MDedge Psychiatry

Melatonin usage has become increasingly common among children in the United States, with almost one in five kids over the age of 5 having taken the sleep aid in the past 30 days, according to a recent study.

These findings should prompt clinicians to discuss with parents the various factors that could be driving sleep disturbances, and potential safety issues associated with melatonin usage, lead author Lauren E. Hartstein, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the Sleep and Development Lab at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and colleagues reported.

Writing in JAMA Pediatrics, the investigators noted that melatonin products are notorious for mislabeling, with active ingredient quantities as much as three times higher than the labeled amount. This issue is particularly concerning, they added, as calls to poison control for melatonin ingestion jumped more than fivefold from 2012 to 2021, with most cases involving children younger than 5 years. Meanwhile, scant evidence is available to characterize intentional usage in the same population.

“Current data are lacking on the prevalence of melatonin use and the frequency, dosing, and timing of melatonin administration in U.S. youth,” Dr. Hartstein and colleagues wrote.

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators conducted an online survey of parents with children and adolescents aged 1.0-13.9 years. The survey asked parents to report any melatonin usage in their children in the past 30 days.

Parents reporting melatonin usage were asked about frequency, dose, timing of administration before bedtime, and duration of use.

Findings were reported within three age groups: preschool (1-4 years), school aged (5-9 years), and preteen (10-13 years).

The survey revealed that almost one in five children in the older age groups were using melatonin, with a rate of 18.5% in the school-aged group and 19.4% in the preteen group. In comparison, 5.6% of preschool children had received melatonin for sleep in the past 30 days.
 

A significant uptick in usage

These findings point to a significant uptick in usage, according to Dr. Hartstein and colleagues, who cited a 2017-2018 study that found just 1.3% of U.S. children had taken melatonin in the past 30 days.

In the present study, melatonin was typically administered 30 minutes before bedtime, most often as a gummy (64.3%) or chewable tablet (27.0%).

Frequency of administration was similar between age groups and trended toward a bimodal pattern, with melatonin often given either 1 day per week or 7 days per week.

Median dose increased significantly with age, from 0.5 mg in the preschool group to 1.0 mg in the school-aged group and 2.0 mg in the preteen group. Median duration also showed a significant upward trend, with 12-month, 18-month, and 21-month durations, respectively, for ascending age groups.

The investigators concluded that melatonin usage among U.S. adolescents and children is “exceedingly common,” despite a lack of evidence to support long-term safety or guide optimal dosing.
 

Is melatonin use masking other sleep issues?

“Widespread melatonin use across developmental stages may suggest a high prevalence of sleep disruption, which deserves accurate diagnosis and effective treatment,” Dr. Hartstein and colleagues wrote. “Dissemination of information regarding safety concerns, such as overdose and supplement mislabeling, is necessary. Clinicians should discuss with parents the factors associated with sleep difficulties and effective behavioral strategies.”

Large-scale, long-term studies are needed, they added, to generate relevant safety and efficacy data, and to characterize the factors driving melatonin administration by parents.

courtesy UCLA

“Studies like these add to our knowledge base and give us insight into what patients or parents may be doing that can impact overall health,” said Alfonso J. Padilla, MD, assistant clinical professor of sleep medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a written comment. “Often, in normal encounters with our patients we may not be able to gather this information easily. It may help open conversations about sleep issues that are not being addressed.”

Dr. Padilla suggested that parents may believe that melatonin is safe because it is not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, when in fact they could be negatively impacting their children’s sleep. He noted that short-term risks include altered circadian rhythm and vivid dreams or nightmares, while long-term safety remains unclear.

“As a sleep physician, I use melatonin for specific indications only,” Dr. Padilla said. “I may use it in small children that are having difficulty falling asleep, especially in children with autism or special needs. I also use it for help in adjustment in circadian rhythm, especially in adolescents.”

He recommends melatonin, he added, if he has a complete case history, and melatonin is suitable for that patient.

Typically, it’s not.

“Most often a medication is not the answer for the sleep concern that parents are having about their child,” he said.

The investigators disclosed grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Award Program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. They reported no conflicts of interest.

Melatonin usage has become increasingly common among children in the United States, with almost one in five kids over the age of 5 having taken the sleep aid in the past 30 days, according to a recent study.

These findings should prompt clinicians to discuss with parents the various factors that could be driving sleep disturbances, and potential safety issues associated with melatonin usage, lead author Lauren E. Hartstein, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the Sleep and Development Lab at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and colleagues reported.

Writing in JAMA Pediatrics, the investigators noted that melatonin products are notorious for mislabeling, with active ingredient quantities as much as three times higher than the labeled amount. This issue is particularly concerning, they added, as calls to poison control for melatonin ingestion jumped more than fivefold from 2012 to 2021, with most cases involving children younger than 5 years. Meanwhile, scant evidence is available to characterize intentional usage in the same population.

“Current data are lacking on the prevalence of melatonin use and the frequency, dosing, and timing of melatonin administration in U.S. youth,” Dr. Hartstein and colleagues wrote.

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators conducted an online survey of parents with children and adolescents aged 1.0-13.9 years. The survey asked parents to report any melatonin usage in their children in the past 30 days.

Parents reporting melatonin usage were asked about frequency, dose, timing of administration before bedtime, and duration of use.

Findings were reported within three age groups: preschool (1-4 years), school aged (5-9 years), and preteen (10-13 years).

The survey revealed that almost one in five children in the older age groups were using melatonin, with a rate of 18.5% in the school-aged group and 19.4% in the preteen group. In comparison, 5.6% of preschool children had received melatonin for sleep in the past 30 days.
 

A significant uptick in usage

These findings point to a significant uptick in usage, according to Dr. Hartstein and colleagues, who cited a 2017-2018 study that found just 1.3% of U.S. children had taken melatonin in the past 30 days.

In the present study, melatonin was typically administered 30 minutes before bedtime, most often as a gummy (64.3%) or chewable tablet (27.0%).

Frequency of administration was similar between age groups and trended toward a bimodal pattern, with melatonin often given either 1 day per week or 7 days per week.

Median dose increased significantly with age, from 0.5 mg in the preschool group to 1.0 mg in the school-aged group and 2.0 mg in the preteen group. Median duration also showed a significant upward trend, with 12-month, 18-month, and 21-month durations, respectively, for ascending age groups.

The investigators concluded that melatonin usage among U.S. adolescents and children is “exceedingly common,” despite a lack of evidence to support long-term safety or guide optimal dosing.
 

Is melatonin use masking other sleep issues?

“Widespread melatonin use across developmental stages may suggest a high prevalence of sleep disruption, which deserves accurate diagnosis and effective treatment,” Dr. Hartstein and colleagues wrote. “Dissemination of information regarding safety concerns, such as overdose and supplement mislabeling, is necessary. Clinicians should discuss with parents the factors associated with sleep difficulties and effective behavioral strategies.”

Large-scale, long-term studies are needed, they added, to generate relevant safety and efficacy data, and to characterize the factors driving melatonin administration by parents.

courtesy UCLA

“Studies like these add to our knowledge base and give us insight into what patients or parents may be doing that can impact overall health,” said Alfonso J. Padilla, MD, assistant clinical professor of sleep medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a written comment. “Often, in normal encounters with our patients we may not be able to gather this information easily. It may help open conversations about sleep issues that are not being addressed.”

Dr. Padilla suggested that parents may believe that melatonin is safe because it is not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, when in fact they could be negatively impacting their children’s sleep. He noted that short-term risks include altered circadian rhythm and vivid dreams or nightmares, while long-term safety remains unclear.

“As a sleep physician, I use melatonin for specific indications only,” Dr. Padilla said. “I may use it in small children that are having difficulty falling asleep, especially in children with autism or special needs. I also use it for help in adjustment in circadian rhythm, especially in adolescents.”

He recommends melatonin, he added, if he has a complete case history, and melatonin is suitable for that patient.

Typically, it’s not.

“Most often a medication is not the answer for the sleep concern that parents are having about their child,” he said.

The investigators disclosed grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Award Program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. They reported no conflicts of interest.

Melatonin usage has become increasingly common among children in the United States, with almost one in five kids over the age of 5 having taken the sleep aid in the past 30 days, according to a recent study.

These findings should prompt clinicians to discuss with parents the various factors that could be driving sleep disturbances, and potential safety issues associated with melatonin usage, lead author Lauren E. Hartstein, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the Sleep and Development Lab at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and colleagues reported.

Writing in JAMA Pediatrics, the investigators noted that melatonin products are notorious for mislabeling, with active ingredient quantities as much as three times higher than the labeled amount. This issue is particularly concerning, they added, as calls to poison control for melatonin ingestion jumped more than fivefold from 2012 to 2021, with most cases involving children younger than 5 years. Meanwhile, scant evidence is available to characterize intentional usage in the same population.

“Current data are lacking on the prevalence of melatonin use and the frequency, dosing, and timing of melatonin administration in U.S. youth,” Dr. Hartstein and colleagues wrote.

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators conducted an online survey of parents with children and adolescents aged 1.0-13.9 years. The survey asked parents to report any melatonin usage in their children in the past 30 days.

Parents reporting melatonin usage were asked about frequency, dose, timing of administration before bedtime, and duration of use.

Findings were reported within three age groups: preschool (1-4 years), school aged (5-9 years), and preteen (10-13 years).

The survey revealed that almost one in five children in the older age groups were using melatonin, with a rate of 18.5% in the school-aged group and 19.4% in the preteen group. In comparison, 5.6% of preschool children had received melatonin for sleep in the past 30 days.
 

A significant uptick in usage

These findings point to a significant uptick in usage, according to Dr. Hartstein and colleagues, who cited a 2017-2018 study that found just 1.3% of U.S. children had taken melatonin in the past 30 days.

In the present study, melatonin was typically administered 30 minutes before bedtime, most often as a gummy (64.3%) or chewable tablet (27.0%).

Frequency of administration was similar between age groups and trended toward a bimodal pattern, with melatonin often given either 1 day per week or 7 days per week.

Median dose increased significantly with age, from 0.5 mg in the preschool group to 1.0 mg in the school-aged group and 2.0 mg in the preteen group. Median duration also showed a significant upward trend, with 12-month, 18-month, and 21-month durations, respectively, for ascending age groups.

The investigators concluded that melatonin usage among U.S. adolescents and children is “exceedingly common,” despite a lack of evidence to support long-term safety or guide optimal dosing.
 

Is melatonin use masking other sleep issues?

“Widespread melatonin use across developmental stages may suggest a high prevalence of sleep disruption, which deserves accurate diagnosis and effective treatment,” Dr. Hartstein and colleagues wrote. “Dissemination of information regarding safety concerns, such as overdose and supplement mislabeling, is necessary. Clinicians should discuss with parents the factors associated with sleep difficulties and effective behavioral strategies.”

Large-scale, long-term studies are needed, they added, to generate relevant safety and efficacy data, and to characterize the factors driving melatonin administration by parents.

courtesy UCLA

“Studies like these add to our knowledge base and give us insight into what patients or parents may be doing that can impact overall health,” said Alfonso J. Padilla, MD, assistant clinical professor of sleep medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in a written comment. “Often, in normal encounters with our patients we may not be able to gather this information easily. It may help open conversations about sleep issues that are not being addressed.”

Dr. Padilla suggested that parents may believe that melatonin is safe because it is not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, when in fact they could be negatively impacting their children’s sleep. He noted that short-term risks include altered circadian rhythm and vivid dreams or nightmares, while long-term safety remains unclear.

“As a sleep physician, I use melatonin for specific indications only,” Dr. Padilla said. “I may use it in small children that are having difficulty falling asleep, especially in children with autism or special needs. I also use it for help in adjustment in circadian rhythm, especially in adolescents.”

He recommends melatonin, he added, if he has a complete case history, and melatonin is suitable for that patient.

Typically, it’s not.

“Most often a medication is not the answer for the sleep concern that parents are having about their child,” he said.

The investigators disclosed grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Award Program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. They reported no conflicts of interest.

Longer cumulative use of medication to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a small, but statistically significant, increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.

The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.

“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry

Filling in the research gaps

The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.

In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.

Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.

Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.

When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.

For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
 

Stimulants confer greatest risk

Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.

Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.

When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).

The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).

In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.

The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.

‘Tricky trade-offs’

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”

Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).

“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.

Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”

“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”

The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Longer cumulative use of medication to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a small, but statistically significant, increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.

The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.

“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry

Filling in the research gaps

The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.

In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.

Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.

Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.

When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.

For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
 

Stimulants confer greatest risk

Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.

Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.

When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).

The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).

In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.

The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.

‘Tricky trade-offs’

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”

Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).

“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.

Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”

“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”

The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Longer cumulative use of medication to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a small, but statistically significant, increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.

The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.

“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry

Filling in the research gaps

The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.

In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.

Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.

Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.

When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.

For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
 

Stimulants confer greatest risk

Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.

Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.

When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).

The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).

In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.

The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.

‘Tricky trade-offs’

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”

Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).

“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.

Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”

“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”

The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the pursuit of optimal health, regular physical activity (PA) is recommended to protect against dementia, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, and other noncommunicable diseases. A significant body of research suggests the benefits of PA are positively correlated with higher frequency and intensity – with more often deemed better. This research has spawned a focus on increasing step counts and investing in standing desks and other interventions aimed at keeping people active.

But for many people, PA is a work requirement over which they have little control, and emerging evidence suggests that these workers not only do not reap the benefits associated with leisure-time PA, but they also actually experience an increased risk for the very conditions that PA is intended to prevent.

A study published recently in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe used registry data from more than 7,000 adults in Norway, following them from age 33 to 65 years, to assess PA trajectories and risks for later-life mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia at age 70 or older.

“Incorporating a life-course perspective gives a broader picture of how participants’ occupational histories relate to cognitive impairment later in life,” principal investigator Vegard Skirbekk, PhD, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, said in an interview. Other studies typically have assessed occupational PA at a single time point, often close to the end of an individual’s career, and largely relied on self-report, he said.

Study participants worked in more than 300 different occupations. General physical activities performed on the included jobs required “considerable” use of arms and legs and moving the whole body, such as climbing, lifting, balancing, walking, stooping, and handling of materials.

Dr. Skirbekk and colleagues grouped participants into four PA trajectories over the 44-year study period: stable low, increasing then decreasing, stable intermediate, and stable high.

A total of 902 individuals were diagnosed with dementia and 2,407 with MCI at age 70 years or older. After adjustment, risks for MCI and dementia were 15.5% for those with higher occupational PA scores in the latter part of their working life and 9% for those with lower physical demands. The researchers concluded that “consistently working in an occupation with intermediate or high occupational PA was linked to an increased risk of cognitive impairment.”

The findings support those of the Copenhagen Male Study. Published in 2020, this longitudinal study compared leisure-time and occupational PA among more than 4,000 men in Denmark aged 40-59 at baseline in 1970-1971 and followed them until they turned 60. After adjustment, participants with high occupational PA had a 55% greater risk of developing dementia compared with those doing sedentary work.
 

Good vs. bad PA

“[T]he WHO [World Health Organization] guide to preventing dementia and disease on the whole mentions physical activity as an important factor. But our study suggests that it must be a ‘good’ form of physical activity, which hard physical work is not,” said Kirsten Nabe-Nielsen, PhD, lead author of this study

Beyond dementia, another recent study adds to a wealth of data on associations between occupational PA and cardiovascular risks. The cross-sectional analysis of U.S. data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health showed that odds of CVD were higher when participants were “always” performing total occupational activity (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), occupational exertion (OR, 2.15), or occupational standing and walking around (OR, 1.84) compared with “never” engaging in these activities.

The contrasting effects of leisure-time vs. occupational PA constitute the “physical activity paradox” hypothesis. Starting in 2011, multiple studies by Andreas Holtermann, PhD, of the National Research Centre for the Working Environment lend support to the PA paradox theory, as do subsequent studies by others.

Although only “marginally considered” until a few years ago, recent large cohort studies seem to confirm the paradox, Pier Luigi Temporelli, MD wrote in a recent editorial.

In separate interviews, Dr. Skirbekk and lead author Tyler Quinn, PhD, MS, West Virginia University, Morgantown, pointed to the PA paradox as an explanation for their own recent findings, suggesting that the mechanisms that underlie it probably are responsible for the associated deleterious effects of occupational PA on the brain and heart, and even mortality.

“It’s well established that PA in your leisure time can be positive, but in the workplace, the results are quite the opposite,” Dr. Skirbekk said. “The specific mechanisms for why occupational PA is associated with elevated dementia risk are still not well understood and we need more knowledge. But we know that higher occupational physical demands have been linked to smaller hippocampal volume and poorer memory performance.”

Furthermore, he said, individuals working in jobs with high demands, both psychological and physical, combined with low job control perform more poorly on cognitive testing later in life.

“We looked mainly at professions where people have heavy workloads and you have much less autonomy, such as nursing assistants, office cleaners, childcare workers, and other personal care workers,” he said. “You cannot sit. You have somebody relying on you. It’s not all pleasure, and it can be very hard. That’s where we find the associations.”
 

Lack of autonomy

Specific characteristics indirectly associated with high occupational PA jobs – low cognitive stimuli, lifestyle factors, and socioeconomic influences – as well as factors directly related to high occupational PA, such as long hours, repetitive tasks, low levels of control, and stress, could also adversely affect cognitive trajectories, Dr. Skirbekk explained.

“By contrast, leisure-time physical activities tend to be of much shorter duration; are associated with socialization, play, [and] positive emotions; and [include] the opportunity to take breaks or shift to other types of activities if one prefers,” he said. “It may also be that too little or too much PA could be adversely related to cognitive outcomes – hence moderate activity levels, for example 10,000 steps a day, are still likely beneficial for cognitive functioning.”

Dr. Quinn said most of the CVD risk linked to occupational PA has to do with long periods of exertion such as lifting and carrying objects. While occupational standing and walking all day are also linked to CVD risk, they’re not as risky as lifting and carrying, he said.

Like Dr. Skirbekk, Dr. Quinn noted that individuals can take a break from leisure-time PA when they are tired, but occupational PA doesn’t have that same autonomy to allow for recovery.

“So, in many cases, individuals are not getting the recovery their body needs to actually experience PA benefits, because those benefits come during rest,” Dr. Quinn said.

“We’ve shown that PA at work raises acute cardiovascular responses, which are related to cardiovascular risk. For example, 24-hour and waking heart rate and diastolic blood pressure, as well as nonwork diastolic blood pressure, all were significantly higher on workdays versus non-workdays,” he said.

Dr. Quinn also said that psychological stress at work amplifies risk. “A person who does PA at work and is stressed is likely to be at greater risk than someone who has a physically active job but doesn’t have psychological stress combined with it.”
 

Research gaps

However, Dr. Skirbekk noted that there are strategies that can reduce the risk for MCI and dementia despite high levels of occupational PA. “It is often difficult to change professions, and even if you do, it won’t immediately affect cognition. But altering one’s lifestyle is likely to have effects on cognitive development across the life cycle.

“Many clinicians say they always advise lifestyle changes, but nothing happens. But it makes sense to emphasize that these changes – stopping smoking, eating well, getting proper sleep, etc. – affect not only cardiovascular risk but also cognition. And I think clinicians should also take a patient’s occupation into account during any evaluation,” Dr. Skirbekk noted.

Dr. Quinn said it isn’t realistic to expect workers to come up with solutions to the PA paradox because many don’t have the autonomy to be able to mitigate their occupational risk.

“I think administrative controls and policy changes eventually will be the levers of change. We’re not quite there yet, but those are the types of things we should do when we’re trying to reduce loads in some way, or reduce the time that people spend doing certain tasks we know are potentially bad,” he said.

However, not everyone agrees that occupational PA doesn’t confer the same benefits of leisure-time PA, at least with respect to cardiovascular risk. For example, the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, which includes a cohort of 130,000 people from 17 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries, concluded that both higher recreational and nonrecreational PA were associated with a lower risk for mortality and CVD events.

What additional research is needed to clarify the effects of occupational and leisure-time activity and to address conflicting findings?

“Even studies coming out now regarding the effects of occupational PA have mainly used older data,” Dr. Skirbekk noted. “Labor markets and job demands have changed over time. There are different types of tasks and skills required now than there were 20 or 40 years ago. And of course, working from home is a recent phenomenon that’s happened on a large scale and might affect daily routines, sleep patterns, and also cognition. We need a better understanding of what the consequences might be.”
 

Health inequity issue

More research is also necessary to understand the social determinants of cognitive decline, impairment, and dementia, he said. “Many of the studies we see today are based on self-report of what someone has done in the past, which is particularly problematic for individuals who are impaired or who give interviews with others, which can induce biases.”

Dr. Quinn suggests that PA guidelines may need to differentiate between occupational and leisure-time PA to better reflect current research findings.

Meanwhile, Dr. Skirbekk and Dr. Quinn both point to the toll that occupational PA takes on the brain and body in lower-income workers as an important health equity issue.

“Our national guidelines for PA include occupational activity,” said Dr. Quinn. “But it’s clear that a lot of people who are getting a lot of occupational PA, particularly socioeconomic and racial/ethnic minorities, are not benefiting from it.”

Dr. Holtermann, who has arguably done the most research to date on the PA paradox, noted in a recent editorial that the majority of workers with high occupational PA have a low socioeconomic position and therefore “improving our understanding of the underlying mechanisms behind the PA health paradox and identifying new intervention targets along those pathways will be an important step to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities across the globe.”
 

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

In the pursuit of optimal health, regular physical activity (PA) is recommended to protect against dementia, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, and other noncommunicable diseases. A significant body of research suggests the benefits of PA are positively correlated with higher frequency and intensity – with more often deemed better. This research has spawned a focus on increasing step counts and investing in standing desks and other interventions aimed at keeping people active.

But for many people, PA is a work requirement over which they have little control, and emerging evidence suggests that these workers not only do not reap the benefits associated with leisure-time PA, but they also actually experience an increased risk for the very conditions that PA is intended to prevent.

A study published recently in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe used registry data from more than 7,000 adults in Norway, following them from age 33 to 65 years, to assess PA trajectories and risks for later-life mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia at age 70 or older.

“Incorporating a life-course perspective gives a broader picture of how participants’ occupational histories relate to cognitive impairment later in life,” principal investigator Vegard Skirbekk, PhD, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, said in an interview. Other studies typically have assessed occupational PA at a single time point, often close to the end of an individual’s career, and largely relied on self-report, he said.

Study participants worked in more than 300 different occupations. General physical activities performed on the included jobs required “considerable” use of arms and legs and moving the whole body, such as climbing, lifting, balancing, walking, stooping, and handling of materials.

Dr. Skirbekk and colleagues grouped participants into four PA trajectories over the 44-year study period: stable low, increasing then decreasing, stable intermediate, and stable high.

A total of 902 individuals were diagnosed with dementia and 2,407 with MCI at age 70 years or older. After adjustment, risks for MCI and dementia were 15.5% for those with higher occupational PA scores in the latter part of their working life and 9% for those with lower physical demands. The researchers concluded that “consistently working in an occupation with intermediate or high occupational PA was linked to an increased risk of cognitive impairment.”

The findings support those of the Copenhagen Male Study. Published in 2020, this longitudinal study compared leisure-time and occupational PA among more than 4,000 men in Denmark aged 40-59 at baseline in 1970-1971 and followed them until they turned 60. After adjustment, participants with high occupational PA had a 55% greater risk of developing dementia compared with those doing sedentary work.
 

Good vs. bad PA

“[T]he WHO [World Health Organization] guide to preventing dementia and disease on the whole mentions physical activity as an important factor. But our study suggests that it must be a ‘good’ form of physical activity, which hard physical work is not,” said Kirsten Nabe-Nielsen, PhD, lead author of this study

Beyond dementia, another recent study adds to a wealth of data on associations between occupational PA and cardiovascular risks. The cross-sectional analysis of U.S. data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health showed that odds of CVD were higher when participants were “always” performing total occupational activity (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), occupational exertion (OR, 2.15), or occupational standing and walking around (OR, 1.84) compared with “never” engaging in these activities.

The contrasting effects of leisure-time vs. occupational PA constitute the “physical activity paradox” hypothesis. Starting in 2011, multiple studies by Andreas Holtermann, PhD, of the National Research Centre for the Working Environment lend support to the PA paradox theory, as do subsequent studies by others.

Although only “marginally considered” until a few years ago, recent large cohort studies seem to confirm the paradox, Pier Luigi Temporelli, MD wrote in a recent editorial.

In separate interviews, Dr. Skirbekk and lead author Tyler Quinn, PhD, MS, West Virginia University, Morgantown, pointed to the PA paradox as an explanation for their own recent findings, suggesting that the mechanisms that underlie it probably are responsible for the associated deleterious effects of occupational PA on the brain and heart, and even mortality.

“It’s well established that PA in your leisure time can be positive, but in the workplace, the results are quite the opposite,” Dr. Skirbekk said. “The specific mechanisms for why occupational PA is associated with elevated dementia risk are still not well understood and we need more knowledge. But we know that higher occupational physical demands have been linked to smaller hippocampal volume and poorer memory performance.”

Furthermore, he said, individuals working in jobs with high demands, both psychological and physical, combined with low job control perform more poorly on cognitive testing later in life.

“We looked mainly at professions where people have heavy workloads and you have much less autonomy, such as nursing assistants, office cleaners, childcare workers, and other personal care workers,” he said. “You cannot sit. You have somebody relying on you. It’s not all pleasure, and it can be very hard. That’s where we find the associations.”
 

Lack of autonomy

Specific characteristics indirectly associated with high occupational PA jobs – low cognitive stimuli, lifestyle factors, and socioeconomic influences – as well as factors directly related to high occupational PA, such as long hours, repetitive tasks, low levels of control, and stress, could also adversely affect cognitive trajectories, Dr. Skirbekk explained.

“By contrast, leisure-time physical activities tend to be of much shorter duration; are associated with socialization, play, [and] positive emotions; and [include] the opportunity to take breaks or shift to other types of activities if one prefers,” he said. “It may also be that too little or too much PA could be adversely related to cognitive outcomes – hence moderate activity levels, for example 10,000 steps a day, are still likely beneficial for cognitive functioning.”

Dr. Quinn said most of the CVD risk linked to occupational PA has to do with long periods of exertion such as lifting and carrying objects. While occupational standing and walking all day are also linked to CVD risk, they’re not as risky as lifting and carrying, he said.

Like Dr. Skirbekk, Dr. Quinn noted that individuals can take a break from leisure-time PA when they are tired, but occupational PA doesn’t have that same autonomy to allow for recovery.

“So, in many cases, individuals are not getting the recovery their body needs to actually experience PA benefits, because those benefits come during rest,” Dr. Quinn said.

“We’ve shown that PA at work raises acute cardiovascular responses, which are related to cardiovascular risk. For example, 24-hour and waking heart rate and diastolic blood pressure, as well as nonwork diastolic blood pressure, all were significantly higher on workdays versus non-workdays,” he said.

Dr. Quinn also said that psychological stress at work amplifies risk. “A person who does PA at work and is stressed is likely to be at greater risk than someone who has a physically active job but doesn’t have psychological stress combined with it.”
 

Research gaps

However, Dr. Skirbekk noted that there are strategies that can reduce the risk for MCI and dementia despite high levels of occupational PA. “It is often difficult to change professions, and even if you do, it won’t immediately affect cognition. But altering one’s lifestyle is likely to have effects on cognitive development across the life cycle.

“Many clinicians say they always advise lifestyle changes, but nothing happens. But it makes sense to emphasize that these changes – stopping smoking, eating well, getting proper sleep, etc. – affect not only cardiovascular risk but also cognition. And I think clinicians should also take a patient’s occupation into account during any evaluation,” Dr. Skirbekk noted.

Dr. Quinn said it isn’t realistic to expect workers to come up with solutions to the PA paradox because many don’t have the autonomy to be able to mitigate their occupational risk.

“I think administrative controls and policy changes eventually will be the levers of change. We’re not quite there yet, but those are the types of things we should do when we’re trying to reduce loads in some way, or reduce the time that people spend doing certain tasks we know are potentially bad,” he said.

However, not everyone agrees that occupational PA doesn’t confer the same benefits of leisure-time PA, at least with respect to cardiovascular risk. For example, the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, which includes a cohort of 130,000 people from 17 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries, concluded that both higher recreational and nonrecreational PA were associated with a lower risk for mortality and CVD events.

What additional research is needed to clarify the effects of occupational and leisure-time activity and to address conflicting findings?

“Even studies coming out now regarding the effects of occupational PA have mainly used older data,” Dr. Skirbekk noted. “Labor markets and job demands have changed over time. There are different types of tasks and skills required now than there were 20 or 40 years ago. And of course, working from home is a recent phenomenon that’s happened on a large scale and might affect daily routines, sleep patterns, and also cognition. We need a better understanding of what the consequences might be.”
 

Health inequity issue

More research is also necessary to understand the social determinants of cognitive decline, impairment, and dementia, he said. “Many of the studies we see today are based on self-report of what someone has done in the past, which is particularly problematic for individuals who are impaired or who give interviews with others, which can induce biases.”

Dr. Quinn suggests that PA guidelines may need to differentiate between occupational and leisure-time PA to better reflect current research findings.

Meanwhile, Dr. Skirbekk and Dr. Quinn both point to the toll that occupational PA takes on the brain and body in lower-income workers as an important health equity issue.

“Our national guidelines for PA include occupational activity,” said Dr. Quinn. “But it’s clear that a lot of people who are getting a lot of occupational PA, particularly socioeconomic and racial/ethnic minorities, are not benefiting from it.”

Dr. Holtermann, who has arguably done the most research to date on the PA paradox, noted in a recent editorial that the majority of workers with high occupational PA have a low socioeconomic position and therefore “improving our understanding of the underlying mechanisms behind the PA health paradox and identifying new intervention targets along those pathways will be an important step to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities across the globe.”
 

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

In the pursuit of optimal health, regular physical activity (PA) is recommended to protect against dementia, cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, and other noncommunicable diseases. A significant body of research suggests the benefits of PA are positively correlated with higher frequency and intensity – with more often deemed better. This research has spawned a focus on increasing step counts and investing in standing desks and other interventions aimed at keeping people active.

But for many people, PA is a work requirement over which they have little control, and emerging evidence suggests that these workers not only do not reap the benefits associated with leisure-time PA, but they also actually experience an increased risk for the very conditions that PA is intended to prevent.

A study published recently in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe used registry data from more than 7,000 adults in Norway, following them from age 33 to 65 years, to assess PA trajectories and risks for later-life mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia at age 70 or older.

“Incorporating a life-course perspective gives a broader picture of how participants’ occupational histories relate to cognitive impairment later in life,” principal investigator Vegard Skirbekk, PhD, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, said in an interview. Other studies typically have assessed occupational PA at a single time point, often close to the end of an individual’s career, and largely relied on self-report, he said.

Study participants worked in more than 300 different occupations. General physical activities performed on the included jobs required “considerable” use of arms and legs and moving the whole body, such as climbing, lifting, balancing, walking, stooping, and handling of materials.

Dr. Skirbekk and colleagues grouped participants into four PA trajectories over the 44-year study period: stable low, increasing then decreasing, stable intermediate, and stable high.

A total of 902 individuals were diagnosed with dementia and 2,407 with MCI at age 70 years or older. After adjustment, risks for MCI and dementia were 15.5% for those with higher occupational PA scores in the latter part of their working life and 9% for those with lower physical demands. The researchers concluded that “consistently working in an occupation with intermediate or high occupational PA was linked to an increased risk of cognitive impairment.”

The findings support those of the Copenhagen Male Study. Published in 2020, this longitudinal study compared leisure-time and occupational PA among more than 4,000 men in Denmark aged 40-59 at baseline in 1970-1971 and followed them until they turned 60. After adjustment, participants with high occupational PA had a 55% greater risk of developing dementia compared with those doing sedentary work.
 

Good vs. bad PA

“[T]he WHO [World Health Organization] guide to preventing dementia and disease on the whole mentions physical activity as an important factor. But our study suggests that it must be a ‘good’ form of physical activity, which hard physical work is not,” said Kirsten Nabe-Nielsen, PhD, lead author of this study

Beyond dementia, another recent study adds to a wealth of data on associations between occupational PA and cardiovascular risks. The cross-sectional analysis of U.S. data from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health showed that odds of CVD were higher when participants were “always” performing total occupational activity (odds ratio [OR], 1.99), occupational exertion (OR, 2.15), or occupational standing and walking around (OR, 1.84) compared with “never” engaging in these activities.

The contrasting effects of leisure-time vs. occupational PA constitute the “physical activity paradox” hypothesis. Starting in 2011, multiple studies by Andreas Holtermann, PhD, of the National Research Centre for the Working Environment lend support to the PA paradox theory, as do subsequent studies by others.

Although only “marginally considered” until a few years ago, recent large cohort studies seem to confirm the paradox, Pier Luigi Temporelli, MD wrote in a recent editorial.

In separate interviews, Dr. Skirbekk and lead author Tyler Quinn, PhD, MS, West Virginia University, Morgantown, pointed to the PA paradox as an explanation for their own recent findings, suggesting that the mechanisms that underlie it probably are responsible for the associated deleterious effects of occupational PA on the brain and heart, and even mortality.

“It’s well established that PA in your leisure time can be positive, but in the workplace, the results are quite the opposite,” Dr. Skirbekk said. “The specific mechanisms for why occupational PA is associated with elevated dementia risk are still not well understood and we need more knowledge. But we know that higher occupational physical demands have been linked to smaller hippocampal volume and poorer memory performance.”

Furthermore, he said, individuals working in jobs with high demands, both psychological and physical, combined with low job control perform more poorly on cognitive testing later in life.

“We looked mainly at professions where people have heavy workloads and you have much less autonomy, such as nursing assistants, office cleaners, childcare workers, and other personal care workers,” he said. “You cannot sit. You have somebody relying on you. It’s not all pleasure, and it can be very hard. That’s where we find the associations.”
 

Lack of autonomy

Specific characteristics indirectly associated with high occupational PA jobs – low cognitive stimuli, lifestyle factors, and socioeconomic influences – as well as factors directly related to high occupational PA, such as long hours, repetitive tasks, low levels of control, and stress, could also adversely affect cognitive trajectories, Dr. Skirbekk explained.

“By contrast, leisure-time physical activities tend to be of much shorter duration; are associated with socialization, play, [and] positive emotions; and [include] the opportunity to take breaks or shift to other types of activities if one prefers,” he said. “It may also be that too little or too much PA could be adversely related to cognitive outcomes – hence moderate activity levels, for example 10,000 steps a day, are still likely beneficial for cognitive functioning.”

Dr. Quinn said most of the CVD risk linked to occupational PA has to do with long periods of exertion such as lifting and carrying objects. While occupational standing and walking all day are also linked to CVD risk, they’re not as risky as lifting and carrying, he said.

Like Dr. Skirbekk, Dr. Quinn noted that individuals can take a break from leisure-time PA when they are tired, but occupational PA doesn’t have that same autonomy to allow for recovery.

“So, in many cases, individuals are not getting the recovery their body needs to actually experience PA benefits, because those benefits come during rest,” Dr. Quinn said.

“We’ve shown that PA at work raises acute cardiovascular responses, which are related to cardiovascular risk. For example, 24-hour and waking heart rate and diastolic blood pressure, as well as nonwork diastolic blood pressure, all were significantly higher on workdays versus non-workdays,” he said.

Dr. Quinn also said that psychological stress at work amplifies risk. “A person who does PA at work and is stressed is likely to be at greater risk than someone who has a physically active job but doesn’t have psychological stress combined with it.”
 

Research gaps

However, Dr. Skirbekk noted that there are strategies that can reduce the risk for MCI and dementia despite high levels of occupational PA. “It is often difficult to change professions, and even if you do, it won’t immediately affect cognition. But altering one’s lifestyle is likely to have effects on cognitive development across the life cycle.

“Many clinicians say they always advise lifestyle changes, but nothing happens. But it makes sense to emphasize that these changes – stopping smoking, eating well, getting proper sleep, etc. – affect not only cardiovascular risk but also cognition. And I think clinicians should also take a patient’s occupation into account during any evaluation,” Dr. Skirbekk noted.

Dr. Quinn said it isn’t realistic to expect workers to come up with solutions to the PA paradox because many don’t have the autonomy to be able to mitigate their occupational risk.

“I think administrative controls and policy changes eventually will be the levers of change. We’re not quite there yet, but those are the types of things we should do when we’re trying to reduce loads in some way, or reduce the time that people spend doing certain tasks we know are potentially bad,” he said.

However, not everyone agrees that occupational PA doesn’t confer the same benefits of leisure-time PA, at least with respect to cardiovascular risk. For example, the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, which includes a cohort of 130,000 people from 17 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries, concluded that both higher recreational and nonrecreational PA were associated with a lower risk for mortality and CVD events.

What additional research is needed to clarify the effects of occupational and leisure-time activity and to address conflicting findings?

“Even studies coming out now regarding the effects of occupational PA have mainly used older data,” Dr. Skirbekk noted. “Labor markets and job demands have changed over time. There are different types of tasks and skills required now than there were 20 or 40 years ago. And of course, working from home is a recent phenomenon that’s happened on a large scale and might affect daily routines, sleep patterns, and also cognition. We need a better understanding of what the consequences might be.”
 

Health inequity issue

More research is also necessary to understand the social determinants of cognitive decline, impairment, and dementia, he said. “Many of the studies we see today are based on self-report of what someone has done in the past, which is particularly problematic for individuals who are impaired or who give interviews with others, which can induce biases.”

Dr. Quinn suggests that PA guidelines may need to differentiate between occupational and leisure-time PA to better reflect current research findings.

Meanwhile, Dr. Skirbekk and Dr. Quinn both point to the toll that occupational PA takes on the brain and body in lower-income workers as an important health equity issue.

“Our national guidelines for PA include occupational activity,” said Dr. Quinn. “But it’s clear that a lot of people who are getting a lot of occupational PA, particularly socioeconomic and racial/ethnic minorities, are not benefiting from it.”

Dr. Holtermann, who has arguably done the most research to date on the PA paradox, noted in a recent editorial that the majority of workers with high occupational PA have a low socioeconomic position and therefore “improving our understanding of the underlying mechanisms behind the PA health paradox and identifying new intervention targets along those pathways will be an important step to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities across the globe.”
 

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

Leading UK Alzheimer’s organizations have launched an ambitious plan to have a diagnostic Alzheimer’s disease (AD) blood test widely available within the next 5 years.

Alzheimer’s Research UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) are collaborating and leading AD researchers to bring a diagnostic blood test to the UK’s National Health Service (NHS).

“Dementia affects around 900,000 people in the UK today, and that number is expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. It is the UK’s biggest killer,” Fiona Carragher, with the Alzheimer’s Society, said during a media briefing announcing the project.

Yet, many people face a very long wait of up to 2-4 years to get a dementia diagnosis, and many cases remain undiagnosed, she noted.

A chief reason is lack of access to specialized diagnostic testing. Currently, only 2% of people in the United Kingdom have access to advanced diagnostic tests such as PET scans and lumbar punctures owing to limited availability.

“Getting an early and accurate diagnosis is the pivotal first step to getting help today and unlocking hope for the future” and blood biomarkers provide a “real opportunity to disrupt the diagnostic paradigm,” Ms. Carragher said. It also offers greater opportunities to participate in research and clinical trials, she added.
 

Attitude shift

Susan Kohlhaas, PhD, with Alzheimer’s Research UK, noted that attitudes toward dementia diagnosis have changed in the past few years. The days when people may have not wanted to know if they have dementia are gone.

Data from the latest wave of the Alzheimer’s Research UK Dementia Attitudes Monitor survey show that 9 in 10 people would seek a diagnosis from their provider. “That’s been driven by awareness of treatments and things that people can proactively do to try and slow disease progression,” Dr. Kohlhaas said.

“As new treatments for dementia become available there will to be a surge in people seeking a diagnosis. At the moment, we don’t have adequate infrastructure to cope with that demand,” Dr. Kohlhaas added.

She noted that blood tests are starting to show their potential as an effective part of the diagnosis and are widely used in research.

“In some cases, they are similar in sensitivity to gold-standard PET scans and lumbar punctures, and they’re less expensive and potentially more scalable on the NHS. What we need to do over the next several years is to understand how they fit into the clinical pathway,” Dr. Kohlhaas said.

The project will involve working with leading dementia researchers to pilot the implementation of potential blood tests in the NHS that can give an early and accurate diagnose of dementia.

The project, which kicks off in January 2024, will receive £5 million ($6.13 million) awarded by the UK Postcode Dream Fund. Specific details regarding the leadership team, participating centers, and specific blood biomarker tests to be trialed will be announced then.

Ms. Carragher and Dr. Kohlhaas reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Leading UK Alzheimer’s organizations have launched an ambitious plan to have a diagnostic Alzheimer’s disease (AD) blood test widely available within the next 5 years.

Alzheimer’s Research UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) are collaborating and leading AD researchers to bring a diagnostic blood test to the UK’s National Health Service (NHS).

“Dementia affects around 900,000 people in the UK today, and that number is expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. It is the UK’s biggest killer,” Fiona Carragher, with the Alzheimer’s Society, said during a media briefing announcing the project.

Yet, many people face a very long wait of up to 2-4 years to get a dementia diagnosis, and many cases remain undiagnosed, she noted.

A chief reason is lack of access to specialized diagnostic testing. Currently, only 2% of people in the United Kingdom have access to advanced diagnostic tests such as PET scans and lumbar punctures owing to limited availability.

“Getting an early and accurate diagnosis is the pivotal first step to getting help today and unlocking hope for the future” and blood biomarkers provide a “real opportunity to disrupt the diagnostic paradigm,” Ms. Carragher said. It also offers greater opportunities to participate in research and clinical trials, she added.
 

Attitude shift

Susan Kohlhaas, PhD, with Alzheimer’s Research UK, noted that attitudes toward dementia diagnosis have changed in the past few years. The days when people may have not wanted to know if they have dementia are gone.

Data from the latest wave of the Alzheimer’s Research UK Dementia Attitudes Monitor survey show that 9 in 10 people would seek a diagnosis from their provider. “That’s been driven by awareness of treatments and things that people can proactively do to try and slow disease progression,” Dr. Kohlhaas said.

“As new treatments for dementia become available there will to be a surge in people seeking a diagnosis. At the moment, we don’t have adequate infrastructure to cope with that demand,” Dr. Kohlhaas added.

She noted that blood tests are starting to show their potential as an effective part of the diagnosis and are widely used in research.

“In some cases, they are similar in sensitivity to gold-standard PET scans and lumbar punctures, and they’re less expensive and potentially more scalable on the NHS. What we need to do over the next several years is to understand how they fit into the clinical pathway,” Dr. Kohlhaas said.

The project will involve working with leading dementia researchers to pilot the implementation of potential blood tests in the NHS that can give an early and accurate diagnose of dementia.

The project, which kicks off in January 2024, will receive £5 million ($6.13 million) awarded by the UK Postcode Dream Fund. Specific details regarding the leadership team, participating centers, and specific blood biomarker tests to be trialed will be announced then.

Ms. Carragher and Dr. Kohlhaas reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Leading UK Alzheimer’s organizations have launched an ambitious plan to have a diagnostic Alzheimer’s disease (AD) blood test widely available within the next 5 years.

Alzheimer’s Research UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) are collaborating and leading AD researchers to bring a diagnostic blood test to the UK’s National Health Service (NHS).

“Dementia affects around 900,000 people in the UK today, and that number is expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. It is the UK’s biggest killer,” Fiona Carragher, with the Alzheimer’s Society, said during a media briefing announcing the project.

Yet, many people face a very long wait of up to 2-4 years to get a dementia diagnosis, and many cases remain undiagnosed, she noted.

A chief reason is lack of access to specialized diagnostic testing. Currently, only 2% of people in the United Kingdom have access to advanced diagnostic tests such as PET scans and lumbar punctures owing to limited availability.

“Getting an early and accurate diagnosis is the pivotal first step to getting help today and unlocking hope for the future” and blood biomarkers provide a “real opportunity to disrupt the diagnostic paradigm,” Ms. Carragher said. It also offers greater opportunities to participate in research and clinical trials, she added.
 

Attitude shift

Susan Kohlhaas, PhD, with Alzheimer’s Research UK, noted that attitudes toward dementia diagnosis have changed in the past few years. The days when people may have not wanted to know if they have dementia are gone.

Data from the latest wave of the Alzheimer’s Research UK Dementia Attitudes Monitor survey show that 9 in 10 people would seek a diagnosis from their provider. “That’s been driven by awareness of treatments and things that people can proactively do to try and slow disease progression,” Dr. Kohlhaas said.

“As new treatments for dementia become available there will to be a surge in people seeking a diagnosis. At the moment, we don’t have adequate infrastructure to cope with that demand,” Dr. Kohlhaas added.

She noted that blood tests are starting to show their potential as an effective part of the diagnosis and are widely used in research.

“In some cases, they are similar in sensitivity to gold-standard PET scans and lumbar punctures, and they’re less expensive and potentially more scalable on the NHS. What we need to do over the next several years is to understand how they fit into the clinical pathway,” Dr. Kohlhaas said.

The project will involve working with leading dementia researchers to pilot the implementation of potential blood tests in the NHS that can give an early and accurate diagnose of dementia.

The project, which kicks off in January 2024, will receive £5 million ($6.13 million) awarded by the UK Postcode Dream Fund. Specific details regarding the leadership team, participating centers, and specific blood biomarker tests to be trialed will be announced then.

Ms. Carragher and Dr. Kohlhaas reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A history of military service is associated with a 26% increased risk for amyloid plaque and 10% increased risk for elevated tau tangle levels, underscoring the urgent need for amyloid screening among veterans.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 597 male decedents who donated their brains to one of two Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC) brain bank programs between 1986 and 2018.
• Researchers conducted public data tracing for historical information on military history, which included searching online commercial genealogical databases and paper archives.
• They evaluated tau tangles (using a B score of neurofibrillary tangle deposition in four stages: B0 [not present], B1 [transentorhinal stages], B2 [limbic stages], and B3 [isocortical stages]) and amyloid plaque pathology (using a C score that classifies neuritic amyloid plaque into four categories: no plaques, sparse, moderate, or frequent).
• The study involved three B score comparisons (1, 2, 3 vs. 0; 2, 3 vs. 0, 1; and 3 vs. 0, 1, 2) and two C score comparisons (sparse, moderate, or frequent vs. no plaques, and moderate or frequent vs. no plaque or sparse).

TAKEAWAY:

• Public record tracing determined that 60% of the sample of male decedents had a history of military service; the median year of birth was 1923 and the median year of death was 2007.
• After adjustment for age and year of death, those with a military service history had a 26% increased risk for a higher neuritic amyloid plaque C score compared with those without such history (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.49), an increase that applied for both relevant comparisons.
• A history of military service was also associated with a 10% greater adjusted odds of a higher neurofibrillary tangle B score (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12), with the increase applying to all three comparisons.
• A sensitivity analysis that included both the male decedents and 556 female decedents (increasing the overall sample to 1,153) and was adjusted for sex in addition to age and year of death showed similar results to the male-only sample estimations for both B and C score comparisons.

IN PRACTICE:

Understanding how military service affects AD biological processes is “essential” from a research perspective, the investigators noted. These new findings “emphasize that targeted AD therapies in the veteran population are urgently needed.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by W. Ryan Powell, Center for Health Disparities Research and Department of Medicine, Geriatrics Division, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, and colleagues. It was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

Selection bias in brain donation is likely because ADRC cohorts are recruitment based. The study was unable to rigorously identify factors that may explain why individuals with military service are at greater risk of having amyloid and tau neuropathology (including the interplay between environmental and genetic risk factors such as apolipoprotein E status).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A history of military service is associated with a 26% increased risk for amyloid plaque and 10% increased risk for elevated tau tangle levels, underscoring the urgent need for amyloid screening among veterans.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 597 male decedents who donated their brains to one of two Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC) brain bank programs between 1986 and 2018.
• Researchers conducted public data tracing for historical information on military history, which included searching online commercial genealogical databases and paper archives.
• They evaluated tau tangles (using a B score of neurofibrillary tangle deposition in four stages: B0 [not present], B1 [transentorhinal stages], B2 [limbic stages], and B3 [isocortical stages]) and amyloid plaque pathology (using a C score that classifies neuritic amyloid plaque into four categories: no plaques, sparse, moderate, or frequent).
• The study involved three B score comparisons (1, 2, 3 vs. 0; 2, 3 vs. 0, 1; and 3 vs. 0, 1, 2) and two C score comparisons (sparse, moderate, or frequent vs. no plaques, and moderate or frequent vs. no plaque or sparse).

TAKEAWAY:

• Public record tracing determined that 60% of the sample of male decedents had a history of military service; the median year of birth was 1923 and the median year of death was 2007.
• After adjustment for age and year of death, those with a military service history had a 26% increased risk for a higher neuritic amyloid plaque C score compared with those without such history (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.49), an increase that applied for both relevant comparisons.
• A history of military service was also associated with a 10% greater adjusted odds of a higher neurofibrillary tangle B score (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12), with the increase applying to all three comparisons.
• A sensitivity analysis that included both the male decedents and 556 female decedents (increasing the overall sample to 1,153) and was adjusted for sex in addition to age and year of death showed similar results to the male-only sample estimations for both B and C score comparisons.

IN PRACTICE:

Understanding how military service affects AD biological processes is “essential” from a research perspective, the investigators noted. These new findings “emphasize that targeted AD therapies in the veteran population are urgently needed.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by W. Ryan Powell, Center for Health Disparities Research and Department of Medicine, Geriatrics Division, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, and colleagues. It was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

Selection bias in brain donation is likely because ADRC cohorts are recruitment based. The study was unable to rigorously identify factors that may explain why individuals with military service are at greater risk of having amyloid and tau neuropathology (including the interplay between environmental and genetic risk factors such as apolipoprotein E status).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A history of military service is associated with a 26% increased risk for amyloid plaque and 10% increased risk for elevated tau tangle levels, underscoring the urgent need for amyloid screening among veterans.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 597 male decedents who donated their brains to one of two Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (ADRC) brain bank programs between 1986 and 2018.
• Researchers conducted public data tracing for historical information on military history, which included searching online commercial genealogical databases and paper archives.
• They evaluated tau tangles (using a B score of neurofibrillary tangle deposition in four stages: B0 [not present], B1 [transentorhinal stages], B2 [limbic stages], and B3 [isocortical stages]) and amyloid plaque pathology (using a C score that classifies neuritic amyloid plaque into four categories: no plaques, sparse, moderate, or frequent).
• The study involved three B score comparisons (1, 2, 3 vs. 0; 2, 3 vs. 0, 1; and 3 vs. 0, 1, 2) and two C score comparisons (sparse, moderate, or frequent vs. no plaques, and moderate or frequent vs. no plaque or sparse).

TAKEAWAY:

• Public record tracing determined that 60% of the sample of male decedents had a history of military service; the median year of birth was 1923 and the median year of death was 2007.
• After adjustment for age and year of death, those with a military service history had a 26% increased risk for a higher neuritic amyloid plaque C score compared with those without such history (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.49), an increase that applied for both relevant comparisons.
• A history of military service was also associated with a 10% greater adjusted odds of a higher neurofibrillary tangle B score (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12), with the increase applying to all three comparisons.
• A sensitivity analysis that included both the male decedents and 556 female decedents (increasing the overall sample to 1,153) and was adjusted for sex in addition to age and year of death showed similar results to the male-only sample estimations for both B and C score comparisons.

IN PRACTICE:

Understanding how military service affects AD biological processes is “essential” from a research perspective, the investigators noted. These new findings “emphasize that targeted AD therapies in the veteran population are urgently needed.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by W. Ryan Powell, Center for Health Disparities Research and Department of Medicine, Geriatrics Division, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, and colleagues. It was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

Selection bias in brain donation is likely because ADRC cohorts are recruitment based. The study was unable to rigorously identify factors that may explain why individuals with military service are at greater risk of having amyloid and tau neuropathology (including the interplay between environmental and genetic risk factors such as apolipoprotein E status).

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant drop in working memory and executive function in older individuals. This was attributed to an increase in known dementia risk factors, including increased alcohol use and a more sedentary lifestyle. This trend persisted into the second year of the pandemic, after social restrictions had eased.

METHODOLOGY:

• In total, 3,140 participants (54% women; mean age, 68 years) in the PROTECT study, a longitudinal aging study in the United Kingdom, completed annual cognitive assessments and self-reported questionnaires related to mental health and lifestyle.
• Investigators analyzed cognition across three time periods: during the year before the pandemic (March 2019 to February 2020), during pandemic year 1 (March 2020 to February 2021), and pandemic year 2 (March 2021 to February 2022).
• Investigators conducted a subanalysis on those with mild cognitive impairment and those with a history of COVID-19 (n = 752).

TAKEAWAY:

• During the first year of the pandemic, when there were societal lockdowns totaling 6 months, significant worsening of executive function and working memory was seen across the entire cohort (effect sizes, 0.15 and 0.51, respectively), in people with mild cognitive impairment (effect sizes, 0.13 and 0.40, respectively), and in those with a previous history of COVID-19 (effect sizes, 0.24 and 0.46, respectively).
• Worsening of working memory was sustained across the whole cohort in the second year of the pandemic after lockdowns were lifted (effect size, 0.47).
• Even after investigators removed data on people with mild cognitive impairment and COVID-19, the decline in executive function (effect size, 0.15; P < .0001) and working memory (effect size, 0.53; P < .0001) persisted.
• Cognitive decline was significantly associated with known risk factors for dementia, such as reduced exercise (P = .0049) and increased alcohol use (P = .049), across the whole cohort, as well as depression (P = .011) in those with a history of COVID-19 and loneliness (P = .0038) in those with mild cognitive impairment.

IN PRACTICE:

Investigators noted that these data add to existing knowledge of long-standing health consequences of COVID-19, especially for older people with memory problems. “On the positive note, there is evidence that lifestyle changes and improved health management can positively influence mental functioning,” study coauthor Dag Aarsland, MD, PhD, professor of old age psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience of King’s College London, said in a press release. “The current study underlines the importance of careful monitoring of people at risk during major events such as the pandemic.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anne Corbett, PhD, of University of Exeter, and was published online in The Lancet Healthy Longevity. The research was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London and the NIHR Exeter Biomedical Research Centre.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported data. In addition, the PROTECT cohort is self-selected and may skew toward participants with higher education levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Corbett reported receiving funding from the NIHR and grants from Synexus, reMYND, and Novo Nordisk. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant drop in working memory and executive function in older individuals. This was attributed to an increase in known dementia risk factors, including increased alcohol use and a more sedentary lifestyle. This trend persisted into the second year of the pandemic, after social restrictions had eased.

METHODOLOGY:

• In total, 3,140 participants (54% women; mean age, 68 years) in the PROTECT study, a longitudinal aging study in the United Kingdom, completed annual cognitive assessments and self-reported questionnaires related to mental health and lifestyle.
• Investigators analyzed cognition across three time periods: during the year before the pandemic (March 2019 to February 2020), during pandemic year 1 (March 2020 to February 2021), and pandemic year 2 (March 2021 to February 2022).
• Investigators conducted a subanalysis on those with mild cognitive impairment and those with a history of COVID-19 (n = 752).

TAKEAWAY:

• During the first year of the pandemic, when there were societal lockdowns totaling 6 months, significant worsening of executive function and working memory was seen across the entire cohort (effect sizes, 0.15 and 0.51, respectively), in people with mild cognitive impairment (effect sizes, 0.13 and 0.40, respectively), and in those with a previous history of COVID-19 (effect sizes, 0.24 and 0.46, respectively).
• Worsening of working memory was sustained across the whole cohort in the second year of the pandemic after lockdowns were lifted (effect size, 0.47).
• Even after investigators removed data on people with mild cognitive impairment and COVID-19, the decline in executive function (effect size, 0.15; P < .0001) and working memory (effect size, 0.53; P < .0001) persisted.
• Cognitive decline was significantly associated with known risk factors for dementia, such as reduced exercise (P = .0049) and increased alcohol use (P = .049), across the whole cohort, as well as depression (P = .011) in those with a history of COVID-19 and loneliness (P = .0038) in those with mild cognitive impairment.

IN PRACTICE:

Investigators noted that these data add to existing knowledge of long-standing health consequences of COVID-19, especially for older people with memory problems. “On the positive note, there is evidence that lifestyle changes and improved health management can positively influence mental functioning,” study coauthor Dag Aarsland, MD, PhD, professor of old age psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience of King’s College London, said in a press release. “The current study underlines the importance of careful monitoring of people at risk during major events such as the pandemic.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anne Corbett, PhD, of University of Exeter, and was published online in The Lancet Healthy Longevity. The research was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London and the NIHR Exeter Biomedical Research Centre.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported data. In addition, the PROTECT cohort is self-selected and may skew toward participants with higher education levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Corbett reported receiving funding from the NIHR and grants from Synexus, reMYND, and Novo Nordisk. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant drop in working memory and executive function in older individuals. This was attributed to an increase in known dementia risk factors, including increased alcohol use and a more sedentary lifestyle. This trend persisted into the second year of the pandemic, after social restrictions had eased.

METHODOLOGY:

• In total, 3,140 participants (54% women; mean age, 68 years) in the PROTECT study, a longitudinal aging study in the United Kingdom, completed annual cognitive assessments and self-reported questionnaires related to mental health and lifestyle.
• Investigators analyzed cognition across three time periods: during the year before the pandemic (March 2019 to February 2020), during pandemic year 1 (March 2020 to February 2021), and pandemic year 2 (March 2021 to February 2022).
• Investigators conducted a subanalysis on those with mild cognitive impairment and those with a history of COVID-19 (n = 752).

TAKEAWAY:

• During the first year of the pandemic, when there were societal lockdowns totaling 6 months, significant worsening of executive function and working memory was seen across the entire cohort (effect sizes, 0.15 and 0.51, respectively), in people with mild cognitive impairment (effect sizes, 0.13 and 0.40, respectively), and in those with a previous history of COVID-19 (effect sizes, 0.24 and 0.46, respectively).
• Worsening of working memory was sustained across the whole cohort in the second year of the pandemic after lockdowns were lifted (effect size, 0.47).
• Even after investigators removed data on people with mild cognitive impairment and COVID-19, the decline in executive function (effect size, 0.15; P < .0001) and working memory (effect size, 0.53; P < .0001) persisted.
• Cognitive decline was significantly associated with known risk factors for dementia, such as reduced exercise (P = .0049) and increased alcohol use (P = .049), across the whole cohort, as well as depression (P = .011) in those with a history of COVID-19 and loneliness (P = .0038) in those with mild cognitive impairment.

IN PRACTICE:

Investigators noted that these data add to existing knowledge of long-standing health consequences of COVID-19, especially for older people with memory problems. “On the positive note, there is evidence that lifestyle changes and improved health management can positively influence mental functioning,” study coauthor Dag Aarsland, MD, PhD, professor of old age psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience of King’s College London, said in a press release. “The current study underlines the importance of careful monitoring of people at risk during major events such as the pandemic.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Anne Corbett, PhD, of University of Exeter, and was published online in The Lancet Healthy Longevity. The research was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London and the NIHR Exeter Biomedical Research Centre.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported data. In addition, the PROTECT cohort is self-selected and may skew toward participants with higher education levels.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Corbett reported receiving funding from the NIHR and grants from Synexus, reMYND, and Novo Nordisk. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded October 13, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I’ll be talking today with Dr. Meredith Wicklund, senior associate consultant and behavioral neurologist specialist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Welcome, Meredith.

Meredith Wicklund, MD: Thank you.
 

Lecanemab data

Dr. LaFaver: I’m very excited about our topic. We’ll be talking about monoclonal antibody therapy against amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease – which has really been a hot topic, especially this year with the FDA approval of lecanemab – and associated questions. Could you give us a brief overview of why there has been so much research interest in this topic of anti-amyloid antibodies?

Dr. Wicklund: The pathologic component of what defines something as Alzheimer’s disease is, by definition, presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles. When it was first discovered in the 1980s that the component of the plaques was actually the amyloid protein – beta amyloid specifically – interest went right from there to developing therapies to directly target the pathology that is Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Lecanemab is the first FDA-approved disease-modifying antibody in that realm. Could you review the study data, especially as it applies to both of us in daily neurology clinic?

Dr. Wicklund: The study data from a phase 3 trial did show, for the primary outcome, that there was a 27% slowing of decline compared with individuals on placebo. It’s important to point out that this was slowing of decline. It was not stabilizing decline. It was not improving decline.

I think it’s important that we inform our patients that really, even with this therapy, there’s no prospect of stabilizing or restoring cognition or function. We do progress at a slower rate compared with individuals not on this treatment, which, given that this medication is for individuals in mild disease who have relatively preserved functional status, that can be potentially very meaningful to families.

The overall benefit was small. It essentially amounts to half a point on an 18-point scale, which is statistically significant. How much clinical meaningfulness that actually leads to is unclear. Finding clinical meaningfulness cannot be defined by a particular test. It really can only be defined on the individual level, what is meaningful to them.
 

Recommended tests

Dr. LaFaver: It is my understanding that, to qualify for lecanemab use, one needs to have a biomarker-supported diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, either via an amyloid PET scan or CSF biomarkers. What would your recommendation be for a neurologist in practice to go about these requirements?

Dr. Wicklund: Since this medication is directly targeting the amyloid pathology, and it does convey a potential risk, we want to make sure that the actual pathology is present in the individuals before we treat them and potentially expose them to risk. The best way of doing that is through either an amyloid PET scan or spinal fluid testing of beta amyloid and tau.

There are several plasma-based biomarkers in development. However, I would avoid using those currently. There are still many unknowns in terms of what exactly is the right species of tau that we should be looking at, the right mechanism of the lab test, how minority status may influence it, and how different comorbidities may influence it.

I would recommend, at this time, sticking with amyloid PET or CSF testing. Given that amyloid PET is not widely available in many community practices, generally only available at academic centers, and is quite costly, many insurances do not cover it – although Medicare has a proposal to potentially start covering it – I generally go with spinal fluid testing, which is more widely available. There are several labs across the country that can process that testing in a reliable way.
 

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities

Dr. LaFaver: That’s very helpful to know. There’s been a large amount of buzz just these past couple of weeks about the blood biomarker coming up. I think, as you point out, this wasn’t the marker used in the clinical studies and there are still unknowns. Maybe it’s not quite time for clinical use, unfortunately.

We also have learned that there are significant potential risks involved. One issue that’s really been a focus is ARIA – amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. Could you speak a bit about that and requirements for monitoring?

Dr. Wicklund: ARIA essentially amounts to either vasogenic edema, microhemorrhages, or superficial siderosis that develops as a result of treatment. It relates to activation of the immune system with these passive monoclonal antibodies that’s going to occur with targeting against the plaques. In the parenchyma, it will cause edema. If you have amyloid in the walls of the blood vessels, it can cause microhemorrhages.

While the term “ARIA” implies an imaging-related abnormality, and it largely is purely an imaging finding, it’s not solely an imaging-related finding. It can cause symptoms, including very serious symptoms.

Overall, with lecanemab, the incidence of ARIA within the treatment group in the phase 3 study, combined between both ARIA-E (edema/effusion) and ARIA-H (hemorrhage), was 21.5%, with about 17% being ARIA-H and about 12.5% being ARIA-E. Of course, they can occur at the same time.

Overall, in terms of people in the clinical trials, for most it was purely an imaging-related finding. About 3% developed symptomatic ARIA. Some of those were very serious symptoms, including things like seizures and need to be hospitalized. A couple of deaths have been attributed to ARIA as well.

Patients on anticoagulation

Dr. LaFaver: Along those lines, any additional words to say for people who might be on anticoagulation or might require medications for a stroke, for example?

Dr. Wicklund: While individuals on anticoagulation were allowed in the clinical trials, the current, published appropriate-use guideline is recommending against its use, as several of the serious adverse effects, including the deaths, were for the most part attributed to anticoagulation use.

When it comes to acute stroke treatment, one must carefully consider use of tPA, as two of the three deaths were tPA associated in the clinical trials. It shouldn’t necessarily be an absolute contraindication, but it can make the clinical picture very muddy. If an individual is on lecanemab and comes to the ER with acute stroke-like symptoms, it’s more likely that they’re going to be having an ARIA side effect rather than an acute stroke.

A general recommendation would be to obtain an acute head CT with a CTA, and if there is a large vessel occlusion, proceed to thrombectomy. However, if there isn’t a large vessel occlusion, if you have the ability to get a rapid MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging to screen for acute stroke changes or tissue flair with acute edema changes suggestive of ARIA, that would be preferred before proceeding with thrombolysis. These are all relative contraindications and are going to depend on what’s available near you.
 

Donanemab approval pending

Dr. LaFaver: This will be an issue because the population we’re talking about is definitely at risk for stroke as well as Alzheimer’s disease. Where do you see this field going as far as amyloid antibody therapy is concerned, with another agent, donanemab, possibly getting FDA approval later this year as well?

Dr. Wicklund: We’re anticipating that donanemab will get FDA approval in the next coming months. Donanemab also targets the amyloid in the brain, although lecanemab and donanemab target different aspects of the production of the amyloid plaque. They were both shown to have roughly equal efficacy in their phase 3 clinical trials. Donanemab has the benefit of being a once-monthly infusion as opposed to twice-monthly infusions with lecanemab. It does have a slightly higher risk for ARIA compared with lecanemab.

Those are just some things to take into consideration when talking with your patients. In terms of where we’re going from here, we’re moving even earlier in terms of disease state. The lecanemab and donanemab phase 3 trials were done in individuals with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. They should not be used in individuals with moderate or more advanced Alzheimer’s disease.

There are ongoing, large, national, multicenter clinical trials of both lecanemab and donanemab in a preclinical state of Alzheimer’s disease. These individuals have evidence of amyloidosis, either through PET imaging or through CSF, but are clinically asymptomatic and do not yet have any signs of cognitive impairment or functional decline. We look forward to those results in the next few years. Hopefully, they’ll be able to show even greater benefit when moving into these early disease states in terms of delaying or even preventing cognitive decline.

Dr. LaFaver: That’s definitely very interesting to hear about. Where can people go for more information?

Dr. Wicklund: There’s a guideline on the use of lecanemab through the American Academy of Neurology. I encourage you to look at that. Also, look at the appropriate-use recommendations that were published this year in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Wonderful. With that being said, thank you so much for talking to me. I learned a lot. Thanks, everyone, for listening.
 

Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, N.Y. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wicklund is senior associate consultant in the department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Ariz. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded October 13, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I’ll be talking today with Dr. Meredith Wicklund, senior associate consultant and behavioral neurologist specialist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Welcome, Meredith.

Meredith Wicklund, MD: Thank you.
 

Lecanemab data

Dr. LaFaver: I’m very excited about our topic. We’ll be talking about monoclonal antibody therapy against amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease – which has really been a hot topic, especially this year with the FDA approval of lecanemab – and associated questions. Could you give us a brief overview of why there has been so much research interest in this topic of anti-amyloid antibodies?

Dr. Wicklund: The pathologic component of what defines something as Alzheimer’s disease is, by definition, presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles. When it was first discovered in the 1980s that the component of the plaques was actually the amyloid protein – beta amyloid specifically – interest went right from there to developing therapies to directly target the pathology that is Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Lecanemab is the first FDA-approved disease-modifying antibody in that realm. Could you review the study data, especially as it applies to both of us in daily neurology clinic?

Dr. Wicklund: The study data from a phase 3 trial did show, for the primary outcome, that there was a 27% slowing of decline compared with individuals on placebo. It’s important to point out that this was slowing of decline. It was not stabilizing decline. It was not improving decline.

I think it’s important that we inform our patients that really, even with this therapy, there’s no prospect of stabilizing or restoring cognition or function. We do progress at a slower rate compared with individuals not on this treatment, which, given that this medication is for individuals in mild disease who have relatively preserved functional status, that can be potentially very meaningful to families.

The overall benefit was small. It essentially amounts to half a point on an 18-point scale, which is statistically significant. How much clinical meaningfulness that actually leads to is unclear. Finding clinical meaningfulness cannot be defined by a particular test. It really can only be defined on the individual level, what is meaningful to them.
 

Recommended tests

Dr. LaFaver: It is my understanding that, to qualify for lecanemab use, one needs to have a biomarker-supported diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, either via an amyloid PET scan or CSF biomarkers. What would your recommendation be for a neurologist in practice to go about these requirements?

Dr. Wicklund: Since this medication is directly targeting the amyloid pathology, and it does convey a potential risk, we want to make sure that the actual pathology is present in the individuals before we treat them and potentially expose them to risk. The best way of doing that is through either an amyloid PET scan or spinal fluid testing of beta amyloid and tau.

There are several plasma-based biomarkers in development. However, I would avoid using those currently. There are still many unknowns in terms of what exactly is the right species of tau that we should be looking at, the right mechanism of the lab test, how minority status may influence it, and how different comorbidities may influence it.

I would recommend, at this time, sticking with amyloid PET or CSF testing. Given that amyloid PET is not widely available in many community practices, generally only available at academic centers, and is quite costly, many insurances do not cover it – although Medicare has a proposal to potentially start covering it – I generally go with spinal fluid testing, which is more widely available. There are several labs across the country that can process that testing in a reliable way.
 

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities

Dr. LaFaver: That’s very helpful to know. There’s been a large amount of buzz just these past couple of weeks about the blood biomarker coming up. I think, as you point out, this wasn’t the marker used in the clinical studies and there are still unknowns. Maybe it’s not quite time for clinical use, unfortunately.

We also have learned that there are significant potential risks involved. One issue that’s really been a focus is ARIA – amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. Could you speak a bit about that and requirements for monitoring?

Dr. Wicklund: ARIA essentially amounts to either vasogenic edema, microhemorrhages, or superficial siderosis that develops as a result of treatment. It relates to activation of the immune system with these passive monoclonal antibodies that’s going to occur with targeting against the plaques. In the parenchyma, it will cause edema. If you have amyloid in the walls of the blood vessels, it can cause microhemorrhages.

While the term “ARIA” implies an imaging-related abnormality, and it largely is purely an imaging finding, it’s not solely an imaging-related finding. It can cause symptoms, including very serious symptoms.

Overall, with lecanemab, the incidence of ARIA within the treatment group in the phase 3 study, combined between both ARIA-E (edema/effusion) and ARIA-H (hemorrhage), was 21.5%, with about 17% being ARIA-H and about 12.5% being ARIA-E. Of course, they can occur at the same time.

Overall, in terms of people in the clinical trials, for most it was purely an imaging-related finding. About 3% developed symptomatic ARIA. Some of those were very serious symptoms, including things like seizures and need to be hospitalized. A couple of deaths have been attributed to ARIA as well.

Patients on anticoagulation

Dr. LaFaver: Along those lines, any additional words to say for people who might be on anticoagulation or might require medications for a stroke, for example?

Dr. Wicklund: While individuals on anticoagulation were allowed in the clinical trials, the current, published appropriate-use guideline is recommending against its use, as several of the serious adverse effects, including the deaths, were for the most part attributed to anticoagulation use.

When it comes to acute stroke treatment, one must carefully consider use of tPA, as two of the three deaths were tPA associated in the clinical trials. It shouldn’t necessarily be an absolute contraindication, but it can make the clinical picture very muddy. If an individual is on lecanemab and comes to the ER with acute stroke-like symptoms, it’s more likely that they’re going to be having an ARIA side effect rather than an acute stroke.

A general recommendation would be to obtain an acute head CT with a CTA, and if there is a large vessel occlusion, proceed to thrombectomy. However, if there isn’t a large vessel occlusion, if you have the ability to get a rapid MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging to screen for acute stroke changes or tissue flair with acute edema changes suggestive of ARIA, that would be preferred before proceeding with thrombolysis. These are all relative contraindications and are going to depend on what’s available near you.
 

Donanemab approval pending

Dr. LaFaver: This will be an issue because the population we’re talking about is definitely at risk for stroke as well as Alzheimer’s disease. Where do you see this field going as far as amyloid antibody therapy is concerned, with another agent, donanemab, possibly getting FDA approval later this year as well?

Dr. Wicklund: We’re anticipating that donanemab will get FDA approval in the next coming months. Donanemab also targets the amyloid in the brain, although lecanemab and donanemab target different aspects of the production of the amyloid plaque. They were both shown to have roughly equal efficacy in their phase 3 clinical trials. Donanemab has the benefit of being a once-monthly infusion as opposed to twice-monthly infusions with lecanemab. It does have a slightly higher risk for ARIA compared with lecanemab.

Those are just some things to take into consideration when talking with your patients. In terms of where we’re going from here, we’re moving even earlier in terms of disease state. The lecanemab and donanemab phase 3 trials were done in individuals with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. They should not be used in individuals with moderate or more advanced Alzheimer’s disease.

There are ongoing, large, national, multicenter clinical trials of both lecanemab and donanemab in a preclinical state of Alzheimer’s disease. These individuals have evidence of amyloidosis, either through PET imaging or through CSF, but are clinically asymptomatic and do not yet have any signs of cognitive impairment or functional decline. We look forward to those results in the next few years. Hopefully, they’ll be able to show even greater benefit when moving into these early disease states in terms of delaying or even preventing cognitive decline.

Dr. LaFaver: That’s definitely very interesting to hear about. Where can people go for more information?

Dr. Wicklund: There’s a guideline on the use of lecanemab through the American Academy of Neurology. I encourage you to look at that. Also, look at the appropriate-use recommendations that were published this year in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Wonderful. With that being said, thank you so much for talking to me. I learned a lot. Thanks, everyone, for listening.
 

Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, N.Y. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wicklund is senior associate consultant in the department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Ariz. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded October 13, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Kathrin LaFaver, MD: I’ll be talking today with Dr. Meredith Wicklund, senior associate consultant and behavioral neurologist specialist at Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Welcome, Meredith.

Meredith Wicklund, MD: Thank you.
 

Lecanemab data

Dr. LaFaver: I’m very excited about our topic. We’ll be talking about monoclonal antibody therapy against amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease – which has really been a hot topic, especially this year with the FDA approval of lecanemab – and associated questions. Could you give us a brief overview of why there has been so much research interest in this topic of anti-amyloid antibodies?

Dr. Wicklund: The pathologic component of what defines something as Alzheimer’s disease is, by definition, presence of amyloid plaques and tau tangles. When it was first discovered in the 1980s that the component of the plaques was actually the amyloid protein – beta amyloid specifically – interest went right from there to developing therapies to directly target the pathology that is Alzheimer’s disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Lecanemab is the first FDA-approved disease-modifying antibody in that realm. Could you review the study data, especially as it applies to both of us in daily neurology clinic?

Dr. Wicklund: The study data from a phase 3 trial did show, for the primary outcome, that there was a 27% slowing of decline compared with individuals on placebo. It’s important to point out that this was slowing of decline. It was not stabilizing decline. It was not improving decline.

I think it’s important that we inform our patients that really, even with this therapy, there’s no prospect of stabilizing or restoring cognition or function. We do progress at a slower rate compared with individuals not on this treatment, which, given that this medication is for individuals in mild disease who have relatively preserved functional status, that can be potentially very meaningful to families.

The overall benefit was small. It essentially amounts to half a point on an 18-point scale, which is statistically significant. How much clinical meaningfulness that actually leads to is unclear. Finding clinical meaningfulness cannot be defined by a particular test. It really can only be defined on the individual level, what is meaningful to them.
 

Recommended tests

Dr. LaFaver: It is my understanding that, to qualify for lecanemab use, one needs to have a biomarker-supported diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, either via an amyloid PET scan or CSF biomarkers. What would your recommendation be for a neurologist in practice to go about these requirements?

Dr. Wicklund: Since this medication is directly targeting the amyloid pathology, and it does convey a potential risk, we want to make sure that the actual pathology is present in the individuals before we treat them and potentially expose them to risk. The best way of doing that is through either an amyloid PET scan or spinal fluid testing of beta amyloid and tau.

There are several plasma-based biomarkers in development. However, I would avoid using those currently. There are still many unknowns in terms of what exactly is the right species of tau that we should be looking at, the right mechanism of the lab test, how minority status may influence it, and how different comorbidities may influence it.

I would recommend, at this time, sticking with amyloid PET or CSF testing. Given that amyloid PET is not widely available in many community practices, generally only available at academic centers, and is quite costly, many insurances do not cover it – although Medicare has a proposal to potentially start covering it – I generally go with spinal fluid testing, which is more widely available. There are several labs across the country that can process that testing in a reliable way.
 

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities

Dr. LaFaver: That’s very helpful to know. There’s been a large amount of buzz just these past couple of weeks about the blood biomarker coming up. I think, as you point out, this wasn’t the marker used in the clinical studies and there are still unknowns. Maybe it’s not quite time for clinical use, unfortunately.

We also have learned that there are significant potential risks involved. One issue that’s really been a focus is ARIA – amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. Could you speak a bit about that and requirements for monitoring?

Dr. Wicklund: ARIA essentially amounts to either vasogenic edema, microhemorrhages, or superficial siderosis that develops as a result of treatment. It relates to activation of the immune system with these passive monoclonal antibodies that’s going to occur with targeting against the plaques. In the parenchyma, it will cause edema. If you have amyloid in the walls of the blood vessels, it can cause microhemorrhages.

While the term “ARIA” implies an imaging-related abnormality, and it largely is purely an imaging finding, it’s not solely an imaging-related finding. It can cause symptoms, including very serious symptoms.

Overall, with lecanemab, the incidence of ARIA within the treatment group in the phase 3 study, combined between both ARIA-E (edema/effusion) and ARIA-H (hemorrhage), was 21.5%, with about 17% being ARIA-H and about 12.5% being ARIA-E. Of course, they can occur at the same time.

Overall, in terms of people in the clinical trials, for most it was purely an imaging-related finding. About 3% developed symptomatic ARIA. Some of those were very serious symptoms, including things like seizures and need to be hospitalized. A couple of deaths have been attributed to ARIA as well.

Patients on anticoagulation

Dr. LaFaver: Along those lines, any additional words to say for people who might be on anticoagulation or might require medications for a stroke, for example?

Dr. Wicklund: While individuals on anticoagulation were allowed in the clinical trials, the current, published appropriate-use guideline is recommending against its use, as several of the serious adverse effects, including the deaths, were for the most part attributed to anticoagulation use.

When it comes to acute stroke treatment, one must carefully consider use of tPA, as two of the three deaths were tPA associated in the clinical trials. It shouldn’t necessarily be an absolute contraindication, but it can make the clinical picture very muddy. If an individual is on lecanemab and comes to the ER with acute stroke-like symptoms, it’s more likely that they’re going to be having an ARIA side effect rather than an acute stroke.

A general recommendation would be to obtain an acute head CT with a CTA, and if there is a large vessel occlusion, proceed to thrombectomy. However, if there isn’t a large vessel occlusion, if you have the ability to get a rapid MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging to screen for acute stroke changes or tissue flair with acute edema changes suggestive of ARIA, that would be preferred before proceeding with thrombolysis. These are all relative contraindications and are going to depend on what’s available near you.
 

Donanemab approval pending

Dr. LaFaver: This will be an issue because the population we’re talking about is definitely at risk for stroke as well as Alzheimer’s disease. Where do you see this field going as far as amyloid antibody therapy is concerned, with another agent, donanemab, possibly getting FDA approval later this year as well?

Dr. Wicklund: We’re anticipating that donanemab will get FDA approval in the next coming months. Donanemab also targets the amyloid in the brain, although lecanemab and donanemab target different aspects of the production of the amyloid plaque. They were both shown to have roughly equal efficacy in their phase 3 clinical trials. Donanemab has the benefit of being a once-monthly infusion as opposed to twice-monthly infusions with lecanemab. It does have a slightly higher risk for ARIA compared with lecanemab.

Those are just some things to take into consideration when talking with your patients. In terms of where we’re going from here, we’re moving even earlier in terms of disease state. The lecanemab and donanemab phase 3 trials were done in individuals with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. They should not be used in individuals with moderate or more advanced Alzheimer’s disease.

There are ongoing, large, national, multicenter clinical trials of both lecanemab and donanemab in a preclinical state of Alzheimer’s disease. These individuals have evidence of amyloidosis, either through PET imaging or through CSF, but are clinically asymptomatic and do not yet have any signs of cognitive impairment or functional decline. We look forward to those results in the next few years. Hopefully, they’ll be able to show even greater benefit when moving into these early disease states in terms of delaying or even preventing cognitive decline.

Dr. LaFaver: That’s definitely very interesting to hear about. Where can people go for more information?

Dr. Wicklund: There’s a guideline on the use of lecanemab through the American Academy of Neurology. I encourage you to look at that. Also, look at the appropriate-use recommendations that were published this year in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Dr. LaFaver: Wonderful. With that being said, thank you so much for talking to me. I learned a lot. Thanks, everyone, for listening.
 

Dr. LaFaver is a neurologist at Saratoga Hospital Medical Group, Saratoga Springs, N.Y. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wicklund is senior associate consultant in the department of Neurology at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Ariz. She disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You’ve just received an offer letter from that job you interviewed for. Sometimes you want to let the employer know right away how interested you are. The verbiage says the letter isn’t “binding.” So you eagerly sign on the dotted line. Everything looks great ... until it isn’t.

Attorney Ericka Adler, JD, LLM, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, a Chicago-based law firm that represents physicians and health care professionals nationwide, described her client who was in this predicament. The physician, a dermatologist, left a practice where she had been employed because she had received an “amazing” offer letter that included promises about her new work location, staffing, equipment, and hours. She signed and immediately gave notice to her previous employer.

“When she received the actual employment contract, none of those details from the offer letter – which is also called a letter of intent [LOI] – were included,” Ms. Adler told this news organization. The physician wanted to have the details from the LOI formally spelled out in the contract, but the employer refused.

“Basically, they said, ‘This is our standard contract and you’ll just have to trust us that we’ll keep our word. We meant what we said in the LOI, but we cannot include those details in the actual agreement because everyone has the same form of agreement.’ “ The physician decided to sign the contract and accept the position.

She contacted Ms. Adler after she had been at her new position for a month. “She had received none of the things they had promised her in the LOI,” Ms. Adler reported. “She lacked the NP and PA support, she lacked the equipment, she didn’t have enough exam rooms. As soon as she started, someone with whom she was sharing call coverage left, and she was expected to take over. The LOI had a cap on the amount of call she would be required to take, but that verbiage didn’t make it into the contract.”

Ms. Adler tried to address this issue with the employer. “We couldn’t say they had literally breached the agreement, but we did list the things that were mentioned in the LOI but on which they hadn’t delivered. We asked them to fix the issue within 10 days.”

The employer argued “that they didn’t have to fulfill anything that wasn’t spelled out in the contract, even if it was in the LOI. In fact, the contract specified clearly that the signed employment agreement was the only agreement and replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

The dermatologist ultimately left the new position. “She might have been able to have a legal claim against the employer for breach or perhaps ‘detrimental reliance’ – meaning, she might have argued that she had been financially harmed due to the false promises made to her. But it would have been difficult and expensive for her to litigate the issue,” said Ms. Adler.

“It also didn’t seem like the physician could remain in the job and develop a positive work relationship with the employer, given that she felt betrayed and misled, and didn’t like the terms of employment, which didn’t match her needs or expectations,” said Ms. Adler.

She added that “most employers are not as unscrupulous and dishonest as this one was. But some employers do play on the fact that younger doctors – especially residents and fellows – tend to be trusting or feel they don’t have negotiation power. They’re often excited to get an offer and sign it without a second thought.”

That’s why she advises physicians to “review the terms of the LOI carefully and make sure you’re comfortable with them before signing it; but know that the real contract to negotiate will be the actual Employment Agreement.”

She also advises physicians not to give notice at their current place of employment until they’ve signed the final contract with the new employer.
 

On the same page?

Anu Murthy, JD, an attorney and associate contract review specialist at Contract Diagnostics, explained that the LOI is a document that the candidate receives after an interview but before a full contract. Sometimes, the LOI is preceded by a verbal or e-mailed offer, which is less formal.

“An LOI is sometimes called a Term Sheet or Memorandum of Understanding,“ Ms. Murthy told this news organization. “Typically, it lays out key provisions, such as compensation, initial term of the contract, location, and recruitment incentives.” Sometimes it includes mention of staffing, call schedule, malpractice, noncompete covenants, and other components of the position.

Justin Nabity, founder and CEO of Physicians Thrive, a physician financial advisory group, said that LOIs are “a way for employers to gauge a prospective employee’s level of interest.”

The employer “doesn’t want to send a contract with a lot of details before determining whether the candidate is really serious about the position, so the offer letter doesn’t show the whole picture,” Mr. Nabity told this news organization.

Dennis Hursh, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, agreed.

“Another way of putting it is that the employer wants to see whether the prospective employee is on the same page. The LOI will typically include some key components that will later appear in a more complete and formal contract, together with other topics and details. Agreeing to those key components signals that indeed you and the employer are in accord,” said Mr. Hursh.

But are you really on the same page with your prospective employer? And if you seem to be on the same page, and you sign the LOI, is that a guarantee that the employer will honor its terms?

Not necessarily, according to the experts. In fact, many LOIs contain some verbiage stating that the letter isn’t binding, which can be confusing. Others suggest that it is binding, but the candidate doesn’t realize that the letter isn’t a formal contract and that the contract may contain details not included in the LOI or may omit details mentioned in the LOI, as happened to Ms. Adler’s unfortunate client.

“One of the pitfalls I see is that doctors sign the LOI without recognizing whether it’s binding or nonbinding,” Ms. Murthy said. “If it’s binding, it creates a legal obligation on your part and could preclude you from further negotiation once you see the contract and feel you’d like to negotiate some of its terms.”

Binding letters are typically offered to candidates after some back-and-forth between the parties, and important terms have been agreed to, which can happen either verbally or via e-mail. Once these agreements have been reached, they’re summarized in a “binding” letter before being extended into a full contract.

“But even if you’ve agreed on the terms verbally, it’s still important to have someone more experienced review the offer letter before signing it,” Ms. Murthy said. “It’s important to understand the ‘legalese’ and what your rights and obligations are before agreeing to anything.”

And certainly, if you receive a binding LOI, you shouldn’t sign anything until you’re sure you’re comfortable with its contents and have more details.
 

Are “nonbinding” LOIs really not binding?

Even if the LOI is nonbinding, that doesn’t necessarily mean you can sign it and expect to negotiate later. “I see people tripped up when they sign the LOI, thinking they’ll negotiate later,” said Mr. Hursh. “They may not like the terms – for example, they think the compensation is too low – and they figure they’ll work it out at the contract stage, because the LOI is ‘not legally binding.’ “

But because the candidate signed the LOI, “the employer is under the impression that the compensation was acceptable, so now you’ve tied your hands – and the hands of any attorney you may consult down the road – to negotiate those terms.”

Mr. Hursh said he is often consulted by physicians who signed the contract “to get the ball rolling,” thinking that the LOI was “just a meaningless bureaucratic paper.” They need to understand “that the employer wants to make sure they’re in agreement on the basic points before getting into the details,” he said. “Large hospitals with in-house counsel may not want to use their legal department’s valuable time in redrafting terms they thought were acceptable to the candidate, and most practices don’t want to pay a lawyer to draft an LOI and then come back and say, ‘Actually, the physician wants more compensation.’ “

Mr. Nabity summarized: “The LOI is essentially a negotiation tactic to take some of the cards out of the hands of the doctor and commit him or her to something they’re not ready to commit to.” Employers may be playing on the sense of pressure and candidate’s fear that the job will slip through their fingers if they wait too long to sign. “But it’s better to wait longer at this stage before signing even a nonbinding LOI,” he said.

What to do before signing

So how should physicians relate to the LOI? Mr. Nabity advises “working through the details of the offer letter first, going through it carefully and identifying areas of concern, bearing in mind that employers never begin with their best offer.”

He pointed out that physicians “rarely know their value and usually don’t know how to work through the dynamics of compensation, call schedules, additional incentives, bonuses, and productivity,” so they need to be informed about these areas before signing anything.

Ms. Murthy recommended “going back and saying [to the prospective employer], ‘Thank you, but I need time to consider and evaluate this offer.’ Then, do some due diligence.”

At that point, you can hire an attorney to go over the offer, educate yourself about compensation benchmarks and what your worth actually is, or consult another trained professional or more experienced individual who can review the LOI before you sign it.

That’s what Dominique Cleveland, MD, a Texas-based ob.gyn., did when she received an LOI 5 years ago.

“The offer letter from the group practice contained a statement that the group wanted me to come on board, what the salary would be, and the time frame that would be covered in the contract,” she told this news organization. “It mentioned benefits and incentives and relocation, but it was only a short document – maybe one or two pages long.”

At the time that she received her LOI, Dr. Cleveland was completing her residency. She consulted experienced faculty members from her institution to find out whether the terms laid out in the LOI “were the norm and were reasonable.” She was “fairly certain” that the salary was low and this was confirmed by the faculty members she talked to. “So I felt comfortable asking for more [compensation],” she said.

The employer was receptive to her proposed changes, which were included in the more detailed contract that followed. “I can’t say there were any surprises per se in the contract because I had negotiated my salary after receiving the offer letter,” she said. She accepted the position and has been working there ever since.

Dr. Cleveland advises physicians “not to make a decision without speaking to someone who’s experienced and can help you compare what’s out there.”

She also encourages physicians to ask for what they want, whether it’s compensation or something else, such as call schedule or vacation time, without being afraid. “I’m a firm believer that you won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it,” she said.
 

Negotiation tips

Mr. Nabity recommended not agreeing to any terms until you are ready to enter into negotiation, recognizing that negotiation is an “art” that requires skill and training. “Either get trained in negotiation, perhaps taking courses to advocate for yourself – which is rare, and most doctors aren’t likely to do this – or go to a trained advocate, such as a lawyer, who can do so on your behalf.”

You might share your concerns with the person who interviewed you, with the person whose name is on the LOI, or with the recruiter who can advocate on your behalf, Ms. Murthy said. “You can reach out to the recruiter and say, ‘I really appreciate the opportunity, but there are some things in the offer letter I’d like to continue discussing.’ “

When you’re ready to negotiate, be sure to assemble all of your “asks” in a single document rather than going back to the prospective employer with “multiple individual questions multiple times,” Ms. Murthy advised. It’s more efficient and the employer or recruiter will appreciate that.

She also advised couching your request in language that expresses your appreciation for the offer and stating that you would like the agreement to serve the best interests of both parties. “Use open-ended language like that, and ask if it’s all right for you to send back some questions, ask for clarification, or share concerns.”

Most employers “will be fine with that,” Ms. Murthy said. “Most won’t say, ‘This is it, take it or leave it.’ If they do, that’s a red flag for you to reconsider whether you really want to work for this particular employer.”

Mr. Hursh suggested that if you choose to sign the LOI immediately, so as to rapidly let the prospective employer know of your interest, “you should add some type of qualification such as, ‘I’m signing this to express my interest, but accepting the position will be dependent upon a more thorough review of compensation benchmarks,’ for example.”

Mr. Nabity agreed: “You can add a handwritten note to the signed LOI expressing that you’re eager to move forward and proceed with the position, but it shouldn’t be construed as accepting the terms of the LOI until you’ve seen the full contract.

“Remember, health care can’t exist without doctors,” Mr. Nabity said. “Doctors are the star players and should go into the negotiation process recognizing their true worth.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You’ve just received an offer letter from that job you interviewed for. Sometimes you want to let the employer know right away how interested you are. The verbiage says the letter isn’t “binding.” So you eagerly sign on the dotted line. Everything looks great ... until it isn’t.

Attorney Ericka Adler, JD, LLM, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, a Chicago-based law firm that represents physicians and health care professionals nationwide, described her client who was in this predicament. The physician, a dermatologist, left a practice where she had been employed because she had received an “amazing” offer letter that included promises about her new work location, staffing, equipment, and hours. She signed and immediately gave notice to her previous employer.

“When she received the actual employment contract, none of those details from the offer letter – which is also called a letter of intent [LOI] – were included,” Ms. Adler told this news organization. The physician wanted to have the details from the LOI formally spelled out in the contract, but the employer refused.

“Basically, they said, ‘This is our standard contract and you’ll just have to trust us that we’ll keep our word. We meant what we said in the LOI, but we cannot include those details in the actual agreement because everyone has the same form of agreement.’ “ The physician decided to sign the contract and accept the position.

She contacted Ms. Adler after she had been at her new position for a month. “She had received none of the things they had promised her in the LOI,” Ms. Adler reported. “She lacked the NP and PA support, she lacked the equipment, she didn’t have enough exam rooms. As soon as she started, someone with whom she was sharing call coverage left, and she was expected to take over. The LOI had a cap on the amount of call she would be required to take, but that verbiage didn’t make it into the contract.”

Ms. Adler tried to address this issue with the employer. “We couldn’t say they had literally breached the agreement, but we did list the things that were mentioned in the LOI but on which they hadn’t delivered. We asked them to fix the issue within 10 days.”

The employer argued “that they didn’t have to fulfill anything that wasn’t spelled out in the contract, even if it was in the LOI. In fact, the contract specified clearly that the signed employment agreement was the only agreement and replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

The dermatologist ultimately left the new position. “She might have been able to have a legal claim against the employer for breach or perhaps ‘detrimental reliance’ – meaning, she might have argued that she had been financially harmed due to the false promises made to her. But it would have been difficult and expensive for her to litigate the issue,” said Ms. Adler.

“It also didn’t seem like the physician could remain in the job and develop a positive work relationship with the employer, given that she felt betrayed and misled, and didn’t like the terms of employment, which didn’t match her needs or expectations,” said Ms. Adler.

She added that “most employers are not as unscrupulous and dishonest as this one was. But some employers do play on the fact that younger doctors – especially residents and fellows – tend to be trusting or feel they don’t have negotiation power. They’re often excited to get an offer and sign it without a second thought.”

That’s why she advises physicians to “review the terms of the LOI carefully and make sure you’re comfortable with them before signing it; but know that the real contract to negotiate will be the actual Employment Agreement.”

She also advises physicians not to give notice at their current place of employment until they’ve signed the final contract with the new employer.
 

On the same page?

Anu Murthy, JD, an attorney and associate contract review specialist at Contract Diagnostics, explained that the LOI is a document that the candidate receives after an interview but before a full contract. Sometimes, the LOI is preceded by a verbal or e-mailed offer, which is less formal.

“An LOI is sometimes called a Term Sheet or Memorandum of Understanding,“ Ms. Murthy told this news organization. “Typically, it lays out key provisions, such as compensation, initial term of the contract, location, and recruitment incentives.” Sometimes it includes mention of staffing, call schedule, malpractice, noncompete covenants, and other components of the position.

Justin Nabity, founder and CEO of Physicians Thrive, a physician financial advisory group, said that LOIs are “a way for employers to gauge a prospective employee’s level of interest.”

The employer “doesn’t want to send a contract with a lot of details before determining whether the candidate is really serious about the position, so the offer letter doesn’t show the whole picture,” Mr. Nabity told this news organization.

Dennis Hursh, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, agreed.

“Another way of putting it is that the employer wants to see whether the prospective employee is on the same page. The LOI will typically include some key components that will later appear in a more complete and formal contract, together with other topics and details. Agreeing to those key components signals that indeed you and the employer are in accord,” said Mr. Hursh.

But are you really on the same page with your prospective employer? And if you seem to be on the same page, and you sign the LOI, is that a guarantee that the employer will honor its terms?

Not necessarily, according to the experts. In fact, many LOIs contain some verbiage stating that the letter isn’t binding, which can be confusing. Others suggest that it is binding, but the candidate doesn’t realize that the letter isn’t a formal contract and that the contract may contain details not included in the LOI or may omit details mentioned in the LOI, as happened to Ms. Adler’s unfortunate client.

“One of the pitfalls I see is that doctors sign the LOI without recognizing whether it’s binding or nonbinding,” Ms. Murthy said. “If it’s binding, it creates a legal obligation on your part and could preclude you from further negotiation once you see the contract and feel you’d like to negotiate some of its terms.”

Binding letters are typically offered to candidates after some back-and-forth between the parties, and important terms have been agreed to, which can happen either verbally or via e-mail. Once these agreements have been reached, they’re summarized in a “binding” letter before being extended into a full contract.

“But even if you’ve agreed on the terms verbally, it’s still important to have someone more experienced review the offer letter before signing it,” Ms. Murthy said. “It’s important to understand the ‘legalese’ and what your rights and obligations are before agreeing to anything.”

And certainly, if you receive a binding LOI, you shouldn’t sign anything until you’re sure you’re comfortable with its contents and have more details.
 

Are “nonbinding” LOIs really not binding?

Even if the LOI is nonbinding, that doesn’t necessarily mean you can sign it and expect to negotiate later. “I see people tripped up when they sign the LOI, thinking they’ll negotiate later,” said Mr. Hursh. “They may not like the terms – for example, they think the compensation is too low – and they figure they’ll work it out at the contract stage, because the LOI is ‘not legally binding.’ “

But because the candidate signed the LOI, “the employer is under the impression that the compensation was acceptable, so now you’ve tied your hands – and the hands of any attorney you may consult down the road – to negotiate those terms.”

Mr. Hursh said he is often consulted by physicians who signed the contract “to get the ball rolling,” thinking that the LOI was “just a meaningless bureaucratic paper.” They need to understand “that the employer wants to make sure they’re in agreement on the basic points before getting into the details,” he said. “Large hospitals with in-house counsel may not want to use their legal department’s valuable time in redrafting terms they thought were acceptable to the candidate, and most practices don’t want to pay a lawyer to draft an LOI and then come back and say, ‘Actually, the physician wants more compensation.’ “

Mr. Nabity summarized: “The LOI is essentially a negotiation tactic to take some of the cards out of the hands of the doctor and commit him or her to something they’re not ready to commit to.” Employers may be playing on the sense of pressure and candidate’s fear that the job will slip through their fingers if they wait too long to sign. “But it’s better to wait longer at this stage before signing even a nonbinding LOI,” he said.

What to do before signing

So how should physicians relate to the LOI? Mr. Nabity advises “working through the details of the offer letter first, going through it carefully and identifying areas of concern, bearing in mind that employers never begin with their best offer.”

He pointed out that physicians “rarely know their value and usually don’t know how to work through the dynamics of compensation, call schedules, additional incentives, bonuses, and productivity,” so they need to be informed about these areas before signing anything.

Ms. Murthy recommended “going back and saying [to the prospective employer], ‘Thank you, but I need time to consider and evaluate this offer.’ Then, do some due diligence.”

At that point, you can hire an attorney to go over the offer, educate yourself about compensation benchmarks and what your worth actually is, or consult another trained professional or more experienced individual who can review the LOI before you sign it.

That’s what Dominique Cleveland, MD, a Texas-based ob.gyn., did when she received an LOI 5 years ago.

“The offer letter from the group practice contained a statement that the group wanted me to come on board, what the salary would be, and the time frame that would be covered in the contract,” she told this news organization. “It mentioned benefits and incentives and relocation, but it was only a short document – maybe one or two pages long.”

At the time that she received her LOI, Dr. Cleveland was completing her residency. She consulted experienced faculty members from her institution to find out whether the terms laid out in the LOI “were the norm and were reasonable.” She was “fairly certain” that the salary was low and this was confirmed by the faculty members she talked to. “So I felt comfortable asking for more [compensation],” she said.

The employer was receptive to her proposed changes, which were included in the more detailed contract that followed. “I can’t say there were any surprises per se in the contract because I had negotiated my salary after receiving the offer letter,” she said. She accepted the position and has been working there ever since.

Dr. Cleveland advises physicians “not to make a decision without speaking to someone who’s experienced and can help you compare what’s out there.”

She also encourages physicians to ask for what they want, whether it’s compensation or something else, such as call schedule or vacation time, without being afraid. “I’m a firm believer that you won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it,” she said.
 

Negotiation tips

Mr. Nabity recommended not agreeing to any terms until you are ready to enter into negotiation, recognizing that negotiation is an “art” that requires skill and training. “Either get trained in negotiation, perhaps taking courses to advocate for yourself – which is rare, and most doctors aren’t likely to do this – or go to a trained advocate, such as a lawyer, who can do so on your behalf.”

You might share your concerns with the person who interviewed you, with the person whose name is on the LOI, or with the recruiter who can advocate on your behalf, Ms. Murthy said. “You can reach out to the recruiter and say, ‘I really appreciate the opportunity, but there are some things in the offer letter I’d like to continue discussing.’ “

When you’re ready to negotiate, be sure to assemble all of your “asks” in a single document rather than going back to the prospective employer with “multiple individual questions multiple times,” Ms. Murthy advised. It’s more efficient and the employer or recruiter will appreciate that.

She also advised couching your request in language that expresses your appreciation for the offer and stating that you would like the agreement to serve the best interests of both parties. “Use open-ended language like that, and ask if it’s all right for you to send back some questions, ask for clarification, or share concerns.”

Most employers “will be fine with that,” Ms. Murthy said. “Most won’t say, ‘This is it, take it or leave it.’ If they do, that’s a red flag for you to reconsider whether you really want to work for this particular employer.”

Mr. Hursh suggested that if you choose to sign the LOI immediately, so as to rapidly let the prospective employer know of your interest, “you should add some type of qualification such as, ‘I’m signing this to express my interest, but accepting the position will be dependent upon a more thorough review of compensation benchmarks,’ for example.”

Mr. Nabity agreed: “You can add a handwritten note to the signed LOI expressing that you’re eager to move forward and proceed with the position, but it shouldn’t be construed as accepting the terms of the LOI until you’ve seen the full contract.

“Remember, health care can’t exist without doctors,” Mr. Nabity said. “Doctors are the star players and should go into the negotiation process recognizing their true worth.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

You’ve just received an offer letter from that job you interviewed for. Sometimes you want to let the employer know right away how interested you are. The verbiage says the letter isn’t “binding.” So you eagerly sign on the dotted line. Everything looks great ... until it isn’t.

Attorney Ericka Adler, JD, LLM, a partner at Roetzel & Andress, a Chicago-based law firm that represents physicians and health care professionals nationwide, described her client who was in this predicament. The physician, a dermatologist, left a practice where she had been employed because she had received an “amazing” offer letter that included promises about her new work location, staffing, equipment, and hours. She signed and immediately gave notice to her previous employer.

“When she received the actual employment contract, none of those details from the offer letter – which is also called a letter of intent [LOI] – were included,” Ms. Adler told this news organization. The physician wanted to have the details from the LOI formally spelled out in the contract, but the employer refused.

“Basically, they said, ‘This is our standard contract and you’ll just have to trust us that we’ll keep our word. We meant what we said in the LOI, but we cannot include those details in the actual agreement because everyone has the same form of agreement.’ “ The physician decided to sign the contract and accept the position.

She contacted Ms. Adler after she had been at her new position for a month. “She had received none of the things they had promised her in the LOI,” Ms. Adler reported. “She lacked the NP and PA support, she lacked the equipment, she didn’t have enough exam rooms. As soon as she started, someone with whom she was sharing call coverage left, and she was expected to take over. The LOI had a cap on the amount of call she would be required to take, but that verbiage didn’t make it into the contract.”

Ms. Adler tried to address this issue with the employer. “We couldn’t say they had literally breached the agreement, but we did list the things that were mentioned in the LOI but on which they hadn’t delivered. We asked them to fix the issue within 10 days.”

The employer argued “that they didn’t have to fulfill anything that wasn’t spelled out in the contract, even if it was in the LOI. In fact, the contract specified clearly that the signed employment agreement was the only agreement and replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

The dermatologist ultimately left the new position. “She might have been able to have a legal claim against the employer for breach or perhaps ‘detrimental reliance’ – meaning, she might have argued that she had been financially harmed due to the false promises made to her. But it would have been difficult and expensive for her to litigate the issue,” said Ms. Adler.

“It also didn’t seem like the physician could remain in the job and develop a positive work relationship with the employer, given that she felt betrayed and misled, and didn’t like the terms of employment, which didn’t match her needs or expectations,” said Ms. Adler.

She added that “most employers are not as unscrupulous and dishonest as this one was. But some employers do play on the fact that younger doctors – especially residents and fellows – tend to be trusting or feel they don’t have negotiation power. They’re often excited to get an offer and sign it without a second thought.”

That’s why she advises physicians to “review the terms of the LOI carefully and make sure you’re comfortable with them before signing it; but know that the real contract to negotiate will be the actual Employment Agreement.”

She also advises physicians not to give notice at their current place of employment until they’ve signed the final contract with the new employer.
 

On the same page?

Anu Murthy, JD, an attorney and associate contract review specialist at Contract Diagnostics, explained that the LOI is a document that the candidate receives after an interview but before a full contract. Sometimes, the LOI is preceded by a verbal or e-mailed offer, which is less formal.

“An LOI is sometimes called a Term Sheet or Memorandum of Understanding,“ Ms. Murthy told this news organization. “Typically, it lays out key provisions, such as compensation, initial term of the contract, location, and recruitment incentives.” Sometimes it includes mention of staffing, call schedule, malpractice, noncompete covenants, and other components of the position.

Justin Nabity, founder and CEO of Physicians Thrive, a physician financial advisory group, said that LOIs are “a way for employers to gauge a prospective employee’s level of interest.”

The employer “doesn’t want to send a contract with a lot of details before determining whether the candidate is really serious about the position, so the offer letter doesn’t show the whole picture,” Mr. Nabity told this news organization.

Dennis Hursh, managing partner of Physician Agreements Health Law, a Pennsylvania-based law firm that represents physicians, agreed.

“Another way of putting it is that the employer wants to see whether the prospective employee is on the same page. The LOI will typically include some key components that will later appear in a more complete and formal contract, together with other topics and details. Agreeing to those key components signals that indeed you and the employer are in accord,” said Mr. Hursh.

But are you really on the same page with your prospective employer? And if you seem to be on the same page, and you sign the LOI, is that a guarantee that the employer will honor its terms?

Not necessarily, according to the experts. In fact, many LOIs contain some verbiage stating that the letter isn’t binding, which can be confusing. Others suggest that it is binding, but the candidate doesn’t realize that the letter isn’t a formal contract and that the contract may contain details not included in the LOI or may omit details mentioned in the LOI, as happened to Ms. Adler’s unfortunate client.

“One of the pitfalls I see is that doctors sign the LOI without recognizing whether it’s binding or nonbinding,” Ms. Murthy said. “If it’s binding, it creates a legal obligation on your part and could preclude you from further negotiation once you see the contract and feel you’d like to negotiate some of its terms.”

Binding letters are typically offered to candidates after some back-and-forth between the parties, and important terms have been agreed to, which can happen either verbally or via e-mail. Once these agreements have been reached, they’re summarized in a “binding” letter before being extended into a full contract.

“But even if you’ve agreed on the terms verbally, it’s still important to have someone more experienced review the offer letter before signing it,” Ms. Murthy said. “It’s important to understand the ‘legalese’ and what your rights and obligations are before agreeing to anything.”

And certainly, if you receive a binding LOI, you shouldn’t sign anything until you’re sure you’re comfortable with its contents and have more details.
 

Are “nonbinding” LOIs really not binding?

Even if the LOI is nonbinding, that doesn’t necessarily mean you can sign it and expect to negotiate later. “I see people tripped up when they sign the LOI, thinking they’ll negotiate later,” said Mr. Hursh. “They may not like the terms – for example, they think the compensation is too low – and they figure they’ll work it out at the contract stage, because the LOI is ‘not legally binding.’ “

But because the candidate signed the LOI, “the employer is under the impression that the compensation was acceptable, so now you’ve tied your hands – and the hands of any attorney you may consult down the road – to negotiate those terms.”

Mr. Hursh said he is often consulted by physicians who signed the contract “to get the ball rolling,” thinking that the LOI was “just a meaningless bureaucratic paper.” They need to understand “that the employer wants to make sure they’re in agreement on the basic points before getting into the details,” he said. “Large hospitals with in-house counsel may not want to use their legal department’s valuable time in redrafting terms they thought were acceptable to the candidate, and most practices don’t want to pay a lawyer to draft an LOI and then come back and say, ‘Actually, the physician wants more compensation.’ “

Mr. Nabity summarized: “The LOI is essentially a negotiation tactic to take some of the cards out of the hands of the doctor and commit him or her to something they’re not ready to commit to.” Employers may be playing on the sense of pressure and candidate’s fear that the job will slip through their fingers if they wait too long to sign. “But it’s better to wait longer at this stage before signing even a nonbinding LOI,” he said.

What to do before signing

So how should physicians relate to the LOI? Mr. Nabity advises “working through the details of the offer letter first, going through it carefully and identifying areas of concern, bearing in mind that employers never begin with their best offer.”

He pointed out that physicians “rarely know their value and usually don’t know how to work through the dynamics of compensation, call schedules, additional incentives, bonuses, and productivity,” so they need to be informed about these areas before signing anything.

Ms. Murthy recommended “going back and saying [to the prospective employer], ‘Thank you, but I need time to consider and evaluate this offer.’ Then, do some due diligence.”

At that point, you can hire an attorney to go over the offer, educate yourself about compensation benchmarks and what your worth actually is, or consult another trained professional or more experienced individual who can review the LOI before you sign it.

That’s what Dominique Cleveland, MD, a Texas-based ob.gyn., did when she received an LOI 5 years ago.

“The offer letter from the group practice contained a statement that the group wanted me to come on board, what the salary would be, and the time frame that would be covered in the contract,” she told this news organization. “It mentioned benefits and incentives and relocation, but it was only a short document – maybe one or two pages long.”

At the time that she received her LOI, Dr. Cleveland was completing her residency. She consulted experienced faculty members from her institution to find out whether the terms laid out in the LOI “were the norm and were reasonable.” She was “fairly certain” that the salary was low and this was confirmed by the faculty members she talked to. “So I felt comfortable asking for more [compensation],” she said.

The employer was receptive to her proposed changes, which were included in the more detailed contract that followed. “I can’t say there were any surprises per se in the contract because I had negotiated my salary after receiving the offer letter,” she said. She accepted the position and has been working there ever since.

Dr. Cleveland advises physicians “not to make a decision without speaking to someone who’s experienced and can help you compare what’s out there.”

She also encourages physicians to ask for what they want, whether it’s compensation or something else, such as call schedule or vacation time, without being afraid. “I’m a firm believer that you won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it,” she said.
 

Negotiation tips

Mr. Nabity recommended not agreeing to any terms until you are ready to enter into negotiation, recognizing that negotiation is an “art” that requires skill and training. “Either get trained in negotiation, perhaps taking courses to advocate for yourself – which is rare, and most doctors aren’t likely to do this – or go to a trained advocate, such as a lawyer, who can do so on your behalf.”

You might share your concerns with the person who interviewed you, with the person whose name is on the LOI, or with the recruiter who can advocate on your behalf, Ms. Murthy said. “You can reach out to the recruiter and say, ‘I really appreciate the opportunity, but there are some things in the offer letter I’d like to continue discussing.’ “

When you’re ready to negotiate, be sure to assemble all of your “asks” in a single document rather than going back to the prospective employer with “multiple individual questions multiple times,” Ms. Murthy advised. It’s more efficient and the employer or recruiter will appreciate that.

She also advised couching your request in language that expresses your appreciation for the offer and stating that you would like the agreement to serve the best interests of both parties. “Use open-ended language like that, and ask if it’s all right for you to send back some questions, ask for clarification, or share concerns.”

Most employers “will be fine with that,” Ms. Murthy said. “Most won’t say, ‘This is it, take it or leave it.’ If they do, that’s a red flag for you to reconsider whether you really want to work for this particular employer.”

Mr. Hursh suggested that if you choose to sign the LOI immediately, so as to rapidly let the prospective employer know of your interest, “you should add some type of qualification such as, ‘I’m signing this to express my interest, but accepting the position will be dependent upon a more thorough review of compensation benchmarks,’ for example.”

Mr. Nabity agreed: “You can add a handwritten note to the signed LOI expressing that you’re eager to move forward and proceed with the position, but it shouldn’t be construed as accepting the terms of the LOI until you’ve seen the full contract.

“Remember, health care can’t exist without doctors,” Mr. Nabity said. “Doctors are the star players and should go into the negotiation process recognizing their true worth.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recently published Medscape report, 26% of American physicians said they were considering a career away from practicing medicine, for various reasons. Becoming a teacher was one of the nonclinical careers that most enthused them. What were the others?

This infographic shows the five potential new careers that most interested U.S. physicians considering a change. For more details, check out the Medscape Physicians and Nonclinical Careers Report 2023.

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

In a recently published Medscape report, 26% of American physicians said they were considering a career away from practicing medicine, for various reasons. Becoming a teacher was one of the nonclinical careers that most enthused them. What were the others?

This infographic shows the five potential new careers that most interested U.S. physicians considering a change. For more details, check out the Medscape Physicians and Nonclinical Careers Report 2023.

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

In a recently published Medscape report, 26% of American physicians said they were considering a career away from practicing medicine, for various reasons. Becoming a teacher was one of the nonclinical careers that most enthused them. What were the others?

This infographic shows the five potential new careers that most interested U.S. physicians considering a change. For more details, check out the Medscape Physicians and Nonclinical Careers Report 2023.

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

A novel approach aimed at enhancing everyday memory may lead older adults to feel more confident that they can accurately recollect phone numbers, names, and other information, according to findings from a small randomized controlled trial that were presented at the annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America.

The tool, called Everyday Memory and Metacognitive Intervention (EMMI), trains people to be more mindful of memories, like where they parked their car, by repeating information at increasing intervals and self-testing.

EMMI “is a very important approach, focused on everyday memory,” said George W. Rebok, PhD, professor emeritus in the department of mental health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study. “Many times, when we do memory interventions, we only focus on improving objective memories,” such as recalling major life events or one-time occurrences.

Everyday memory was defined as recalling basic facts including names, phone numbers, and daily appointments. The research, led by Ann Pearman, MD, associate director of adult psychology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine at MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, expanded on previous work she conducted with colleagues. That study found that EMMI may help improve confidence in the ability to recollect information and functional independence among older adults.

The current study was of 62 of the same participants in the earlier research, with one group that received EMMI (n = 30) and another that underwent traditional memory strategy training ([MSC]; n = 32). Both groups underwent four 3-hour virtual training sessions in their designated intervention over 2 weeks.

“One of the most important parts of the study is the [training] period,” when participants build new habits to help recall their everyday memories, Dr. Pearman said.

For 7 weeks, participants reported errors in everyday memories on a smartphone and submitted diary entries for each. Dr. Rebok that said tracking can help identify patterns or circumstances under which a person is likely to experience a memory lapse.

The study found mixed results when comparing EMMI with MSC, with the latter group demonstrating greater improvements in associative memory, such as pairing of a name to a face, highlighting the effectiveness of traditional MCS.

However, participants who underwent EMMI reported an increase in self-confidence that they were able to remember things, compared with those in the MSC group (4.92, confidence interval 95%, P = .30).

The EMMI intervention also was not uniformly effective in reducing memory errors across all participants in the group, which is to be expected, experts note. “In memory training, as with any kind of cognitive training, one size doesn’t fit all,” Dr. Rebok said.

“The mixed findings may highlight the need for a holistic approach to memory improvement and brain health, especially in older adults,” said Krystal L. Culler, DBH, founder of the Virtual Brain Health Center in Cleveland, who was not involved with the study.

EMMI could potentially be part of a broader strategy that includes lifestyle factors like sleep hygiene, physical exercise, diet, and social engagement to support optimal memory care, Dr. Culler said.

Patients who noticed some change in their memory and who are interested in making some positive changes in their daily cognitive functioning may benefit most from EMMI, according to Dr. Pearman.

“Making proactive decisions about memory challenges [patients] in their thinking and doing in everyday life,” she said.

Dr. Pearman shared that she and her colleagues are now looking into a combined EMMI and traditional memory strategy training to maximize the benefits of both interventions.

The study was supported by the Retirement Research Foundation (2018-2019); and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK111024) from the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. The study authors report no relevant conflicts. Dr. Culler and Dr. Rebok report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel approach aimed at enhancing everyday memory may lead older adults to feel more confident that they can accurately recollect phone numbers, names, and other information, according to findings from a small randomized controlled trial that were presented at the annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America.

The tool, called Everyday Memory and Metacognitive Intervention (EMMI), trains people to be more mindful of memories, like where they parked their car, by repeating information at increasing intervals and self-testing.

EMMI “is a very important approach, focused on everyday memory,” said George W. Rebok, PhD, professor emeritus in the department of mental health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study. “Many times, when we do memory interventions, we only focus on improving objective memories,” such as recalling major life events or one-time occurrences.

Everyday memory was defined as recalling basic facts including names, phone numbers, and daily appointments. The research, led by Ann Pearman, MD, associate director of adult psychology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine at MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, expanded on previous work she conducted with colleagues. That study found that EMMI may help improve confidence in the ability to recollect information and functional independence among older adults.

The current study was of 62 of the same participants in the earlier research, with one group that received EMMI (n = 30) and another that underwent traditional memory strategy training ([MSC]; n = 32). Both groups underwent four 3-hour virtual training sessions in their designated intervention over 2 weeks.

“One of the most important parts of the study is the [training] period,” when participants build new habits to help recall their everyday memories, Dr. Pearman said.

For 7 weeks, participants reported errors in everyday memories on a smartphone and submitted diary entries for each. Dr. Rebok that said tracking can help identify patterns or circumstances under which a person is likely to experience a memory lapse.

The study found mixed results when comparing EMMI with MSC, with the latter group demonstrating greater improvements in associative memory, such as pairing of a name to a face, highlighting the effectiveness of traditional MCS.

However, participants who underwent EMMI reported an increase in self-confidence that they were able to remember things, compared with those in the MSC group (4.92, confidence interval 95%, P = .30).

The EMMI intervention also was not uniformly effective in reducing memory errors across all participants in the group, which is to be expected, experts note. “In memory training, as with any kind of cognitive training, one size doesn’t fit all,” Dr. Rebok said.

“The mixed findings may highlight the need for a holistic approach to memory improvement and brain health, especially in older adults,” said Krystal L. Culler, DBH, founder of the Virtual Brain Health Center in Cleveland, who was not involved with the study.

EMMI could potentially be part of a broader strategy that includes lifestyle factors like sleep hygiene, physical exercise, diet, and social engagement to support optimal memory care, Dr. Culler said.

Patients who noticed some change in their memory and who are interested in making some positive changes in their daily cognitive functioning may benefit most from EMMI, according to Dr. Pearman.

“Making proactive decisions about memory challenges [patients] in their thinking and doing in everyday life,” she said.

Dr. Pearman shared that she and her colleagues are now looking into a combined EMMI and traditional memory strategy training to maximize the benefits of both interventions.

The study was supported by the Retirement Research Foundation (2018-2019); and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK111024) from the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. The study authors report no relevant conflicts. Dr. Culler and Dr. Rebok report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel approach aimed at enhancing everyday memory may lead older adults to feel more confident that they can accurately recollect phone numbers, names, and other information, according to findings from a small randomized controlled trial that were presented at the annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America.

The tool, called Everyday Memory and Metacognitive Intervention (EMMI), trains people to be more mindful of memories, like where they parked their car, by repeating information at increasing intervals and self-testing.

EMMI “is a very important approach, focused on everyday memory,” said George W. Rebok, PhD, professor emeritus in the department of mental health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved with the study. “Many times, when we do memory interventions, we only focus on improving objective memories,” such as recalling major life events or one-time occurrences.

Everyday memory was defined as recalling basic facts including names, phone numbers, and daily appointments. The research, led by Ann Pearman, MD, associate director of adult psychology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine at MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, expanded on previous work she conducted with colleagues. That study found that EMMI may help improve confidence in the ability to recollect information and functional independence among older adults.

The current study was of 62 of the same participants in the earlier research, with one group that received EMMI (n = 30) and another that underwent traditional memory strategy training ([MSC]; n = 32). Both groups underwent four 3-hour virtual training sessions in their designated intervention over 2 weeks.

“One of the most important parts of the study is the [training] period,” when participants build new habits to help recall their everyday memories, Dr. Pearman said.

For 7 weeks, participants reported errors in everyday memories on a smartphone and submitted diary entries for each. Dr. Rebok that said tracking can help identify patterns or circumstances under which a person is likely to experience a memory lapse.

The study found mixed results when comparing EMMI with MSC, with the latter group demonstrating greater improvements in associative memory, such as pairing of a name to a face, highlighting the effectiveness of traditional MCS.

However, participants who underwent EMMI reported an increase in self-confidence that they were able to remember things, compared with those in the MSC group (4.92, confidence interval 95%, P = .30).

The EMMI intervention also was not uniformly effective in reducing memory errors across all participants in the group, which is to be expected, experts note. “In memory training, as with any kind of cognitive training, one size doesn’t fit all,” Dr. Rebok said.

“The mixed findings may highlight the need for a holistic approach to memory improvement and brain health, especially in older adults,” said Krystal L. Culler, DBH, founder of the Virtual Brain Health Center in Cleveland, who was not involved with the study.

EMMI could potentially be part of a broader strategy that includes lifestyle factors like sleep hygiene, physical exercise, diet, and social engagement to support optimal memory care, Dr. Culler said.

Patients who noticed some change in their memory and who are interested in making some positive changes in their daily cognitive functioning may benefit most from EMMI, according to Dr. Pearman.

“Making proactive decisions about memory challenges [patients] in their thinking and doing in everyday life,” she said.

Dr. Pearman shared that she and her colleagues are now looking into a combined EMMI and traditional memory strategy training to maximize the benefits of both interventions.

The study was supported by the Retirement Research Foundation (2018-2019); and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK111024) from the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. The study authors report no relevant conflicts. Dr. Culler and Dr. Rebok report no relevant financial relationships.

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