD.

The results were presented as a poster at the annual congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation, held in Copenhagen and virtually.

Dr. Jonaitis and colleagues conducted a literature analysis to determine the prevalence of extra-abdominal manifestations of IBD. The lack of published data prompted them to survey 152 consecutive patients with IBD receiving outpatient treatment at their institution. The patients completed questionnaires from January to October 2022 about any cutaneous lesions.

The mean age of patients was 42 years, and 58% were men. A majority, 72%, had ulcerative colitis, and 28% had Crohn’s disease.

Prevalence of skin lesions

A total of 43% of participants reported skin lesions, but only 30% of patients had lesions considered related to IBD or IBD therapy due to their emergence after the patient’s IBD diagnosis.

By IBD diagnosis, 29% of patients with ulcerative colitis and 33% of patients with Crohn’s disease had lesions related to their condition. The difference in skin lesion prevalence between the two groups was not significant (P > .05), the researchers noted.

The team further investigated the types of skin lesions deemed to be associated with IBD or IBD therapy.

Overall, they found psoriasis in nine patients, eczema in nine, erythema nodosum in six, pyoderma gangrenosum in five, allergic rash in four, and vitiligo in two. They found acne, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, and hemorrhagic vasculitis in one patient each.

Specifically, among patients with ulcerative colitis, skin lesions were reported in 8 of 27 with left-sided colitis, 2 of 15 with ulcerative colitis proctitis, and 22 of 67 patients with pancolitis. The difference between the groups of proctitis and pancolitis was significant (P = .03).

Within the group with Crohn’s disease, skin lesions were reported in 3 of 15 patients with ileitis, 4 of 10 with colitis, and 7 of 17 with ileocolitis. The difference among these groups was not significant (P > .05).

The most common skin lesions observed in Crohn’s disease were erythema nodosum and eczema, and in ulcerative colitis, psoriasis and eczema, the researchers reported.

They also noted that the cutaneous lesions were significantly more prevalent in extensive ulcerative colitis compared with distal disease.

Skin lesions add to patient misery

“Skin lesions are considered a burden to patients with IBD and add to their suffering,” said Sara Mesilhy, MBBS, a gastroenterologist with the Royal College of Physicians in the United Kingdom, who was not affiliated with the research.

The severity and location of the disease appears to play a role because researchers found extensive ulcerative colitis may carry a higher risk for the development of skin lesions, Dr. Mesilhy noted.

The first step when facing skin lesions is to control the disease activity via the best treatment option, Dr. Mesilhy suggested.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Jonaitis and Dr. Mesilhy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) commonly develop skin lesions linked to their condition, but until now few researchers looked at how common they are.

Almost one-third of patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease develop skin lesions – such as psoriasis, eczema, and erythema nodosum – related to their condition, according to the prospective, single-center study.

“Skin lesions in IBD patients are much more prevalent than it is generally accepted. The lesions may be related to the pathogenesis of IBD, but it is very important to know that the modern biological therapies may also cause skin lesions,” said senior study author Laimas Jonaitis, MD, PhD, professor in the department of gastroenterology at Lithuanian University of Health Sciences in Kaunas.

“If the gastroenterologist is experienced and has enough competence, he or she may establish the diagnosis, but in all other cases it is wise and advisable to refer the patient to the dermatologist,” Dr. Jonaitis said. A referral should include the history and full treatment for IBD.

The results were presented as a poster at the annual congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation, held in Copenhagen and virtually.

Dr. Jonaitis and colleagues conducted a literature analysis to determine the prevalence of extra-abdominal manifestations of IBD. The lack of published data prompted them to survey 152 consecutive patients with IBD receiving outpatient treatment at their institution. The patients completed questionnaires from January to October 2022 about any cutaneous lesions.

The mean age of patients was 42 years, and 58% were men. A majority, 72%, had ulcerative colitis, and 28% had Crohn’s disease.

Prevalence of skin lesions

A total of 43% of participants reported skin lesions, but only 30% of patients had lesions considered related to IBD or IBD therapy due to their emergence after the patient’s IBD diagnosis.

By IBD diagnosis, 29% of patients with ulcerative colitis and 33% of patients with Crohn’s disease had lesions related to their condition. The difference in skin lesion prevalence between the two groups was not significant (P > .05), the researchers noted.

The team further investigated the types of skin lesions deemed to be associated with IBD or IBD therapy.

Overall, they found psoriasis in nine patients, eczema in nine, erythema nodosum in six, pyoderma gangrenosum in five, allergic rash in four, and vitiligo in two. They found acne, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, and hemorrhagic vasculitis in one patient each.

Specifically, among patients with ulcerative colitis, skin lesions were reported in 8 of 27 with left-sided colitis, 2 of 15 with ulcerative colitis proctitis, and 22 of 67 patients with pancolitis. The difference between the groups of proctitis and pancolitis was significant (P = .03).

Within the group with Crohn’s disease, skin lesions were reported in 3 of 15 patients with ileitis, 4 of 10 with colitis, and 7 of 17 with ileocolitis. The difference among these groups was not significant (P > .05).

The most common skin lesions observed in Crohn’s disease were erythema nodosum and eczema, and in ulcerative colitis, psoriasis and eczema, the researchers reported.

They also noted that the cutaneous lesions were significantly more prevalent in extensive ulcerative colitis compared with distal disease.

Skin lesions add to patient misery

“Skin lesions are considered a burden to patients with IBD and add to their suffering,” said Sara Mesilhy, MBBS, a gastroenterologist with the Royal College of Physicians in the United Kingdom, who was not affiliated with the research.

The severity and location of the disease appears to play a role because researchers found extensive ulcerative colitis may carry a higher risk for the development of skin lesions, Dr. Mesilhy noted.

The first step when facing skin lesions is to control the disease activity via the best treatment option, Dr. Mesilhy suggested.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Jonaitis and Dr. Mesilhy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) commonly develop skin lesions linked to their condition, but until now few researchers looked at how common they are.

Almost one-third of patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease develop skin lesions – such as psoriasis, eczema, and erythema nodosum – related to their condition, according to the prospective, single-center study.

“Skin lesions in IBD patients are much more prevalent than it is generally accepted. The lesions may be related to the pathogenesis of IBD, but it is very important to know that the modern biological therapies may also cause skin lesions,” said senior study author Laimas Jonaitis, MD, PhD, professor in the department of gastroenterology at Lithuanian University of Health Sciences in Kaunas.

“If the gastroenterologist is experienced and has enough competence, he or she may establish the diagnosis, but in all other cases it is wise and advisable to refer the patient to the dermatologist,” Dr. Jonaitis said. A referral should include the history and full treatment for IBD.

The results were presented as a poster at the annual congress of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation, held in Copenhagen and virtually.

Dr. Jonaitis and colleagues conducted a literature analysis to determine the prevalence of extra-abdominal manifestations of IBD. The lack of published data prompted them to survey 152 consecutive patients with IBD receiving outpatient treatment at their institution. The patients completed questionnaires from January to October 2022 about any cutaneous lesions.

The mean age of patients was 42 years, and 58% were men. A majority, 72%, had ulcerative colitis, and 28% had Crohn’s disease.

Prevalence of skin lesions

A total of 43% of participants reported skin lesions, but only 30% of patients had lesions considered related to IBD or IBD therapy due to their emergence after the patient’s IBD diagnosis.

By IBD diagnosis, 29% of patients with ulcerative colitis and 33% of patients with Crohn’s disease had lesions related to their condition. The difference in skin lesion prevalence between the two groups was not significant (P > .05), the researchers noted.

The team further investigated the types of skin lesions deemed to be associated with IBD or IBD therapy.

Overall, they found psoriasis in nine patients, eczema in nine, erythema nodosum in six, pyoderma gangrenosum in five, allergic rash in four, and vitiligo in two. They found acne, epidermolysis bullosa acquisita, and hemorrhagic vasculitis in one patient each.

Specifically, among patients with ulcerative colitis, skin lesions were reported in 8 of 27 with left-sided colitis, 2 of 15 with ulcerative colitis proctitis, and 22 of 67 patients with pancolitis. The difference between the groups of proctitis and pancolitis was significant (P = .03).

Within the group with Crohn’s disease, skin lesions were reported in 3 of 15 patients with ileitis, 4 of 10 with colitis, and 7 of 17 with ileocolitis. The difference among these groups was not significant (P > .05).

The most common skin lesions observed in Crohn’s disease were erythema nodosum and eczema, and in ulcerative colitis, psoriasis and eczema, the researchers reported.

They also noted that the cutaneous lesions were significantly more prevalent in extensive ulcerative colitis compared with distal disease.

Skin lesions add to patient misery

“Skin lesions are considered a burden to patients with IBD and add to their suffering,” said Sara Mesilhy, MBBS, a gastroenterologist with the Royal College of Physicians in the United Kingdom, who was not affiliated with the research.

The severity and location of the disease appears to play a role because researchers found extensive ulcerative colitis may carry a higher risk for the development of skin lesions, Dr. Mesilhy noted.

The first step when facing skin lesions is to control the disease activity via the best treatment option, Dr. Mesilhy suggested.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Jonaitis and Dr. Mesilhy have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Intravenous (IV) ketamine is effective for geriatric patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), and the response rate was similar to that observed in younger adult patients, two new studies suggest.

“These were patients with depression who had not responded even to intensive therapies or procedures, and we found that after a 6-week ketamine infusion regimen, there was no difference in the response to the treatment between the treatment-resistant geriatric and nongeriatric patients,” study investigator Jonathan Kim, of Emory University, Atlanta, the first author of one of two studies presented as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, said in an interview.

The findings are important because research on the effects of IV ketamine have not been well documented in geriatric patients, who have high rates of depression and TRD.

“There is a lack of data on IV ketamine in older adults with treatment-resistant depression, and there are some safety and tolerability concerns which may lead some older adults and their clinicians to be reluctant to pursue IV ketamine treatment,” study coinvestigator Hanadi Ajam Oughli, MD, a health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Nasal vs. IV administration

Ketamine has traditionally been used as an anesthetic that blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors, Dr. Oughli and colleagues note.

In the treatment of TRD, an infusion of 0.5 mg/kg is typically administered over 40 minutes, producing a rapid antidepressant response. Recent research shows the drug reduces suicidality and improves mood and quality of life.

A more recent intranasal formulation of ketamine, esketamine, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for TRD in 2019, and some experts questioned its path to approval. In addition, the drug’s high cost and poor bioavailability in comparison with IV ketamine remains an issue, said Dr. Oughli.

In the previous TRANSFORM-3 study, a placebo-controlled randomized trial, there was no difference between esketamine, used in conjunction with an antidepressant, and placebo for geriatric patients.

To better understand the effects of IV ketamine in this patient population, Mr. Kim’s team conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 older patients with TRD who received IV ketamine treatment between October 2016 and August 2022.

Patients were divided into two groups – those older than 60 years (n = 36; 44% women; mean age, 68.86) and those younger than 60 (n = 55; 49% women; mean age, 41.05). Participants in each age group received six ketamine infusions over 6 weeks.

Results showed that with regard to depression severity, as assessed using Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) scores, 27.8% of patients in the geriatric group had a 50% or greater improvement, vs. 25.4% of those younger than 60.

The average BDI-II scores represented a significant improvement for both groups (P < .01), and the difference in scores between the groups was not statistically significant (P = .973).

“It is important to note that our study was conducted in a real-world clinical setting with a treatment-resistant population; other clinical studies may not have such sick patients in their trials. Additional studies are therefore warranted to establish further treatment guidelines in this area,” Mr. Kim said.

Open-label trial results

In the second study, Dr. Oughli and colleagues evaluated additional key outcomes in geriatric patients treated with IV ketamine as part of a larger open-label late-life trial on TRD.

The secondary analysis of the trial focused on 23 patients (mean age, 71.5 years) who had been initially treated with twice-a-week IV ketamine for 4 weeks.

After the first 4 weeks, patients who had experienced a partial response received an additional 4 weeks of once-weekly IV ketamine.

Overall, 48% of participants achieved a response, and 24% achieved remission of depressive symptoms following the first 4 weeks of twice-weekly treatment. This effect was maintained during the continuation phase of the study.

These findings are consistent with research in younger adults and demonstrate that twice-weekly infusions yield a more sustained antidepressant response than once-weekly infusions, the authors note.

The analysis also showed important increases in psychological well-being scores on the Scale for Suicidal Ideation, improved sleep quality as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and overall psychological well-being as shown on the NIH Toolbox Positive Affect on happiness/contentment and the NIH Toolbox General Life Satisfaction scales.

In a previous analysis, published in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, the researchers also evaluated cognitive function using the NIH Cognitive Battery, which showed that geriatric patients with TRD had significant improvements in a composite of executive functioning and fluid cognition during the 4-week acute treatment period of twice-weekly IV ketamine infusions (Cohen’s d = 0.61) and that those improvements were sustained in the continuation phase of once-weekly infusions for 4 more weeks.

Those results are consistent with ketamine’s known potential procognitive effects in TRD, due to a putative antidepressant mechanism that rescues prefrontal circuit dysfunction through synaptogenesis, the researchers note.

Dr. Oughli said that in both analyses, patients tolerated ketamine well, and there were no serious adverse events.

“Adverse events, including hypertension, dissociated effects, and cravings, were rare and did not prevent the continued use of IV ketamine by older adults. We were able to use clonidine to help manage blood pressure changes seen during the infusions,” she noted.

“These findings are very promising and will need to be confirmed and extended in a larger randomized controlled trial.”

Unsettling for some older patients

George T. Grossberg, MD, director, geriatric psychiatry, Saint Louis University, noted that in his experience, IV ketamine treatment can be unsettling for some older geriatric patients, such as those in their 80s.

“Particularly with some of my older patients, the kind of psychotomimetic properties of ketamine and the out-of-body experiences [with the initial treatment] can be frightening,” he said. “They may be willing to try, but I’ve had more than one patient quit after one treatment because they became so frightened.”

However, the dire nature of TRD and failure to respond to multiple medications and combinations and other strategies may prompt patients to try ketamine as a measure with at least some potential, he noted.

“But there is a high bar for acceptance, especially on the part of older adults and their families, more than for younger people,” he said.

The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Intravenous (IV) ketamine is effective for geriatric patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), and the response rate was similar to that observed in younger adult patients, two new studies suggest.

“These were patients with depression who had not responded even to intensive therapies or procedures, and we found that after a 6-week ketamine infusion regimen, there was no difference in the response to the treatment between the treatment-resistant geriatric and nongeriatric patients,” study investigator Jonathan Kim, of Emory University, Atlanta, the first author of one of two studies presented as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, said in an interview.

The findings are important because research on the effects of IV ketamine have not been well documented in geriatric patients, who have high rates of depression and TRD.

“There is a lack of data on IV ketamine in older adults with treatment-resistant depression, and there are some safety and tolerability concerns which may lead some older adults and their clinicians to be reluctant to pursue IV ketamine treatment,” study coinvestigator Hanadi Ajam Oughli, MD, a health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Nasal vs. IV administration

Ketamine has traditionally been used as an anesthetic that blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors, Dr. Oughli and colleagues note.

In the treatment of TRD, an infusion of 0.5 mg/kg is typically administered over 40 minutes, producing a rapid antidepressant response. Recent research shows the drug reduces suicidality and improves mood and quality of life.

A more recent intranasal formulation of ketamine, esketamine, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for TRD in 2019, and some experts questioned its path to approval. In addition, the drug’s high cost and poor bioavailability in comparison with IV ketamine remains an issue, said Dr. Oughli.

In the previous TRANSFORM-3 study, a placebo-controlled randomized trial, there was no difference between esketamine, used in conjunction with an antidepressant, and placebo for geriatric patients.

To better understand the effects of IV ketamine in this patient population, Mr. Kim’s team conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 older patients with TRD who received IV ketamine treatment between October 2016 and August 2022.

Patients were divided into two groups – those older than 60 years (n = 36; 44% women; mean age, 68.86) and those younger than 60 (n = 55; 49% women; mean age, 41.05). Participants in each age group received six ketamine infusions over 6 weeks.

Results showed that with regard to depression severity, as assessed using Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) scores, 27.8% of patients in the geriatric group had a 50% or greater improvement, vs. 25.4% of those younger than 60.

The average BDI-II scores represented a significant improvement for both groups (P < .01), and the difference in scores between the groups was not statistically significant (P = .973).

“It is important to note that our study was conducted in a real-world clinical setting with a treatment-resistant population; other clinical studies may not have such sick patients in their trials. Additional studies are therefore warranted to establish further treatment guidelines in this area,” Mr. Kim said.

Open-label trial results

In the second study, Dr. Oughli and colleagues evaluated additional key outcomes in geriatric patients treated with IV ketamine as part of a larger open-label late-life trial on TRD.

The secondary analysis of the trial focused on 23 patients (mean age, 71.5 years) who had been initially treated with twice-a-week IV ketamine for 4 weeks.

After the first 4 weeks, patients who had experienced a partial response received an additional 4 weeks of once-weekly IV ketamine.

Overall, 48% of participants achieved a response, and 24% achieved remission of depressive symptoms following the first 4 weeks of twice-weekly treatment. This effect was maintained during the continuation phase of the study.

These findings are consistent with research in younger adults and demonstrate that twice-weekly infusions yield a more sustained antidepressant response than once-weekly infusions, the authors note.

The analysis also showed important increases in psychological well-being scores on the Scale for Suicidal Ideation, improved sleep quality as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and overall psychological well-being as shown on the NIH Toolbox Positive Affect on happiness/contentment and the NIH Toolbox General Life Satisfaction scales.

In a previous analysis, published in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, the researchers also evaluated cognitive function using the NIH Cognitive Battery, which showed that geriatric patients with TRD had significant improvements in a composite of executive functioning and fluid cognition during the 4-week acute treatment period of twice-weekly IV ketamine infusions (Cohen’s d = 0.61) and that those improvements were sustained in the continuation phase of once-weekly infusions for 4 more weeks.

Those results are consistent with ketamine’s known potential procognitive effects in TRD, due to a putative antidepressant mechanism that rescues prefrontal circuit dysfunction through synaptogenesis, the researchers note.

Dr. Oughli said that in both analyses, patients tolerated ketamine well, and there were no serious adverse events.

“Adverse events, including hypertension, dissociated effects, and cravings, were rare and did not prevent the continued use of IV ketamine by older adults. We were able to use clonidine to help manage blood pressure changes seen during the infusions,” she noted.

“These findings are very promising and will need to be confirmed and extended in a larger randomized controlled trial.”

Unsettling for some older patients

George T. Grossberg, MD, director, geriatric psychiatry, Saint Louis University, noted that in his experience, IV ketamine treatment can be unsettling for some older geriatric patients, such as those in their 80s.

“Particularly with some of my older patients, the kind of psychotomimetic properties of ketamine and the out-of-body experiences [with the initial treatment] can be frightening,” he said. “They may be willing to try, but I’ve had more than one patient quit after one treatment because they became so frightened.”

However, the dire nature of TRD and failure to respond to multiple medications and combinations and other strategies may prompt patients to try ketamine as a measure with at least some potential, he noted.

“But there is a high bar for acceptance, especially on the part of older adults and their families, more than for younger people,” he said.

The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Intravenous (IV) ketamine is effective for geriatric patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), and the response rate was similar to that observed in younger adult patients, two new studies suggest.

“These were patients with depression who had not responded even to intensive therapies or procedures, and we found that after a 6-week ketamine infusion regimen, there was no difference in the response to the treatment between the treatment-resistant geriatric and nongeriatric patients,” study investigator Jonathan Kim, of Emory University, Atlanta, the first author of one of two studies presented as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, said in an interview.

The findings are important because research on the effects of IV ketamine have not been well documented in geriatric patients, who have high rates of depression and TRD.

“There is a lack of data on IV ketamine in older adults with treatment-resistant depression, and there are some safety and tolerability concerns which may lead some older adults and their clinicians to be reluctant to pursue IV ketamine treatment,” study coinvestigator Hanadi Ajam Oughli, MD, a health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Nasal vs. IV administration

Ketamine has traditionally been used as an anesthetic that blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors, Dr. Oughli and colleagues note.

In the treatment of TRD, an infusion of 0.5 mg/kg is typically administered over 40 minutes, producing a rapid antidepressant response. Recent research shows the drug reduces suicidality and improves mood and quality of life.

A more recent intranasal formulation of ketamine, esketamine, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for TRD in 2019, and some experts questioned its path to approval. In addition, the drug’s high cost and poor bioavailability in comparison with IV ketamine remains an issue, said Dr. Oughli.

In the previous TRANSFORM-3 study, a placebo-controlled randomized trial, there was no difference between esketamine, used in conjunction with an antidepressant, and placebo for geriatric patients.

To better understand the effects of IV ketamine in this patient population, Mr. Kim’s team conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 older patients with TRD who received IV ketamine treatment between October 2016 and August 2022.

Patients were divided into two groups – those older than 60 years (n = 36; 44% women; mean age, 68.86) and those younger than 60 (n = 55; 49% women; mean age, 41.05). Participants in each age group received six ketamine infusions over 6 weeks.

Results showed that with regard to depression severity, as assessed using Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) scores, 27.8% of patients in the geriatric group had a 50% or greater improvement, vs. 25.4% of those younger than 60.

The average BDI-II scores represented a significant improvement for both groups (P < .01), and the difference in scores between the groups was not statistically significant (P = .973).

“It is important to note that our study was conducted in a real-world clinical setting with a treatment-resistant population; other clinical studies may not have such sick patients in their trials. Additional studies are therefore warranted to establish further treatment guidelines in this area,” Mr. Kim said.

Open-label trial results

In the second study, Dr. Oughli and colleagues evaluated additional key outcomes in geriatric patients treated with IV ketamine as part of a larger open-label late-life trial on TRD.

The secondary analysis of the trial focused on 23 patients (mean age, 71.5 years) who had been initially treated with twice-a-week IV ketamine for 4 weeks.

After the first 4 weeks, patients who had experienced a partial response received an additional 4 weeks of once-weekly IV ketamine.

Overall, 48% of participants achieved a response, and 24% achieved remission of depressive symptoms following the first 4 weeks of twice-weekly treatment. This effect was maintained during the continuation phase of the study.

These findings are consistent with research in younger adults and demonstrate that twice-weekly infusions yield a more sustained antidepressant response than once-weekly infusions, the authors note.

The analysis also showed important increases in psychological well-being scores on the Scale for Suicidal Ideation, improved sleep quality as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and overall psychological well-being as shown on the NIH Toolbox Positive Affect on happiness/contentment and the NIH Toolbox General Life Satisfaction scales.

In a previous analysis, published in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, the researchers also evaluated cognitive function using the NIH Cognitive Battery, which showed that geriatric patients with TRD had significant improvements in a composite of executive functioning and fluid cognition during the 4-week acute treatment period of twice-weekly IV ketamine infusions (Cohen’s d = 0.61) and that those improvements were sustained in the continuation phase of once-weekly infusions for 4 more weeks.

Those results are consistent with ketamine’s known potential procognitive effects in TRD, due to a putative antidepressant mechanism that rescues prefrontal circuit dysfunction through synaptogenesis, the researchers note.

Dr. Oughli said that in both analyses, patients tolerated ketamine well, and there were no serious adverse events.

“Adverse events, including hypertension, dissociated effects, and cravings, were rare and did not prevent the continued use of IV ketamine by older adults. We were able to use clonidine to help manage blood pressure changes seen during the infusions,” she noted.

“These findings are very promising and will need to be confirmed and extended in a larger randomized controlled trial.”

Unsettling for some older patients

George T. Grossberg, MD, director, geriatric psychiatry, Saint Louis University, noted that in his experience, IV ketamine treatment can be unsettling for some older geriatric patients, such as those in their 80s.

“Particularly with some of my older patients, the kind of psychotomimetic properties of ketamine and the out-of-body experiences [with the initial treatment] can be frightening,” he said. “They may be willing to try, but I’ve had more than one patient quit after one treatment because they became so frightened.”

However, the dire nature of TRD and failure to respond to multiple medications and combinations and other strategies may prompt patients to try ketamine as a measure with at least some potential, he noted.

“But there is a high bar for acceptance, especially on the part of older adults and their families, more than for younger people,” he said.

The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have a 36% overall higher risk of developing gastrointestinal problems in the year after infection than people who have not had the illness, a large new study indicates.

The researchers estimate that, so far, SARS-CoV-2 infections have contributed to more than 6 million new cases of GI disorders in the United States and 42 million new cases worldwide.

The diagnoses more common among patients who’ve had COVID ranged from stomach upset to acute pancreatitis, say the researchers, led by Evan Xu, a data analyst at the Clinical Epidemiology Center, Research and Development Service, VA St. Louis Health Care System.

Signs and symptoms of GI problems, such as constipation and diarrhea, also were more common among patients who had had the virus, the study found.

“Altogether, our results show that people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at increased risk of gastrointestinal disorders in the post-acute phase of COVID-19,” the researchers write. “Post-COVID care should involve attention to gastrointestinal health and disease.”

The results were published online in Nature Communications.
 

Disease risks jump

The researchers used data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs national health care databases to identify 154,068 people with confirmed COVID-19 from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 15, 2021. They used statistical modeling to compare those patients with 5.6 million patients with similar characteristics who had not been infected during the same period and an historical control group of 5.9 million patients from March 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2019, before the virus began to spread across the globe.

The study included hospitalized and nonhospitalized COVID patients. The majority of the study population was male, but the study included almost 1.2 million female patients.

Compared with control persons, post-COVID patients’ increased risk of a GI diagnosis and the excess disease burden at 1 year, respectively, were as follows.

• 102% for cholangitis; 0.22 per 1,000 persons
• 62% for peptic ulcer disease; 1.57 per 1,000 persons
• 54% for irritable bowel syndrome; 0.44 per 1,000 persons
• 47% for acute gastritis; 0.47 per 1,000 persons
• 46% for acute pancreatitis; 0.6 per 1,000 persons
• 36% for functional dyspepsia; 0.63 per 1,000 persons
• 35% for gastroesophageal reflux disease; 15.5 per 1,000 persons

Patients who’d had the virus were also at higher risk for GI symptoms than their COVID-free peers. Their risk was 60% higher for constipation, 58% for diarrhea, 52% for vomiting, 46% for bloating, and 44% for abdominal pain, the investigators found.

The risk of developing GI symptoms increased with COVID-19 severity and was highest for those who received intensive care because of the virus, the researchers note.

Subgroup analyses found that the risks of composite gastrointestinal outcome were evident in all subgroups based on age, race, sex, obesity, smoking, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension, the authors write.
 

Disease burden rises

The increased numbers of GI patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection are altering the burden on the health care system, senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.

The shift may be pronounced in primary care, where GI concerns should be seen as a trigger for questions about prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, Dr. Al-Aly said.

Patients may encounter longer wait times at GI clinics or may give up on trying to schedule appointments if waits become too long, he said. They may also present to emergency departments if they can’t get an outpatient appointment, he added.

Simon C. Mathews, MD, assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization that he’s seeing increased wait times since COVID emerged.

“We know that the pandemic impacted patients’ ability and willingness to seek GI care. There continues to be a long backlog for patients who are only now getting reconnected to care. As a result, our clinics are busier than ever, and our wait times for appointments are unfortunately longer than we would like,” said Dr. Mathews, who was not involved in the research.

Abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, and constipation continue to be among the most common symptoms Dr. Mathews sees in clinic, he said.

Kyle Staller, MD, a Massachusetts General Brigham gastroenterologist, said in an interview that it’s important to distinguish symptoms from eventual diagnoses, which lag behind.

“Are patients attributing their symptoms to COVID, or is COVID itself creating a background of inflammation or changes in the nerves that are making these symptoms more common? My suspicion is a little bit of both,” said Dr. Staller, who is director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Mass General, Boston.

Although his clinic is seeing patients with the GI signs and symptoms listed in the article, “we’re not seeing as much of some of the diagnoses, like peptic ulcer disease and pancreatitis,” he said. “I wonder if those may be related to some of the consequences of being critically ill in general, rather than COVID specifically. Those diagnoses I would be more skeptical about.”
 

Duration of symptoms unclear

It’s hard to tell patients how long their GI symptoms might last after COVID, given the relatively short time researchers have had to study the virus, said Dr. Staller, who was not involved in the research.

The symptoms he’s seeing in patients after COVID mimic those of postinfectious IBS, which literature says could last for months or years, Dr. Staller said. “But they should improve over time,” he added.

Senior author Dr. Al-Aly agreed that the duration of post-COVID GI symptoms is unclear.

“What I can tell you is that even people who got SARS-CoV-2 infection from March 2020 are still coming back for GI problems,” he said.

Unlike other symptoms of long COVID, such as brain fog, gastroenterologists fortunately know how to treat the GI disorders that evolve from SARS-CoV-2 infection, said Dr. Al-Aly, who has studied the long-term effects of the virus on the brain, kidneys, heart, and other organs.

All health care providers “need to be thinking about COVID as a risk factor for all these diseases” and should ask patients about SARS-CoV-2 infection when they take their histories, he said.

The authors, Dr. Staller, and Dr. Mathews report no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have a 36% overall higher risk of developing gastrointestinal problems in the year after infection than people who have not had the illness, a large new study indicates.

The researchers estimate that, so far, SARS-CoV-2 infections have contributed to more than 6 million new cases of GI disorders in the United States and 42 million new cases worldwide.

The diagnoses more common among patients who’ve had COVID ranged from stomach upset to acute pancreatitis, say the researchers, led by Evan Xu, a data analyst at the Clinical Epidemiology Center, Research and Development Service, VA St. Louis Health Care System.

Signs and symptoms of GI problems, such as constipation and diarrhea, also were more common among patients who had had the virus, the study found.

“Altogether, our results show that people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at increased risk of gastrointestinal disorders in the post-acute phase of COVID-19,” the researchers write. “Post-COVID care should involve attention to gastrointestinal health and disease.”

The results were published online in Nature Communications.
 

Disease risks jump

The researchers used data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs national health care databases to identify 154,068 people with confirmed COVID-19 from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 15, 2021. They used statistical modeling to compare those patients with 5.6 million patients with similar characteristics who had not been infected during the same period and an historical control group of 5.9 million patients from March 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2019, before the virus began to spread across the globe.

The study included hospitalized and nonhospitalized COVID patients. The majority of the study population was male, but the study included almost 1.2 million female patients.

Compared with control persons, post-COVID patients’ increased risk of a GI diagnosis and the excess disease burden at 1 year, respectively, were as follows.

• 102% for cholangitis; 0.22 per 1,000 persons
• 62% for peptic ulcer disease; 1.57 per 1,000 persons
• 54% for irritable bowel syndrome; 0.44 per 1,000 persons
• 47% for acute gastritis; 0.47 per 1,000 persons
• 46% for acute pancreatitis; 0.6 per 1,000 persons
• 36% for functional dyspepsia; 0.63 per 1,000 persons
• 35% for gastroesophageal reflux disease; 15.5 per 1,000 persons

Patients who’d had the virus were also at higher risk for GI symptoms than their COVID-free peers. Their risk was 60% higher for constipation, 58% for diarrhea, 52% for vomiting, 46% for bloating, and 44% for abdominal pain, the investigators found.

The risk of developing GI symptoms increased with COVID-19 severity and was highest for those who received intensive care because of the virus, the researchers note.

Subgroup analyses found that the risks of composite gastrointestinal outcome were evident in all subgroups based on age, race, sex, obesity, smoking, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension, the authors write.
 

Disease burden rises

The increased numbers of GI patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection are altering the burden on the health care system, senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.

The shift may be pronounced in primary care, where GI concerns should be seen as a trigger for questions about prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, Dr. Al-Aly said.

Patients may encounter longer wait times at GI clinics or may give up on trying to schedule appointments if waits become too long, he said. They may also present to emergency departments if they can’t get an outpatient appointment, he added.

Simon C. Mathews, MD, assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization that he’s seeing increased wait times since COVID emerged.

“We know that the pandemic impacted patients’ ability and willingness to seek GI care. There continues to be a long backlog for patients who are only now getting reconnected to care. As a result, our clinics are busier than ever, and our wait times for appointments are unfortunately longer than we would like,” said Dr. Mathews, who was not involved in the research.

Abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, and constipation continue to be among the most common symptoms Dr. Mathews sees in clinic, he said.

Kyle Staller, MD, a Massachusetts General Brigham gastroenterologist, said in an interview that it’s important to distinguish symptoms from eventual diagnoses, which lag behind.

“Are patients attributing their symptoms to COVID, or is COVID itself creating a background of inflammation or changes in the nerves that are making these symptoms more common? My suspicion is a little bit of both,” said Dr. Staller, who is director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Mass General, Boston.

Although his clinic is seeing patients with the GI signs and symptoms listed in the article, “we’re not seeing as much of some of the diagnoses, like peptic ulcer disease and pancreatitis,” he said. “I wonder if those may be related to some of the consequences of being critically ill in general, rather than COVID specifically. Those diagnoses I would be more skeptical about.”
 

Duration of symptoms unclear

It’s hard to tell patients how long their GI symptoms might last after COVID, given the relatively short time researchers have had to study the virus, said Dr. Staller, who was not involved in the research.

The symptoms he’s seeing in patients after COVID mimic those of postinfectious IBS, which literature says could last for months or years, Dr. Staller said. “But they should improve over time,” he added.

Senior author Dr. Al-Aly agreed that the duration of post-COVID GI symptoms is unclear.

“What I can tell you is that even people who got SARS-CoV-2 infection from March 2020 are still coming back for GI problems,” he said.

Unlike other symptoms of long COVID, such as brain fog, gastroenterologists fortunately know how to treat the GI disorders that evolve from SARS-CoV-2 infection, said Dr. Al-Aly, who has studied the long-term effects of the virus on the brain, kidneys, heart, and other organs.

All health care providers “need to be thinking about COVID as a risk factor for all these diseases” and should ask patients about SARS-CoV-2 infection when they take their histories, he said.

The authors, Dr. Staller, and Dr. Mathews report no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have a 36% overall higher risk of developing gastrointestinal problems in the year after infection than people who have not had the illness, a large new study indicates.

The researchers estimate that, so far, SARS-CoV-2 infections have contributed to more than 6 million new cases of GI disorders in the United States and 42 million new cases worldwide.

The diagnoses more common among patients who’ve had COVID ranged from stomach upset to acute pancreatitis, say the researchers, led by Evan Xu, a data analyst at the Clinical Epidemiology Center, Research and Development Service, VA St. Louis Health Care System.

Signs and symptoms of GI problems, such as constipation and diarrhea, also were more common among patients who had had the virus, the study found.

“Altogether, our results show that people with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at increased risk of gastrointestinal disorders in the post-acute phase of COVID-19,” the researchers write. “Post-COVID care should involve attention to gastrointestinal health and disease.”

The results were published online in Nature Communications.
 

Disease risks jump

The researchers used data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs national health care databases to identify 154,068 people with confirmed COVID-19 from March 1, 2020, through Jan. 15, 2021. They used statistical modeling to compare those patients with 5.6 million patients with similar characteristics who had not been infected during the same period and an historical control group of 5.9 million patients from March 1, 2018, to Dec. 31, 2019, before the virus began to spread across the globe.

The study included hospitalized and nonhospitalized COVID patients. The majority of the study population was male, but the study included almost 1.2 million female patients.

Compared with control persons, post-COVID patients’ increased risk of a GI diagnosis and the excess disease burden at 1 year, respectively, were as follows.

• 102% for cholangitis; 0.22 per 1,000 persons
• 62% for peptic ulcer disease; 1.57 per 1,000 persons
• 54% for irritable bowel syndrome; 0.44 per 1,000 persons
• 47% for acute gastritis; 0.47 per 1,000 persons
• 46% for acute pancreatitis; 0.6 per 1,000 persons
• 36% for functional dyspepsia; 0.63 per 1,000 persons
• 35% for gastroesophageal reflux disease; 15.5 per 1,000 persons

Patients who’d had the virus were also at higher risk for GI symptoms than their COVID-free peers. Their risk was 60% higher for constipation, 58% for diarrhea, 52% for vomiting, 46% for bloating, and 44% for abdominal pain, the investigators found.

The risk of developing GI symptoms increased with COVID-19 severity and was highest for those who received intensive care because of the virus, the researchers note.

Subgroup analyses found that the risks of composite gastrointestinal outcome were evident in all subgroups based on age, race, sex, obesity, smoking, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension, the authors write.
 

Disease burden rises

The increased numbers of GI patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection are altering the burden on the health care system, senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview.

The shift may be pronounced in primary care, where GI concerns should be seen as a trigger for questions about prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, Dr. Al-Aly said.

Patients may encounter longer wait times at GI clinics or may give up on trying to schedule appointments if waits become too long, he said. They may also present to emergency departments if they can’t get an outpatient appointment, he added.

Simon C. Mathews, MD, assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization that he’s seeing increased wait times since COVID emerged.

“We know that the pandemic impacted patients’ ability and willingness to seek GI care. There continues to be a long backlog for patients who are only now getting reconnected to care. As a result, our clinics are busier than ever, and our wait times for appointments are unfortunately longer than we would like,” said Dr. Mathews, who was not involved in the research.

Abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, and constipation continue to be among the most common symptoms Dr. Mathews sees in clinic, he said.

Kyle Staller, MD, a Massachusetts General Brigham gastroenterologist, said in an interview that it’s important to distinguish symptoms from eventual diagnoses, which lag behind.

“Are patients attributing their symptoms to COVID, or is COVID itself creating a background of inflammation or changes in the nerves that are making these symptoms more common? My suspicion is a little bit of both,” said Dr. Staller, who is director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Mass General, Boston.

Although his clinic is seeing patients with the GI signs and symptoms listed in the article, “we’re not seeing as much of some of the diagnoses, like peptic ulcer disease and pancreatitis,” he said. “I wonder if those may be related to some of the consequences of being critically ill in general, rather than COVID specifically. Those diagnoses I would be more skeptical about.”
 

Duration of symptoms unclear

It’s hard to tell patients how long their GI symptoms might last after COVID, given the relatively short time researchers have had to study the virus, said Dr. Staller, who was not involved in the research.

The symptoms he’s seeing in patients after COVID mimic those of postinfectious IBS, which literature says could last for months or years, Dr. Staller said. “But they should improve over time,” he added.

Senior author Dr. Al-Aly agreed that the duration of post-COVID GI symptoms is unclear.

“What I can tell you is that even people who got SARS-CoV-2 infection from March 2020 are still coming back for GI problems,” he said.

Unlike other symptoms of long COVID, such as brain fog, gastroenterologists fortunately know how to treat the GI disorders that evolve from SARS-CoV-2 infection, said Dr. Al-Aly, who has studied the long-term effects of the virus on the brain, kidneys, heart, and other organs.

All health care providers “need to be thinking about COVID as a risk factor for all these diseases” and should ask patients about SARS-CoV-2 infection when they take their histories, he said.

The authors, Dr. Staller, and Dr. Mathews report no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – For older patients with resistant depression who fail to respond to antidepressant treatment, the addition of the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole (Abilify) is superior to switching antidepressants, new research suggests.

“We found that adding aripiprazole led to higher rates of depression remission and greater improvements in psychological well-being – which means how positive and satisfied patients felt – and this is good news,” study investigator Eric J. Lenze, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, said in a press statement.

“However, even that approach helped only about 30% of people in the study with treatment-resistant depression, underscoring the need to find and develop more effective treatments that can help more people,” he added.

The findings were presented here as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, and published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Need for safe treatment options

Treatment-resistant depression is common in older patients, but switching medications or adding other agents can be challenging. With higher rates of comorbidity and polypharmacy, treatment decisions in this patient population are more complex compared with those involving younger patients.

To compare the benefits of augmentation vs. drug-switching strategies, the researchers conducted a multicenter, two-step trial involving 619 patients with an average baseline age of 69 who had failed to respond to two courses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. These included augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with either aripiprazole (n = 211) or the dopamine and norepinephrine–reuptake inhibitor bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban) (n = 206), or to taper off of their current antidepressant and switch to bupropion (n = 202).

After 10 weeks, patients’ psychological well-being was assessed via the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales. The researchers found patients in the aripiprazole and bupropion add-on groups improved by 4.83 points and 4.33 points, respectively. The bupropion switch group had a change of 2.04 points.

The difference between the aripiprazole augmentation group and the switch to bupropion group was significant (difference 2.79 points; P = .014). Other between-group differences were not significantly different.

Remission rates were similar in the aripiprazole and bupropion groups at 28.9% and 28.2%, respectively. The remission rate in the bupropion switch group was 19.3%.

The study results showed patients who received adjunctive bupropion had the highest fall rate at 0.55 falls per patient, vs. 0.33 falls per patient in the aripiprazole group, suggesting that among the three treatment options, adjunctive aripiprazole may be the best choice because of its superior efficacy and lower fall risk.

A total of 248 patients enrolled in the study showed no improvement and were further randomly assigned to receive adjunctive lithium (n = 127) or switch from current therapy to nortriptyline (n = 121).

Well-being scores in the lithium group improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points in the nortriptyline group. Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium group and 21.5% in the nortriptyline group. Fall rates were similar among the two groups.

Overall, “this large, randomized study demonstrated that adding aripiprazole was a superior option for older adults with treatment-resistant depression,” Dr. Lenze told this news organization.

“Since neither lithium nor nortriptyline were promising against treatment-resistant depression in older adults, those medications are unlikely to be helpful in most cases,” he added.
 

Practice changing?

In an accompanying editorial, Gemma Lewis, PhD, and Glyn Lewis, PhD, division of psychiatry, University of College London, noted the findings “support aripiprazole augmentation as a strategy for treatment-resistant depression in older persons, largely because of the lower risk of falls than with bupropion augmentation.”

However, “in clinical practice, [it] would be important to tailor treatment in light of potential adverse effects and the preferences of the patient,” they added.

Akathisia, for instance, is a common side effect of aripiprazole, shown in one recent trial to affect 11% of the patients. In addition, weight gain, though typically lower than seen with other antipsychotics, is a consideration with aripiprazole. 

With respect to fall risk, they noted that bupropion was largely used in relatively high doses of 300 mg and 450 mg, despite some recent research showing little clinical benefit from increasing antidepressant doses above minimum recommendations.

“It is possible that smaller doses of bupropion than those used in the current trial would retain effectiveness while minimizing adverse effects such as falls,” the editorialists noted.

Commenting on the study, Jennifer R. Gatchel, MD, PhD, assistant psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital/McLean Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings have high clinical significance in the treatment of geriatric depression. 

“These results are of great impact for clinicians managing older adults with treatment-resistant depression. They provide some of the first evidence of safety and efficacy of augmentation with aripiprazole as a strategy in clinical management of older adults who fail to initially respond to treatment,” said Dr. Gatchel, who was not associated with this research.

“Of particular significance, efficacy here is based on patient-centered outcomes and psychological well-being as a primary effectiveness outcome, which could translate into strengthened physician-patient alliance.”

While adjunctive aripiprazole is not necessarily a first-line strategy when older adults fail to respond to antidepressants, there is a lack of data on the risks and benefits of any other antipsychotic medications, she noted.

“Thus, this is evidence that will impact clinical practice and hopefully contribute to reduced societal burden of depression in older adults and the morbidity and mortality associated with it,” Dr. Gatchel said. 

The study received support from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (TRD-1511-33321). Dr. Lenze received additional support from the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research at Washington University School of Medicine, as well as the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant (UL1TR002345) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gatchel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – For older patients with resistant depression who fail to respond to antidepressant treatment, the addition of the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole (Abilify) is superior to switching antidepressants, new research suggests.

“We found that adding aripiprazole led to higher rates of depression remission and greater improvements in psychological well-being – which means how positive and satisfied patients felt – and this is good news,” study investigator Eric J. Lenze, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, said in a press statement.

“However, even that approach helped only about 30% of people in the study with treatment-resistant depression, underscoring the need to find and develop more effective treatments that can help more people,” he added.

The findings were presented here as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, and published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Need for safe treatment options

Treatment-resistant depression is common in older patients, but switching medications or adding other agents can be challenging. With higher rates of comorbidity and polypharmacy, treatment decisions in this patient population are more complex compared with those involving younger patients.

To compare the benefits of augmentation vs. drug-switching strategies, the researchers conducted a multicenter, two-step trial involving 619 patients with an average baseline age of 69 who had failed to respond to two courses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. These included augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with either aripiprazole (n = 211) or the dopamine and norepinephrine–reuptake inhibitor bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban) (n = 206), or to taper off of their current antidepressant and switch to bupropion (n = 202).

After 10 weeks, patients’ psychological well-being was assessed via the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales. The researchers found patients in the aripiprazole and bupropion add-on groups improved by 4.83 points and 4.33 points, respectively. The bupropion switch group had a change of 2.04 points.

The difference between the aripiprazole augmentation group and the switch to bupropion group was significant (difference 2.79 points; P = .014). Other between-group differences were not significantly different.

Remission rates were similar in the aripiprazole and bupropion groups at 28.9% and 28.2%, respectively. The remission rate in the bupropion switch group was 19.3%.

The study results showed patients who received adjunctive bupropion had the highest fall rate at 0.55 falls per patient, vs. 0.33 falls per patient in the aripiprazole group, suggesting that among the three treatment options, adjunctive aripiprazole may be the best choice because of its superior efficacy and lower fall risk.

A total of 248 patients enrolled in the study showed no improvement and were further randomly assigned to receive adjunctive lithium (n = 127) or switch from current therapy to nortriptyline (n = 121).

Well-being scores in the lithium group improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points in the nortriptyline group. Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium group and 21.5% in the nortriptyline group. Fall rates were similar among the two groups.

Overall, “this large, randomized study demonstrated that adding aripiprazole was a superior option for older adults with treatment-resistant depression,” Dr. Lenze told this news organization.

“Since neither lithium nor nortriptyline were promising against treatment-resistant depression in older adults, those medications are unlikely to be helpful in most cases,” he added.
 

Practice changing?

In an accompanying editorial, Gemma Lewis, PhD, and Glyn Lewis, PhD, division of psychiatry, University of College London, noted the findings “support aripiprazole augmentation as a strategy for treatment-resistant depression in older persons, largely because of the lower risk of falls than with bupropion augmentation.”

However, “in clinical practice, [it] would be important to tailor treatment in light of potential adverse effects and the preferences of the patient,” they added.

Akathisia, for instance, is a common side effect of aripiprazole, shown in one recent trial to affect 11% of the patients. In addition, weight gain, though typically lower than seen with other antipsychotics, is a consideration with aripiprazole. 

With respect to fall risk, they noted that bupropion was largely used in relatively high doses of 300 mg and 450 mg, despite some recent research showing little clinical benefit from increasing antidepressant doses above minimum recommendations.

“It is possible that smaller doses of bupropion than those used in the current trial would retain effectiveness while minimizing adverse effects such as falls,” the editorialists noted.

Commenting on the study, Jennifer R. Gatchel, MD, PhD, assistant psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital/McLean Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings have high clinical significance in the treatment of geriatric depression. 

“These results are of great impact for clinicians managing older adults with treatment-resistant depression. They provide some of the first evidence of safety and efficacy of augmentation with aripiprazole as a strategy in clinical management of older adults who fail to initially respond to treatment,” said Dr. Gatchel, who was not associated with this research.

“Of particular significance, efficacy here is based on patient-centered outcomes and psychological well-being as a primary effectiveness outcome, which could translate into strengthened physician-patient alliance.”

While adjunctive aripiprazole is not necessarily a first-line strategy when older adults fail to respond to antidepressants, there is a lack of data on the risks and benefits of any other antipsychotic medications, she noted.

“Thus, this is evidence that will impact clinical practice and hopefully contribute to reduced societal burden of depression in older adults and the morbidity and mortality associated with it,” Dr. Gatchel said. 

The study received support from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (TRD-1511-33321). Dr. Lenze received additional support from the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research at Washington University School of Medicine, as well as the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant (UL1TR002345) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gatchel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – For older patients with resistant depression who fail to respond to antidepressant treatment, the addition of the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole (Abilify) is superior to switching antidepressants, new research suggests.

“We found that adding aripiprazole led to higher rates of depression remission and greater improvements in psychological well-being – which means how positive and satisfied patients felt – and this is good news,” study investigator Eric J. Lenze, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, said in a press statement.

“However, even that approach helped only about 30% of people in the study with treatment-resistant depression, underscoring the need to find and develop more effective treatments that can help more people,” he added.

The findings were presented here as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, and published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Need for safe treatment options

Treatment-resistant depression is common in older patients, but switching medications or adding other agents can be challenging. With higher rates of comorbidity and polypharmacy, treatment decisions in this patient population are more complex compared with those involving younger patients.

To compare the benefits of augmentation vs. drug-switching strategies, the researchers conducted a multicenter, two-step trial involving 619 patients with an average baseline age of 69 who had failed to respond to two courses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. These included augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with either aripiprazole (n = 211) or the dopamine and norepinephrine–reuptake inhibitor bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban) (n = 206), or to taper off of their current antidepressant and switch to bupropion (n = 202).

After 10 weeks, patients’ psychological well-being was assessed via the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales. The researchers found patients in the aripiprazole and bupropion add-on groups improved by 4.83 points and 4.33 points, respectively. The bupropion switch group had a change of 2.04 points.

The difference between the aripiprazole augmentation group and the switch to bupropion group was significant (difference 2.79 points; P = .014). Other between-group differences were not significantly different.

Remission rates were similar in the aripiprazole and bupropion groups at 28.9% and 28.2%, respectively. The remission rate in the bupropion switch group was 19.3%.

The study results showed patients who received adjunctive bupropion had the highest fall rate at 0.55 falls per patient, vs. 0.33 falls per patient in the aripiprazole group, suggesting that among the three treatment options, adjunctive aripiprazole may be the best choice because of its superior efficacy and lower fall risk.

A total of 248 patients enrolled in the study showed no improvement and were further randomly assigned to receive adjunctive lithium (n = 127) or switch from current therapy to nortriptyline (n = 121).

Well-being scores in the lithium group improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points in the nortriptyline group. Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium group and 21.5% in the nortriptyline group. Fall rates were similar among the two groups.

Overall, “this large, randomized study demonstrated that adding aripiprazole was a superior option for older adults with treatment-resistant depression,” Dr. Lenze told this news organization.

“Since neither lithium nor nortriptyline were promising against treatment-resistant depression in older adults, those medications are unlikely to be helpful in most cases,” he added.
 

Practice changing?

In an accompanying editorial, Gemma Lewis, PhD, and Glyn Lewis, PhD, division of psychiatry, University of College London, noted the findings “support aripiprazole augmentation as a strategy for treatment-resistant depression in older persons, largely because of the lower risk of falls than with bupropion augmentation.”

However, “in clinical practice, [it] would be important to tailor treatment in light of potential adverse effects and the preferences of the patient,” they added.

Akathisia, for instance, is a common side effect of aripiprazole, shown in one recent trial to affect 11% of the patients. In addition, weight gain, though typically lower than seen with other antipsychotics, is a consideration with aripiprazole. 

With respect to fall risk, they noted that bupropion was largely used in relatively high doses of 300 mg and 450 mg, despite some recent research showing little clinical benefit from increasing antidepressant doses above minimum recommendations.

“It is possible that smaller doses of bupropion than those used in the current trial would retain effectiveness while minimizing adverse effects such as falls,” the editorialists noted.

Commenting on the study, Jennifer R. Gatchel, MD, PhD, assistant psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital/McLean Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings have high clinical significance in the treatment of geriatric depression. 

“These results are of great impact for clinicians managing older adults with treatment-resistant depression. They provide some of the first evidence of safety and efficacy of augmentation with aripiprazole as a strategy in clinical management of older adults who fail to initially respond to treatment,” said Dr. Gatchel, who was not associated with this research.

“Of particular significance, efficacy here is based on patient-centered outcomes and psychological well-being as a primary effectiveness outcome, which could translate into strengthened physician-patient alliance.”

While adjunctive aripiprazole is not necessarily a first-line strategy when older adults fail to respond to antidepressants, there is a lack of data on the risks and benefits of any other antipsychotic medications, she noted.

“Thus, this is evidence that will impact clinical practice and hopefully contribute to reduced societal burden of depression in older adults and the morbidity and mortality associated with it,” Dr. Gatchel said. 

The study received support from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (TRD-1511-33321). Dr. Lenze received additional support from the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research at Washington University School of Medicine, as well as the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant (UL1TR002345) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gatchel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Greater adherence to the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet was associated with a significantly reduced risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and improved lung function, based on data from more than 28,000 individuals in the United States.

Diet is a modifiable risk factor for COPD and other chronic diseases, but the effects of specific diet models such as the DASH diet and Mediterranean diet on COPD in particular has not been well studied, Jingli Wen, MD, of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu, China, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, the researchers reviewed data from 28,605 adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999 to 2018.

The study population included 2,488 individuals with COPD participants and 25,607 individuals without COPD; the mean ages of the COPD and non-COPD groups were 60.2 years and 56.9 years, and the proportion of women was 63.7% and 51.4%, respectively. The primary outcome was the prevalence of COPD, defined as self-reports of a diagnosis of chronic bronchitis or emphysema. DASH diet scores were based on consumption of nine target nutrients: saturated fat, total fat, protein, cholesterol, fiber, magnesium, calcium, potassium, and sodium. Scores for compliance with the Mediterranean diet were based on intake of eight food categories: fruits, vegetables, legumes, fish, red meat, dairy products, alcohol, and olive oil.

Overall, a higher score for adherence to the DASH diet was significantly associated with a lower COPD risk (odds ratio, 0.83; P = .021). This association remained significant in subgroups of younger adults (OR, 0.74), men (OR, 0.73), and smokers (OR, 0.82).

By contrast, adherence to the Mediterranean diet was not significantly associated with COPD prevalence (OR, 1.03; P = .697).

The researchers also found a correlation between DASH diet adherence and improved lung function, especially among individuals without COPD. The risk of FEV₁: forced vital capacity decrease, as well as dyspnea, cough, and expectoration, were negatively associated with greater adherence to the DASH diet, but greater adherence to the Mediterranean diet was only negatively associated with cough risk.

The relationship between the DASH diet and reduced COPD risk persisted after adjusting for occupational exposure and excluding participants with cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes.

The current study is the first known to focus on the association between DASH diet and the risk of COPD among adults in the United States, the researchers wrote. The lack of effect of the Mediterranean diet on COPD, in contrast to some studies in other countries, “suggests that regional differences in diet may affect the role of diet in the development of COPD.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design that prevented conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data of the impact of poor living habits, such as smoking, on food decisions, the use of short-term 24-hour dietary recall, and the reliance of self-reports for a diagnosis of COPD.

However, the results support the role of diet in COPD pathogenesis and expand the knowledge of relationships between the DASH diet and major chronic diseases, the researchers said. More prospective studies and clinical intervention studies are needed, but the findings should encourage clinicians to consider the potential role of a healthy diet in promoting lung health.

The study was supported by the Department of Health, Jiangsu Province, China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Greater adherence to the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet was associated with a significantly reduced risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and improved lung function, based on data from more than 28,000 individuals in the United States.

Diet is a modifiable risk factor for COPD and other chronic diseases, but the effects of specific diet models such as the DASH diet and Mediterranean diet on COPD in particular has not been well studied, Jingli Wen, MD, of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu, China, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, the researchers reviewed data from 28,605 adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999 to 2018.

The study population included 2,488 individuals with COPD participants and 25,607 individuals without COPD; the mean ages of the COPD and non-COPD groups were 60.2 years and 56.9 years, and the proportion of women was 63.7% and 51.4%, respectively. The primary outcome was the prevalence of COPD, defined as self-reports of a diagnosis of chronic bronchitis or emphysema. DASH diet scores were based on consumption of nine target nutrients: saturated fat, total fat, protein, cholesterol, fiber, magnesium, calcium, potassium, and sodium. Scores for compliance with the Mediterranean diet were based on intake of eight food categories: fruits, vegetables, legumes, fish, red meat, dairy products, alcohol, and olive oil.

Overall, a higher score for adherence to the DASH diet was significantly associated with a lower COPD risk (odds ratio, 0.83; P = .021). This association remained significant in subgroups of younger adults (OR, 0.74), men (OR, 0.73), and smokers (OR, 0.82).

By contrast, adherence to the Mediterranean diet was not significantly associated with COPD prevalence (OR, 1.03; P = .697).

The researchers also found a correlation between DASH diet adherence and improved lung function, especially among individuals without COPD. The risk of FEV₁: forced vital capacity decrease, as well as dyspnea, cough, and expectoration, were negatively associated with greater adherence to the DASH diet, but greater adherence to the Mediterranean diet was only negatively associated with cough risk.

The relationship between the DASH diet and reduced COPD risk persisted after adjusting for occupational exposure and excluding participants with cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes.

The current study is the first known to focus on the association between DASH diet and the risk of COPD among adults in the United States, the researchers wrote. The lack of effect of the Mediterranean diet on COPD, in contrast to some studies in other countries, “suggests that regional differences in diet may affect the role of diet in the development of COPD.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design that prevented conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data of the impact of poor living habits, such as smoking, on food decisions, the use of short-term 24-hour dietary recall, and the reliance of self-reports for a diagnosis of COPD.

However, the results support the role of diet in COPD pathogenesis and expand the knowledge of relationships between the DASH diet and major chronic diseases, the researchers said. More prospective studies and clinical intervention studies are needed, but the findings should encourage clinicians to consider the potential role of a healthy diet in promoting lung health.

The study was supported by the Department of Health, Jiangsu Province, China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Greater adherence to the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet was associated with a significantly reduced risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and improved lung function, based on data from more than 28,000 individuals in the United States.

Diet is a modifiable risk factor for COPD and other chronic diseases, but the effects of specific diet models such as the DASH diet and Mediterranean diet on COPD in particular has not been well studied, Jingli Wen, MD, of Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu, China, and colleagues wrote.

In a study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, the researchers reviewed data from 28,605 adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999 to 2018.

The study population included 2,488 individuals with COPD participants and 25,607 individuals without COPD; the mean ages of the COPD and non-COPD groups were 60.2 years and 56.9 years, and the proportion of women was 63.7% and 51.4%, respectively. The primary outcome was the prevalence of COPD, defined as self-reports of a diagnosis of chronic bronchitis or emphysema. DASH diet scores were based on consumption of nine target nutrients: saturated fat, total fat, protein, cholesterol, fiber, magnesium, calcium, potassium, and sodium. Scores for compliance with the Mediterranean diet were based on intake of eight food categories: fruits, vegetables, legumes, fish, red meat, dairy products, alcohol, and olive oil.

Overall, a higher score for adherence to the DASH diet was significantly associated with a lower COPD risk (odds ratio, 0.83; P = .021). This association remained significant in subgroups of younger adults (OR, 0.74), men (OR, 0.73), and smokers (OR, 0.82).

By contrast, adherence to the Mediterranean diet was not significantly associated with COPD prevalence (OR, 1.03; P = .697).

The researchers also found a correlation between DASH diet adherence and improved lung function, especially among individuals without COPD. The risk of FEV₁: forced vital capacity decrease, as well as dyspnea, cough, and expectoration, were negatively associated with greater adherence to the DASH diet, but greater adherence to the Mediterranean diet was only negatively associated with cough risk.

The relationship between the DASH diet and reduced COPD risk persisted after adjusting for occupational exposure and excluding participants with cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes.

The current study is the first known to focus on the association between DASH diet and the risk of COPD among adults in the United States, the researchers wrote. The lack of effect of the Mediterranean diet on COPD, in contrast to some studies in other countries, “suggests that regional differences in diet may affect the role of diet in the development of COPD.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design that prevented conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data of the impact of poor living habits, such as smoking, on food decisions, the use of short-term 24-hour dietary recall, and the reliance of self-reports for a diagnosis of COPD.

However, the results support the role of diet in COPD pathogenesis and expand the knowledge of relationships between the DASH diet and major chronic diseases, the researchers said. More prospective studies and clinical intervention studies are needed, but the findings should encourage clinicians to consider the potential role of a healthy diet in promoting lung health.

The study was supported by the Department of Health, Jiangsu Province, China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The history and findings in this case are suggestive of Alzheimer's disease (AD), which probably was preceded by chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

AD is the most prevalent cause of cognitive impairment and dementia worldwide. Presently, approximately 50 million individuals are affected by AD; by 2050, the number of affected individuals globally is expected to reach 152 million. AD has a prolonged and progressive disease course that begins with neuropathologic changes in the brain years before onset of clinical manifestations. These changes include the accumulation of beta-amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and neuroinflammation. Neuroimaging studies have shown that beta-amyloid plaques begin to deposit in the brain ≥ 10 years before the start of cognitive decline. Patients with AD normally present with slowly progressive memory loss; as the disease progresses, other areas of cognition are affected. Patients may experience language disorders (eg, anomic aphasia or anomia) and impairment in visuospatial skills and executive functions. Slowly progressive behavioral changes may also occur.

CTE is a neurodegenerative disorder that is believed to be the long-term consequence of repetitive head trauma. Its incidence is highest among athletes of high-impact sports, such as boxing or American football, and victims of domestic violence. Clinically, CTE can be indistinguishable from AD. Although neuropathologic differences exist, they can be confirmed only on postmortem examination. Patients with CTE may present with behavioral symptoms, such as aggression, depression, emotional lability, apathy, and suicidal feelings, as well as motor symptoms, including tremor, ataxia, incoordination, and dysarthria. Cognitive symptoms, including attention and concentration deficits and memory impairment, also occur. CTE is also associated with the development of dementia and may predispose patients to early-onset AD. 

Curative therapies do not exist for AD; thus, management centers on symptomatic treatment for neuropsychiatric or cognitive symptoms. Cholinesterase inhibitors and a partial N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist are the standard medical therapies used in patients with AD. For patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia, several newly approved antiamyloid therapies are also available. These include aducanumab, a first-in-class amyloid beta–directed antibody that was approved in 2021, and lecanemab, another amyloid beta–directed antibody that was approved in 2023. Presently, both aducanumab and lecanemab are recommended only for the treatment of patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia, the population in which their safety and efficacy were demonstrated in clinical trials. 

Psychotropic agents may be used to treat symptoms, such as depression, agitation, aggression, hallucinations, delusions, and sleep disorders, which can be problematic. Behavioral interventions may also be used, normally in combination with pharmacologic interventions (eg, anxiolytics for anxiety and agitation, neuroleptics for delusions or hallucinations, and antidepressants or mood stabilizers for mood disorders and specific manifestations). Regular physical activity and exercise may help to delay disease progression and are recommended as an adjunct to the medical management of AD.

Jasvinder Chawla, MD, Professor of Neurology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood; Director, Clinical Neurophysiology Lab, Department of Neurology, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL.

Jasvinder Chawla, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The history and findings in this case are suggestive of Alzheimer's disease (AD), which probably was preceded by chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

AD is the most prevalent cause of cognitive impairment and dementia worldwide. Presently, approximately 50 million individuals are affected by AD; by 2050, the number of affected individuals globally is expected to reach 152 million. AD has a prolonged and progressive disease course that begins with neuropathologic changes in the brain years before onset of clinical manifestations. These changes include the accumulation of beta-amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and neuroinflammation. Neuroimaging studies have shown that beta-amyloid plaques begin to deposit in the brain ≥ 10 years before the start of cognitive decline. Patients with AD normally present with slowly progressive memory loss; as the disease progresses, other areas of cognition are affected. Patients may experience language disorders (eg, anomic aphasia or anomia) and impairment in visuospatial skills and executive functions. Slowly progressive behavioral changes may also occur.

CTE is a neurodegenerative disorder that is believed to be the long-term consequence of repetitive head trauma. Its incidence is highest among athletes of high-impact sports, such as boxing or American football, and victims of domestic violence. Clinically, CTE can be indistinguishable from AD. Although neuropathologic differences exist, they can be confirmed only on postmortem examination. Patients with CTE may present with behavioral symptoms, such as aggression, depression, emotional lability, apathy, and suicidal feelings, as well as motor symptoms, including tremor, ataxia, incoordination, and dysarthria. Cognitive symptoms, including attention and concentration deficits and memory impairment, also occur. CTE is also associated with the development of dementia and may predispose patients to early-onset AD. 

Curative therapies do not exist for AD; thus, management centers on symptomatic treatment for neuropsychiatric or cognitive symptoms. Cholinesterase inhibitors and a partial N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist are the standard medical therapies used in patients with AD. For patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia, several newly approved antiamyloid therapies are also available. These include aducanumab, a first-in-class amyloid beta–directed antibody that was approved in 2021, and lecanemab, another amyloid beta–directed antibody that was approved in 2023. Presently, both aducanumab and lecanemab are recommended only for the treatment of patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia, the population in which their safety and efficacy were demonstrated in clinical trials. 

Psychotropic agents may be used to treat symptoms, such as depression, agitation, aggression, hallucinations, delusions, and sleep disorders, which can be problematic. Behavioral interventions may also be used, normally in combination with pharmacologic interventions (eg, anxiolytics for anxiety and agitation, neuroleptics for delusions or hallucinations, and antidepressants or mood stabilizers for mood disorders and specific manifestations). Regular physical activity and exercise may help to delay disease progression and are recommended as an adjunct to the medical management of AD.

Jasvinder Chawla, MD, Professor of Neurology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood; Director, Clinical Neurophysiology Lab, Department of Neurology, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL.

Jasvinder Chawla, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The history and findings in this case are suggestive of Alzheimer's disease (AD), which probably was preceded by chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

AD is the most prevalent cause of cognitive impairment and dementia worldwide. Presently, approximately 50 million individuals are affected by AD; by 2050, the number of affected individuals globally is expected to reach 152 million. AD has a prolonged and progressive disease course that begins with neuropathologic changes in the brain years before onset of clinical manifestations. These changes include the accumulation of beta-amyloid plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, and neuroinflammation. Neuroimaging studies have shown that beta-amyloid plaques begin to deposit in the brain ≥ 10 years before the start of cognitive decline. Patients with AD normally present with slowly progressive memory loss; as the disease progresses, other areas of cognition are affected. Patients may experience language disorders (eg, anomic aphasia or anomia) and impairment in visuospatial skills and executive functions. Slowly progressive behavioral changes may also occur.

CTE is a neurodegenerative disorder that is believed to be the long-term consequence of repetitive head trauma. Its incidence is highest among athletes of high-impact sports, such as boxing or American football, and victims of domestic violence. Clinically, CTE can be indistinguishable from AD. Although neuropathologic differences exist, they can be confirmed only on postmortem examination. Patients with CTE may present with behavioral symptoms, such as aggression, depression, emotional lability, apathy, and suicidal feelings, as well as motor symptoms, including tremor, ataxia, incoordination, and dysarthria. Cognitive symptoms, including attention and concentration deficits and memory impairment, also occur. CTE is also associated with the development of dementia and may predispose patients to early-onset AD. 

Curative therapies do not exist for AD; thus, management centers on symptomatic treatment for neuropsychiatric or cognitive symptoms. Cholinesterase inhibitors and a partial N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist are the standard medical therapies used in patients with AD. For patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia, several newly approved antiamyloid therapies are also available. These include aducanumab, a first-in-class amyloid beta–directed antibody that was approved in 2021, and lecanemab, another amyloid beta–directed antibody that was approved in 2023. Presently, both aducanumab and lecanemab are recommended only for the treatment of patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia, the population in which their safety and efficacy were demonstrated in clinical trials. 

Psychotropic agents may be used to treat symptoms, such as depression, agitation, aggression, hallucinations, delusions, and sleep disorders, which can be problematic. Behavioral interventions may also be used, normally in combination with pharmacologic interventions (eg, anxiolytics for anxiety and agitation, neuroleptics for delusions or hallucinations, and antidepressants or mood stabilizers for mood disorders and specific manifestations). Regular physical activity and exercise may help to delay disease progression and are recommended as an adjunct to the medical management of AD.

Jasvinder Chawla, MD, Professor of Neurology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood; Director, Clinical Neurophysiology Lab, Department of Neurology, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL.

Jasvinder Chawla, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

In Western diets, dairy and beef are ubiquitous: Milk goes with coffee, melted cheese with pizza, and chili with rice. But what if dairy products and beef contained a new kind of pathogen that could infect you as a child and trigger cancer or multiple sclerosis (MS) 40-70 years later?

Researchers from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) suspect that such zoonoses are possibly widespread and are therefore recommending that infants not be given dairy products until they are at least age 1 year. However, in two joint statements, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and the Max Rubner Institute (MRI) have rejected such theories.

In 2008, Harald zur Hausen, MD, DSc, received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery that human papillomaviruses cause cervical cancer. His starting point was the observation that sexually abstinent women, such as nuns, rarely develop this cancer. So it was possible to draw the conclusion that pathogens are transmitted during sexual intercourse, explain Dr. zur Hausen and his wife Ethel-Michele de Villiers, PhD, both of DKFZ Heidelberg.

Papillomaviruses, as well as human herpes and Epstein-Barr viruses (EBV), polyomaviruses, and retroviruses, cause cancer in a direct way: by inserting their genes into the DNA of human cells. With a latency of a few years to a few decades, the proteins formed through expression stimulate malignant growth by altering the regulating host gene.
 

Acid radicals

However, viruses – just like bacteria and parasites – can also indirectly trigger cancer. One mechanism for this triggering is the disruption of immune defenses, as shown by the sometimes drastically increased tumor incidence with AIDS or with immunosuppressants after transplants. Chronic inflammation is a second mechanism that generates acid radicals and thereby causes random mutations in replicating cells. Examples include stomach cancer caused by Helicobacter pylori and liver cancer caused by Schistosoma, liver fluke, and hepatitis B and C viruses.

According to Dr. de Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen, there are good reasons to believe that other pathogens could cause chronic inflammation and thereby lead to cancer. Epidemiologic data suggest that dairy and meat products from European cows (Bos taurus) are a potential source. This is because colon cancer and breast cancer commonly occur in places where these foods are heavily consumed (that is, in North America, Argentina, Europe, and Australia). In contrast, the rate is low in India, where cows are revered as holy animals. Also noteworthy is that women with a lactose intolerance rarely develop breast cancer.
 

Viral progeny

In fact, the researchers found single-stranded DNA rings that originated in viruses, which they named bovine meat and milk factors (BMMF), in the intestines of patients with colon cancer. They reported, “This new class of pathogen deserves, in our opinion at least, to become the focus of cancer development and further chronic diseases.” They also detected elevated levels of acid radicals in these areas (that is, oxidative stress), which is typical for chronic inflammation.

The researchers assume that infants, whose immune system is not yet fully matured, ingest the BMMF as soon as they have dairy. Therefore, there is no need for adults to avoid dairy or beef because everyone is infected anyway, said Dr. zur Hausen.
 

‘Breast milk is healthy’

Dr. De Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen outlined more evidence of cancer-triggering pathogens. Mothers who have breastfed are less likely, especially after multiple pregnancies, to develop tumors in various organs or to have MS and type 2 diabetes. The authors attribute the protective effect to oligosaccharides in breast milk, which begin to be formed midway through the pregnancy. They bind to lectin receptors and, in so doing, mask the terminal molecule onto which the viruses need to dock. As a result, their port of entry into the cells is blocked.

The oligosaccharides also protect the baby against life-threatening infections by blocking access by rotaviruses and noroviruses. In this way, especially if breastfeeding lasts a long time – around 1 year – the period of incomplete immunocompetence is bridged.
 

Colon cancer

To date, it has been assumed that around 20% of all cancerous diseases globally are caused by infections, said the researchers. But if the suspected BMMF cases are included, this figure rises to 50%, even to around 80%, for colon cancer. If the suspicion is confirmed, the consequences for prevention and therapy would be significant.

The voice of a Nobel prize winner undoubtedly carries weight, but at the time, Dr. zur Hausen still had to convince a host of skeptics with his discovery that a viral infection is a major cause of cervical cancer. Nonetheless, some indicators suggest that he and his wife have found a dead end this time.
 

Institutional skepticism

When his working group made the results public in February 2019, the DKFZ felt the need to give an all-clear signal in response to alarmed press reports. There is no reason to see dairy and meat consumption as something negative. Similarly, in their first joint statement, the BfR and the MRI judged the data to be insufficient and called for further studies. Multiple research teams began to focus on BMMF as a result. In what foods can they be found? Are they more common in patients with cancer than in healthy people? Are they infectious? Do they cause inflammation and cancer?

The findings presented in a second statement by the BfR and MRI at the end of November 2022 contradicted the claims made by the DKFZ scientists across the board. In no way do BMMF represent new pathogens. They are variants of already known DNA sequences. In addition, they are present in numerous animal-based and plant-based foods, including pork, fish, fruit, vegetables, and nuts.

BMMF do not possess the ability to infect human cells, the institutes said. The proof that they are damaging to one’s health was also absent. It is true that the incidence of intestinal tumors correlates positively with the consumption of red and processed meat – which in no way signifies causality – but dairy products are linked to a reduced risk. On the other hand, breast cancer cannot be associated with the consumption of beef or dairy.

Therefore, both institutes recommend continuing to use these products as supplementary diet for infants because of their micronutrients. They further stated that the products are safe for people of all ages.
 

Association with MS?

Unperturbed, Dr. de Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen went one step further in their current article. They posited that MS is also associated with the consumption of dairy products and beef. Here too geographic distribution prompted the idea to look for BMMF in the brain lesions of patients with MS. The researchers isolated ring-shaped DNA molecules that proved to be closely related to BMMF from dairy and cattle blood. “The result was electrifying for us.”

However, there are several other factors to consider, such as vitamin D3 deficiency. This is because the incidence of MS decreases the further you travel from the poles toward the equator (that is, as solar radiation increases). Also, EBV clearly plays a role because patients with MS display increased titers of EBV antibodies. One study also showed that people in Antarctica excreted reactivated EBV in their saliva during winter and that vitamin D3 stopped the viral secretion.

Under these conditions, the researchers hypothesized that MS is caused by a double infection of brain cells by EBV and BMMF. EBV is reactivated by a lack of vitamin D3, and the BMMF multiply and are eventually converted into proteins. A focal immunoreaction causes the Schwann cells and oligodendrocytes to malfunction, which leads to the destruction of the myelin sheaths around the nerve fibers.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In Western diets, dairy and beef are ubiquitous: Milk goes with coffee, melted cheese with pizza, and chili with rice. But what if dairy products and beef contained a new kind of pathogen that could infect you as a child and trigger cancer or multiple sclerosis (MS) 40-70 years later?

Researchers from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) suspect that such zoonoses are possibly widespread and are therefore recommending that infants not be given dairy products until they are at least age 1 year. However, in two joint statements, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and the Max Rubner Institute (MRI) have rejected such theories.

In 2008, Harald zur Hausen, MD, DSc, received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery that human papillomaviruses cause cervical cancer. His starting point was the observation that sexually abstinent women, such as nuns, rarely develop this cancer. So it was possible to draw the conclusion that pathogens are transmitted during sexual intercourse, explain Dr. zur Hausen and his wife Ethel-Michele de Villiers, PhD, both of DKFZ Heidelberg.

Papillomaviruses, as well as human herpes and Epstein-Barr viruses (EBV), polyomaviruses, and retroviruses, cause cancer in a direct way: by inserting their genes into the DNA of human cells. With a latency of a few years to a few decades, the proteins formed through expression stimulate malignant growth by altering the regulating host gene.
 

Acid radicals

However, viruses – just like bacteria and parasites – can also indirectly trigger cancer. One mechanism for this triggering is the disruption of immune defenses, as shown by the sometimes drastically increased tumor incidence with AIDS or with immunosuppressants after transplants. Chronic inflammation is a second mechanism that generates acid radicals and thereby causes random mutations in replicating cells. Examples include stomach cancer caused by Helicobacter pylori and liver cancer caused by Schistosoma, liver fluke, and hepatitis B and C viruses.

According to Dr. de Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen, there are good reasons to believe that other pathogens could cause chronic inflammation and thereby lead to cancer. Epidemiologic data suggest that dairy and meat products from European cows (Bos taurus) are a potential source. This is because colon cancer and breast cancer commonly occur in places where these foods are heavily consumed (that is, in North America, Argentina, Europe, and Australia). In contrast, the rate is low in India, where cows are revered as holy animals. Also noteworthy is that women with a lactose intolerance rarely develop breast cancer.
 

Viral progeny

In fact, the researchers found single-stranded DNA rings that originated in viruses, which they named bovine meat and milk factors (BMMF), in the intestines of patients with colon cancer. They reported, “This new class of pathogen deserves, in our opinion at least, to become the focus of cancer development and further chronic diseases.” They also detected elevated levels of acid radicals in these areas (that is, oxidative stress), which is typical for chronic inflammation.

The researchers assume that infants, whose immune system is not yet fully matured, ingest the BMMF as soon as they have dairy. Therefore, there is no need for adults to avoid dairy or beef because everyone is infected anyway, said Dr. zur Hausen.
 

‘Breast milk is healthy’

Dr. De Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen outlined more evidence of cancer-triggering pathogens. Mothers who have breastfed are less likely, especially after multiple pregnancies, to develop tumors in various organs or to have MS and type 2 diabetes. The authors attribute the protective effect to oligosaccharides in breast milk, which begin to be formed midway through the pregnancy. They bind to lectin receptors and, in so doing, mask the terminal molecule onto which the viruses need to dock. As a result, their port of entry into the cells is blocked.

The oligosaccharides also protect the baby against life-threatening infections by blocking access by rotaviruses and noroviruses. In this way, especially if breastfeeding lasts a long time – around 1 year – the period of incomplete immunocompetence is bridged.
 

Colon cancer

To date, it has been assumed that around 20% of all cancerous diseases globally are caused by infections, said the researchers. But if the suspected BMMF cases are included, this figure rises to 50%, even to around 80%, for colon cancer. If the suspicion is confirmed, the consequences for prevention and therapy would be significant.

The voice of a Nobel prize winner undoubtedly carries weight, but at the time, Dr. zur Hausen still had to convince a host of skeptics with his discovery that a viral infection is a major cause of cervical cancer. Nonetheless, some indicators suggest that he and his wife have found a dead end this time.
 

Institutional skepticism

When his working group made the results public in February 2019, the DKFZ felt the need to give an all-clear signal in response to alarmed press reports. There is no reason to see dairy and meat consumption as something negative. Similarly, in their first joint statement, the BfR and the MRI judged the data to be insufficient and called for further studies. Multiple research teams began to focus on BMMF as a result. In what foods can they be found? Are they more common in patients with cancer than in healthy people? Are they infectious? Do they cause inflammation and cancer?

The findings presented in a second statement by the BfR and MRI at the end of November 2022 contradicted the claims made by the DKFZ scientists across the board. In no way do BMMF represent new pathogens. They are variants of already known DNA sequences. In addition, they are present in numerous animal-based and plant-based foods, including pork, fish, fruit, vegetables, and nuts.

BMMF do not possess the ability to infect human cells, the institutes said. The proof that they are damaging to one’s health was also absent. It is true that the incidence of intestinal tumors correlates positively with the consumption of red and processed meat – which in no way signifies causality – but dairy products are linked to a reduced risk. On the other hand, breast cancer cannot be associated with the consumption of beef or dairy.

Therefore, both institutes recommend continuing to use these products as supplementary diet for infants because of their micronutrients. They further stated that the products are safe for people of all ages.
 

Association with MS?

Unperturbed, Dr. de Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen went one step further in their current article. They posited that MS is also associated with the consumption of dairy products and beef. Here too geographic distribution prompted the idea to look for BMMF in the brain lesions of patients with MS. The researchers isolated ring-shaped DNA molecules that proved to be closely related to BMMF from dairy and cattle blood. “The result was electrifying for us.”

However, there are several other factors to consider, such as vitamin D3 deficiency. This is because the incidence of MS decreases the further you travel from the poles toward the equator (that is, as solar radiation increases). Also, EBV clearly plays a role because patients with MS display increased titers of EBV antibodies. One study also showed that people in Antarctica excreted reactivated EBV in their saliva during winter and that vitamin D3 stopped the viral secretion.

Under these conditions, the researchers hypothesized that MS is caused by a double infection of brain cells by EBV and BMMF. EBV is reactivated by a lack of vitamin D3, and the BMMF multiply and are eventually converted into proteins. A focal immunoreaction causes the Schwann cells and oligodendrocytes to malfunction, which leads to the destruction of the myelin sheaths around the nerve fibers.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In Western diets, dairy and beef are ubiquitous: Milk goes with coffee, melted cheese with pizza, and chili with rice. But what if dairy products and beef contained a new kind of pathogen that could infect you as a child and trigger cancer or multiple sclerosis (MS) 40-70 years later?

Researchers from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) suspect that such zoonoses are possibly widespread and are therefore recommending that infants not be given dairy products until they are at least age 1 year. However, in two joint statements, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and the Max Rubner Institute (MRI) have rejected such theories.

In 2008, Harald zur Hausen, MD, DSc, received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery that human papillomaviruses cause cervical cancer. His starting point was the observation that sexually abstinent women, such as nuns, rarely develop this cancer. So it was possible to draw the conclusion that pathogens are transmitted during sexual intercourse, explain Dr. zur Hausen and his wife Ethel-Michele de Villiers, PhD, both of DKFZ Heidelberg.

Papillomaviruses, as well as human herpes and Epstein-Barr viruses (EBV), polyomaviruses, and retroviruses, cause cancer in a direct way: by inserting their genes into the DNA of human cells. With a latency of a few years to a few decades, the proteins formed through expression stimulate malignant growth by altering the regulating host gene.
 

Acid radicals

However, viruses – just like bacteria and parasites – can also indirectly trigger cancer. One mechanism for this triggering is the disruption of immune defenses, as shown by the sometimes drastically increased tumor incidence with AIDS or with immunosuppressants after transplants. Chronic inflammation is a second mechanism that generates acid radicals and thereby causes random mutations in replicating cells. Examples include stomach cancer caused by Helicobacter pylori and liver cancer caused by Schistosoma, liver fluke, and hepatitis B and C viruses.

According to Dr. de Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen, there are good reasons to believe that other pathogens could cause chronic inflammation and thereby lead to cancer. Epidemiologic data suggest that dairy and meat products from European cows (Bos taurus) are a potential source. This is because colon cancer and breast cancer commonly occur in places where these foods are heavily consumed (that is, in North America, Argentina, Europe, and Australia). In contrast, the rate is low in India, where cows are revered as holy animals. Also noteworthy is that women with a lactose intolerance rarely develop breast cancer.
 

Viral progeny

In fact, the researchers found single-stranded DNA rings that originated in viruses, which they named bovine meat and milk factors (BMMF), in the intestines of patients with colon cancer. They reported, “This new class of pathogen deserves, in our opinion at least, to become the focus of cancer development and further chronic diseases.” They also detected elevated levels of acid radicals in these areas (that is, oxidative stress), which is typical for chronic inflammation.

The researchers assume that infants, whose immune system is not yet fully matured, ingest the BMMF as soon as they have dairy. Therefore, there is no need for adults to avoid dairy or beef because everyone is infected anyway, said Dr. zur Hausen.
 

‘Breast milk is healthy’

Dr. De Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen outlined more evidence of cancer-triggering pathogens. Mothers who have breastfed are less likely, especially after multiple pregnancies, to develop tumors in various organs or to have MS and type 2 diabetes. The authors attribute the protective effect to oligosaccharides in breast milk, which begin to be formed midway through the pregnancy. They bind to lectin receptors and, in so doing, mask the terminal molecule onto which the viruses need to dock. As a result, their port of entry into the cells is blocked.

The oligosaccharides also protect the baby against life-threatening infections by blocking access by rotaviruses and noroviruses. In this way, especially if breastfeeding lasts a long time – around 1 year – the period of incomplete immunocompetence is bridged.
 

Colon cancer

To date, it has been assumed that around 20% of all cancerous diseases globally are caused by infections, said the researchers. But if the suspected BMMF cases are included, this figure rises to 50%, even to around 80%, for colon cancer. If the suspicion is confirmed, the consequences for prevention and therapy would be significant.

The voice of a Nobel prize winner undoubtedly carries weight, but at the time, Dr. zur Hausen still had to convince a host of skeptics with his discovery that a viral infection is a major cause of cervical cancer. Nonetheless, some indicators suggest that he and his wife have found a dead end this time.
 

Institutional skepticism

When his working group made the results public in February 2019, the DKFZ felt the need to give an all-clear signal in response to alarmed press reports. There is no reason to see dairy and meat consumption as something negative. Similarly, in their first joint statement, the BfR and the MRI judged the data to be insufficient and called for further studies. Multiple research teams began to focus on BMMF as a result. In what foods can they be found? Are they more common in patients with cancer than in healthy people? Are they infectious? Do they cause inflammation and cancer?

The findings presented in a second statement by the BfR and MRI at the end of November 2022 contradicted the claims made by the DKFZ scientists across the board. In no way do BMMF represent new pathogens. They are variants of already known DNA sequences. In addition, they are present in numerous animal-based and plant-based foods, including pork, fish, fruit, vegetables, and nuts.

BMMF do not possess the ability to infect human cells, the institutes said. The proof that they are damaging to one’s health was also absent. It is true that the incidence of intestinal tumors correlates positively with the consumption of red and processed meat – which in no way signifies causality – but dairy products are linked to a reduced risk. On the other hand, breast cancer cannot be associated with the consumption of beef or dairy.

Therefore, both institutes recommend continuing to use these products as supplementary diet for infants because of their micronutrients. They further stated that the products are safe for people of all ages.
 

Association with MS?

Unperturbed, Dr. de Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen went one step further in their current article. They posited that MS is also associated with the consumption of dairy products and beef. Here too geographic distribution prompted the idea to look for BMMF in the brain lesions of patients with MS. The researchers isolated ring-shaped DNA molecules that proved to be closely related to BMMF from dairy and cattle blood. “The result was electrifying for us.”

However, there are several other factors to consider, such as vitamin D3 deficiency. This is because the incidence of MS decreases the further you travel from the poles toward the equator (that is, as solar radiation increases). Also, EBV clearly plays a role because patients with MS display increased titers of EBV antibodies. One study also showed that people in Antarctica excreted reactivated EBV in their saliva during winter and that vitamin D3 stopped the viral secretion.

Under these conditions, the researchers hypothesized that MS is caused by a double infection of brain cells by EBV and BMMF. EBV is reactivated by a lack of vitamin D3, and the BMMF multiply and are eventually converted into proteins. A focal immunoreaction causes the Schwann cells and oligodendrocytes to malfunction, which leads to the destruction of the myelin sheaths around the nerve fibers.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.