MDedge Psychiatry

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion, which will now leave the issue to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.

The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.

The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2. 

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.

The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
 

Trigger laws and bans

When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.

University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.

The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.

Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.

“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”

In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.

Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.

On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed  a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.

Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
 

Some states protecting rights

At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.

B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”

But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
 

Medication abortions, travel next battle

Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.

Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor  first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.

Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.

Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”

He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”

Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion, which will now leave the issue to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.

The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.

The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2. 

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.

The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
 

Trigger laws and bans

When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.

University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.

The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.

Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.

“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”

In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.

Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.

On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed  a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.

Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
 

Some states protecting rights

At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.

B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”

But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
 

Medication abortions, travel next battle

Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.

Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor  first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.

Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.

Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”

He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”

Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has voted to overturn the federal constitutional right to abortion, which will now leave the issue to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

According to some estimates, about 25 million women of reproductive age will now live in states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Twenty-six states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights.

Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion almost immediately, while nine other states are now likely to try to enforce near-total bans or severe restrictions that have been blocked by courts pending the outcome of the just-issued decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Four states also have a history or have shown a recent desire to prohibit abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

Doctors and others who provide abortion services, or in some states “aid or abet” an abortion, could be fined thousands of dollars or sent to prison.

The court voted in favor of Mississippi and its 2018 law that outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health, the state’s sole remaining abortion provider, sued to block the law soon after it passed.

The Supreme Court decision is not a surprise, as the justices indicated they were leaning that way during oral arguments in December. The majority’s thoughts were further revealed when a draft of the opinion was leaked to the news outlet Politico on May 2. 

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The decision strikes down both precedent-setting rulings that established a right to abortion until the point of viability, long considered to be 24 weeks: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Twenty-five medical professional societies – representing OB/GYNs, family medicine doctors, fertility specialists, geneticists, hospitalists, internists, pediatricians, psychiatrists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives – had urged the court to throw out the Mississippi law. And more than 2,500 medical professionals signed on to a petition in June, urging the court to uphold the right to abortion.

The number of abortions has recently increased from what had been a long decline. The Guttmacher Institute estimates there were there were 930,160 abortion procedures in 2020 (compared to 3.6 million births), an 8% increase from 2017. The number does not include self-managed abortions. The organization said the increase was potentially due to expanded Medicaid coverage and reduced access to contraception due to Trump administration policies.
 

Trigger laws and bans

When trigger laws and new restrictions go into effect, women in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will likely have to drive hundreds of miles for an abortion, according to Guttmacher. Women in Louisiana, for instance, would have to drive 660 miles to get to the nearest provider in Illinois.

University of Utah researchers estimated that almost half of women will see a big increase in the distance to abortion care, from a median distance of 39 miles to 113 miles. State bans will disproportionately impact women of color, those living in poverty, and people with less education, they said.

The CDC has reported that Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women.

Doctors and other abortion providers could face serious penalties. The maximum penalty in Texas is life in prison, and the sentence could be 10 to 15 years in 11 other states, according to an article in the medical journal JAMA by attorneys Rebecca B. Reingold and Lawrence O. Gostin.

“Threats of prosecution undermine clinicians’ ability to provide safe, evidence-based care and to counsel patients honestly, impeding the patient-physician relationship,” they wrote. “Given harsh penalties, physicians may cease treating pregnancy loss, with no clear line between treating miscarriages and abortions.”

In preparing for these attacks on patients and doctors, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on June 13 signed a bill that immediately protects anyone who has an abortion and medical professionals in the state who provide them from legal retaliation by states that restrict or prohibit abortion.

Even while Roe was still the law, Mississippi had banned most abortions after 20 weeks, and 16 states prohibited abortion after 22 weeks. A Texas ban on abortion after 6 weeks – which also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers – was allowed to stay in place while it was being challenged.

On May 26, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed  a bill banning abortion from the moment of conception. Just as in Texas, the Oklahoma law allows what critics have called “bounty hunting” of abortion providers.

Four states have a constitutional amendment declaring that the state constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion or allow the use of public funds for abortion: Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
 

Some states protecting rights

At least 16 states have proactively protected a right to an abortion, according to Guttmacher, while The New York Times reports that Washington, DC, has laws that protect abortion, along with 20 states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

Some of these states are gearing up for a potential influx of patients. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed a law that authorizes physician assistants, advanced registered nurse practitioners, and other providers acting within their scope of practice to perform abortions. And the Maryland Legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Larry Hogan of a law that expands who can perform abortions.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers in early June called a special legislative session to repeal the state’s 173-year-old dormant ban on abortion. But the majority Republican legislature vowed to take no action.

B. Jessie Hill, JD, associate dean for academic affairs and a professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, says she expects anti-abortion groups to challenge these protective laws, “by saying that fetuses are persons under the Constitution with a right to life and therefore that the state has to protect them.”

But, she says, “there’s going to be big, big challenges with those lawsuits,” and they will not be “winners off the bat.”
 

Medication abortions, travel next battle

Some states are also trying to outlaw or severely restrict the use of RU-486, the abortion pill. A Tennessee law that goes into effect in 2023 would ban delivery of pills by mail and require a patient to have two doctor visits – one consultation and one to pick up the pills.

Mississippi has also enacted restrictions including the requirement that women meet with a doctor  first – and is being sued by pill maker GenBioPro.

Guttmacher estimates that medication abortion accounted for 39% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2017 and 60% of all abortions that occurred before 10 weeks’ gestation.

Some states have floated the idea of prohibiting anyone from traveling to another state for an abortion.

George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, JD, has written that such a law would likely violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, “which forbids state regulations that specifically restrict interstate commerce or discriminate against it.”

He also wrote that states lack the authority to regulate activity that takes place beyond their borders and that such bans “are open to challenge because they violate the constitutional right to travel.”

Hill also said a travel ban would be problematic, noting that it might be difficult to prosecute someone for “something you did completely in another state.”

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

Almost a third of patients with migraine have experienced some form of stigma, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”

Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.

“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Population-based research

Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.

OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.

Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:

• Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
• Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Related Stigma

For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
 

One of the most stigmatizing disorders

Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”

Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.

However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.

“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.

One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”

Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
 

Large impact on QoL

“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.

Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.

Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.

He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.

In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
 

‘Worrisome’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”

Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.

In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.

“That’s a huge problem,” she added.

The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost a third of patients with migraine have experienced some form of stigma, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”

Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.

“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Population-based research

Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.

OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.

Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:

• Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
• Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Related Stigma

For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
 

One of the most stigmatizing disorders

Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”

Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.

However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.

“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.

One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”

Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
 

Large impact on QoL

“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.

Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.

Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.

He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.

In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
 

‘Worrisome’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”

Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.

In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.

“That’s a huge problem,” she added.

The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Almost a third of patients with migraine have experienced some form of stigma, new research shows. Results from the OVERCOME population-based survey study, which included more than 59,000 respondents, showed about 32% reported experiencing migraine-related stigma “often” or “very often.”

Even those experiencing only a few headaches per month said they experienced negative attitudes from others about migraine.

“We have been utterly blind to the burden people with migraine experience in terms of how their disease is appreciated by others. It’s time to get busy and address this very stubborn social phenomenon,” said the study’s coinvestigator, Robert E. Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor emeritus, department of neurological sciences, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Population-based research

Stigma is defined as the discounting or discrediting of an individual with a trait that deviates from social norms. To date, there have been no significant population-based studies of how these attitudes affect individuals with migraine.

OVERCOME is a cross-sectional, longitudinal, prospective, web-based survey conducted in a representative sample of the United States population. For this new analysis, researchers pooled data from surveys conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

The analysis included 59,004 respondents (mean age, 41.3 years; 75% women; 70% White) who reported one or more headache or migraine attacks during the previous 12 months and who met criteria for migraine from the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Among the patients, 35% had a college degree, and 89% suffered episodic-type headaches.

Researchers used the following four patient-reported outcome measures:

• Migraine Disability Assessment, which quantifies number of days missed at work, home, or social events over the previous 3 months
• Migraine Interictal Burden Scale–4, which measures burden of migraine between attacks over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Role-Function Restrictive, which assesses the functional effect of migraine on social and work-related activities over the previous 4 weeks
• Migraine-Related Stigma

For the latter, the investigators used two measures – the degree to which others think migraine is used to acquire secondary gain, such as avoiding commitments, and the degree to which others minimize the burden of migraine.
 

One of the most stigmatizing disorders

Results showed that 31.7% of participants reported experiencing stigmatization from one or both migraine-related stigma categories often or very often – a result Dr. Shapiro characterized as “pretty shocking.”

Participants with chronic headaches, defined as having 15 or more headache days per month, made up 11% of the sample. About 47% of these respondents felt stigma often or very often.

However, even 25% of participants with three or fewer headache days per month reported stigma.

“This is a fundamental tip that we are not really understanding the concerns that drive burden for people living with this disabling disease,” Dr. Shapiro said.

Some previous studies that compared levels of stigmatizing attitudes regarding various diseases showed that migraine is more stigmatized than even epilepsy, a condition “equated with demonic possession in biblical times,” he noted.

One study used machine learning to measure the number of pejorative or negative terms associated with various diseases. “Shockingly, migraine was one of the most stigmatized diseases,” said Dr. Shapiro. “It was as stigmatized as gonorrhea by certain measures.”

Results from the new study showed that, irrespective of the number of headache days experienced per month, there was a threefold increase in interictal burden among those reporting stigma often or very often, compared with those who didn’t report stigma.
 

Large impact on QoL

“Stigma is a social concept, so maybe it’s not surprising that it would be present whether or not someone is experiencing other symptoms of migraine,” said Dr. Shapiro.

Across all monthly headache days, experiencing more migraine-related stigma was associated with increased disability and decreased quality of life.

Dr. Shapiro noted that when it comes to migraine-specific quality of life, stigma appears to have more of an effect than number of headache days. “That means there are big gaps in our appreciation for what drives the burdens in the patient experience of living with this disabling disease,” he said.

He added that headache’s place within the migraine sphere needs to be reconsidered. “Its singular emphasis has limited our full appreciation of this disease and how we should be paying attention to the things that are important to patients,” he said.

Dr. Shapiro predicts that future clinical trials will include migraine-related stigma as a measure to guide trial enrollment.

In addition, researchers are now digging deeper to try to understand what factors are most likely to drive stigma. “We need to understand why those attitudes are held and who is more likely to hold those attitudes, and that may allow us to develop mitigating strategies to reduce those attitudes,” said Dr. Shapiro.
 

‘Worrisome’ findings

Commenting on the findings, Deborah Friedman, MD, professor, departments of neurology and of ophthalmology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the data on stigma were “worrisome.”

Missing social occasions and lost productivity may make migraine more visible to others so perhaps may “provoke stigma or stigmatizing comments or stigmatizing attitudes,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that patients with migraine might also have trouble functioning in the workplace. “They may not be able to tolerate the computer screen or smells of perfume at the office and not get accommodation for that,” she said.

In addition to external stigma, which was investigated in the study, individuals with migraine may also experience internal stigma – blaming themselves for their disease, which may make it less likely they will seek care, said Dr. Friedman.

“That’s a huge problem,” she added.

The OVERCOME study is funded by Lilly. Dr. Shapiro has been compensated by Lilly as a research consultant and as a member of the data monitoring committee for clinical trials for galcanezumab, a Lilly pharmaceutical. Dr. Friedman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Juul Labs to stop selling e-cigarettes and vaping products on the U.S. market, the agency announced June 23.

The marketing denial order covers all the company’s products in the United States, which means Juul must stop distributing the products and remove everything on the market. That includes the Juul device and flavor replacement pods in the tobacco and menthol flavors.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in the announcement.

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market,” he said. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

The marketing denial order covers only the commercial distribution and retail sale of Juul’s products and doesn’t restrict consumer possession or use. The FDA “cannot and will not” enforce actions against consumers, the agency said.

The order comes after a 2-year review of the company’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non–fruit-flavored products, such as menthol and tobacco. The FDA determined the application “lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Some of Juul’s study findings raised concerns because of “insufficient and conflicting data,” the FDA said, including potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the Juul liquid replacement pods.

“To date, the FDA has not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard associated with the use of the JUUL device or JUUL pods,” the agency said. “However, the [orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products.”

Juul is expected to appeal the FDA’s decision, according to The New York Times.

In recent years, the FDA has reviewed marketing applications from Juul and other e-cigarette companies as anti-tobacco groups have called for new rules to limit products that led to a surge in youth vaping during the past decade. At the same time, advocates of e-cigarettes and nicotine-delivery devices have said the products help adult smokers to quit cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Juul, in particular, has been blamed for fueling the surge in underage vaping due to fruity flavors and hip marketing, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company removed sweet and fruity flavors from shelves in 2019 and has been trying to repair its reputation by limiting its marketing and focusing on adult cigarette smokers.

In 2020, all e-cigarette manufacturers in the United States were required to submit their products for FDA review to stay on the market, the newspaper reported. The agency has been weighing the potential benefits for adult cigarette smokers against the harms for young people.

The FDA banned the sale of fruit- and mint-flavored cartridges and juice pods in 2020, but menthol and tobacco-flavored products were left on the market, according to USA Today. In September 2021, the agency also banned the sale of hundreds of thousands of vaping and e-cigarette products but didn’t rule on Juul.

Meanwhile, the FDA has cleared Reynolds American and NJOY Holdings – two of Juul’s biggest rivals – to keep tobacco-flavored products on the market. Industry experts expected Juul to receive similar clearance, the Journal reported.

Juul, which was at the top of the U.S. e-cigarette market in 2018, has moved to second place behind Reynolds’s Vuse brand, the newspaper reported. The United States represents most of the company’s revenue, though its products are also available in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Philippines.

Underage vaping has fallen in the United States since federal restrictions raised the legal purchase age for tobacco products to 21 and banned the sale of sweet and fruity cartridges, according to the Journal. Juul’s popularity has also dropped among youth, with other products such as Puff Bar, Vuse, and Smok becoming more popular among e-cigarette users in high school.

In a separate decision announced this week, the FDA is also moving forward with a plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The decision, which has been years in the making, is aimed at prompting millions of cigarette users to quit smoking or switch to alternatives such as e-cigarettes, as well as limit the number of users who pick up smoking at an early age.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Juul Labs to stop selling e-cigarettes and vaping products on the U.S. market, the agency announced June 23.

The marketing denial order covers all the company’s products in the United States, which means Juul must stop distributing the products and remove everything on the market. That includes the Juul device and flavor replacement pods in the tobacco and menthol flavors.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in the announcement.

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market,” he said. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

The marketing denial order covers only the commercial distribution and retail sale of Juul’s products and doesn’t restrict consumer possession or use. The FDA “cannot and will not” enforce actions against consumers, the agency said.

The order comes after a 2-year review of the company’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non–fruit-flavored products, such as menthol and tobacco. The FDA determined the application “lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Some of Juul’s study findings raised concerns because of “insufficient and conflicting data,” the FDA said, including potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the Juul liquid replacement pods.

“To date, the FDA has not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard associated with the use of the JUUL device or JUUL pods,” the agency said. “However, the [orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products.”

Juul is expected to appeal the FDA’s decision, according to The New York Times.

In recent years, the FDA has reviewed marketing applications from Juul and other e-cigarette companies as anti-tobacco groups have called for new rules to limit products that led to a surge in youth vaping during the past decade. At the same time, advocates of e-cigarettes and nicotine-delivery devices have said the products help adult smokers to quit cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Juul, in particular, has been blamed for fueling the surge in underage vaping due to fruity flavors and hip marketing, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company removed sweet and fruity flavors from shelves in 2019 and has been trying to repair its reputation by limiting its marketing and focusing on adult cigarette smokers.

In 2020, all e-cigarette manufacturers in the United States were required to submit their products for FDA review to stay on the market, the newspaper reported. The agency has been weighing the potential benefits for adult cigarette smokers against the harms for young people.

The FDA banned the sale of fruit- and mint-flavored cartridges and juice pods in 2020, but menthol and tobacco-flavored products were left on the market, according to USA Today. In September 2021, the agency also banned the sale of hundreds of thousands of vaping and e-cigarette products but didn’t rule on Juul.

Meanwhile, the FDA has cleared Reynolds American and NJOY Holdings – two of Juul’s biggest rivals – to keep tobacco-flavored products on the market. Industry experts expected Juul to receive similar clearance, the Journal reported.

Juul, which was at the top of the U.S. e-cigarette market in 2018, has moved to second place behind Reynolds’s Vuse brand, the newspaper reported. The United States represents most of the company’s revenue, though its products are also available in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Philippines.

Underage vaping has fallen in the United States since federal restrictions raised the legal purchase age for tobacco products to 21 and banned the sale of sweet and fruity cartridges, according to the Journal. Juul’s popularity has also dropped among youth, with other products such as Puff Bar, Vuse, and Smok becoming more popular among e-cigarette users in high school.

In a separate decision announced this week, the FDA is also moving forward with a plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The decision, which has been years in the making, is aimed at prompting millions of cigarette users to quit smoking or switch to alternatives such as e-cigarettes, as well as limit the number of users who pick up smoking at an early age.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Juul Labs to stop selling e-cigarettes and vaping products on the U.S. market, the agency announced June 23.

The marketing denial order covers all the company’s products in the United States, which means Juul must stop distributing the products and remove everything on the market. That includes the Juul device and flavor replacement pods in the tobacco and menthol flavors.

“Today’s action is further progress on the FDA’s commitment to ensuring that all e-cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system products currently being marketed to consumers meet our public health standards,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in the announcement.

“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market,” he said. “We recognize these make up a significant part of the available products and many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.”

The marketing denial order covers only the commercial distribution and retail sale of Juul’s products and doesn’t restrict consumer possession or use. The FDA “cannot and will not” enforce actions against consumers, the agency said.

The order comes after a 2-year review of the company’s application seeking authorization to continue selling non–fruit-flavored products, such as menthol and tobacco. The FDA determined the application “lacked sufficient evidence regarding the toxicological profile of the products to demonstrate that marketing of the products would be appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Some of Juul’s study findings raised concerns because of “insufficient and conflicting data,” the FDA said, including potentially harmful chemicals leaching from the Juul liquid replacement pods.

“To date, the FDA has not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard associated with the use of the JUUL device or JUUL pods,” the agency said. “However, the [orders] issued today reflect FDA’s determination that there is insufficient evidence to assess the potential toxicological risks of using the JUUL products.”

Juul is expected to appeal the FDA’s decision, according to The New York Times.

In recent years, the FDA has reviewed marketing applications from Juul and other e-cigarette companies as anti-tobacco groups have called for new rules to limit products that led to a surge in youth vaping during the past decade. At the same time, advocates of e-cigarettes and nicotine-delivery devices have said the products help adult smokers to quit cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Juul, in particular, has been blamed for fueling the surge in underage vaping due to fruity flavors and hip marketing, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company removed sweet and fruity flavors from shelves in 2019 and has been trying to repair its reputation by limiting its marketing and focusing on adult cigarette smokers.

In 2020, all e-cigarette manufacturers in the United States were required to submit their products for FDA review to stay on the market, the newspaper reported. The agency has been weighing the potential benefits for adult cigarette smokers against the harms for young people.

The FDA banned the sale of fruit- and mint-flavored cartridges and juice pods in 2020, but menthol and tobacco-flavored products were left on the market, according to USA Today. In September 2021, the agency also banned the sale of hundreds of thousands of vaping and e-cigarette products but didn’t rule on Juul.

Meanwhile, the FDA has cleared Reynolds American and NJOY Holdings – two of Juul’s biggest rivals – to keep tobacco-flavored products on the market. Industry experts expected Juul to receive similar clearance, the Journal reported.

Juul, which was at the top of the U.S. e-cigarette market in 2018, has moved to second place behind Reynolds’s Vuse brand, the newspaper reported. The United States represents most of the company’s revenue, though its products are also available in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and the Philippines.

Underage vaping has fallen in the United States since federal restrictions raised the legal purchase age for tobacco products to 21 and banned the sale of sweet and fruity cartridges, according to the Journal. Juul’s popularity has also dropped among youth, with other products such as Puff Bar, Vuse, and Smok becoming more popular among e-cigarette users in high school.

In a separate decision announced this week, the FDA is also moving forward with a plan to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. The decision, which has been years in the making, is aimed at prompting millions of cigarette users to quit smoking or switch to alternatives such as e-cigarettes, as well as limit the number of users who pick up smoking at an early age.

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

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Poor objective sleep efficiency may contribute to older adults overestimating their cognitive abilities, preliminary findings from a pilot study of objective and subjective cognitive measures have shown.

The pilot study underscored the important role of objective sleep measures to better understand discrepancies when patients’ own reports of everyday cognitive function don’t align with objective cognitive profiles, Amy Costa, MA, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said in reporting the results at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“Between our previously published paper and these new pilot results, we’re reporting evidence that suggests sleep is playing a role between the objective and subjective cognition relationship,” Ms. Costa said in an interview. “It is possible that these older adults who are sleeping poorly may be worse at understanding how well they’re doing cognitively. That’s really important for doctors. For example, if we can’t diagnose someone with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia earlier, then we can’t intervene as quickly.”
 

Sleep efficiency, cognition, and patient complaints

These findings are in agreement with those Ms. Costa and colleagues recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, she said.

The current pilot study included 35 older adults with an average age of 69 years who had insomnia complaints. They completed one night of home-based polysomnography – specifically with the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM – and a battery of cognitive tests. Their average sleep deficiency was 57%, “indicating potentially pretty severe insomnia,” Ms. Costa said.

“We found that sleep efficiency – that is the percentage of time spent sleeping while in bed – moderated the association between self reports and objective measures of cognitive distractibility,” Ms. Costa said in reporting the results. “In other words, our findings suggest that individuals with lower sleep efficiency who are performing the worst cognitively have the least amount of complaints. Basically, this can be thought of as that they are overestimating their cognitive performance.”
 

Sleep stage versus working memory and distractibility

The pilot study also focused on how the percentage of lighter-stage sleep, or N1 sleep, moderated the associations between working memory, as measured by Sternberg performance, and memory, distractibility, and blunders measured with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire.

At the highest percentage of N1 sleep, worse working memory was associated with fewer complaints about memory, distractibility, and blunders, Ms. Costa said.

“The percentage of lighter-stage N1 sleep and sleep efficiency moderated the association between cognitive flexibility and distractibility,” Ms. Costa said.  At the lowest percentage of N1 sleep, worse cognitive flexibility was associated with more distractibility, while at the highest percentage of N1 sleep worse cognitive flexibility showed a reverse effect; it was linked to less distractibility. The lowest percentage of sleep efficiency showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and less distractibility, but the highest percentage of SE showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and more distractibility.

“So in terms of evaluating their cognitive performance, the worse working memory was associated with more blunder complaints in individuals with the lowest percentage of N1,” she said. “So whenever individuals were spending less time in N1, they were able to better recognized their cognitive ability.”

She added, “Overall, more light and more fragmented sleep moderated the association between worse objective and less cognitive complaints, suggesting that these individuals might be overestimating their cognitive abilities.”

The findings indicate that evaluation of objective sleep should consider objectively measured N1 and sleep efficiency to better understand when subjective cognitive complaints and neurophysiological/objective cognitive profiles don’t align, she said.
 

Important indicators of cognitive deficits

“Specifically, for an older adult who comes into the clinic with complaints of waking up during the night, low sleep efficiency and more lighter-stage sleep might be really important indicators that they are probably not going to be the best at identifying their cognitive abilities or deficits,” she said.

Future directions for this research include collecting more data and looking at other sleep measures, such as using rapid-eye movement sleep, as potential moderators for the relationship between cognitive outcomes, evaluating sleep architecture more closely, and evaluating outcomes in a longitudinal study, Ms. Costa said.
 

The importance of objectively measured sleep

“Studies like this one using objectively measured sleep are important because much of the prior literature relied on self-reported sleep measures,” said Brendan P. Lucey, MD, associate professor of neurology and head of the sleep medicine section at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “This study suggests how objectively measured sleep may mediate discrepancies in objective/subjective cognitive dysfunction. Future studies need to work out if we need to add objective sleep measures when evaluating cognitive complaints in older adults.”

Dr. Lucey, who was not involved in the study, voiced one concern with the pilot study methodology the future research should address: the use of the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM to measure N1 sleep, which, as he noted, records a single-channel electroencephalogram over the forehead. “Scoring N1 sleep relies on attenuation of the alpha rhythm over the occipital region and the Sleep Profiler is not as accurate as in-lab polysomnography for this sleep stage,” he said.

The pilot study received funding from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation. Ms. Costa and her coauthors have no disclosures. Dr. Lucey disclosed relationships with Merck, Eli Lilly, Eisai, and Beacon Biosignals.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Poor objective sleep efficiency may contribute to older adults overestimating their cognitive abilities, preliminary findings from a pilot study of objective and subjective cognitive measures have shown.

The pilot study underscored the important role of objective sleep measures to better understand discrepancies when patients’ own reports of everyday cognitive function don’t align with objective cognitive profiles, Amy Costa, MA, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said in reporting the results at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“Between our previously published paper and these new pilot results, we’re reporting evidence that suggests sleep is playing a role between the objective and subjective cognition relationship,” Ms. Costa said in an interview. “It is possible that these older adults who are sleeping poorly may be worse at understanding how well they’re doing cognitively. That’s really important for doctors. For example, if we can’t diagnose someone with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia earlier, then we can’t intervene as quickly.”
 

Sleep efficiency, cognition, and patient complaints

These findings are in agreement with those Ms. Costa and colleagues recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, she said.

The current pilot study included 35 older adults with an average age of 69 years who had insomnia complaints. They completed one night of home-based polysomnography – specifically with the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM – and a battery of cognitive tests. Their average sleep deficiency was 57%, “indicating potentially pretty severe insomnia,” Ms. Costa said.

“We found that sleep efficiency – that is the percentage of time spent sleeping while in bed – moderated the association between self reports and objective measures of cognitive distractibility,” Ms. Costa said in reporting the results. “In other words, our findings suggest that individuals with lower sleep efficiency who are performing the worst cognitively have the least amount of complaints. Basically, this can be thought of as that they are overestimating their cognitive performance.”
 

Sleep stage versus working memory and distractibility

The pilot study also focused on how the percentage of lighter-stage sleep, or N1 sleep, moderated the associations between working memory, as measured by Sternberg performance, and memory, distractibility, and blunders measured with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire.

At the highest percentage of N1 sleep, worse working memory was associated with fewer complaints about memory, distractibility, and blunders, Ms. Costa said.

“The percentage of lighter-stage N1 sleep and sleep efficiency moderated the association between cognitive flexibility and distractibility,” Ms. Costa said.  At the lowest percentage of N1 sleep, worse cognitive flexibility was associated with more distractibility, while at the highest percentage of N1 sleep worse cognitive flexibility showed a reverse effect; it was linked to less distractibility. The lowest percentage of sleep efficiency showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and less distractibility, but the highest percentage of SE showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and more distractibility.

“So in terms of evaluating their cognitive performance, the worse working memory was associated with more blunder complaints in individuals with the lowest percentage of N1,” she said. “So whenever individuals were spending less time in N1, they were able to better recognized their cognitive ability.”

She added, “Overall, more light and more fragmented sleep moderated the association between worse objective and less cognitive complaints, suggesting that these individuals might be overestimating their cognitive abilities.”

The findings indicate that evaluation of objective sleep should consider objectively measured N1 and sleep efficiency to better understand when subjective cognitive complaints and neurophysiological/objective cognitive profiles don’t align, she said.
 

Important indicators of cognitive deficits

“Specifically, for an older adult who comes into the clinic with complaints of waking up during the night, low sleep efficiency and more lighter-stage sleep might be really important indicators that they are probably not going to be the best at identifying their cognitive abilities or deficits,” she said.

Future directions for this research include collecting more data and looking at other sleep measures, such as using rapid-eye movement sleep, as potential moderators for the relationship between cognitive outcomes, evaluating sleep architecture more closely, and evaluating outcomes in a longitudinal study, Ms. Costa said.
 

The importance of objectively measured sleep

“Studies like this one using objectively measured sleep are important because much of the prior literature relied on self-reported sleep measures,” said Brendan P. Lucey, MD, associate professor of neurology and head of the sleep medicine section at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “This study suggests how objectively measured sleep may mediate discrepancies in objective/subjective cognitive dysfunction. Future studies need to work out if we need to add objective sleep measures when evaluating cognitive complaints in older adults.”

Dr. Lucey, who was not involved in the study, voiced one concern with the pilot study methodology the future research should address: the use of the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM to measure N1 sleep, which, as he noted, records a single-channel electroencephalogram over the forehead. “Scoring N1 sleep relies on attenuation of the alpha rhythm over the occipital region and the Sleep Profiler is not as accurate as in-lab polysomnography for this sleep stage,” he said.

The pilot study received funding from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation. Ms. Costa and her coauthors have no disclosures. Dr. Lucey disclosed relationships with Merck, Eli Lilly, Eisai, and Beacon Biosignals.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Poor objective sleep efficiency may contribute to older adults overestimating their cognitive abilities, preliminary findings from a pilot study of objective and subjective cognitive measures have shown.

The pilot study underscored the important role of objective sleep measures to better understand discrepancies when patients’ own reports of everyday cognitive function don’t align with objective cognitive profiles, Amy Costa, MA, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said in reporting the results at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

“Between our previously published paper and these new pilot results, we’re reporting evidence that suggests sleep is playing a role between the objective and subjective cognition relationship,” Ms. Costa said in an interview. “It is possible that these older adults who are sleeping poorly may be worse at understanding how well they’re doing cognitively. That’s really important for doctors. For example, if we can’t diagnose someone with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia earlier, then we can’t intervene as quickly.”
 

Sleep efficiency, cognition, and patient complaints

These findings are in agreement with those Ms. Costa and colleagues recently published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, she said.

The current pilot study included 35 older adults with an average age of 69 years who had insomnia complaints. They completed one night of home-based polysomnography – specifically with the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM – and a battery of cognitive tests. Their average sleep deficiency was 57%, “indicating potentially pretty severe insomnia,” Ms. Costa said.

“We found that sleep efficiency – that is the percentage of time spent sleeping while in bed – moderated the association between self reports and objective measures of cognitive distractibility,” Ms. Costa said in reporting the results. “In other words, our findings suggest that individuals with lower sleep efficiency who are performing the worst cognitively have the least amount of complaints. Basically, this can be thought of as that they are overestimating their cognitive performance.”
 

Sleep stage versus working memory and distractibility

The pilot study also focused on how the percentage of lighter-stage sleep, or N1 sleep, moderated the associations between working memory, as measured by Sternberg performance, and memory, distractibility, and blunders measured with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire.

At the highest percentage of N1 sleep, worse working memory was associated with fewer complaints about memory, distractibility, and blunders, Ms. Costa said.

“The percentage of lighter-stage N1 sleep and sleep efficiency moderated the association between cognitive flexibility and distractibility,” Ms. Costa said.  At the lowest percentage of N1 sleep, worse cognitive flexibility was associated with more distractibility, while at the highest percentage of N1 sleep worse cognitive flexibility showed a reverse effect; it was linked to less distractibility. The lowest percentage of sleep efficiency showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and less distractibility, but the highest percentage of SE showed an association between worse cognitive flexibility and more distractibility.

“So in terms of evaluating their cognitive performance, the worse working memory was associated with more blunder complaints in individuals with the lowest percentage of N1,” she said. “So whenever individuals were spending less time in N1, they were able to better recognized their cognitive ability.”

She added, “Overall, more light and more fragmented sleep moderated the association between worse objective and less cognitive complaints, suggesting that these individuals might be overestimating their cognitive abilities.”

The findings indicate that evaluation of objective sleep should consider objectively measured N1 and sleep efficiency to better understand when subjective cognitive complaints and neurophysiological/objective cognitive profiles don’t align, she said.
 

Important indicators of cognitive deficits

“Specifically, for an older adult who comes into the clinic with complaints of waking up during the night, low sleep efficiency and more lighter-stage sleep might be really important indicators that they are probably not going to be the best at identifying their cognitive abilities or deficits,” she said.

Future directions for this research include collecting more data and looking at other sleep measures, such as using rapid-eye movement sleep, as potential moderators for the relationship between cognitive outcomes, evaluating sleep architecture more closely, and evaluating outcomes in a longitudinal study, Ms. Costa said.
 

The importance of objectively measured sleep

“Studies like this one using objectively measured sleep are important because much of the prior literature relied on self-reported sleep measures,” said Brendan P. Lucey, MD, associate professor of neurology and head of the sleep medicine section at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “This study suggests how objectively measured sleep may mediate discrepancies in objective/subjective cognitive dysfunction. Future studies need to work out if we need to add objective sleep measures when evaluating cognitive complaints in older adults.”

Dr. Lucey, who was not involved in the study, voiced one concern with the pilot study methodology the future research should address: the use of the Sleep Profiler PSG2TM to measure N1 sleep, which, as he noted, records a single-channel electroencephalogram over the forehead. “Scoring N1 sleep relies on attenuation of the alpha rhythm over the occipital region and the Sleep Profiler is not as accurate as in-lab polysomnography for this sleep stage,” he said.

The pilot study received funding from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation. Ms. Costa and her coauthors have no disclosures. Dr. Lucey disclosed relationships with Merck, Eli Lilly, Eisai, and Beacon Biosignals.

Chemotherapy, now streaming at just $15.99 a month!

It’s a lazy Sunday and you flip on Netflix, looking for something new to watch. There’s an almost-overwhelming number of shows out there, but right at the top of the recommended list is something that strikes your fancy right away. The algorithm behind the scenes is doing its job well, winnowing the universe of content right down to the few things you’ll find relevant, based on what you’ve watched and liked in the past.

rawpixel

Now, the almighty content algorithm is coming for something a little more useful than binge watching obscure 80s sitcoms: cancer treatment.

By plugging the fully sequenced genomes of nearly 10,000 patients with 33 different types of cancer into an algorithm powered by the same sort of artificial intelligence used by Netflix, researchers from London and San Diego found 21 common faults in the chromosomes of tumors, which they called copy number signatures. While cancer is a complex disease, when faults occur in those copy number signatures, the results were similar across the board. If X genetic defect occurs within a tumor, Y result will happen, even across cancer types. For example, tumors whose chromosomes had shattered and reformed had by far the worst disease outcomes.

The eventual hope is that, just as Netflix can predict what you’ll want to watch based on what you’ve already seen, oncologists will be able to predict the course of a cancer, based on the tumor’s early genetic traits, and get ahead of future genetic degradation to prevent the worst outcomes. A sort of “Oh, your tumor has enjoyed The Office. Might we suggest a treatment of 30 Rock” situation. Further research will be required to determine whether or not the cancer algorithm can get us part 2 of “Stranger Things 4” a week early.
 

Pay criminals, cut crime?

What is the best method for punishing those who commit wrongdoing? Fines? Jail time? Actually, no. A recent study says that financial compensation works best.

In other words, pay them for their actions. Really.

wakila/Getty Images

Psychologist Tage S. Rai, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, Rady School of Management, found that people who hurt others or commit crimes are actually doing it because they think it’s the right thing to do. The results of this study say play at the angle of their morality. When that’s compromised, the offender is less likely to do it again.

Four different experiments were conducted using an online economics game with nearly 1,500 participants. Dr. Rai found that providing a monetary bonus for inflicting a punishment on a third party within the game cut the participants’ willingness to do it again by 50%.

“People punish others to signal their own goodness and receiving compensation might make it seem as though they’re driven by greed rather than justice,” he said.

The big deterrent, though, was negative judgment from peers. People in the study were even more hesitant to inflict harm and gain a profit if they thought they were going to be judged for it.

So maybe the answer to cutting crime isn’t as simple as slapping on a fine. It’s slapping on shame and paying them for it.
 

A conspiracy of chronobiologic proportions

The Golden State Warriors just won the NBA championship – that much is true – but we’ve got some news that you didn’t get from ESPN. The kind of news that their “partners” from the NBA didn’t want them to report. Unlike most conspiracy theories, however, this one has some science behind it.

PxHere

In this case, science in the form of a study published in Frontiers in Physiology says that jet lag had a greater effect on the Boston Celtics than it did on the Warriors.

“Eastward travel – where the destination time is later than the origin time – requires the athlete to shorten their day (known as a phase advance). During phase advance, athletes often struggle to fall asleep at an earlier bedtime, leading to sleep loss and, consequently, potential impaired physiological performance and motivation the next day,” senior author Elise Facer-Childs, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, said in written statement.

Dr. Facer-Childs and associates took a very close look at 10 seasons’ worth of NBA games – 11,481 games, to be exact – and found “that eastward (but not westward) jet lag was associated with impaired performance for home (but not away) teams.” The existence of a pro-Western bias against teams that traveled eastward for their home games was clear:

• The chance of winning for eastern teams was reduced by 6.0%.
• They grabbed 1.3 fewer rebounds per game.
• Their field goal percentage was 1.2% lower.

And here’s the final nail in the conspiracy coffin: The NBA knew about the jet lag effect and changed the schedule of the finals in 2014 in a way that makes it worse. Before that, the higher-seeded team got two home games, then the lower-seeded team had three at home, followed by two more at the home of the higher seed. Now it’s a 2-2-1-1-1 arrangement that leads to more travel and, of course, more jet lag.

The study was published during the championship series, so the investigators suggested that the Celtics “might benefit from chronobiology-informed strategies designed to mitigate eastward jet lag symptomatology.”

So there you have it, sports fans/conspiracy theorists: You can’t chase Steph Curry around the court for 48 minutes without the right chronobiology-informed strategy. Everyone knows that.
 

Being hungry can alter your ‘type’

Fasting and being hungry can be a dangerous mix for becoming “hangry” and irritable, but did you know being hungry can also affect your attraction to other people?

©stevanovicigor/thinkstockphotos.com

Evidence has shown that being hungry can affect important things such as decision-making, memory, cognition, and function. It might affect decision-making in the sense that those six tacos at Taco Bell might win out over grilled chicken breast and veggies at home, but can hunger make you think that the person you just swiped right on isn’t really your type after all?

We’ll leave that up to Valentina Cazzato of Liverpool (England) John Moores University and associates, whose study involved 44 people, of whom 21 were women in their early 20s. The participants were shown computer-generated images of men and women of different sizes. The same background was used for each picture and all the expressions of the models were neutral. Participants were asked to rate each image on how much they liked it. One study was done on participants who had been fasting for 12 hours, and the second was done on those who had just eaten something.

The subjects generally preferred slim models over more rounded ones, but not after fasting. When they were hungry, they found the round human bodies and faces more attractive. So, yes, it’s definitely possible that hunger can alter your attraction to others.

“Future work might seek to elucidate the relationship between physiological states of hunger and shifts in appreciation of the human bodies and whether this relationship might be mediated by individual traits associated with to beholder’s body adiposity,” said researchers.

Chemotherapy, now streaming at just $15.99 a month!

It’s a lazy Sunday and you flip on Netflix, looking for something new to watch. There’s an almost-overwhelming number of shows out there, but right at the top of the recommended list is something that strikes your fancy right away. The algorithm behind the scenes is doing its job well, winnowing the universe of content right down to the few things you’ll find relevant, based on what you’ve watched and liked in the past.

rawpixel

Now, the almighty content algorithm is coming for something a little more useful than binge watching obscure 80s sitcoms: cancer treatment.

By plugging the fully sequenced genomes of nearly 10,000 patients with 33 different types of cancer into an algorithm powered by the same sort of artificial intelligence used by Netflix, researchers from London and San Diego found 21 common faults in the chromosomes of tumors, which they called copy number signatures. While cancer is a complex disease, when faults occur in those copy number signatures, the results were similar across the board. If X genetic defect occurs within a tumor, Y result will happen, even across cancer types. For example, tumors whose chromosomes had shattered and reformed had by far the worst disease outcomes.

The eventual hope is that, just as Netflix can predict what you’ll want to watch based on what you’ve already seen, oncologists will be able to predict the course of a cancer, based on the tumor’s early genetic traits, and get ahead of future genetic degradation to prevent the worst outcomes. A sort of “Oh, your tumor has enjoyed The Office. Might we suggest a treatment of 30 Rock” situation. Further research will be required to determine whether or not the cancer algorithm can get us part 2 of “Stranger Things 4” a week early.
 

Pay criminals, cut crime?

What is the best method for punishing those who commit wrongdoing? Fines? Jail time? Actually, no. A recent study says that financial compensation works best.

In other words, pay them for their actions. Really.

wakila/Getty Images

Psychologist Tage S. Rai, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, Rady School of Management, found that people who hurt others or commit crimes are actually doing it because they think it’s the right thing to do. The results of this study say play at the angle of their morality. When that’s compromised, the offender is less likely to do it again.

Four different experiments were conducted using an online economics game with nearly 1,500 participants. Dr. Rai found that providing a monetary bonus for inflicting a punishment on a third party within the game cut the participants’ willingness to do it again by 50%.

“People punish others to signal their own goodness and receiving compensation might make it seem as though they’re driven by greed rather than justice,” he said.

The big deterrent, though, was negative judgment from peers. People in the study were even more hesitant to inflict harm and gain a profit if they thought they were going to be judged for it.

So maybe the answer to cutting crime isn’t as simple as slapping on a fine. It’s slapping on shame and paying them for it.
 

A conspiracy of chronobiologic proportions

The Golden State Warriors just won the NBA championship – that much is true – but we’ve got some news that you didn’t get from ESPN. The kind of news that their “partners” from the NBA didn’t want them to report. Unlike most conspiracy theories, however, this one has some science behind it.

PxHere

In this case, science in the form of a study published in Frontiers in Physiology says that jet lag had a greater effect on the Boston Celtics than it did on the Warriors.

“Eastward travel – where the destination time is later than the origin time – requires the athlete to shorten their day (known as a phase advance). During phase advance, athletes often struggle to fall asleep at an earlier bedtime, leading to sleep loss and, consequently, potential impaired physiological performance and motivation the next day,” senior author Elise Facer-Childs, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, said in written statement.

Dr. Facer-Childs and associates took a very close look at 10 seasons’ worth of NBA games – 11,481 games, to be exact – and found “that eastward (but not westward) jet lag was associated with impaired performance for home (but not away) teams.” The existence of a pro-Western bias against teams that traveled eastward for their home games was clear:

• The chance of winning for eastern teams was reduced by 6.0%.
• They grabbed 1.3 fewer rebounds per game.
• Their field goal percentage was 1.2% lower.

And here’s the final nail in the conspiracy coffin: The NBA knew about the jet lag effect and changed the schedule of the finals in 2014 in a way that makes it worse. Before that, the higher-seeded team got two home games, then the lower-seeded team had three at home, followed by two more at the home of the higher seed. Now it’s a 2-2-1-1-1 arrangement that leads to more travel and, of course, more jet lag.

The study was published during the championship series, so the investigators suggested that the Celtics “might benefit from chronobiology-informed strategies designed to mitigate eastward jet lag symptomatology.”

So there you have it, sports fans/conspiracy theorists: You can’t chase Steph Curry around the court for 48 minutes without the right chronobiology-informed strategy. Everyone knows that.
 

Being hungry can alter your ‘type’

Fasting and being hungry can be a dangerous mix for becoming “hangry” and irritable, but did you know being hungry can also affect your attraction to other people?

©stevanovicigor/thinkstockphotos.com

Evidence has shown that being hungry can affect important things such as decision-making, memory, cognition, and function. It might affect decision-making in the sense that those six tacos at Taco Bell might win out over grilled chicken breast and veggies at home, but can hunger make you think that the person you just swiped right on isn’t really your type after all?

We’ll leave that up to Valentina Cazzato of Liverpool (England) John Moores University and associates, whose study involved 44 people, of whom 21 were women in their early 20s. The participants were shown computer-generated images of men and women of different sizes. The same background was used for each picture and all the expressions of the models were neutral. Participants were asked to rate each image on how much they liked it. One study was done on participants who had been fasting for 12 hours, and the second was done on those who had just eaten something.

The subjects generally preferred slim models over more rounded ones, but not after fasting. When they were hungry, they found the round human bodies and faces more attractive. So, yes, it’s definitely possible that hunger can alter your attraction to others.

“Future work might seek to elucidate the relationship between physiological states of hunger and shifts in appreciation of the human bodies and whether this relationship might be mediated by individual traits associated with to beholder’s body adiposity,” said researchers.

Chemotherapy, now streaming at just $15.99 a month!

It’s a lazy Sunday and you flip on Netflix, looking for something new to watch. There’s an almost-overwhelming number of shows out there, but right at the top of the recommended list is something that strikes your fancy right away. The algorithm behind the scenes is doing its job well, winnowing the universe of content right down to the few things you’ll find relevant, based on what you’ve watched and liked in the past.

rawpixel

Now, the almighty content algorithm is coming for something a little more useful than binge watching obscure 80s sitcoms: cancer treatment.

By plugging the fully sequenced genomes of nearly 10,000 patients with 33 different types of cancer into an algorithm powered by the same sort of artificial intelligence used by Netflix, researchers from London and San Diego found 21 common faults in the chromosomes of tumors, which they called copy number signatures. While cancer is a complex disease, when faults occur in those copy number signatures, the results were similar across the board. If X genetic defect occurs within a tumor, Y result will happen, even across cancer types. For example, tumors whose chromosomes had shattered and reformed had by far the worst disease outcomes.

The eventual hope is that, just as Netflix can predict what you’ll want to watch based on what you’ve already seen, oncologists will be able to predict the course of a cancer, based on the tumor’s early genetic traits, and get ahead of future genetic degradation to prevent the worst outcomes. A sort of “Oh, your tumor has enjoyed The Office. Might we suggest a treatment of 30 Rock” situation. Further research will be required to determine whether or not the cancer algorithm can get us part 2 of “Stranger Things 4” a week early.
 

Pay criminals, cut crime?

What is the best method for punishing those who commit wrongdoing? Fines? Jail time? Actually, no. A recent study says that financial compensation works best.

In other words, pay them for their actions. Really.

wakila/Getty Images

Psychologist Tage S. Rai, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, Rady School of Management, found that people who hurt others or commit crimes are actually doing it because they think it’s the right thing to do. The results of this study say play at the angle of their morality. When that’s compromised, the offender is less likely to do it again.

Four different experiments were conducted using an online economics game with nearly 1,500 participants. Dr. Rai found that providing a monetary bonus for inflicting a punishment on a third party within the game cut the participants’ willingness to do it again by 50%.

“People punish others to signal their own goodness and receiving compensation might make it seem as though they’re driven by greed rather than justice,” he said.

The big deterrent, though, was negative judgment from peers. People in the study were even more hesitant to inflict harm and gain a profit if they thought they were going to be judged for it.

So maybe the answer to cutting crime isn’t as simple as slapping on a fine. It’s slapping on shame and paying them for it.
 

A conspiracy of chronobiologic proportions

The Golden State Warriors just won the NBA championship – that much is true – but we’ve got some news that you didn’t get from ESPN. The kind of news that their “partners” from the NBA didn’t want them to report. Unlike most conspiracy theories, however, this one has some science behind it.

PxHere

In this case, science in the form of a study published in Frontiers in Physiology says that jet lag had a greater effect on the Boston Celtics than it did on the Warriors.

“Eastward travel – where the destination time is later than the origin time – requires the athlete to shorten their day (known as a phase advance). During phase advance, athletes often struggle to fall asleep at an earlier bedtime, leading to sleep loss and, consequently, potential impaired physiological performance and motivation the next day,” senior author Elise Facer-Childs, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, said in written statement.

Dr. Facer-Childs and associates took a very close look at 10 seasons’ worth of NBA games – 11,481 games, to be exact – and found “that eastward (but not westward) jet lag was associated with impaired performance for home (but not away) teams.” The existence of a pro-Western bias against teams that traveled eastward for their home games was clear:

• The chance of winning for eastern teams was reduced by 6.0%.
• They grabbed 1.3 fewer rebounds per game.
• Their field goal percentage was 1.2% lower.

And here’s the final nail in the conspiracy coffin: The NBA knew about the jet lag effect and changed the schedule of the finals in 2014 in a way that makes it worse. Before that, the higher-seeded team got two home games, then the lower-seeded team had three at home, followed by two more at the home of the higher seed. Now it’s a 2-2-1-1-1 arrangement that leads to more travel and, of course, more jet lag.

The study was published during the championship series, so the investigators suggested that the Celtics “might benefit from chronobiology-informed strategies designed to mitigate eastward jet lag symptomatology.”

So there you have it, sports fans/conspiracy theorists: You can’t chase Steph Curry around the court for 48 minutes without the right chronobiology-informed strategy. Everyone knows that.
 

Being hungry can alter your ‘type’

Fasting and being hungry can be a dangerous mix for becoming “hangry” and irritable, but did you know being hungry can also affect your attraction to other people?

©stevanovicigor/thinkstockphotos.com

Evidence has shown that being hungry can affect important things such as decision-making, memory, cognition, and function. It might affect decision-making in the sense that those six tacos at Taco Bell might win out over grilled chicken breast and veggies at home, but can hunger make you think that the person you just swiped right on isn’t really your type after all?

We’ll leave that up to Valentina Cazzato of Liverpool (England) John Moores University and associates, whose study involved 44 people, of whom 21 were women in their early 20s. The participants were shown computer-generated images of men and women of different sizes. The same background was used for each picture and all the expressions of the models were neutral. Participants were asked to rate each image on how much they liked it. One study was done on participants who had been fasting for 12 hours, and the second was done on those who had just eaten something.

The subjects generally preferred slim models over more rounded ones, but not after fasting. When they were hungry, they found the round human bodies and faces more attractive. So, yes, it’s definitely possible that hunger can alter your attraction to others.

“Future work might seek to elucidate the relationship between physiological states of hunger and shifts in appreciation of the human bodies and whether this relationship might be mediated by individual traits associated with to beholder’s body adiposity,” said researchers.

Providing peer or community health workers to help psychiatric patients complete psychiatric advance directives (PAD) – which govern care in advance of a mental health crisis – is associated with a significant reduction in compulsory hospital admissions, new research shows.

Results of a randomized trial showed the peer worker PAD group had a 42% reduction in compulsory admission over the following 12 months. This study group also had lower symptom scores, greater rates of recovery, and increased empowerment, compared with patients assigned to usual care.

In addition to proving that PADs are effective in reducing compulsory admission, the results show that facilitation by peer workers is relevant, study investigator Aurélie Tinland, MD, PhD, Faculté de Médecine Timone, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2022 Congress. The study was simultaneously published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

However, Dr. Tinland noted that more research that includes “harder to reach” populations is needed. In addition, greater use of PADs is also key to reducing compulsory admissions.
 

‘Most coercive’ country

The researchers note that respect for patient autonomy is a strong pillar of health care, such that “involuntary treatment should be unusual.” However, they point out that “compulsory psychiatric admissions are far too common in countries of all income levels.”

In France, said Dr. Tinland, 24% of psychiatric hospitalizations are compulsory. The country is ranked the sixth “most coercive” country in the world, and there are concerns about human rights in French psychiatric facilities.

She added that advance care statements are the most efficient tool for reducing coercion, with one study suggesting they could cut rates by 25%, compared with usual care.

However, she noted there is an “asymmetry” between medical professionals and patients and a risk of “undue influence” when clinicians facilitate the completion of care statements.

To examine the impact on clinical outcomes of peer-worker facilitated PADs, the researchers studied adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, or schizoaffective disorder who were admitted to a psychiatric hospital within the previous 12 months. Peer workers are individuals who have lived experience with mental illness and help inform and guide current patients about care options in the event of a mental health crisis.

Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to an intervention group or a usual care control group. The intervention group received a PAD document and were assigned a peer worker while the usual care group received comprehensive information about the PAD concept at study entry and were free to complete it, but they were not connected with a peer worker.

The PAD document included information about future treatment and support preferences, early signs of relapse, and coping strategies. Participants could meet the peer worker in a place of their choice and be supported in drafting the document and in sharing it with health care professionals.

In all, 394 individuals completed the study. The majority (61%) of participants were male and 66% had completed post-secondary education. Schizophrenia was diagnosed in 45%, bipolar I disorder in 36%, and schizoaffective disorder in 19%.

Participants in the intervention group were significantly younger than those in the control group, with a mean of 37.4 years versus 41 years (P = .003) and were less likely to have one or more somatic comorbidities, at 61.2% versus 69.2%.

A PAD was completed by 54.6% of individuals in the intervention group versus 7.1% of controls (P < .001). The PAD was written with peer worker support by 41.3% of those in the intervention and by 2% of controls. Of those who completed a PAD, 75.7% met care facilitators, and 27.1% used it during a crisis over the following 12 months.

Results showed that the rate of compulsory admissions was significantly lower in the peer worker PAD group, at 27% versus 39.9% in control participants, at an odds ratio of 0.58 (P = .007).

Participants in the intervention group had lower symptoms on the modified Colorado Symptom Score than usual care patients with an effect size of -0.20 (P = .03) and higher scores on the Empowerment Scale (effect size 0.30, P = .003).

Scores on the Recovery Assessment Scale were also significantly higher in the peer worker PAD group versus controls with an effect size of 0.44 (P < .001). There were no significant differences, however, in overall admission rates, the quality of the therapeutic alliance, or quality of life.
 

Putting patients in the driver’s seat

Commenting on the findings, Robert Dabney Jr., MA, MDiv, peer apprentice program manager at the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Chicago, said the study “tells us there are many benefits to completing a psychiatric advance directive, but perhaps the most powerful one is putting the person receiving mental health care in the driver’s seat of their own recovery.”

However, he noted that “many people living with mental health conditions don’t know the option exists to decide on their treatment plan in advance of a crisis.”

“This is where peer support specialists can come in. Having a peer who has been through similar experiences and can guide you through the process is as comforting as it is empowering. I have witnessed and experienced firsthand the power of peer support,” he said.

“It’s my personal hope and the goal of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance to empower more people to either become peer support specialists or seek out peer support services, because we know it improves and even saves lives,” Mr. Dabney added.

Virginia A. Brown, PhD, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, noted there are huge differences between the health care systems in France and the United States.

She explained that two of the greatest barriers to PADs in the United States is that until 2016, filling one out was not billable and that “practitioners don’t know anything about advanced care plans.”

Dr. Brown said her own work shows that individuals who support patients during a crisis believe it would be “really helpful if we had some kind of document that we could share with the health care system that says: ‘Hey, look, I’m the designated person to speak for this patient, they’ve identified me through a document.’ So, people were actually describing a need for this document but didn’t know that it existed.”

Another problem is that in the United States, hospitals operate in a “closed system” and cannot talk to an unrelated hospital or to the police department “to get information to those first responders during an emergency about who to talk to about their wishes and preferences.”

“There are a lot of hurdles that we’ve got to get over to make a more robust system that protects the autonomy of people who live with serious mental illness,” Dr. Brown said, as “losing capacity during a crisis is time-limited, and it requires us to respond to it as a medical emergency.”

The study was supported by an institutional grant from the French 2017 National Program of Health Services Research. The Clinical Research Direction of Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille sponsored the trial. Dr. Tinland declares grants from the French Ministry of Health Directorate General of Health Care Services during the conduct of the study.

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

Providing peer or community health workers to help psychiatric patients complete psychiatric advance directives (PAD) – which govern care in advance of a mental health crisis – is associated with a significant reduction in compulsory hospital admissions, new research shows.

Results of a randomized trial showed the peer worker PAD group had a 42% reduction in compulsory admission over the following 12 months. This study group also had lower symptom scores, greater rates of recovery, and increased empowerment, compared with patients assigned to usual care.

In addition to proving that PADs are effective in reducing compulsory admission, the results show that facilitation by peer workers is relevant, study investigator Aurélie Tinland, MD, PhD, Faculté de Médecine Timone, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2022 Congress. The study was simultaneously published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

However, Dr. Tinland noted that more research that includes “harder to reach” populations is needed. In addition, greater use of PADs is also key to reducing compulsory admissions.
 

‘Most coercive’ country

The researchers note that respect for patient autonomy is a strong pillar of health care, such that “involuntary treatment should be unusual.” However, they point out that “compulsory psychiatric admissions are far too common in countries of all income levels.”

In France, said Dr. Tinland, 24% of psychiatric hospitalizations are compulsory. The country is ranked the sixth “most coercive” country in the world, and there are concerns about human rights in French psychiatric facilities.

She added that advance care statements are the most efficient tool for reducing coercion, with one study suggesting they could cut rates by 25%, compared with usual care.

However, she noted there is an “asymmetry” between medical professionals and patients and a risk of “undue influence” when clinicians facilitate the completion of care statements.

To examine the impact on clinical outcomes of peer-worker facilitated PADs, the researchers studied adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, or schizoaffective disorder who were admitted to a psychiatric hospital within the previous 12 months. Peer workers are individuals who have lived experience with mental illness and help inform and guide current patients about care options in the event of a mental health crisis.

Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to an intervention group or a usual care control group. The intervention group received a PAD document and were assigned a peer worker while the usual care group received comprehensive information about the PAD concept at study entry and were free to complete it, but they were not connected with a peer worker.

The PAD document included information about future treatment and support preferences, early signs of relapse, and coping strategies. Participants could meet the peer worker in a place of their choice and be supported in drafting the document and in sharing it with health care professionals.

In all, 394 individuals completed the study. The majority (61%) of participants were male and 66% had completed post-secondary education. Schizophrenia was diagnosed in 45%, bipolar I disorder in 36%, and schizoaffective disorder in 19%.

Participants in the intervention group were significantly younger than those in the control group, with a mean of 37.4 years versus 41 years (P = .003) and were less likely to have one or more somatic comorbidities, at 61.2% versus 69.2%.

A PAD was completed by 54.6% of individuals in the intervention group versus 7.1% of controls (P < .001). The PAD was written with peer worker support by 41.3% of those in the intervention and by 2% of controls. Of those who completed a PAD, 75.7% met care facilitators, and 27.1% used it during a crisis over the following 12 months.

Results showed that the rate of compulsory admissions was significantly lower in the peer worker PAD group, at 27% versus 39.9% in control participants, at an odds ratio of 0.58 (P = .007).

Participants in the intervention group had lower symptoms on the modified Colorado Symptom Score than usual care patients with an effect size of -0.20 (P = .03) and higher scores on the Empowerment Scale (effect size 0.30, P = .003).

Scores on the Recovery Assessment Scale were also significantly higher in the peer worker PAD group versus controls with an effect size of 0.44 (P < .001). There were no significant differences, however, in overall admission rates, the quality of the therapeutic alliance, or quality of life.
 

Putting patients in the driver’s seat

Commenting on the findings, Robert Dabney Jr., MA, MDiv, peer apprentice program manager at the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Chicago, said the study “tells us there are many benefits to completing a psychiatric advance directive, but perhaps the most powerful one is putting the person receiving mental health care in the driver’s seat of their own recovery.”

However, he noted that “many people living with mental health conditions don’t know the option exists to decide on their treatment plan in advance of a crisis.”

“This is where peer support specialists can come in. Having a peer who has been through similar experiences and can guide you through the process is as comforting as it is empowering. I have witnessed and experienced firsthand the power of peer support,” he said.

“It’s my personal hope and the goal of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance to empower more people to either become peer support specialists or seek out peer support services, because we know it improves and even saves lives,” Mr. Dabney added.

Virginia A. Brown, PhD, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, noted there are huge differences between the health care systems in France and the United States.

She explained that two of the greatest barriers to PADs in the United States is that until 2016, filling one out was not billable and that “practitioners don’t know anything about advanced care plans.”

Dr. Brown said her own work shows that individuals who support patients during a crisis believe it would be “really helpful if we had some kind of document that we could share with the health care system that says: ‘Hey, look, I’m the designated person to speak for this patient, they’ve identified me through a document.’ So, people were actually describing a need for this document but didn’t know that it existed.”

Another problem is that in the United States, hospitals operate in a “closed system” and cannot talk to an unrelated hospital or to the police department “to get information to those first responders during an emergency about who to talk to about their wishes and preferences.”

“There are a lot of hurdles that we’ve got to get over to make a more robust system that protects the autonomy of people who live with serious mental illness,” Dr. Brown said, as “losing capacity during a crisis is time-limited, and it requires us to respond to it as a medical emergency.”

The study was supported by an institutional grant from the French 2017 National Program of Health Services Research. The Clinical Research Direction of Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille sponsored the trial. Dr. Tinland declares grants from the French Ministry of Health Directorate General of Health Care Services during the conduct of the study.

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

Providing peer or community health workers to help psychiatric patients complete psychiatric advance directives (PAD) – which govern care in advance of a mental health crisis – is associated with a significant reduction in compulsory hospital admissions, new research shows.

Results of a randomized trial showed the peer worker PAD group had a 42% reduction in compulsory admission over the following 12 months. This study group also had lower symptom scores, greater rates of recovery, and increased empowerment, compared with patients assigned to usual care.

In addition to proving that PADs are effective in reducing compulsory admission, the results show that facilitation by peer workers is relevant, study investigator Aurélie Tinland, MD, PhD, Faculté de Médecine Timone, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2022 Congress. The study was simultaneously published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

However, Dr. Tinland noted that more research that includes “harder to reach” populations is needed. In addition, greater use of PADs is also key to reducing compulsory admissions.
 

‘Most coercive’ country

The researchers note that respect for patient autonomy is a strong pillar of health care, such that “involuntary treatment should be unusual.” However, they point out that “compulsory psychiatric admissions are far too common in countries of all income levels.”

In France, said Dr. Tinland, 24% of psychiatric hospitalizations are compulsory. The country is ranked the sixth “most coercive” country in the world, and there are concerns about human rights in French psychiatric facilities.

She added that advance care statements are the most efficient tool for reducing coercion, with one study suggesting they could cut rates by 25%, compared with usual care.

However, she noted there is an “asymmetry” between medical professionals and patients and a risk of “undue influence” when clinicians facilitate the completion of care statements.

To examine the impact on clinical outcomes of peer-worker facilitated PADs, the researchers studied adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, or schizoaffective disorder who were admitted to a psychiatric hospital within the previous 12 months. Peer workers are individuals who have lived experience with mental illness and help inform and guide current patients about care options in the event of a mental health crisis.

Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to an intervention group or a usual care control group. The intervention group received a PAD document and were assigned a peer worker while the usual care group received comprehensive information about the PAD concept at study entry and were free to complete it, but they were not connected with a peer worker.

The PAD document included information about future treatment and support preferences, early signs of relapse, and coping strategies. Participants could meet the peer worker in a place of their choice and be supported in drafting the document and in sharing it with health care professionals.

In all, 394 individuals completed the study. The majority (61%) of participants were male and 66% had completed post-secondary education. Schizophrenia was diagnosed in 45%, bipolar I disorder in 36%, and schizoaffective disorder in 19%.

Participants in the intervention group were significantly younger than those in the control group, with a mean of 37.4 years versus 41 years (P = .003) and were less likely to have one or more somatic comorbidities, at 61.2% versus 69.2%.

A PAD was completed by 54.6% of individuals in the intervention group versus 7.1% of controls (P < .001). The PAD was written with peer worker support by 41.3% of those in the intervention and by 2% of controls. Of those who completed a PAD, 75.7% met care facilitators, and 27.1% used it during a crisis over the following 12 months.

Results showed that the rate of compulsory admissions was significantly lower in the peer worker PAD group, at 27% versus 39.9% in control participants, at an odds ratio of 0.58 (P = .007).

Participants in the intervention group had lower symptoms on the modified Colorado Symptom Score than usual care patients with an effect size of -0.20 (P = .03) and higher scores on the Empowerment Scale (effect size 0.30, P = .003).

Scores on the Recovery Assessment Scale were also significantly higher in the peer worker PAD group versus controls with an effect size of 0.44 (P < .001). There were no significant differences, however, in overall admission rates, the quality of the therapeutic alliance, or quality of life.
 

Putting patients in the driver’s seat

Commenting on the findings, Robert Dabney Jr., MA, MDiv, peer apprentice program manager at the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Chicago, said the study “tells us there are many benefits to completing a psychiatric advance directive, but perhaps the most powerful one is putting the person receiving mental health care in the driver’s seat of their own recovery.”

However, he noted that “many people living with mental health conditions don’t know the option exists to decide on their treatment plan in advance of a crisis.”

“This is where peer support specialists can come in. Having a peer who has been through similar experiences and can guide you through the process is as comforting as it is empowering. I have witnessed and experienced firsthand the power of peer support,” he said.

“It’s my personal hope and the goal of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance to empower more people to either become peer support specialists or seek out peer support services, because we know it improves and even saves lives,” Mr. Dabney added.

Virginia A. Brown, PhD, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, noted there are huge differences between the health care systems in France and the United States.

She explained that two of the greatest barriers to PADs in the United States is that until 2016, filling one out was not billable and that “practitioners don’t know anything about advanced care plans.”

Dr. Brown said her own work shows that individuals who support patients during a crisis believe it would be “really helpful if we had some kind of document that we could share with the health care system that says: ‘Hey, look, I’m the designated person to speak for this patient, they’ve identified me through a document.’ So, people were actually describing a need for this document but didn’t know that it existed.”

Another problem is that in the United States, hospitals operate in a “closed system” and cannot talk to an unrelated hospital or to the police department “to get information to those first responders during an emergency about who to talk to about their wishes and preferences.”

“There are a lot of hurdles that we’ve got to get over to make a more robust system that protects the autonomy of people who live with serious mental illness,” Dr. Brown said, as “losing capacity during a crisis is time-limited, and it requires us to respond to it as a medical emergency.”

The study was supported by an institutional grant from the French 2017 National Program of Health Services Research. The Clinical Research Direction of Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille sponsored the trial. Dr. Tinland declares grants from the French Ministry of Health Directorate General of Health Care Services during the conduct of the study.

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

The White House announced an effort on June 21 to require tobacco companies to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes sold in the United States.

The Department of Health and Human Services posted a notice that details plans for a new rule to create a maximum allowed amount of nicotine in certain tobacco products. The Food and Drug Administration would take the action, the notice said, “to reduce addictiveness to certain tobacco products, thus giving addicted users a greater ability to quit.” The product standard would also help keep nonsmokers interested in trying tobacco, mainly youth, from starting to smoke and become regulars.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

“Lowering nicotine levels to minimally addictive or non-addictive levels would decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.

The FDA, in charge of regulating cigarettes, issues a proposed rule when changes are discussed. That would be followed by a period for public comments before a final rule could be issued.

The proposed rule was first reported by The Washington Post.

The FDA in 2018 published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated that a potential limit on nicotine in cigarettes could, by the year 2100, prevent more than 33 million people from becoming regular smokers, and prevent the deaths of more than 8 million people from tobacco-related illnesses.

The action to reduce nicotine levels would fit in with President Joe Biden’s goal of reducing cancer death rates by half over 25 years. Each year, according to the American Cancer Society, about 480,000 deaths (about 1 in 5) are related to smoking. Currently, about 34 million American adults still smoke cigarettes.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the proposed rule a “truly game-changing proposal.”

“There is no other single action our country can take that would prevent more young people from becoming addicted to tobacco or have a greater impact on reducing deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease,” Mr. Myers said in a statement.

However, he said, “these gains will only be realized if the administration and the FDA demonstrate a full-throated commitment to finalizing and implementing this proposal.”

The FDA proposed the nicotine reduction strategy in talks with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services early in 2021, according to the Post.

Earlier this year, the FDA issued a proposed rule to ban menthol flavoring in cigarettes. The agency is accepting public comments though July 5.

The action of reducing nicotine levels would likely take years to complete, Mitch Zeller, JD, recently retired director of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products, told the Post.

In 2018, the FDA issued a proposed ruling to set a standard for maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes.

Advocates say the action of slashing nicotine, the active – and addictive – ingredient in cigarettes, would save millions of lives for generations to come. Opponents liken it to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and predict the action will fail.

Others say that if limits are put on nicotine levels, adults should have greater access to noncombustible alternatives.

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

The White House announced an effort on June 21 to require tobacco companies to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes sold in the United States.

The Department of Health and Human Services posted a notice that details plans for a new rule to create a maximum allowed amount of nicotine in certain tobacco products. The Food and Drug Administration would take the action, the notice said, “to reduce addictiveness to certain tobacco products, thus giving addicted users a greater ability to quit.” The product standard would also help keep nonsmokers interested in trying tobacco, mainly youth, from starting to smoke and become regulars.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

“Lowering nicotine levels to minimally addictive or non-addictive levels would decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.

The FDA, in charge of regulating cigarettes, issues a proposed rule when changes are discussed. That would be followed by a period for public comments before a final rule could be issued.

The proposed rule was first reported by The Washington Post.

The FDA in 2018 published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated that a potential limit on nicotine in cigarettes could, by the year 2100, prevent more than 33 million people from becoming regular smokers, and prevent the deaths of more than 8 million people from tobacco-related illnesses.

The action to reduce nicotine levels would fit in with President Joe Biden’s goal of reducing cancer death rates by half over 25 years. Each year, according to the American Cancer Society, about 480,000 deaths (about 1 in 5) are related to smoking. Currently, about 34 million American adults still smoke cigarettes.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the proposed rule a “truly game-changing proposal.”

“There is no other single action our country can take that would prevent more young people from becoming addicted to tobacco or have a greater impact on reducing deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease,” Mr. Myers said in a statement.

However, he said, “these gains will only be realized if the administration and the FDA demonstrate a full-throated commitment to finalizing and implementing this proposal.”

The FDA proposed the nicotine reduction strategy in talks with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services early in 2021, according to the Post.

Earlier this year, the FDA issued a proposed rule to ban menthol flavoring in cigarettes. The agency is accepting public comments though July 5.

The action of reducing nicotine levels would likely take years to complete, Mitch Zeller, JD, recently retired director of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products, told the Post.

In 2018, the FDA issued a proposed ruling to set a standard for maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes.

Advocates say the action of slashing nicotine, the active – and addictive – ingredient in cigarettes, would save millions of lives for generations to come. Opponents liken it to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and predict the action will fail.

Others say that if limits are put on nicotine levels, adults should have greater access to noncombustible alternatives.

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

The White House announced an effort on June 21 to require tobacco companies to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes sold in the United States.

The Department of Health and Human Services posted a notice that details plans for a new rule to create a maximum allowed amount of nicotine in certain tobacco products. The Food and Drug Administration would take the action, the notice said, “to reduce addictiveness to certain tobacco products, thus giving addicted users a greater ability to quit.” The product standard would also help keep nonsmokers interested in trying tobacco, mainly youth, from starting to smoke and become regulars.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

“Lowering nicotine levels to minimally addictive or non-addictive levels would decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.

The FDA, in charge of regulating cigarettes, issues a proposed rule when changes are discussed. That would be followed by a period for public comments before a final rule could be issued.

The proposed rule was first reported by The Washington Post.

The FDA in 2018 published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated that a potential limit on nicotine in cigarettes could, by the year 2100, prevent more than 33 million people from becoming regular smokers, and prevent the deaths of more than 8 million people from tobacco-related illnesses.

The action to reduce nicotine levels would fit in with President Joe Biden’s goal of reducing cancer death rates by half over 25 years. Each year, according to the American Cancer Society, about 480,000 deaths (about 1 in 5) are related to smoking. Currently, about 34 million American adults still smoke cigarettes.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the proposed rule a “truly game-changing proposal.”

“There is no other single action our country can take that would prevent more young people from becoming addicted to tobacco or have a greater impact on reducing deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease,” Mr. Myers said in a statement.

However, he said, “these gains will only be realized if the administration and the FDA demonstrate a full-throated commitment to finalizing and implementing this proposal.”

The FDA proposed the nicotine reduction strategy in talks with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services early in 2021, according to the Post.

Earlier this year, the FDA issued a proposed rule to ban menthol flavoring in cigarettes. The agency is accepting public comments though July 5.

The action of reducing nicotine levels would likely take years to complete, Mitch Zeller, JD, recently retired director of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products, told the Post.

In 2018, the FDA issued a proposed ruling to set a standard for maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes.

Advocates say the action of slashing nicotine, the active – and addictive – ingredient in cigarettes, would save millions of lives for generations to come. Opponents liken it to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and predict the action will fail.

Others say that if limits are put on nicotine levels, adults should have greater access to noncombustible alternatives.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has rejected the atypical antipsychotic pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease psychosis (ADP).

In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.

The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).

In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lack of efficacy

Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.

The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.

Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
 

Lack of diversity

The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.

In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.

When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.  

“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.

Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
 

An unmet need

Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.

“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.

Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.

“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”

The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.

Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.

“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.

Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”

The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has rejected the atypical antipsychotic pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease psychosis (ADP).

In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.

The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).

In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lack of efficacy

Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.

The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.

Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
 

Lack of diversity

The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.

In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.

When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.  

“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.

Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
 

An unmet need

Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.

“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.

Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.

“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”

The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.

Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.

“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.

Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”

The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.

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

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has rejected the atypical antipsychotic pimavanserin (Nuplazid, Acadia Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease psychosis (ADP).

In a 9-3 vote, the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee (PDAC) found that the drug’s manufacturer failed to offer convincing evidence of its efficacy in patients with ADP.

The June 17 rejection was the second rejection in as many years for a new indication for pimavanserin, which was approved in 2016 for Parkinson’s disease psychosis (PDP).

In April 2021, the FDA denied Acadia’s supplemental new drug application to expand the drug’s indication to include the treatment of all dementia-related psychosis, regardless of the underlying cause of dementia, citing issues with two studies the company presented as evidence of efficacy.

Waldemarus/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Lack of efficacy

Pimavanserin is a selective serotonin inverse agonist and antagonist preferentially targeting 5-HT2A receptors, which are thought to play an important role in psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, and other neuropsychiatric disorders.

When it rejected Acadia’s original, broader application for pimavanserin for all dementia-related psychosis, the FDA found that the HARMONY phase 3 trial, previously covered by this news organization, was underpowered to assess efficacy in specific dementia patient subgroups and lacked statistical significance of efficacy in patients with AD. In addition, it noted that overall findings appeared to be driven by results in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, a condition already covered by the approved indication.

The FDA found that the second study, referred to in the June 17 hearing as Study 019, which was also previously reported by this news organization, was not “an adequate and well-controlled study.”

Specifically, the agency raised concerns about “protocol deviations,” such as the inclusion of patients who lacked clear documentation that psychotic symptoms developed after an AD diagnosis had been established and patients who received exclusionary medications at the time of randomization.

Discussions between Acadia and the FDA continued over the past year, with the company submitting new analyses and responses. An FDA briefing document published in advance of the committee meeting seemed to suggest the agency was satisfied with Acadia’s response.
 

Lack of diversity

The advisory committee disagreed, pointing to the same concerns raised last year. Members raised concerns about patient diversity in the HARMONY trial, which included an almost entirely White and mostly male study population.

In addition, although the findings at 26 weeks did demonstrate a marked improvement in psychosis symptoms overall, committee members noted that, again, those findings were largely driven by efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease dementia, for which the drug is already approved.

When discussing the phase 2 Study 019, the committee noted that while the study met the primary outcome of improvement in psychosis at 6 weeks, those positive responses were not found at any other timepoint in the 12-week study.  

“While it might have had a positive numerical effect in the study, the evidence is really not there to support it,” Dr. Follmann said.

Dr. Follmann and other committee members called for additional trials that focus on patients with Alzheimer’s disease, have a longer follow-up, and include more gender and racial diversity in the study population. They also called for more information about any off-label use of pimavanserin for ADP since it was approved for PDP in 2016.
 

An unmet need

Most individuals who testified during the public comment period pleaded with the committee to vote in favor of the new indication, sharing stories of family members and patients with ADP.

“I have been caring for and studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for more than 30 years, and I can tell you very simply that if left untreated, psychosis has significant and sometimes devastating consequences for our patients,” said Pierre Tariot, MD, director of the Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, and an investigator on the HARMONY trial.

Those on the committee who voted against the application were quick to agree that lack of an approved treatment for ADP presents a hardship.

“I’m a neurologist who has cared for patients for more than 20 years,” said Madhav R. Thambisetty, MD, PhD, senior investigator for the National Institute on Aging and an adjunct professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. “I recognize the unmet need in the field, I just think that the unmet need should not be a justification to cut corners.”

The committee did not focus on drug safety or unmet need in its deliberations, although information on both were presented during the meeting.

Commenting on his “no” vote, PDAC member Walter S. Dunn, MD, PhD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of Interventional Psychiatry Service at West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, said he hopes that the FDA will consider those issues more broadly as they complete their review.

“The questions before the committee have been narrow and precise, so I trust the agency will take a broader approach in their final decision about approval,” Dr. Dunn said.

Commenting on the decision, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer, Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, called the news disappointing, “but while the unmet need for a treatment for ADP is clear, it is vital that approved treatments meet stringent safety and efficacy criteria so we can offer patients medications with clear benefits.”

The FDA will make its final decision by August 4.

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

The following highlights are a brief overview of guideline updates, drug approvals, and diagnostics relevant to geriatric medicine from June 2021 to April 2022, some of which were discussed at the American Geriatrics Society conference in May. I selected these topics as they were among the most discussed by my colleagues in geriatric medicine and inquired about by my primary care patients in geriatric medicine clinic. I hope that these updates provide primary care clinicians who care for older adults with more context and background information regarding new Alzheimer’s disease therapy to better answer patient inquiries, and to feel empowered to deprescribe aspirin and reframe the diagnostic criteria of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Aspirin for primary prevention

It was welcome news in the geriatrics community when the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their guidelines in April 2022 to recommend against the initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in adults aged 60 or older. This recommendation was based on studies that found that net benefits of CVD prevention in older adults are outweighed by risk of bleeding.¹

The risk of bleeding increases with age and can occur in individuals without common risk factors for bleeding, such as prior gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, concurrent NSAID use, or corticosteroid use.

While it may be easier to not initiate aspirin for primary prevention, deprescribing aspirin for patients who have been on aspirin long term for primary prevention presents more of a challenge. Modeling data from the USPTSF suggest stopping aspirin at age 75 for those taking aspirin for primary prevention.²

Behavioral change, particularly for patients who have been on aspirin for decades, can be difficult. A 2021 study by Green et al. found that language that resonates the most with older adults when deprescribing emphasized the side effects rather than statements such as “this will not help you” or “do not need anymore.”3
 

Aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia

One of the most discussed topics this past year is the Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) in June 2021. Aducanumab is the first approved disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer’s disease and the first drug approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 2003. Aducanumab is an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody that was developed to reduce amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the features of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.

Uptake of aducanumab by dementia providers has been limited for several reasons. Firstly, the clinical significance of the drug remains in question. ENGAGE and EMERGE were the two main randomized clinical trials that studied the effect of aducanumab on amyloid burden and clinical stages of dementia over 18 months. While both studies demonstrated that aducanumab reduced amyloid burden based on neuroimaging and in cerebrospinal fluid, the ENGAGE trial found no difference in the stage of dementia. The EMERGE trial did note a small, statistically significant difference in stage of dementia, however the participants of the EMERGE trial had a faster rate of progression of dementia than the placebo participants in the ENGAGE trial, which could have contributed to the difference detected.⁴

Additionally, exclusion criteria for both trials call into question the generalizability of this study. Participants over age 85, with CKD, prior stroke, or transient ischemic attacks, or on anticoagulation were excluded. One of the drivers for the exclusion criteria is the increased risk of macro and microhemorrhages.

Thirty-five percent of research participants were incidentally noted to have brain edema, an abnormality called amyloid-related imaging abnormality or ARIA-E, that necessitated serial monitoring with brain MRIs. It is also important to highlight that inclusion of African American, Hispanic, and Latinx participants in these studies was less than 5%, despite a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in these populations.⁵

Lastly, economic implications for the U.S. health care system with increased uptake of aducanumab could be enormous. Originally quoted at $56,000 yearly, Biogen, the maker of aducanumab, recently reduced annual costs to $28,200 per patient.

In April 2022, CMS released a statement that antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies and related services, including PET scans, would be covered under Medicare for those with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia with confirmed presence of amyloid. A study by Mafi et al. estimated that aducanumab could cost Medicare between $7 billion and $37.4 billion annually based on lower and upper bound estimates of eligible Medicare beneficiaries.⁶
 

Overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults

The current diagnostic criteria of CKD, which is based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60, has been up for debate, as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) physiologically decreases with age. Fixed thresholds can lead to underdiagnosis of CKD in younger adults and overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults. Age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD have been proposed, with the suggestion of an eGFR threshold of 45mL/min/1.73 m² for adults aged 65 and older.⁷

The clinical implication of using an age-adapted eGFR threshold definition was investigated in a 2021 cohort study by Liu et al.⁸ In this study, outcomes of adults diagnosed with CKD using a fixed threshold versus age-adapted threshold were compared with a healthy cohort.

A fixed threshold led to a 60% higher incidence of CKD diagnosis. However, incidence of renal failure and all-cause mortality in older adults with an eGFR between 45-59 /min/1.73 m2 with normal or mild albuminuria was of similar magnitude to the healthy cohort at 5 years of follow-up.

These findings support the use of age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD in older adults, as an earlier diagnosis of mild CKD does not equate to clinical benefits, but could lead to harms of unnecessary interventions and patient anxiety.
 

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. Selak Vet al. Predicting bleeding risk to guide aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(6):357-68. doi: 10.7326/M18-2808.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4983.

3. Green AR et al. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633.

4. Oh ES. Use of anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

5. Amjad H. Issues of Access and Marginalization. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at: American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

6. Mafi JN et al. Estimated annual spending on aducanumab in the U.S. Medicare program. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214495. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4495.

7. Delanaye P et al. CKD: A call for an age-adapted definition. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(10):1785-1805. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019030238.

8. Liu Pet al. Accounting for age in the definition of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1359-66. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4813.

The following highlights are a brief overview of guideline updates, drug approvals, and diagnostics relevant to geriatric medicine from June 2021 to April 2022, some of which were discussed at the American Geriatrics Society conference in May. I selected these topics as they were among the most discussed by my colleagues in geriatric medicine and inquired about by my primary care patients in geriatric medicine clinic. I hope that these updates provide primary care clinicians who care for older adults with more context and background information regarding new Alzheimer’s disease therapy to better answer patient inquiries, and to feel empowered to deprescribe aspirin and reframe the diagnostic criteria of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Aspirin for primary prevention

It was welcome news in the geriatrics community when the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their guidelines in April 2022 to recommend against the initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in adults aged 60 or older. This recommendation was based on studies that found that net benefits of CVD prevention in older adults are outweighed by risk of bleeding.¹

The risk of bleeding increases with age and can occur in individuals without common risk factors for bleeding, such as prior gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, concurrent NSAID use, or corticosteroid use.

While it may be easier to not initiate aspirin for primary prevention, deprescribing aspirin for patients who have been on aspirin long term for primary prevention presents more of a challenge. Modeling data from the USPTSF suggest stopping aspirin at age 75 for those taking aspirin for primary prevention.²

Behavioral change, particularly for patients who have been on aspirin for decades, can be difficult. A 2021 study by Green et al. found that language that resonates the most with older adults when deprescribing emphasized the side effects rather than statements such as “this will not help you” or “do not need anymore.”3
 

Aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia

One of the most discussed topics this past year is the Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) in June 2021. Aducanumab is the first approved disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer’s disease and the first drug approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 2003. Aducanumab is an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody that was developed to reduce amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the features of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.

Uptake of aducanumab by dementia providers has been limited for several reasons. Firstly, the clinical significance of the drug remains in question. ENGAGE and EMERGE were the two main randomized clinical trials that studied the effect of aducanumab on amyloid burden and clinical stages of dementia over 18 months. While both studies demonstrated that aducanumab reduced amyloid burden based on neuroimaging and in cerebrospinal fluid, the ENGAGE trial found no difference in the stage of dementia. The EMERGE trial did note a small, statistically significant difference in stage of dementia, however the participants of the EMERGE trial had a faster rate of progression of dementia than the placebo participants in the ENGAGE trial, which could have contributed to the difference detected.⁴

Additionally, exclusion criteria for both trials call into question the generalizability of this study. Participants over age 85, with CKD, prior stroke, or transient ischemic attacks, or on anticoagulation were excluded. One of the drivers for the exclusion criteria is the increased risk of macro and microhemorrhages.

Thirty-five percent of research participants were incidentally noted to have brain edema, an abnormality called amyloid-related imaging abnormality or ARIA-E, that necessitated serial monitoring with brain MRIs. It is also important to highlight that inclusion of African American, Hispanic, and Latinx participants in these studies was less than 5%, despite a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in these populations.⁵

Lastly, economic implications for the U.S. health care system with increased uptake of aducanumab could be enormous. Originally quoted at $56,000 yearly, Biogen, the maker of aducanumab, recently reduced annual costs to $28,200 per patient.

In April 2022, CMS released a statement that antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies and related services, including PET scans, would be covered under Medicare for those with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia with confirmed presence of amyloid. A study by Mafi et al. estimated that aducanumab could cost Medicare between $7 billion and $37.4 billion annually based on lower and upper bound estimates of eligible Medicare beneficiaries.⁶
 

Overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults

The current diagnostic criteria of CKD, which is based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60, has been up for debate, as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) physiologically decreases with age. Fixed thresholds can lead to underdiagnosis of CKD in younger adults and overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults. Age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD have been proposed, with the suggestion of an eGFR threshold of 45mL/min/1.73 m² for adults aged 65 and older.⁷

The clinical implication of using an age-adapted eGFR threshold definition was investigated in a 2021 cohort study by Liu et al.⁸ In this study, outcomes of adults diagnosed with CKD using a fixed threshold versus age-adapted threshold were compared with a healthy cohort.

A fixed threshold led to a 60% higher incidence of CKD diagnosis. However, incidence of renal failure and all-cause mortality in older adults with an eGFR between 45-59 /min/1.73 m2 with normal or mild albuminuria was of similar magnitude to the healthy cohort at 5 years of follow-up.

These findings support the use of age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD in older adults, as an earlier diagnosis of mild CKD does not equate to clinical benefits, but could lead to harms of unnecessary interventions and patient anxiety.
 

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. Selak Vet al. Predicting bleeding risk to guide aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(6):357-68. doi: 10.7326/M18-2808.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4983.

3. Green AR et al. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633.

4. Oh ES. Use of anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

5. Amjad H. Issues of Access and Marginalization. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at: American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

6. Mafi JN et al. Estimated annual spending on aducanumab in the U.S. Medicare program. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214495. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4495.

7. Delanaye P et al. CKD: A call for an age-adapted definition. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(10):1785-1805. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019030238.

8. Liu Pet al. Accounting for age in the definition of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1359-66. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4813.

The following highlights are a brief overview of guideline updates, drug approvals, and diagnostics relevant to geriatric medicine from June 2021 to April 2022, some of which were discussed at the American Geriatrics Society conference in May. I selected these topics as they were among the most discussed by my colleagues in geriatric medicine and inquired about by my primary care patients in geriatric medicine clinic. I hope that these updates provide primary care clinicians who care for older adults with more context and background information regarding new Alzheimer’s disease therapy to better answer patient inquiries, and to feel empowered to deprescribe aspirin and reframe the diagnostic criteria of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Aspirin for primary prevention

It was welcome news in the geriatrics community when the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their guidelines in April 2022 to recommend against the initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in adults aged 60 or older. This recommendation was based on studies that found that net benefits of CVD prevention in older adults are outweighed by risk of bleeding.¹

The risk of bleeding increases with age and can occur in individuals without common risk factors for bleeding, such as prior gastrointestinal bleeding, peptic ulcer disease, concurrent NSAID use, or corticosteroid use.

While it may be easier to not initiate aspirin for primary prevention, deprescribing aspirin for patients who have been on aspirin long term for primary prevention presents more of a challenge. Modeling data from the USPTSF suggest stopping aspirin at age 75 for those taking aspirin for primary prevention.²

Behavioral change, particularly for patients who have been on aspirin for decades, can be difficult. A 2021 study by Green et al. found that language that resonates the most with older adults when deprescribing emphasized the side effects rather than statements such as “this will not help you” or “do not need anymore.”3
 

Aducanumab for mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia

One of the most discussed topics this past year is the Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab (brand name Aduhelm) in June 2021. Aducanumab is the first approved disease-modifying therapy for Alzheimer’s disease and the first drug approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease since 2003. Aducanumab is an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody that was developed to reduce amyloid plaque in the brain, one of the features of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.

Uptake of aducanumab by dementia providers has been limited for several reasons. Firstly, the clinical significance of the drug remains in question. ENGAGE and EMERGE were the two main randomized clinical trials that studied the effect of aducanumab on amyloid burden and clinical stages of dementia over 18 months. While both studies demonstrated that aducanumab reduced amyloid burden based on neuroimaging and in cerebrospinal fluid, the ENGAGE trial found no difference in the stage of dementia. The EMERGE trial did note a small, statistically significant difference in stage of dementia, however the participants of the EMERGE trial had a faster rate of progression of dementia than the placebo participants in the ENGAGE trial, which could have contributed to the difference detected.⁴

Additionally, exclusion criteria for both trials call into question the generalizability of this study. Participants over age 85, with CKD, prior stroke, or transient ischemic attacks, or on anticoagulation were excluded. One of the drivers for the exclusion criteria is the increased risk of macro and microhemorrhages.

Thirty-five percent of research participants were incidentally noted to have brain edema, an abnormality called amyloid-related imaging abnormality or ARIA-E, that necessitated serial monitoring with brain MRIs. It is also important to highlight that inclusion of African American, Hispanic, and Latinx participants in these studies was less than 5%, despite a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in these populations.⁵

Lastly, economic implications for the U.S. health care system with increased uptake of aducanumab could be enormous. Originally quoted at $56,000 yearly, Biogen, the maker of aducanumab, recently reduced annual costs to $28,200 per patient.

In April 2022, CMS released a statement that antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies and related services, including PET scans, would be covered under Medicare for those with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia with confirmed presence of amyloid. A study by Mafi et al. estimated that aducanumab could cost Medicare between $7 billion and $37.4 billion annually based on lower and upper bound estimates of eligible Medicare beneficiaries.⁶
 

Overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults

The current diagnostic criteria of CKD, which is based on an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60, has been up for debate, as glomerular filtration rate (GFR) physiologically decreases with age. Fixed thresholds can lead to underdiagnosis of CKD in younger adults and overdiagnosis of CKD in older adults. Age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD have been proposed, with the suggestion of an eGFR threshold of 45mL/min/1.73 m² for adults aged 65 and older.⁷

The clinical implication of using an age-adapted eGFR threshold definition was investigated in a 2021 cohort study by Liu et al.⁸ In this study, outcomes of adults diagnosed with CKD using a fixed threshold versus age-adapted threshold were compared with a healthy cohort.

A fixed threshold led to a 60% higher incidence of CKD diagnosis. However, incidence of renal failure and all-cause mortality in older adults with an eGFR between 45-59 /min/1.73 m2 with normal or mild albuminuria was of similar magnitude to the healthy cohort at 5 years of follow-up.

These findings support the use of age-adapted thresholds for the diagnosis of CKD in older adults, as an earlier diagnosis of mild CKD does not equate to clinical benefits, but could lead to harms of unnecessary interventions and patient anxiety.
 

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. Selak Vet al. Predicting bleeding risk to guide aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(6):357-68. doi: 10.7326/M18-2808.

2. US Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;327(16):1577-84. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.4983.

3. Green AR et al. Assessment of patient-preferred language to achieve goal-aligned deprescribing in older adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(4):e212633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633.

4. Oh ES. Use of anti-amyloid therapy for Alzheimer’s disease in clinical practice. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

5. Amjad H. Issues of Access and Marginalization. An update on Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis and therapeutics. Presentation at: American Geriatrics Society Meeting, 2022. Orlando.

6. Mafi JN et al. Estimated annual spending on aducanumab in the U.S. Medicare program. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214495. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.4495.

7. Delanaye P et al. CKD: A call for an age-adapted definition. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;30(10):1785-1805. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2019030238.

8. Liu Pet al. Accounting for age in the definition of chronic kidney disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(10):1359-66. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4813.

Symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) were significantly more common in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), compared with controls, based on data from 166 individuals up to age 18 years.

Autism spectrum disorder affects approximately 1 in 54 children in the United States, and recent studies have shown an increased risk of obstructive sleep apnea in this population, compared with the general pediatric population, wrote Pooja Santapuram, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues.

In a study published in the International Journal of Pediatric Ototrhinolaryngology , the researchers reviewed data from 166 children and adolescents up to 18 years of age with OSA who underwent adenotonsillectomy at a single center between 2019 and 2021. The primary objective was to assess OSA symptoms in children with and without ASD. The study population included 75 children with ASD and 91 controls. The average age of both the ASD group and control group was approximately 73 months.
 

OSA meets ASD

Obstructive sleep apnea is common in autism spectrum disorder. Children with OSA can present with a range of symptoms, including loud snoring, excessive daytime sleepiness, and changes in cognitive function. Some of these symptoms can overlap with and exacerbate symptoms of ASD, potentially delaying OSA diagnosis in children with both conditions. The primary objective of this study was to assess between-group difference in OSA symptomatology and age at OSA diagnosis in children with and without ASD. To do so, a retrospective chart review was conducted on the 166 pediatric patients.

Overall, significantly more OSA symptoms were reported in children with ASD, compared with controls (P < .001).

Lower autism severity was associated with an increased number of reported OSA symptoms (P = .006). There was not a significant between-group difference in age at OSA diagnosis (P = .999); however, lower autism severity was also associated with an increased age at diagnosis (P = .002). These findings suggest that OSA may present with a higher symptom burden in children with ASD, and children with lower ASD severity often experience delays in OSA diagnosis.

Interestingly, despite the known associations between obesity and OSA, children with an increased body mass index were not diagnosed with OSA at an earlier age in this sample population, the researchers indicated.

Because the current study revealed that children with less severe ASD are more likely to report an increased number of OSA symptoms and be diagnosed at a later age than children without ASD, clinicians should have a heightened sense for OSA evaluation in children with ASD, particularly in children with a lower severity of ASD and an increased BMI, the researchers concluded.

The research study was not externally funded, and the researchers reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

Symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) were significantly more common in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), compared with controls, based on data from 166 individuals up to age 18 years.

Autism spectrum disorder affects approximately 1 in 54 children in the United States, and recent studies have shown an increased risk of obstructive sleep apnea in this population, compared with the general pediatric population, wrote Pooja Santapuram, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues.

In a study published in the International Journal of Pediatric Ototrhinolaryngology , the researchers reviewed data from 166 children and adolescents up to 18 years of age with OSA who underwent adenotonsillectomy at a single center between 2019 and 2021. The primary objective was to assess OSA symptoms in children with and without ASD. The study population included 75 children with ASD and 91 controls. The average age of both the ASD group and control group was approximately 73 months.
 

OSA meets ASD

Obstructive sleep apnea is common in autism spectrum disorder. Children with OSA can present with a range of symptoms, including loud snoring, excessive daytime sleepiness, and changes in cognitive function. Some of these symptoms can overlap with and exacerbate symptoms of ASD, potentially delaying OSA diagnosis in children with both conditions. The primary objective of this study was to assess between-group difference in OSA symptomatology and age at OSA diagnosis in children with and without ASD. To do so, a retrospective chart review was conducted on the 166 pediatric patients.

Overall, significantly more OSA symptoms were reported in children with ASD, compared with controls (P < .001).

Lower autism severity was associated with an increased number of reported OSA symptoms (P = .006). There was not a significant between-group difference in age at OSA diagnosis (P = .999); however, lower autism severity was also associated with an increased age at diagnosis (P = .002). These findings suggest that OSA may present with a higher symptom burden in children with ASD, and children with lower ASD severity often experience delays in OSA diagnosis.

Interestingly, despite the known associations between obesity and OSA, children with an increased body mass index were not diagnosed with OSA at an earlier age in this sample population, the researchers indicated.

Because the current study revealed that children with less severe ASD are more likely to report an increased number of OSA symptoms and be diagnosed at a later age than children without ASD, clinicians should have a heightened sense for OSA evaluation in children with ASD, particularly in children with a lower severity of ASD and an increased BMI, the researchers concluded.

The research study was not externally funded, and the researchers reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

Symptoms of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) were significantly more common in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), compared with controls, based on data from 166 individuals up to age 18 years.

Autism spectrum disorder affects approximately 1 in 54 children in the United States, and recent studies have shown an increased risk of obstructive sleep apnea in this population, compared with the general pediatric population, wrote Pooja Santapuram, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues.

In a study published in the International Journal of Pediatric Ototrhinolaryngology , the researchers reviewed data from 166 children and adolescents up to 18 years of age with OSA who underwent adenotonsillectomy at a single center between 2019 and 2021. The primary objective was to assess OSA symptoms in children with and without ASD. The study population included 75 children with ASD and 91 controls. The average age of both the ASD group and control group was approximately 73 months.
 

OSA meets ASD

Obstructive sleep apnea is common in autism spectrum disorder. Children with OSA can present with a range of symptoms, including loud snoring, excessive daytime sleepiness, and changes in cognitive function. Some of these symptoms can overlap with and exacerbate symptoms of ASD, potentially delaying OSA diagnosis in children with both conditions. The primary objective of this study was to assess between-group difference in OSA symptomatology and age at OSA diagnosis in children with and without ASD. To do so, a retrospective chart review was conducted on the 166 pediatric patients.

Overall, significantly more OSA symptoms were reported in children with ASD, compared with controls (P < .001).

Lower autism severity was associated with an increased number of reported OSA symptoms (P = .006). There was not a significant between-group difference in age at OSA diagnosis (P = .999); however, lower autism severity was also associated with an increased age at diagnosis (P = .002). These findings suggest that OSA may present with a higher symptom burden in children with ASD, and children with lower ASD severity often experience delays in OSA diagnosis.

Interestingly, despite the known associations between obesity and OSA, children with an increased body mass index were not diagnosed with OSA at an earlier age in this sample population, the researchers indicated.

Because the current study revealed that children with less severe ASD are more likely to report an increased number of OSA symptoms and be diagnosed at a later age than children without ASD, clinicians should have a heightened sense for OSA evaluation in children with ASD, particularly in children with a lower severity of ASD and an increased BMI, the researchers concluded.

The research study was not externally funded, and the researchers reported that they had no conflicts of interest.