Neurology

A 67-year-old man asks about what he can do to prevent dementia. He reports his mother had dementia, and he wants to do everything he can to prevent it. Which of the following has evidence of benefit?

A) Thiamine

B) Vitamin E

C) Multivitamin (MV)

D) Keto diet

E) Red wine
 

FDA-approved therapies for dementia

To date the actual therapies for dementia have been disappointing. Donepezil, the most prescribed medication for the treatment of dementia has a number-needed-to treat (NNT) over 17, and causes frequent side effects. Aducanumab was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but controversy has arisen, as the clinical results were modest, and the price tag will be large – estimated at $30,000-$50,000/year.

Preventive options that may decrease the likelihood of dementia

Patients often ask the question stated above. Regarding how to respond to that question, choice C, MV, has some recent evidence of benefit. Baker and colleagues studied the effect of cocoa extract and multivitamins on cognitive function in the COSMOS-Mind trial.¹ A total of 2,262 people were enrolled, and over 90% completed baseline and at least one annual cognitive assessment. Cocoa extract had no impact on global cognition (confidence interval [CI], –.02-.08, P = .28), but MV supplementation did have a statistically significant impact on global cognition (CI, .02-.12, P less than .007).

Vitamin E has been enthusiastically endorsed in the past as a treatment to prevent cognitive decline. The most recent Cochrane review on vitamin E concluded there was no evidence that the alpha-tocopherol form of vitamin E given to people with MCI prevents progression to dementia, or that it improves cognitive function in people with MCI or dementia due to AD.²

Exercise has long been a mainstay of our advice to patients as something they can do to help prevent dementia. Yu and colleagues did a meta-analysis of almost 400 randomized controlled trials and observational studies to grade the evidence on different interventions.³ They gave exercise a grade B for evidence of benefit.

A recent study addressed this issue, and I think it is helpful on quantifying how much exercise is needed. Del Pozo Cruz and colleagues did a prospective population-based cohort study of 78,000 adults aged 40-79, with an average of 6.9 years of follow up.⁴ The optimal step count was 9,826 steps (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.62) and the minimal step count for benefit was 3,826 steps (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.83).
 

Modifiable factors

The other major modifiable factors to consider are problems with special senses. Both vision loss and hearing loss have been associated with cognitive impairment.

Shang and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 14 cohort studies addressing vision impairment and cognitive function involving more than 6 million individuals.⁵ They concluded that vision impairment is associated with an increased risk of both dementia and cognitive impairment in older adults.

Loughrey and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 36 studies addressing hearing loss and cognitive decline.⁶ They reported that, among cross-sectional studies, a significant association was found for cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR], 2.00; 95% CI, 1.39-2.89) and dementia (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.24-4.72). A similar finding was present in prospective cohort studies with a significant association being found for cognitive impairment (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36) and dementia (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.59).

A 25-year prospective, population-based study of patients with hearing loss revealed a difference in the rate of change in MMSE score over the 25-year follow-up between participants with hearing loss not using hearing aids matched with controls who didn’t have hearing loss. Those with untreated hearing loss had more cognitive decline than that of patients without hearing loss.⁷ The subjects with hearing loss using a hearing aid had no difference in cognitive decline from controls.
 

Pearl

Several simple and safe interventions may protect our patients from cognitive decline. These include taking a daily multivitamin, walking more than 4,000 steps a day, and optimizing vision and hearing.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Baker LD et al. Effects of cocoa extract and a multivitamin on cognitive function: A randomized clinical trial. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2022 Sep 14. doi: 10.1002/alz.12767.

2. Farina N et al. Vitamin E for Alzheimer’s dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 18;4(4):CD002854. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002854.pub5.

3. Yu JT et al. Evidence-based prevention of Alzheimer’s disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 243 observational prospective studies and 153 randomised controlled trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 Nov;91(11):1201-9.

4. Del Pozo Cruz B et al. Association of daily step count and intensity with incident dementia in 78,430 adults living in the UK. JAMA Neurol. 2022 Oct 1;79(10):1059-63.

5. Shang X et al. The association between vision impairment and incidence of dementia and cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2021 Aug;128(8):1135-49.

6. Loughrey DG et al. Association of age-related hearing loss with cognitive function, cognitive impairment, and dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Feb 1;144(2):115-26.

7. Amieva H et al. Self-reported hearing loss, hearing aids, and cognitive decline in elderly adults: A 25-year study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Oct;63(10):2099-104.

A 67-year-old man asks about what he can do to prevent dementia. He reports his mother had dementia, and he wants to do everything he can to prevent it. Which of the following has evidence of benefit?

A) Thiamine

B) Vitamin E

C) Multivitamin (MV)

D) Keto diet

E) Red wine
 

FDA-approved therapies for dementia

To date the actual therapies for dementia have been disappointing. Donepezil, the most prescribed medication for the treatment of dementia has a number-needed-to treat (NNT) over 17, and causes frequent side effects. Aducanumab was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but controversy has arisen, as the clinical results were modest, and the price tag will be large – estimated at $30,000-$50,000/year.

Preventive options that may decrease the likelihood of dementia

Patients often ask the question stated above. Regarding how to respond to that question, choice C, MV, has some recent evidence of benefit. Baker and colleagues studied the effect of cocoa extract and multivitamins on cognitive function in the COSMOS-Mind trial.¹ A total of 2,262 people were enrolled, and over 90% completed baseline and at least one annual cognitive assessment. Cocoa extract had no impact on global cognition (confidence interval [CI], –.02-.08, P = .28), but MV supplementation did have a statistically significant impact on global cognition (CI, .02-.12, P less than .007).

Vitamin E has been enthusiastically endorsed in the past as a treatment to prevent cognitive decline. The most recent Cochrane review on vitamin E concluded there was no evidence that the alpha-tocopherol form of vitamin E given to people with MCI prevents progression to dementia, or that it improves cognitive function in people with MCI or dementia due to AD.²

Exercise has long been a mainstay of our advice to patients as something they can do to help prevent dementia. Yu and colleagues did a meta-analysis of almost 400 randomized controlled trials and observational studies to grade the evidence on different interventions.³ They gave exercise a grade B for evidence of benefit.

A recent study addressed this issue, and I think it is helpful on quantifying how much exercise is needed. Del Pozo Cruz and colleagues did a prospective population-based cohort study of 78,000 adults aged 40-79, with an average of 6.9 years of follow up.⁴ The optimal step count was 9,826 steps (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.62) and the minimal step count for benefit was 3,826 steps (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.83).
 

Modifiable factors

The other major modifiable factors to consider are problems with special senses. Both vision loss and hearing loss have been associated with cognitive impairment.

Shang and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 14 cohort studies addressing vision impairment and cognitive function involving more than 6 million individuals.⁵ They concluded that vision impairment is associated with an increased risk of both dementia and cognitive impairment in older adults.

Loughrey and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 36 studies addressing hearing loss and cognitive decline.⁶ They reported that, among cross-sectional studies, a significant association was found for cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR], 2.00; 95% CI, 1.39-2.89) and dementia (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.24-4.72). A similar finding was present in prospective cohort studies with a significant association being found for cognitive impairment (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36) and dementia (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.59).

A 25-year prospective, population-based study of patients with hearing loss revealed a difference in the rate of change in MMSE score over the 25-year follow-up between participants with hearing loss not using hearing aids matched with controls who didn’t have hearing loss. Those with untreated hearing loss had more cognitive decline than that of patients without hearing loss.⁷ The subjects with hearing loss using a hearing aid had no difference in cognitive decline from controls.
 

Pearl

Several simple and safe interventions may protect our patients from cognitive decline. These include taking a daily multivitamin, walking more than 4,000 steps a day, and optimizing vision and hearing.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Baker LD et al. Effects of cocoa extract and a multivitamin on cognitive function: A randomized clinical trial. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2022 Sep 14. doi: 10.1002/alz.12767.

2. Farina N et al. Vitamin E for Alzheimer’s dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 18;4(4):CD002854. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002854.pub5.

3. Yu JT et al. Evidence-based prevention of Alzheimer’s disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 243 observational prospective studies and 153 randomised controlled trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 Nov;91(11):1201-9.

4. Del Pozo Cruz B et al. Association of daily step count and intensity with incident dementia in 78,430 adults living in the UK. JAMA Neurol. 2022 Oct 1;79(10):1059-63.

5. Shang X et al. The association between vision impairment and incidence of dementia and cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2021 Aug;128(8):1135-49.

6. Loughrey DG et al. Association of age-related hearing loss with cognitive function, cognitive impairment, and dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Feb 1;144(2):115-26.

7. Amieva H et al. Self-reported hearing loss, hearing aids, and cognitive decline in elderly adults: A 25-year study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Oct;63(10):2099-104.

A 67-year-old man asks about what he can do to prevent dementia. He reports his mother had dementia, and he wants to do everything he can to prevent it. Which of the following has evidence of benefit?

A) Thiamine

B) Vitamin E

C) Multivitamin (MV)

D) Keto diet

E) Red wine
 

FDA-approved therapies for dementia

To date the actual therapies for dementia have been disappointing. Donepezil, the most prescribed medication for the treatment of dementia has a number-needed-to treat (NNT) over 17, and causes frequent side effects. Aducanumab was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but controversy has arisen, as the clinical results were modest, and the price tag will be large – estimated at $30,000-$50,000/year.

Preventive options that may decrease the likelihood of dementia

Patients often ask the question stated above. Regarding how to respond to that question, choice C, MV, has some recent evidence of benefit. Baker and colleagues studied the effect of cocoa extract and multivitamins on cognitive function in the COSMOS-Mind trial.¹ A total of 2,262 people were enrolled, and over 90% completed baseline and at least one annual cognitive assessment. Cocoa extract had no impact on global cognition (confidence interval [CI], –.02-.08, P = .28), but MV supplementation did have a statistically significant impact on global cognition (CI, .02-.12, P less than .007).

Vitamin E has been enthusiastically endorsed in the past as a treatment to prevent cognitive decline. The most recent Cochrane review on vitamin E concluded there was no evidence that the alpha-tocopherol form of vitamin E given to people with MCI prevents progression to dementia, or that it improves cognitive function in people with MCI or dementia due to AD.²

Exercise has long been a mainstay of our advice to patients as something they can do to help prevent dementia. Yu and colleagues did a meta-analysis of almost 400 randomized controlled trials and observational studies to grade the evidence on different interventions.³ They gave exercise a grade B for evidence of benefit.

A recent study addressed this issue, and I think it is helpful on quantifying how much exercise is needed. Del Pozo Cruz and colleagues did a prospective population-based cohort study of 78,000 adults aged 40-79, with an average of 6.9 years of follow up.⁴ The optimal step count was 9,826 steps (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.62) and the minimal step count for benefit was 3,826 steps (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.83).
 

Modifiable factors

The other major modifiable factors to consider are problems with special senses. Both vision loss and hearing loss have been associated with cognitive impairment.

Shang and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 14 cohort studies addressing vision impairment and cognitive function involving more than 6 million individuals.⁵ They concluded that vision impairment is associated with an increased risk of both dementia and cognitive impairment in older adults.

Loughrey and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 36 studies addressing hearing loss and cognitive decline.⁶ They reported that, among cross-sectional studies, a significant association was found for cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR], 2.00; 95% CI, 1.39-2.89) and dementia (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.24-4.72). A similar finding was present in prospective cohort studies with a significant association being found for cognitive impairment (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36) and dementia (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.59).

A 25-year prospective, population-based study of patients with hearing loss revealed a difference in the rate of change in MMSE score over the 25-year follow-up between participants with hearing loss not using hearing aids matched with controls who didn’t have hearing loss. Those with untreated hearing loss had more cognitive decline than that of patients without hearing loss.⁷ The subjects with hearing loss using a hearing aid had no difference in cognitive decline from controls.
 

Pearl

Several simple and safe interventions may protect our patients from cognitive decline. These include taking a daily multivitamin, walking more than 4,000 steps a day, and optimizing vision and hearing.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Baker LD et al. Effects of cocoa extract and a multivitamin on cognitive function: A randomized clinical trial. Alzheimer’s Dement. 2022 Sep 14. doi: 10.1002/alz.12767.

2. Farina N et al. Vitamin E for Alzheimer’s dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 18;4(4):CD002854. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002854.pub5.

3. Yu JT et al. Evidence-based prevention of Alzheimer’s disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 243 observational prospective studies and 153 randomised controlled trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 Nov;91(11):1201-9.

4. Del Pozo Cruz B et al. Association of daily step count and intensity with incident dementia in 78,430 adults living in the UK. JAMA Neurol. 2022 Oct 1;79(10):1059-63.

5. Shang X et al. The association between vision impairment and incidence of dementia and cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2021 Aug;128(8):1135-49.

6. Loughrey DG et al. Association of age-related hearing loss with cognitive function, cognitive impairment, and dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018 Feb 1;144(2):115-26.

7. Amieva H et al. Self-reported hearing loss, hearing aids, and cognitive decline in elderly adults: A 25-year study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Oct;63(10):2099-104.

Cocaine, methamphetamine, opioids, and cannabis may independently increase risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), based on data from almost 24 million people.

While more work is needed to uncover causal links, physicians should be aware that these commonly abused substances could be driving new cases of AFib, reported investigators from the University of California, San Francisco.

“Though alcohol and tobacco smoking have each been associated with a heightened risk of [AFib], relationships between other drug use and [AFib] are poorly understood,” they wrote in European Heart Journal.

Some previous studies have ventured into this terrain, but most focused on fatal arrhythmias, or offered anecdotal evidence. This knowledge gap is particularly concerning for cannabis, the researchers noted, as medical and recreational use are on the rise.

American Heart Association

The present analysis included data from 23.5 million adults in California who received care through a hospital, emergency department, or outpatient surgery center during 2005-2015. Based on ICD-9 diagnostic codes, 132,834 of these patients used cannabis, 98,271 used methamphetamines, 48,701 used cocaine, and 10,032 used opiates. Inclusion required lack of AFib at baseline.

Reliance on ICD-9 codes makes the data “quite specific,” but lacking sensitivity, according to principal author Gregory M. Marcus, MD, cardiologist and professor of medicine at UCSF.

“If they were designated as using these drugs, that is very likely true,” Dr. Marcus said in an interview. “But certainly, the absence of any mention of use of these drugs does not exclude the possibility that some people were still using them. That would not create spurious false-positive relationships; if anything, it attenuates existing relationships.”

In other words, using ICD-9 codes reduced the power to detect an association between each drug and AFib, meaning any relationship needed to be sufficiently strong enough to generate a significant result.

At the end of the decade-long study period, 998,747 patients (4.2%) had developed incident AFib. After adjusting for potential confounders and mediators, all four drugs showed significant, independent associations with AFib. Methamphetamines presented the greatest risk (hazard ratio, 1.86%), followed by opiates (HR, 1.74), cocaine (HR, 1.61), and cannabis (HR, 1.35).

“Our findings provide the first evidence utilizing a longitudinal cohort to demonstrate that cannabis use predicts the future onset of AFib,” Dr. Marcus and colleagues wrote.

Dose-response relationships were not detected for any of the substances; however, usage levels were also derived from ICD-9 codes, which may have been insufficient for this purpose, according to the investigators.
 

Causal mechanisms deserve a closer look

Causal links between AFib and each of the drugs remain unclear. Citing prior research, Dr. Marcus and colleagues explained how methamphetamines are capable of “significant cardiac electrical remodeling,” while cocaine may cause sodium channel dysregulation, and opioids can render atrial myocytes more susceptible to oxidative damage. Although cannabis has previously been linked with hospitalization for arrhythmia, a pharmacologic driver of this phenomenon remains largely unexamined.

“We don’t know for sure precisely what the constituents are that are responsible for our findings,” Dr. Marcus said. “It’s possible that there are some effects that are much more generic, such as inhaling a burned substance. There is good evidence that if you inhale pretty much any sort of particulate matter, that increases inflammation in the body. Inflammation is known to be a trigger for atrial fibrillation.”

Alternatively, all four drugs – whether stimulants or depressants – cause “quite dramatic and often rapid effects on the autonomic nervous system,” Dr. Marcus said, noting that these rapid swings are a known trigger for AFib.

Brian Olshansky, MD, emeritus professor of internal medicine-cardiovascular medicine at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, suggested that nonpharmacologic factors are likely also playing a role.

“All these drugs have slightly different mechanisms of action, so there’s not one mechanism that would explain why all of them would cause atrial fibrillation,” Dr. Olshansky said in an interview. “That does suggest that there’s something else going on, besides just the drug itself. It would be potentially concerning if we were to lay the blame totally on these drugs.”

Dr. Olshansky, who recently coauthored a review of stimulant drugs and arrhythmias, suggested that lifestyle, comorbidities, and drug impurities may have added to the risk of AF.

“[The investigators] did try to correct for that kind of stuff, but it’s very hard to correct for a lot of the issues that may be ongoing with individuals who partake in these drugs,” Dr. Olshansky said in an interview. “They may not be a healthy lot, in general.”

Still, considering previous data linking drugs of abuse with arrhythmias, he said the detected risks were “intriguing,” and deserved a closer look.

“It’s a nice groundbreaking study, with regard to the fact that they showed unique relationships that we don’t completely understand,” Dr. Olshansky said. “It opens up a new opportunity for further investigation.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with InCarda, Baylis Medical, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Dr. Olshansky disclosed no relevant competing interests.

Cocaine, methamphetamine, opioids, and cannabis may independently increase risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), based on data from almost 24 million people.

While more work is needed to uncover causal links, physicians should be aware that these commonly abused substances could be driving new cases of AFib, reported investigators from the University of California, San Francisco.

“Though alcohol and tobacco smoking have each been associated with a heightened risk of [AFib], relationships between other drug use and [AFib] are poorly understood,” they wrote in European Heart Journal.

Some previous studies have ventured into this terrain, but most focused on fatal arrhythmias, or offered anecdotal evidence. This knowledge gap is particularly concerning for cannabis, the researchers noted, as medical and recreational use are on the rise.

American Heart Association

The present analysis included data from 23.5 million adults in California who received care through a hospital, emergency department, or outpatient surgery center during 2005-2015. Based on ICD-9 diagnostic codes, 132,834 of these patients used cannabis, 98,271 used methamphetamines, 48,701 used cocaine, and 10,032 used opiates. Inclusion required lack of AFib at baseline.

Reliance on ICD-9 codes makes the data “quite specific,” but lacking sensitivity, according to principal author Gregory M. Marcus, MD, cardiologist and professor of medicine at UCSF.

“If they were designated as using these drugs, that is very likely true,” Dr. Marcus said in an interview. “But certainly, the absence of any mention of use of these drugs does not exclude the possibility that some people were still using them. That would not create spurious false-positive relationships; if anything, it attenuates existing relationships.”

In other words, using ICD-9 codes reduced the power to detect an association between each drug and AFib, meaning any relationship needed to be sufficiently strong enough to generate a significant result.

At the end of the decade-long study period, 998,747 patients (4.2%) had developed incident AFib. After adjusting for potential confounders and mediators, all four drugs showed significant, independent associations with AFib. Methamphetamines presented the greatest risk (hazard ratio, 1.86%), followed by opiates (HR, 1.74), cocaine (HR, 1.61), and cannabis (HR, 1.35).

“Our findings provide the first evidence utilizing a longitudinal cohort to demonstrate that cannabis use predicts the future onset of AFib,” Dr. Marcus and colleagues wrote.

Dose-response relationships were not detected for any of the substances; however, usage levels were also derived from ICD-9 codes, which may have been insufficient for this purpose, according to the investigators.
 

Causal mechanisms deserve a closer look

Causal links between AFib and each of the drugs remain unclear. Citing prior research, Dr. Marcus and colleagues explained how methamphetamines are capable of “significant cardiac electrical remodeling,” while cocaine may cause sodium channel dysregulation, and opioids can render atrial myocytes more susceptible to oxidative damage. Although cannabis has previously been linked with hospitalization for arrhythmia, a pharmacologic driver of this phenomenon remains largely unexamined.

“We don’t know for sure precisely what the constituents are that are responsible for our findings,” Dr. Marcus said. “It’s possible that there are some effects that are much more generic, such as inhaling a burned substance. There is good evidence that if you inhale pretty much any sort of particulate matter, that increases inflammation in the body. Inflammation is known to be a trigger for atrial fibrillation.”

Alternatively, all four drugs – whether stimulants or depressants – cause “quite dramatic and often rapid effects on the autonomic nervous system,” Dr. Marcus said, noting that these rapid swings are a known trigger for AFib.

Brian Olshansky, MD, emeritus professor of internal medicine-cardiovascular medicine at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, suggested that nonpharmacologic factors are likely also playing a role.

“All these drugs have slightly different mechanisms of action, so there’s not one mechanism that would explain why all of them would cause atrial fibrillation,” Dr. Olshansky said in an interview. “That does suggest that there’s something else going on, besides just the drug itself. It would be potentially concerning if we were to lay the blame totally on these drugs.”

Dr. Olshansky, who recently coauthored a review of stimulant drugs and arrhythmias, suggested that lifestyle, comorbidities, and drug impurities may have added to the risk of AF.

“[The investigators] did try to correct for that kind of stuff, but it’s very hard to correct for a lot of the issues that may be ongoing with individuals who partake in these drugs,” Dr. Olshansky said in an interview. “They may not be a healthy lot, in general.”

Still, considering previous data linking drugs of abuse with arrhythmias, he said the detected risks were “intriguing,” and deserved a closer look.

“It’s a nice groundbreaking study, with regard to the fact that they showed unique relationships that we don’t completely understand,” Dr. Olshansky said. “It opens up a new opportunity for further investigation.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with InCarda, Baylis Medical, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Dr. Olshansky disclosed no relevant competing interests.

Cocaine, methamphetamine, opioids, and cannabis may independently increase risk of atrial fibrillation (AFib), based on data from almost 24 million people.

While more work is needed to uncover causal links, physicians should be aware that these commonly abused substances could be driving new cases of AFib, reported investigators from the University of California, San Francisco.

“Though alcohol and tobacco smoking have each been associated with a heightened risk of [AFib], relationships between other drug use and [AFib] are poorly understood,” they wrote in European Heart Journal.

Some previous studies have ventured into this terrain, but most focused on fatal arrhythmias, or offered anecdotal evidence. This knowledge gap is particularly concerning for cannabis, the researchers noted, as medical and recreational use are on the rise.

American Heart Association

The present analysis included data from 23.5 million adults in California who received care through a hospital, emergency department, or outpatient surgery center during 2005-2015. Based on ICD-9 diagnostic codes, 132,834 of these patients used cannabis, 98,271 used methamphetamines, 48,701 used cocaine, and 10,032 used opiates. Inclusion required lack of AFib at baseline.

Reliance on ICD-9 codes makes the data “quite specific,” but lacking sensitivity, according to principal author Gregory M. Marcus, MD, cardiologist and professor of medicine at UCSF.

“If they were designated as using these drugs, that is very likely true,” Dr. Marcus said in an interview. “But certainly, the absence of any mention of use of these drugs does not exclude the possibility that some people were still using them. That would not create spurious false-positive relationships; if anything, it attenuates existing relationships.”

In other words, using ICD-9 codes reduced the power to detect an association between each drug and AFib, meaning any relationship needed to be sufficiently strong enough to generate a significant result.

At the end of the decade-long study period, 998,747 patients (4.2%) had developed incident AFib. After adjusting for potential confounders and mediators, all four drugs showed significant, independent associations with AFib. Methamphetamines presented the greatest risk (hazard ratio, 1.86%), followed by opiates (HR, 1.74), cocaine (HR, 1.61), and cannabis (HR, 1.35).

“Our findings provide the first evidence utilizing a longitudinal cohort to demonstrate that cannabis use predicts the future onset of AFib,” Dr. Marcus and colleagues wrote.

Dose-response relationships were not detected for any of the substances; however, usage levels were also derived from ICD-9 codes, which may have been insufficient for this purpose, according to the investigators.
 

Causal mechanisms deserve a closer look

Causal links between AFib and each of the drugs remain unclear. Citing prior research, Dr. Marcus and colleagues explained how methamphetamines are capable of “significant cardiac electrical remodeling,” while cocaine may cause sodium channel dysregulation, and opioids can render atrial myocytes more susceptible to oxidative damage. Although cannabis has previously been linked with hospitalization for arrhythmia, a pharmacologic driver of this phenomenon remains largely unexamined.

“We don’t know for sure precisely what the constituents are that are responsible for our findings,” Dr. Marcus said. “It’s possible that there are some effects that are much more generic, such as inhaling a burned substance. There is good evidence that if you inhale pretty much any sort of particulate matter, that increases inflammation in the body. Inflammation is known to be a trigger for atrial fibrillation.”

Alternatively, all four drugs – whether stimulants or depressants – cause “quite dramatic and often rapid effects on the autonomic nervous system,” Dr. Marcus said, noting that these rapid swings are a known trigger for AFib.

Brian Olshansky, MD, emeritus professor of internal medicine-cardiovascular medicine at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, suggested that nonpharmacologic factors are likely also playing a role.

“All these drugs have slightly different mechanisms of action, so there’s not one mechanism that would explain why all of them would cause atrial fibrillation,” Dr. Olshansky said in an interview. “That does suggest that there’s something else going on, besides just the drug itself. It would be potentially concerning if we were to lay the blame totally on these drugs.”

Dr. Olshansky, who recently coauthored a review of stimulant drugs and arrhythmias, suggested that lifestyle, comorbidities, and drug impurities may have added to the risk of AF.

“[The investigators] did try to correct for that kind of stuff, but it’s very hard to correct for a lot of the issues that may be ongoing with individuals who partake in these drugs,” Dr. Olshansky said in an interview. “They may not be a healthy lot, in general.”

Still, considering previous data linking drugs of abuse with arrhythmias, he said the detected risks were “intriguing,” and deserved a closer look.

“It’s a nice groundbreaking study, with regard to the fact that they showed unique relationships that we don’t completely understand,” Dr. Olshansky said. “It opens up a new opportunity for further investigation.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with InCarda, Baylis Medical, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Dr. Olshansky disclosed no relevant competing interests.

Words including death, die, dying, or stillborn were frequently replaced by euphemisms in meetings between clinicians and families of critically ill children, based on data from 33 family meetings that involved discussions of death.

Clear communication is essential in discussing death with patients and families and current consensus guidelines recommend against use of euphemisms; data also suggest that patients and families prefer clear and direct language, wrote Margaret H. Barlet, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

However, data on the language used in discussions of death in neonatal or pediatric contexts are limited, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed conversations between clinicians and parents of critically ill children. The study participants included 20 parents of 13 infants with neurological conditions who were hospitalized in a pediatric ICU in a single center in the southeastern United States between September 2018 and September 2020. Family meetings were scheduled to discuss prognosis and whether to start, not start, or discontinue life-sustaining treatment. The discussions were recorded, transcribed, and deidentified. The median age of the parents was 28.5 years; 60% identified as Black, 40% as White, and 10% as Asian; with some selecting more than one race.

For all 13 infants, one parent identified as the infant’s mother, and another parent identified as the father for seven of the infants. The median gestational age of the infants was 37 weeks; 54% were female, and the median hospital stay was 86 days.

Twelve infants (92%) required mechanical ventilation, six required chest compressions, and five had a do-not-attempt resuscitation order placed. Two infants died during the hospital admission process.

The primary outcome of the study was language used to reference death during family meetings between doctors and families. In the family conversations, death was referenced 406 times (275 times by clinicians and 131 times by family members).

Families were more likely than were clinicians to use the words die, death, dying, or stillborn; these terms appeared in 19 of 131 references by families and 13 of 275 references by clinicians (15% vs. 5%).

In addition to a category for use of words such as die, death, dying, or stillborn, the researchers identified four types of euphemisms used in place of these terms. They characterized the types of euphemisms as survival framing (for example, not live), colloquialisms (for example, pass away), medical jargon or use of physiologic terms (for example, code event or irrecoverable heart rate drop) and the use of pronouns without an antecedent (for example, it might happen soon).

Overall, 92% of references to death in the conversations were euphemistic. Medical jargon was the most common type of euphemism used by clinicians (118 of 275 references, 43%), while colloquialism was the most common type used by family members (44 of 131 references, 34%).

The results are consistent with limited research on this topic and show the high rates of euphemistic language used in discussions of death, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Although our work did not directly evaluate the comparative clarity of different ways to reference death, our results raise questions about what language is most clear,” they said. The researchers proposed that their classification of euphemistic language may provide a framework for the use of language in discussions of death and may prompt clinicians to notice the language they use and hear from patients and families. “Empirically evaluating the perceived clarity of euphemism types and their effects on shared decision-making should be a priority for future study and should be used to inform interventions for improving communication in this context,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single institution and the exclusion of non-English speaking families, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers studied only what was said, therefore “questions about speaker motivation, listener understanding, and the effects of language choice on decision-making remain unanswered,” they added.

However, the results reflect the frequent use of euphemisms by both clinicians and families, and more research is needed to assess the effect of language on understanding, decision-making, and doctor-patient relationships, the researchers concluded.
 

Euphemisms can create confusion but may increase empathy

“Ms. Barlet and colleagues provide further consideration of types of speech that may obscure a clinician’s intended meaning or distract from their true point in the context of family discussions about critically ill patients,” Michael B. Pitt, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial. Using a euphemism such as “pass on” instead of “die” may be an intentional choice by physicians to use less harsh language but it may still cause confusion, they noted.

The study showed how frequently physicians use euphemisms to talk about death but was distinctive in the inclusion of data on language use by families as well, they said.

“This pattern of use identified among the infants’ families may indicate that despite the clinical recommendation that end-of-life discussions avoid the use of euphemisms, it may be worth noting and responding to families’ language preferences accordingly once it is clear they have expressed understanding that the clinician is speaking of death,” they said. For example, if a family is consistently using softer terminology, clinicians should consider responding with similar terms, rather than using medical jargon or the words death or dying, they wrote.

“As the authors note, family preferences for this type of discussion are an important target for future research aimed at optimizing family-centered communication,” the editorialists added.
 

Families seek clarity in communication

“Clinicians have an important role in helping parents of seriously ill children understand their child’s health condition and make value-driven decisions about care,” Jennifer W. Mack, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview. “The words that clinicians use can have a significant impact on the knowledge parents take away from encounters and the decisions they make. While there is evidence of euphemistic language in the adult setting, there is limited information about this in children,” said Dr. Mack, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Mack said she was not entirely surprised that in the current study, clinician language often includes medical jargon and an avoidance of direct language about death. “This is consistent with what I have seen in clinical practice,” she said. “One striking aspect of the study is that parents used terms like death or die more often than clinicians, and they sometimes used these terms as a way to clarify what the clinician was saying. This suggests to me that parents often want clarity, even if the information is very difficult,” she said.

The key message of the study is that clinicians should pay attention to the words they use to talk about the possibility of death and recognize the tendency of many clinicians to fall back on medical jargon, said Dr. Mack.

“My personal belief is that it is possible to be both clear and compassionate, and clinicians should strive for both in these conversations, to support families and help them make their best decisions for their children,” she said. “We need to remember a single communication strategy or choice of words is not likely to feel supportive to every family; what is helpful for one family may feel painful to another,” she emphasized. “Being willing to listen to the needs they express and their own language choice can help us to be responsive to individual needs,” she added.

An important next step for research is to learn more about what families experience as supportive during conversations with clinicians about death and dying, Dr. Mack said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. The researchers, editorial authors, and Dr. Mack had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Words including death, die, dying, or stillborn were frequently replaced by euphemisms in meetings between clinicians and families of critically ill children, based on data from 33 family meetings that involved discussions of death.

Clear communication is essential in discussing death with patients and families and current consensus guidelines recommend against use of euphemisms; data also suggest that patients and families prefer clear and direct language, wrote Margaret H. Barlet, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

However, data on the language used in discussions of death in neonatal or pediatric contexts are limited, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed conversations between clinicians and parents of critically ill children. The study participants included 20 parents of 13 infants with neurological conditions who were hospitalized in a pediatric ICU in a single center in the southeastern United States between September 2018 and September 2020. Family meetings were scheduled to discuss prognosis and whether to start, not start, or discontinue life-sustaining treatment. The discussions were recorded, transcribed, and deidentified. The median age of the parents was 28.5 years; 60% identified as Black, 40% as White, and 10% as Asian; with some selecting more than one race.

For all 13 infants, one parent identified as the infant’s mother, and another parent identified as the father for seven of the infants. The median gestational age of the infants was 37 weeks; 54% were female, and the median hospital stay was 86 days.

Twelve infants (92%) required mechanical ventilation, six required chest compressions, and five had a do-not-attempt resuscitation order placed. Two infants died during the hospital admission process.

The primary outcome of the study was language used to reference death during family meetings between doctors and families. In the family conversations, death was referenced 406 times (275 times by clinicians and 131 times by family members).

Families were more likely than were clinicians to use the words die, death, dying, or stillborn; these terms appeared in 19 of 131 references by families and 13 of 275 references by clinicians (15% vs. 5%).

In addition to a category for use of words such as die, death, dying, or stillborn, the researchers identified four types of euphemisms used in place of these terms. They characterized the types of euphemisms as survival framing (for example, not live), colloquialisms (for example, pass away), medical jargon or use of physiologic terms (for example, code event or irrecoverable heart rate drop) and the use of pronouns without an antecedent (for example, it might happen soon).

Overall, 92% of references to death in the conversations were euphemistic. Medical jargon was the most common type of euphemism used by clinicians (118 of 275 references, 43%), while colloquialism was the most common type used by family members (44 of 131 references, 34%).

The results are consistent with limited research on this topic and show the high rates of euphemistic language used in discussions of death, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Although our work did not directly evaluate the comparative clarity of different ways to reference death, our results raise questions about what language is most clear,” they said. The researchers proposed that their classification of euphemistic language may provide a framework for the use of language in discussions of death and may prompt clinicians to notice the language they use and hear from patients and families. “Empirically evaluating the perceived clarity of euphemism types and their effects on shared decision-making should be a priority for future study and should be used to inform interventions for improving communication in this context,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single institution and the exclusion of non-English speaking families, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers studied only what was said, therefore “questions about speaker motivation, listener understanding, and the effects of language choice on decision-making remain unanswered,” they added.

However, the results reflect the frequent use of euphemisms by both clinicians and families, and more research is needed to assess the effect of language on understanding, decision-making, and doctor-patient relationships, the researchers concluded.
 

Euphemisms can create confusion but may increase empathy

“Ms. Barlet and colleagues provide further consideration of types of speech that may obscure a clinician’s intended meaning or distract from their true point in the context of family discussions about critically ill patients,” Michael B. Pitt, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial. Using a euphemism such as “pass on” instead of “die” may be an intentional choice by physicians to use less harsh language but it may still cause confusion, they noted.

The study showed how frequently physicians use euphemisms to talk about death but was distinctive in the inclusion of data on language use by families as well, they said.

“This pattern of use identified among the infants’ families may indicate that despite the clinical recommendation that end-of-life discussions avoid the use of euphemisms, it may be worth noting and responding to families’ language preferences accordingly once it is clear they have expressed understanding that the clinician is speaking of death,” they said. For example, if a family is consistently using softer terminology, clinicians should consider responding with similar terms, rather than using medical jargon or the words death or dying, they wrote.

“As the authors note, family preferences for this type of discussion are an important target for future research aimed at optimizing family-centered communication,” the editorialists added.
 

Families seek clarity in communication

“Clinicians have an important role in helping parents of seriously ill children understand their child’s health condition and make value-driven decisions about care,” Jennifer W. Mack, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview. “The words that clinicians use can have a significant impact on the knowledge parents take away from encounters and the decisions they make. While there is evidence of euphemistic language in the adult setting, there is limited information about this in children,” said Dr. Mack, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Mack said she was not entirely surprised that in the current study, clinician language often includes medical jargon and an avoidance of direct language about death. “This is consistent with what I have seen in clinical practice,” she said. “One striking aspect of the study is that parents used terms like death or die more often than clinicians, and they sometimes used these terms as a way to clarify what the clinician was saying. This suggests to me that parents often want clarity, even if the information is very difficult,” she said.

The key message of the study is that clinicians should pay attention to the words they use to talk about the possibility of death and recognize the tendency of many clinicians to fall back on medical jargon, said Dr. Mack.

“My personal belief is that it is possible to be both clear and compassionate, and clinicians should strive for both in these conversations, to support families and help them make their best decisions for their children,” she said. “We need to remember a single communication strategy or choice of words is not likely to feel supportive to every family; what is helpful for one family may feel painful to another,” she emphasized. “Being willing to listen to the needs they express and their own language choice can help us to be responsive to individual needs,” she added.

An important next step for research is to learn more about what families experience as supportive during conversations with clinicians about death and dying, Dr. Mack said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. The researchers, editorial authors, and Dr. Mack had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Words including death, die, dying, or stillborn were frequently replaced by euphemisms in meetings between clinicians and families of critically ill children, based on data from 33 family meetings that involved discussions of death.

Clear communication is essential in discussing death with patients and families and current consensus guidelines recommend against use of euphemisms; data also suggest that patients and families prefer clear and direct language, wrote Margaret H. Barlet, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.

However, data on the language used in discussions of death in neonatal or pediatric contexts are limited, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed conversations between clinicians and parents of critically ill children. The study participants included 20 parents of 13 infants with neurological conditions who were hospitalized in a pediatric ICU in a single center in the southeastern United States between September 2018 and September 2020. Family meetings were scheduled to discuss prognosis and whether to start, not start, or discontinue life-sustaining treatment. The discussions were recorded, transcribed, and deidentified. The median age of the parents was 28.5 years; 60% identified as Black, 40% as White, and 10% as Asian; with some selecting more than one race.

For all 13 infants, one parent identified as the infant’s mother, and another parent identified as the father for seven of the infants. The median gestational age of the infants was 37 weeks; 54% were female, and the median hospital stay was 86 days.

Twelve infants (92%) required mechanical ventilation, six required chest compressions, and five had a do-not-attempt resuscitation order placed. Two infants died during the hospital admission process.

The primary outcome of the study was language used to reference death during family meetings between doctors and families. In the family conversations, death was referenced 406 times (275 times by clinicians and 131 times by family members).

Families were more likely than were clinicians to use the words die, death, dying, or stillborn; these terms appeared in 19 of 131 references by families and 13 of 275 references by clinicians (15% vs. 5%).

In addition to a category for use of words such as die, death, dying, or stillborn, the researchers identified four types of euphemisms used in place of these terms. They characterized the types of euphemisms as survival framing (for example, not live), colloquialisms (for example, pass away), medical jargon or use of physiologic terms (for example, code event or irrecoverable heart rate drop) and the use of pronouns without an antecedent (for example, it might happen soon).

Overall, 92% of references to death in the conversations were euphemistic. Medical jargon was the most common type of euphemism used by clinicians (118 of 275 references, 43%), while colloquialism was the most common type used by family members (44 of 131 references, 34%).

The results are consistent with limited research on this topic and show the high rates of euphemistic language used in discussions of death, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Although our work did not directly evaluate the comparative clarity of different ways to reference death, our results raise questions about what language is most clear,” they said. The researchers proposed that their classification of euphemistic language may provide a framework for the use of language in discussions of death and may prompt clinicians to notice the language they use and hear from patients and families. “Empirically evaluating the perceived clarity of euphemism types and their effects on shared decision-making should be a priority for future study and should be used to inform interventions for improving communication in this context,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single institution and the exclusion of non-English speaking families, the researchers noted. In addition, the researchers studied only what was said, therefore “questions about speaker motivation, listener understanding, and the effects of language choice on decision-making remain unanswered,” they added.

However, the results reflect the frequent use of euphemisms by both clinicians and families, and more research is needed to assess the effect of language on understanding, decision-making, and doctor-patient relationships, the researchers concluded.
 

Euphemisms can create confusion but may increase empathy

“Ms. Barlet and colleagues provide further consideration of types of speech that may obscure a clinician’s intended meaning or distract from their true point in the context of family discussions about critically ill patients,” Michael B. Pitt, MD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial. Using a euphemism such as “pass on” instead of “die” may be an intentional choice by physicians to use less harsh language but it may still cause confusion, they noted.

The study showed how frequently physicians use euphemisms to talk about death but was distinctive in the inclusion of data on language use by families as well, they said.

“This pattern of use identified among the infants’ families may indicate that despite the clinical recommendation that end-of-life discussions avoid the use of euphemisms, it may be worth noting and responding to families’ language preferences accordingly once it is clear they have expressed understanding that the clinician is speaking of death,” they said. For example, if a family is consistently using softer terminology, clinicians should consider responding with similar terms, rather than using medical jargon or the words death or dying, they wrote.

“As the authors note, family preferences for this type of discussion are an important target for future research aimed at optimizing family-centered communication,” the editorialists added.
 

Families seek clarity in communication

“Clinicians have an important role in helping parents of seriously ill children understand their child’s health condition and make value-driven decisions about care,” Jennifer W. Mack, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview. “The words that clinicians use can have a significant impact on the knowledge parents take away from encounters and the decisions they make. While there is evidence of euphemistic language in the adult setting, there is limited information about this in children,” said Dr. Mack, a pediatric hematologist/oncologist who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Mack said she was not entirely surprised that in the current study, clinician language often includes medical jargon and an avoidance of direct language about death. “This is consistent with what I have seen in clinical practice,” she said. “One striking aspect of the study is that parents used terms like death or die more often than clinicians, and they sometimes used these terms as a way to clarify what the clinician was saying. This suggests to me that parents often want clarity, even if the information is very difficult,” she said.

The key message of the study is that clinicians should pay attention to the words they use to talk about the possibility of death and recognize the tendency of many clinicians to fall back on medical jargon, said Dr. Mack.

“My personal belief is that it is possible to be both clear and compassionate, and clinicians should strive for both in these conversations, to support families and help them make their best decisions for their children,” she said. “We need to remember a single communication strategy or choice of words is not likely to feel supportive to every family; what is helpful for one family may feel painful to another,” she emphasized. “Being willing to listen to the needs they express and their own language choice can help us to be responsive to individual needs,” she added.

An important next step for research is to learn more about what families experience as supportive during conversations with clinicians about death and dying, Dr. Mack said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. The researchers, editorial authors, and Dr. Mack had no financial conflicts to disclose.

CINCINNATI – Neurology and psychiatry have an inherent kinship, as one often deals with the brain and the other always focuses on the mind. The two fields can be intertwined, since neurological conditions are often associated with psychiatric comorbidities amid complex relationships: For example, a young patient with a neurological disorder may experience anxiety due to life changes, his or her diagnosis, or altered biological pathways from the condition or medications used to treat it.

As a result, psychiatric comorbidities are often seen among pediatric patients with neurological conditions, and pediatric neurologists can play an important role in diagnosis and management of such disorders, according to Devin McNulty, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
 

The ‘second pandemic’

Mental health conditions represent about 16% of the global burden of disease among people aged 10-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically worsened the problem, as shutdowns, school loss, and economic struggles have added to the burden. “I think we’ve really seen mental health as sort of the second pandemic. We’ve seen this in Chicago in our emergency room, and in outpatient clinics wait-lists are really high. I think adolescents are specifically at risk,” said Dr. McNulty during her talk. She is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University and a child psychiatrist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Common diagnoses include major depressive order, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and functional neurological symptom disorder. The last can appear as neurological symptoms that are not consistent with neurological medical conditions, such as attacks or seizures, abnormal movements, sensory loss or gain, weakness or paralysis, or speech and swallowing issues. It is the second most commonly diagnosed disorder in neurology clinics and accounts for 10% of neurology hospitalizations, and it leads to high rates of health care utilization and functional impairment.

Overall, children with neurological conditions are at about a 5-fold increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, with a range of contributing risk factors. These include biological factors like medication use, neurological dysfunction, and genetic vulnerability. Psychological factors include stressors, the child’s reaction to the diagnosis and illness, and the level of his or her coping skills. Psychiatric comorbidities may also be triggered by social factors such as familial stress, peer rejection and social isolation, and barriers to treatment for the neurological condition. As just one example, overprotective parenting behavior, while adaptive in moderation, can create a sort of feedback loop that can lead to separation anxiety.
 

A unique opportunity

“There’s an overlap,” Dr. McNulty said, “because the origin is often multifactorial.” A young patient has a medical condition, which can be chronic or disabling, and the age of onset and diagnosis comes during a critical developmental period. “Then we have issues such as the impact of treatments, whether that’s medication side effects or medical visits. And then disease-related environmental changes, such as family factors, social changes, and impact on school,” said Dr. McNulty.

Child neurologists are in a unique position to identify and ensure treatment of these psychiatric comorbidities, according to Dr. McNulty. “Child neurologists will see psychiatric symptoms in their patient population, and pediatric providers have a unique capacity and ability to treat these patients, especially when you’re seeing patients on a frequent basis. You get to know these patients and their families really well,” she said.

She specifically pointed to three areas: psychosocial screening, differential diagnosis, and treatment and management.

There are broad-based screening measures that can be useful, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Disorder-specific screening tools include the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD7 (anxiety), Vanderbilt (ADHD), and PROMIS measures for anxiety and depression. “The idea behind the screening measure is that all patients would fill this out and then if a patient screens positive, they would benefit from a more thorough evaluation and history,” said Dr. McNulty.

However, she noted that screening shouldn’t necessarily be a one-off effort. Research has shown that sequential screening is the most powerful strategy. “Then you can get a baseline of a patient’s emotional and behavioral functioning, and it’s actually the changes in some of these screening measures that might give them most clinical information,” said Dr. McNulty.

In fact, on October 11, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced a recommendation that all children starting at age 8 should be screened for anxiety disorders. It is already recommended to screen children aged 12 and over for depressive disorders, although these documents are aimed primarily at pediatricians or primary care clinics. The American Academy of Neurology has also recommended routine screening of psychiatric and behavioral disorders among children with epilepsy.
 

A unique perspective

Once a disorder is identified, neurologists can bring a unique perspective to treatment. The neurologist can use his or her knowledge of the disease state to assess whether symptoms are due to poor adjustment to the neurological condition, a primary psychiatric disorder, or the biological underpinnings of the illness or prescribed medications. “I think their neurologist can sort of help tease that apart, [using] their knowledge of neurologic disorders and pathways and medications in a way that psychologists might not be able to do on their own,” said Dr. McNulty.

She also emphasized that there are effective treatments for psychiatric disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy and various pharmacotherapy options. Other approaches for treating comorbid neurological and psychiatric disorders may include building adaptive coping skills, psychoeducation, and incorporating changes to the family or school environment.

During the Q&A period, one person commented that there should be more psychiatric training for neurology residents. “We do work with the same brain, so I completely agree with that,” said Dr. McNulty.

She was also asked how to identify psychiatric symptoms in nonverbal patients. “One thing that I pay close attention to when I ask parents about (their child) is changes in their physical (attributes). Oftentimes in anxiety in folks who are not severely impaired, if we’re feeling anxious we might be breathing a little faster, or we might get a little sweaty. So looking for physical manifestations is one thing. And then sometimes I’ll tell the parents, if we’re not quite sure, I’ll say ‘I’m not sure, but this is very common given the disorder that you have. Can we check?’ I’m always very clear that I may not be nailing it, but then when we go after it with targeted treatment and we see it getting better, we can say ‘Aha!’ ”

Dr. McNulty has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

CINCINNATI – Neurology and psychiatry have an inherent kinship, as one often deals with the brain and the other always focuses on the mind. The two fields can be intertwined, since neurological conditions are often associated with psychiatric comorbidities amid complex relationships: For example, a young patient with a neurological disorder may experience anxiety due to life changes, his or her diagnosis, or altered biological pathways from the condition or medications used to treat it.

As a result, psychiatric comorbidities are often seen among pediatric patients with neurological conditions, and pediatric neurologists can play an important role in diagnosis and management of such disorders, according to Devin McNulty, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
 

The ‘second pandemic’

Mental health conditions represent about 16% of the global burden of disease among people aged 10-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically worsened the problem, as shutdowns, school loss, and economic struggles have added to the burden. “I think we’ve really seen mental health as sort of the second pandemic. We’ve seen this in Chicago in our emergency room, and in outpatient clinics wait-lists are really high. I think adolescents are specifically at risk,” said Dr. McNulty during her talk. She is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University and a child psychiatrist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Common diagnoses include major depressive order, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and functional neurological symptom disorder. The last can appear as neurological symptoms that are not consistent with neurological medical conditions, such as attacks or seizures, abnormal movements, sensory loss or gain, weakness or paralysis, or speech and swallowing issues. It is the second most commonly diagnosed disorder in neurology clinics and accounts for 10% of neurology hospitalizations, and it leads to high rates of health care utilization and functional impairment.

Overall, children with neurological conditions are at about a 5-fold increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, with a range of contributing risk factors. These include biological factors like medication use, neurological dysfunction, and genetic vulnerability. Psychological factors include stressors, the child’s reaction to the diagnosis and illness, and the level of his or her coping skills. Psychiatric comorbidities may also be triggered by social factors such as familial stress, peer rejection and social isolation, and barriers to treatment for the neurological condition. As just one example, overprotective parenting behavior, while adaptive in moderation, can create a sort of feedback loop that can lead to separation anxiety.
 

A unique opportunity

“There’s an overlap,” Dr. McNulty said, “because the origin is often multifactorial.” A young patient has a medical condition, which can be chronic or disabling, and the age of onset and diagnosis comes during a critical developmental period. “Then we have issues such as the impact of treatments, whether that’s medication side effects or medical visits. And then disease-related environmental changes, such as family factors, social changes, and impact on school,” said Dr. McNulty.

Child neurologists are in a unique position to identify and ensure treatment of these psychiatric comorbidities, according to Dr. McNulty. “Child neurologists will see psychiatric symptoms in their patient population, and pediatric providers have a unique capacity and ability to treat these patients, especially when you’re seeing patients on a frequent basis. You get to know these patients and their families really well,” she said.

She specifically pointed to three areas: psychosocial screening, differential diagnosis, and treatment and management.

There are broad-based screening measures that can be useful, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Disorder-specific screening tools include the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD7 (anxiety), Vanderbilt (ADHD), and PROMIS measures for anxiety and depression. “The idea behind the screening measure is that all patients would fill this out and then if a patient screens positive, they would benefit from a more thorough evaluation and history,” said Dr. McNulty.

However, she noted that screening shouldn’t necessarily be a one-off effort. Research has shown that sequential screening is the most powerful strategy. “Then you can get a baseline of a patient’s emotional and behavioral functioning, and it’s actually the changes in some of these screening measures that might give them most clinical information,” said Dr. McNulty.

In fact, on October 11, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced a recommendation that all children starting at age 8 should be screened for anxiety disorders. It is already recommended to screen children aged 12 and over for depressive disorders, although these documents are aimed primarily at pediatricians or primary care clinics. The American Academy of Neurology has also recommended routine screening of psychiatric and behavioral disorders among children with epilepsy.
 

A unique perspective

Once a disorder is identified, neurologists can bring a unique perspective to treatment. The neurologist can use his or her knowledge of the disease state to assess whether symptoms are due to poor adjustment to the neurological condition, a primary psychiatric disorder, or the biological underpinnings of the illness or prescribed medications. “I think their neurologist can sort of help tease that apart, [using] their knowledge of neurologic disorders and pathways and medications in a way that psychologists might not be able to do on their own,” said Dr. McNulty.

She also emphasized that there are effective treatments for psychiatric disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy and various pharmacotherapy options. Other approaches for treating comorbid neurological and psychiatric disorders may include building adaptive coping skills, psychoeducation, and incorporating changes to the family or school environment.

During the Q&A period, one person commented that there should be more psychiatric training for neurology residents. “We do work with the same brain, so I completely agree with that,” said Dr. McNulty.

She was also asked how to identify psychiatric symptoms in nonverbal patients. “One thing that I pay close attention to when I ask parents about (their child) is changes in their physical (attributes). Oftentimes in anxiety in folks who are not severely impaired, if we’re feeling anxious we might be breathing a little faster, or we might get a little sweaty. So looking for physical manifestations is one thing. And then sometimes I’ll tell the parents, if we’re not quite sure, I’ll say ‘I’m not sure, but this is very common given the disorder that you have. Can we check?’ I’m always very clear that I may not be nailing it, but then when we go after it with targeted treatment and we see it getting better, we can say ‘Aha!’ ”

Dr. McNulty has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

CINCINNATI – Neurology and psychiatry have an inherent kinship, as one often deals with the brain and the other always focuses on the mind. The two fields can be intertwined, since neurological conditions are often associated with psychiatric comorbidities amid complex relationships: For example, a young patient with a neurological disorder may experience anxiety due to life changes, his or her diagnosis, or altered biological pathways from the condition or medications used to treat it.

As a result, psychiatric comorbidities are often seen among pediatric patients with neurological conditions, and pediatric neurologists can play an important role in diagnosis and management of such disorders, according to Devin McNulty, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.
 

The ‘second pandemic’

Mental health conditions represent about 16% of the global burden of disease among people aged 10-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically worsened the problem, as shutdowns, school loss, and economic struggles have added to the burden. “I think we’ve really seen mental health as sort of the second pandemic. We’ve seen this in Chicago in our emergency room, and in outpatient clinics wait-lists are really high. I think adolescents are specifically at risk,” said Dr. McNulty during her talk. She is an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University and a child psychiatrist at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

Common diagnoses include major depressive order, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatic symptom disorder, and functional neurological symptom disorder. The last can appear as neurological symptoms that are not consistent with neurological medical conditions, such as attacks or seizures, abnormal movements, sensory loss or gain, weakness or paralysis, or speech and swallowing issues. It is the second most commonly diagnosed disorder in neurology clinics and accounts for 10% of neurology hospitalizations, and it leads to high rates of health care utilization and functional impairment.

Overall, children with neurological conditions are at about a 5-fold increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, with a range of contributing risk factors. These include biological factors like medication use, neurological dysfunction, and genetic vulnerability. Psychological factors include stressors, the child’s reaction to the diagnosis and illness, and the level of his or her coping skills. Psychiatric comorbidities may also be triggered by social factors such as familial stress, peer rejection and social isolation, and barriers to treatment for the neurological condition. As just one example, overprotective parenting behavior, while adaptive in moderation, can create a sort of feedback loop that can lead to separation anxiety.
 

A unique opportunity

“There’s an overlap,” Dr. McNulty said, “because the origin is often multifactorial.” A young patient has a medical condition, which can be chronic or disabling, and the age of onset and diagnosis comes during a critical developmental period. “Then we have issues such as the impact of treatments, whether that’s medication side effects or medical visits. And then disease-related environmental changes, such as family factors, social changes, and impact on school,” said Dr. McNulty.

Child neurologists are in a unique position to identify and ensure treatment of these psychiatric comorbidities, according to Dr. McNulty. “Child neurologists will see psychiatric symptoms in their patient population, and pediatric providers have a unique capacity and ability to treat these patients, especially when you’re seeing patients on a frequent basis. You get to know these patients and their families really well,” she said.

She specifically pointed to three areas: psychosocial screening, differential diagnosis, and treatment and management.

There are broad-based screening measures that can be useful, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Disorder-specific screening tools include the PHQ-9 (depression), GAD7 (anxiety), Vanderbilt (ADHD), and PROMIS measures for anxiety and depression. “The idea behind the screening measure is that all patients would fill this out and then if a patient screens positive, they would benefit from a more thorough evaluation and history,” said Dr. McNulty.

However, she noted that screening shouldn’t necessarily be a one-off effort. Research has shown that sequential screening is the most powerful strategy. “Then you can get a baseline of a patient’s emotional and behavioral functioning, and it’s actually the changes in some of these screening measures that might give them most clinical information,” said Dr. McNulty.

In fact, on October 11, 2022, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force announced a recommendation that all children starting at age 8 should be screened for anxiety disorders. It is already recommended to screen children aged 12 and over for depressive disorders, although these documents are aimed primarily at pediatricians or primary care clinics. The American Academy of Neurology has also recommended routine screening of psychiatric and behavioral disorders among children with epilepsy.
 

A unique perspective

Once a disorder is identified, neurologists can bring a unique perspective to treatment. The neurologist can use his or her knowledge of the disease state to assess whether symptoms are due to poor adjustment to the neurological condition, a primary psychiatric disorder, or the biological underpinnings of the illness or prescribed medications. “I think their neurologist can sort of help tease that apart, [using] their knowledge of neurologic disorders and pathways and medications in a way that psychologists might not be able to do on their own,” said Dr. McNulty.

She also emphasized that there are effective treatments for psychiatric disorders, including cognitive behavioral therapy and various pharmacotherapy options. Other approaches for treating comorbid neurological and psychiatric disorders may include building adaptive coping skills, psychoeducation, and incorporating changes to the family or school environment.

During the Q&A period, one person commented that there should be more psychiatric training for neurology residents. “We do work with the same brain, so I completely agree with that,” said Dr. McNulty.

She was also asked how to identify psychiatric symptoms in nonverbal patients. “One thing that I pay close attention to when I ask parents about (their child) is changes in their physical (attributes). Oftentimes in anxiety in folks who are not severely impaired, if we’re feeling anxious we might be breathing a little faster, or we might get a little sweaty. So looking for physical manifestations is one thing. And then sometimes I’ll tell the parents, if we’re not quite sure, I’ll say ‘I’m not sure, but this is very common given the disorder that you have. Can we check?’ I’m always very clear that I may not be nailing it, but then when we go after it with targeted treatment and we see it getting better, we can say ‘Aha!’ ”

Dr. McNulty has no relevant financial disclosures.
 

One quiet afternoon at a mobile outreach clinic, where I had been working on the West Side of Chicago, a young man without a home to go to, and clothes he kept as clean as he could, came to get a refill of buprenorphine. The drug, which works on the same opioid receptors as heroin, was helping him feel normal. It was also probably helping to keep him alive, as a study found that taking it after an overdose was associated with a one-third reduction in all-cause mortality.

He was still using drugs, but now only a few days a week instead of multiple times a day. He had put on some weight and looked visibly healthier.

I gave him his prescription and thanked him for coming back. As he got up to leave, he turned to our outreach team and said, “Thank you for being here and caring about us. Because a lot of people don’t. They don’t care if we live or die.”

But a lot of people do care and are still failing him and others who use drugs. When I first started treating addictions, I was taught to cut people like him off treatment. We could give patients a medication, but they had to follow the rules, first and foremost to stop using drugs. Keep using, even if you were using less and your health was improving, and I would have to dismiss you from the practice. This was the kind of “tough love” that many doctors have been taught, and are, in many cases, still being taught today. Even though we know that this approach does not work.

For too long, doctors, nurses, caregivers, and the broader American public have favored abstinence only treatment, criminalization, and prohibition. The proof that this approach does not work is in the spectacular overdose crisis we are experiencing in this country, as CDC data documents. While we continue to blame drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine (and thirty years ago, crack and heroin), we fail to see how our approach contributes to these overdose deaths.

For instance, treating with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reductions in overdose and serious opioid-related acute care use compared with detox alone. But only one in three centers offer these medications, the gold standard of care. We continue to imprison people who use drugs, even though we have known for 15 years that the risk of overdose is exponentially higher in the first few weeks after people leave prison.

Patients who use opioids safely for decades are also arbitrarily being forced off their prescriptions because too many clinicians equate opioid use with opioid addiction, despite the fact that opioid tapering was associated with increased rates of overdose. And prohibition has led to a change in the drug supply that is now dominated by methamphetamine and fentanyl, substances far more deadly than the ones we demonized and seized decades ago.

We have tried and failed to rid the country of many drugs. We never will. Human beings will seek mind-altering substances, from caffeine to alcohol to hallucinogens. But we can stop the grim massacre of people who use drugs. We have the tools. What we lack is moral clarity.

In lecture after lecture of physicians and medical students, I hear the refrain that patients are not often “ready” for treatment. There’s nothing that doctors can do, they say, if the patient doesn’t want help. Yet they do not examine why that may be. Are we offering the help that they need? Time and again I have seen that if we meet people where they are, we can help virtually anyone.
 

Tools for fighting the opioid crisis

The reason our policies have failed is because we have not confronted a simple truth: We must care more about saving and improving the lives of people who use drugs than stopping drug use. With that framework, the approach is clear and multifactorial. First, we must make methadone treatment less draconian. Methadone, like buprenorphine, has been associated with a large reduction in all-cause mortality for people who have a history of overdose.

In this country, to access it, however, you must go to a clinic daily for the first 90 days of treatment and jump through hoops that often make it impossible to have a job and accomplish other goals. Other countries have safely moved methadone to primary care offices, and so should we. The other main drug for opioid addiction, buprenorphine, requires a special license to prescribe, even though it is far safer than other opioids that any physician can prescribe. This requirement has been weakened, but it should be removed entirely.

Moreover, the DEA conducts regular audits of buprenorphine prescribers in an effort to prevent diversion, discouraging doctors from prescribing it. This despite the fact that it is almost impossible to overdose on buprenorphine alone, and a study suggests that diversion of buprenorphine is associated with a lower overdose risk in a community by making the medication available to more people who can benefit.

Treatment is not the only way we can help people using drugs. Naloxone, an overdose rescue drug, should be available in every first aid kit and free at pharmacies without a prescription. Clean needles and pipes for people who use can help prevent infections, potentially mitigating the severity of outbreaks. Overdose prevention sites, where people can safely use, should be opened across the country.

We need accessible drug testing so people do not accidentally overdose and so they can know what they are using. We should stop sending people to jail for drug use when we know that it is too often tantamount to a death sentence, and offer effective medical treatment to anyone who is incarcerated.

All these interventions remain controversial within medicine and in the larger culture. If our metric, however, is lives saved and harm avoided, these are sure-fire approaches.

Right now, I am focused on clinical care and changing the culture of medicine, where we have opportunities to help but too often do harm instead. The impact of a shift in mentality would be huge, because we would realize there is no one we cannot help, only millions of people we do not listen to. But this is a national crisis and requires a national response. Until we are clear that our goal should and must be to stem the mounting deaths and harms above all else, we will continue to fail.

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures.

One quiet afternoon at a mobile outreach clinic, where I had been working on the West Side of Chicago, a young man without a home to go to, and clothes he kept as clean as he could, came to get a refill of buprenorphine. The drug, which works on the same opioid receptors as heroin, was helping him feel normal. It was also probably helping to keep him alive, as a study found that taking it after an overdose was associated with a one-third reduction in all-cause mortality.

He was still using drugs, but now only a few days a week instead of multiple times a day. He had put on some weight and looked visibly healthier.

I gave him his prescription and thanked him for coming back. As he got up to leave, he turned to our outreach team and said, “Thank you for being here and caring about us. Because a lot of people don’t. They don’t care if we live or die.”

But a lot of people do care and are still failing him and others who use drugs. When I first started treating addictions, I was taught to cut people like him off treatment. We could give patients a medication, but they had to follow the rules, first and foremost to stop using drugs. Keep using, even if you were using less and your health was improving, and I would have to dismiss you from the practice. This was the kind of “tough love” that many doctors have been taught, and are, in many cases, still being taught today. Even though we know that this approach does not work.

For too long, doctors, nurses, caregivers, and the broader American public have favored abstinence only treatment, criminalization, and prohibition. The proof that this approach does not work is in the spectacular overdose crisis we are experiencing in this country, as CDC data documents. While we continue to blame drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine (and thirty years ago, crack and heroin), we fail to see how our approach contributes to these overdose deaths.

For instance, treating with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reductions in overdose and serious opioid-related acute care use compared with detox alone. But only one in three centers offer these medications, the gold standard of care. We continue to imprison people who use drugs, even though we have known for 15 years that the risk of overdose is exponentially higher in the first few weeks after people leave prison.

Patients who use opioids safely for decades are also arbitrarily being forced off their prescriptions because too many clinicians equate opioid use with opioid addiction, despite the fact that opioid tapering was associated with increased rates of overdose. And prohibition has led to a change in the drug supply that is now dominated by methamphetamine and fentanyl, substances far more deadly than the ones we demonized and seized decades ago.

We have tried and failed to rid the country of many drugs. We never will. Human beings will seek mind-altering substances, from caffeine to alcohol to hallucinogens. But we can stop the grim massacre of people who use drugs. We have the tools. What we lack is moral clarity.

In lecture after lecture of physicians and medical students, I hear the refrain that patients are not often “ready” for treatment. There’s nothing that doctors can do, they say, if the patient doesn’t want help. Yet they do not examine why that may be. Are we offering the help that they need? Time and again I have seen that if we meet people where they are, we can help virtually anyone.
 

Tools for fighting the opioid crisis

The reason our policies have failed is because we have not confronted a simple truth: We must care more about saving and improving the lives of people who use drugs than stopping drug use. With that framework, the approach is clear and multifactorial. First, we must make methadone treatment less draconian. Methadone, like buprenorphine, has been associated with a large reduction in all-cause mortality for people who have a history of overdose.

In this country, to access it, however, you must go to a clinic daily for the first 90 days of treatment and jump through hoops that often make it impossible to have a job and accomplish other goals. Other countries have safely moved methadone to primary care offices, and so should we. The other main drug for opioid addiction, buprenorphine, requires a special license to prescribe, even though it is far safer than other opioids that any physician can prescribe. This requirement has been weakened, but it should be removed entirely.

Moreover, the DEA conducts regular audits of buprenorphine prescribers in an effort to prevent diversion, discouraging doctors from prescribing it. This despite the fact that it is almost impossible to overdose on buprenorphine alone, and a study suggests that diversion of buprenorphine is associated with a lower overdose risk in a community by making the medication available to more people who can benefit.

Treatment is not the only way we can help people using drugs. Naloxone, an overdose rescue drug, should be available in every first aid kit and free at pharmacies without a prescription. Clean needles and pipes for people who use can help prevent infections, potentially mitigating the severity of outbreaks. Overdose prevention sites, where people can safely use, should be opened across the country.

We need accessible drug testing so people do not accidentally overdose and so they can know what they are using. We should stop sending people to jail for drug use when we know that it is too often tantamount to a death sentence, and offer effective medical treatment to anyone who is incarcerated.

All these interventions remain controversial within medicine and in the larger culture. If our metric, however, is lives saved and harm avoided, these are sure-fire approaches.

Right now, I am focused on clinical care and changing the culture of medicine, where we have opportunities to help but too often do harm instead. The impact of a shift in mentality would be huge, because we would realize there is no one we cannot help, only millions of people we do not listen to. But this is a national crisis and requires a national response. Until we are clear that our goal should and must be to stem the mounting deaths and harms above all else, we will continue to fail.

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures.

One quiet afternoon at a mobile outreach clinic, where I had been working on the West Side of Chicago, a young man without a home to go to, and clothes he kept as clean as he could, came to get a refill of buprenorphine. The drug, which works on the same opioid receptors as heroin, was helping him feel normal. It was also probably helping to keep him alive, as a study found that taking it after an overdose was associated with a one-third reduction in all-cause mortality.

He was still using drugs, but now only a few days a week instead of multiple times a day. He had put on some weight and looked visibly healthier.

I gave him his prescription and thanked him for coming back. As he got up to leave, he turned to our outreach team and said, “Thank you for being here and caring about us. Because a lot of people don’t. They don’t care if we live or die.”

But a lot of people do care and are still failing him and others who use drugs. When I first started treating addictions, I was taught to cut people like him off treatment. We could give patients a medication, but they had to follow the rules, first and foremost to stop using drugs. Keep using, even if you were using less and your health was improving, and I would have to dismiss you from the practice. This was the kind of “tough love” that many doctors have been taught, and are, in many cases, still being taught today. Even though we know that this approach does not work.

For too long, doctors, nurses, caregivers, and the broader American public have favored abstinence only treatment, criminalization, and prohibition. The proof that this approach does not work is in the spectacular overdose crisis we are experiencing in this country, as CDC data documents. While we continue to blame drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine (and thirty years ago, crack and heroin), we fail to see how our approach contributes to these overdose deaths.

For instance, treating with buprenorphine or methadone was associated with reductions in overdose and serious opioid-related acute care use compared with detox alone. But only one in three centers offer these medications, the gold standard of care. We continue to imprison people who use drugs, even though we have known for 15 years that the risk of overdose is exponentially higher in the first few weeks after people leave prison.

Patients who use opioids safely for decades are also arbitrarily being forced off their prescriptions because too many clinicians equate opioid use with opioid addiction, despite the fact that opioid tapering was associated with increased rates of overdose. And prohibition has led to a change in the drug supply that is now dominated by methamphetamine and fentanyl, substances far more deadly than the ones we demonized and seized decades ago.

We have tried and failed to rid the country of many drugs. We never will. Human beings will seek mind-altering substances, from caffeine to alcohol to hallucinogens. But we can stop the grim massacre of people who use drugs. We have the tools. What we lack is moral clarity.

In lecture after lecture of physicians and medical students, I hear the refrain that patients are not often “ready” for treatment. There’s nothing that doctors can do, they say, if the patient doesn’t want help. Yet they do not examine why that may be. Are we offering the help that they need? Time and again I have seen that if we meet people where they are, we can help virtually anyone.
 

Tools for fighting the opioid crisis

The reason our policies have failed is because we have not confronted a simple truth: We must care more about saving and improving the lives of people who use drugs than stopping drug use. With that framework, the approach is clear and multifactorial. First, we must make methadone treatment less draconian. Methadone, like buprenorphine, has been associated with a large reduction in all-cause mortality for people who have a history of overdose.

In this country, to access it, however, you must go to a clinic daily for the first 90 days of treatment and jump through hoops that often make it impossible to have a job and accomplish other goals. Other countries have safely moved methadone to primary care offices, and so should we. The other main drug for opioid addiction, buprenorphine, requires a special license to prescribe, even though it is far safer than other opioids that any physician can prescribe. This requirement has been weakened, but it should be removed entirely.

Moreover, the DEA conducts regular audits of buprenorphine prescribers in an effort to prevent diversion, discouraging doctors from prescribing it. This despite the fact that it is almost impossible to overdose on buprenorphine alone, and a study suggests that diversion of buprenorphine is associated with a lower overdose risk in a community by making the medication available to more people who can benefit.

Treatment is not the only way we can help people using drugs. Naloxone, an overdose rescue drug, should be available in every first aid kit and free at pharmacies without a prescription. Clean needles and pipes for people who use can help prevent infections, potentially mitigating the severity of outbreaks. Overdose prevention sites, where people can safely use, should be opened across the country.

We need accessible drug testing so people do not accidentally overdose and so they can know what they are using. We should stop sending people to jail for drug use when we know that it is too often tantamount to a death sentence, and offer effective medical treatment to anyone who is incarcerated.

All these interventions remain controversial within medicine and in the larger culture. If our metric, however, is lives saved and harm avoided, these are sure-fire approaches.

Right now, I am focused on clinical care and changing the culture of medicine, where we have opportunities to help but too often do harm instead. The impact of a shift in mentality would be huge, because we would realize there is no one we cannot help, only millions of people we do not listen to. But this is a national crisis and requires a national response. Until we are clear that our goal should and must be to stem the mounting deaths and harms above all else, we will continue to fail.

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures.

In the management of acute and chronic stroke, smartphone apps enhance communication between first responders and waiting hospital staff and reduce door-to-needle time, according to a literature review.

“In clinical practice, guideline-driven patient care is very important in improving diagnosis and outcomes, and apps provide a very practical and easy way to check available guidelines,” senior author Fabio Pilato, MD, a neurologist at Università Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, told this news organization.

The review was published  in the Journal of Stroke.
 

Reviewing the literature

“My colleagues and I wanted to discover whether smartphone apps, besides just facilitating communication between doctors and their patients, could improve patient care,” said Dr. Pilato. “We wanted to see if there were any apps that could guide clinical decisions according to guidelines and whether there were some being used in acute stroke management,” he added.

The investigators reviewed 43 studies of stroke-related mobile phone apps that were designed for the clinical management of stroke between June 1, 2007, when the first iPhone was introduced, and Jan. 31, 2022.

The apps were classified into the following three groups, according to their purpose: primary prevention apps, acute stroke management apps, and postacute stroke apps.
 

Prevention and management

The investigators found one primary prevention app, the Stroke Riskometer, that was based on an algorithm derived from the Framingham Stroke Risk Score and was designed to educate patients about diet, physical activity, and the warning signs of stroke. However, their review failed to show that the app was beneficial, compared with standard cardiovascular risk reduction.

Apps appeared to aid acute stroke management, according to the researchers. Prehospital apps, such as iLAMA, Smartphone-Assisted Pre-Hospital Medical Information System, FAST-ED, Egyptian Stroke Network, Act Fast, and the Mayo Clinic Acute Stroke Evaluation app were found to speed up stroke recognition, activate emergency medical services for speedier transport to the hospital, and facilitate communication with in-hospital stroke teams. All these prehospital apps reduced door-to-needle time.

The JOIN app also was shown to significantly reduce door-to-needle time, compared with no app support, in several studies. JOIN consists of a chat, a DICOM viewer, and an encrypted two-way video system for video calls between practitioners, as well as a milestones time stamp to record every step from home to hospital transportation to therapy onset. 

StopStroke, another app that focuses on instant communication among physicians and allows real-time sharing of clinical data of stroke patients, reduced door-to-image and door-to-needle time, compared with no app.

Act Fast, which uses a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) calculator, a thrombolysis checklist, and a toolbox to share images and notes among practitioners involved in the decision-making process, decreased door-to-needle time by 16 minutes, compared with no app.

In a study of medical residents, adherence to guidelines was higher in participants who used the Mayo Clinic Acute Stroke Evaluation app, compared with those who did not. Door-to-needle time also was reduced by 16 minutes in the app-assisted group, compared with controls.
 

Postacute stroke apps

The Rehabilitation Guardian app, consisting of a health reminder, consultation, health information, and patient diary, gives medical information and provides rehabilitation exercises. Patients can enter their clinical information, and the medical staff can access it and assist with the rehab process remotely.

As for apps for chronic management and secondary prevention, Dr. Pilato and colleagues found that the PRESTRO app, which combines motivational support for a healthy lifestyle and tells patients to take their medications and measure their blood pressure, successfully got patients to be more physically active, compared with those who did not use the app.

Another app for secondary prevention, the Korea University Health Monitoring System for Stroke (KUHMS2), reduced blood pressure and glucose levels in patients who used it, compared with those who did not.

Lose It, a weight loss app, is an electronic food journal that shows the values of the macronutrients of foods that the patient consumes, as well as a daily calorie count. The Engaging Everyday Activities app effectively reminds patients who have had transient ischemic attacks about daily activities that can reduce their risk for a recurrent attack.

Movies4Stroke features educational videos about first aid, rehabilitation, how to improve swallowing, and stroke risk factors.

AFib 2gether allows patients to enter their clinical data and calculates their annual stroke risk scores. The information is provided to a health care provider before the next visit to help the patient make an informed decision about anticoagulation therapy.

“We believe that the widespread use of smartphones and apps may improve patient care in every part of the world and in particular in those parts where updated guideline consultation is not readily available. However, in our study we found that apps to implement guidelines by a clinical decision support system are still lacking. Our hope is that these apps will increase in the future,” said Dr. Pilato.
 

No panacea

Commenting on this review for this article, Amy Guzik, MD, associate professor of neurology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., said that all physicians are looking for opportunities to use technology, especially in stroke, to diagnose and treat patients in the best way they can.

“Figuring out ways to increase efficiency and get the word out to our patients is very important to us and is probably why there are so many apps out there,” said Dr. Guzik.

“There are some ways such apps could be particularly useful. One is in remote hospitals that might not have a neurologist. Helping with the diagnosis and determining what is a bad stroke that needs to go to a higher level of medical care, or whether it is something the local hospital could take care of, would be useful,” said Dr. Guzik.

“Also helping EMS figure out which hospital to go to, or once they are on their way, being able to talk to the neurologist or neurosurgeon or the emergency room doctor and make a plan before the patient gets here, so we can expedite care when the patient arrives, is where apps can be particularly useful,” she added.

There are limitations to what apps can do, however. In the case of stroke, patients may often have important barriers that do not allow them to use apps at all, she said.

“Regardless of how they are being taken care of, a lot of our stroke patients will have problems with technology. A stroke can make texting difficult. Patients may have language difficulties, weakness, or cognitive impairment. They are relying on caregivers. All of this makes it difficult for a tech solution to be the automatic solution, unless things are done in a thoughtful way to make sure that it is appropriate for stroke patients.

“Also, there are a lot of elderly patients who may not necessarily be the most tech savvy and do not have as much digital literacy as younger patients. Another limitation to consider is that some people may not even have easy access to technology. So we must make sure that this is all done with an equity focus,” said Dr. Guzik.

The study was funded by the Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA). Dr. Pilato and Dr. Guzik reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the management of acute and chronic stroke, smartphone apps enhance communication between first responders and waiting hospital staff and reduce door-to-needle time, according to a literature review.

“In clinical practice, guideline-driven patient care is very important in improving diagnosis and outcomes, and apps provide a very practical and easy way to check available guidelines,” senior author Fabio Pilato, MD, a neurologist at Università Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, told this news organization.

The review was published  in the Journal of Stroke.
 

Reviewing the literature

“My colleagues and I wanted to discover whether smartphone apps, besides just facilitating communication between doctors and their patients, could improve patient care,” said Dr. Pilato. “We wanted to see if there were any apps that could guide clinical decisions according to guidelines and whether there were some being used in acute stroke management,” he added.

The investigators reviewed 43 studies of stroke-related mobile phone apps that were designed for the clinical management of stroke between June 1, 2007, when the first iPhone was introduced, and Jan. 31, 2022.

The apps were classified into the following three groups, according to their purpose: primary prevention apps, acute stroke management apps, and postacute stroke apps.
 

Prevention and management

The investigators found one primary prevention app, the Stroke Riskometer, that was based on an algorithm derived from the Framingham Stroke Risk Score and was designed to educate patients about diet, physical activity, and the warning signs of stroke. However, their review failed to show that the app was beneficial, compared with standard cardiovascular risk reduction.

Apps appeared to aid acute stroke management, according to the researchers. Prehospital apps, such as iLAMA, Smartphone-Assisted Pre-Hospital Medical Information System, FAST-ED, Egyptian Stroke Network, Act Fast, and the Mayo Clinic Acute Stroke Evaluation app were found to speed up stroke recognition, activate emergency medical services for speedier transport to the hospital, and facilitate communication with in-hospital stroke teams. All these prehospital apps reduced door-to-needle time.

The JOIN app also was shown to significantly reduce door-to-needle time, compared with no app support, in several studies. JOIN consists of a chat, a DICOM viewer, and an encrypted two-way video system for video calls between practitioners, as well as a milestones time stamp to record every step from home to hospital transportation to therapy onset. 

StopStroke, another app that focuses on instant communication among physicians and allows real-time sharing of clinical data of stroke patients, reduced door-to-image and door-to-needle time, compared with no app.

Act Fast, which uses a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) calculator, a thrombolysis checklist, and a toolbox to share images and notes among practitioners involved in the decision-making process, decreased door-to-needle time by 16 minutes, compared with no app.

In a study of medical residents, adherence to guidelines was higher in participants who used the Mayo Clinic Acute Stroke Evaluation app, compared with those who did not. Door-to-needle time also was reduced by 16 minutes in the app-assisted group, compared with controls.
 

Postacute stroke apps

The Rehabilitation Guardian app, consisting of a health reminder, consultation, health information, and patient diary, gives medical information and provides rehabilitation exercises. Patients can enter their clinical information, and the medical staff can access it and assist with the rehab process remotely.

As for apps for chronic management and secondary prevention, Dr. Pilato and colleagues found that the PRESTRO app, which combines motivational support for a healthy lifestyle and tells patients to take their medications and measure their blood pressure, successfully got patients to be more physically active, compared with those who did not use the app.

Another app for secondary prevention, the Korea University Health Monitoring System for Stroke (KUHMS2), reduced blood pressure and glucose levels in patients who used it, compared with those who did not.

Lose It, a weight loss app, is an electronic food journal that shows the values of the macronutrients of foods that the patient consumes, as well as a daily calorie count. The Engaging Everyday Activities app effectively reminds patients who have had transient ischemic attacks about daily activities that can reduce their risk for a recurrent attack.

Movies4Stroke features educational videos about first aid, rehabilitation, how to improve swallowing, and stroke risk factors.

AFib 2gether allows patients to enter their clinical data and calculates their annual stroke risk scores. The information is provided to a health care provider before the next visit to help the patient make an informed decision about anticoagulation therapy.

“We believe that the widespread use of smartphones and apps may improve patient care in every part of the world and in particular in those parts where updated guideline consultation is not readily available. However, in our study we found that apps to implement guidelines by a clinical decision support system are still lacking. Our hope is that these apps will increase in the future,” said Dr. Pilato.
 

No panacea

Commenting on this review for this article, Amy Guzik, MD, associate professor of neurology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., said that all physicians are looking for opportunities to use technology, especially in stroke, to diagnose and treat patients in the best way they can.

“Figuring out ways to increase efficiency and get the word out to our patients is very important to us and is probably why there are so many apps out there,” said Dr. Guzik.

“There are some ways such apps could be particularly useful. One is in remote hospitals that might not have a neurologist. Helping with the diagnosis and determining what is a bad stroke that needs to go to a higher level of medical care, or whether it is something the local hospital could take care of, would be useful,” said Dr. Guzik.

“Also helping EMS figure out which hospital to go to, or once they are on their way, being able to talk to the neurologist or neurosurgeon or the emergency room doctor and make a plan before the patient gets here, so we can expedite care when the patient arrives, is where apps can be particularly useful,” she added.

There are limitations to what apps can do, however. In the case of stroke, patients may often have important barriers that do not allow them to use apps at all, she said.

“Regardless of how they are being taken care of, a lot of our stroke patients will have problems with technology. A stroke can make texting difficult. Patients may have language difficulties, weakness, or cognitive impairment. They are relying on caregivers. All of this makes it difficult for a tech solution to be the automatic solution, unless things are done in a thoughtful way to make sure that it is appropriate for stroke patients.

“Also, there are a lot of elderly patients who may not necessarily be the most tech savvy and do not have as much digital literacy as younger patients. Another limitation to consider is that some people may not even have easy access to technology. So we must make sure that this is all done with an equity focus,” said Dr. Guzik.

The study was funded by the Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA). Dr. Pilato and Dr. Guzik reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the management of acute and chronic stroke, smartphone apps enhance communication between first responders and waiting hospital staff and reduce door-to-needle time, according to a literature review.

“In clinical practice, guideline-driven patient care is very important in improving diagnosis and outcomes, and apps provide a very practical and easy way to check available guidelines,” senior author Fabio Pilato, MD, a neurologist at Università Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, told this news organization.

The review was published  in the Journal of Stroke.
 

Reviewing the literature

“My colleagues and I wanted to discover whether smartphone apps, besides just facilitating communication between doctors and their patients, could improve patient care,” said Dr. Pilato. “We wanted to see if there were any apps that could guide clinical decisions according to guidelines and whether there were some being used in acute stroke management,” he added.

The investigators reviewed 43 studies of stroke-related mobile phone apps that were designed for the clinical management of stroke between June 1, 2007, when the first iPhone was introduced, and Jan. 31, 2022.

The apps were classified into the following three groups, according to their purpose: primary prevention apps, acute stroke management apps, and postacute stroke apps.
 

Prevention and management

The investigators found one primary prevention app, the Stroke Riskometer, that was based on an algorithm derived from the Framingham Stroke Risk Score and was designed to educate patients about diet, physical activity, and the warning signs of stroke. However, their review failed to show that the app was beneficial, compared with standard cardiovascular risk reduction.

Apps appeared to aid acute stroke management, according to the researchers. Prehospital apps, such as iLAMA, Smartphone-Assisted Pre-Hospital Medical Information System, FAST-ED, Egyptian Stroke Network, Act Fast, and the Mayo Clinic Acute Stroke Evaluation app were found to speed up stroke recognition, activate emergency medical services for speedier transport to the hospital, and facilitate communication with in-hospital stroke teams. All these prehospital apps reduced door-to-needle time.

The JOIN app also was shown to significantly reduce door-to-needle time, compared with no app support, in several studies. JOIN consists of a chat, a DICOM viewer, and an encrypted two-way video system for video calls between practitioners, as well as a milestones time stamp to record every step from home to hospital transportation to therapy onset. 

StopStroke, another app that focuses on instant communication among physicians and allows real-time sharing of clinical data of stroke patients, reduced door-to-image and door-to-needle time, compared with no app.

Act Fast, which uses a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) calculator, a thrombolysis checklist, and a toolbox to share images and notes among practitioners involved in the decision-making process, decreased door-to-needle time by 16 minutes, compared with no app.

In a study of medical residents, adherence to guidelines was higher in participants who used the Mayo Clinic Acute Stroke Evaluation app, compared with those who did not. Door-to-needle time also was reduced by 16 minutes in the app-assisted group, compared with controls.
 

Postacute stroke apps

The Rehabilitation Guardian app, consisting of a health reminder, consultation, health information, and patient diary, gives medical information and provides rehabilitation exercises. Patients can enter their clinical information, and the medical staff can access it and assist with the rehab process remotely.

As for apps for chronic management and secondary prevention, Dr. Pilato and colleagues found that the PRESTRO app, which combines motivational support for a healthy lifestyle and tells patients to take their medications and measure their blood pressure, successfully got patients to be more physically active, compared with those who did not use the app.

Another app for secondary prevention, the Korea University Health Monitoring System for Stroke (KUHMS2), reduced blood pressure and glucose levels in patients who used it, compared with those who did not.

Lose It, a weight loss app, is an electronic food journal that shows the values of the macronutrients of foods that the patient consumes, as well as a daily calorie count. The Engaging Everyday Activities app effectively reminds patients who have had transient ischemic attacks about daily activities that can reduce their risk for a recurrent attack.

Movies4Stroke features educational videos about first aid, rehabilitation, how to improve swallowing, and stroke risk factors.

AFib 2gether allows patients to enter their clinical data and calculates their annual stroke risk scores. The information is provided to a health care provider before the next visit to help the patient make an informed decision about anticoagulation therapy.

“We believe that the widespread use of smartphones and apps may improve patient care in every part of the world and in particular in those parts where updated guideline consultation is not readily available. However, in our study we found that apps to implement guidelines by a clinical decision support system are still lacking. Our hope is that these apps will increase in the future,” said Dr. Pilato.
 

No panacea

Commenting on this review for this article, Amy Guzik, MD, associate professor of neurology at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., said that all physicians are looking for opportunities to use technology, especially in stroke, to diagnose and treat patients in the best way they can.

“Figuring out ways to increase efficiency and get the word out to our patients is very important to us and is probably why there are so many apps out there,” said Dr. Guzik.

“There are some ways such apps could be particularly useful. One is in remote hospitals that might not have a neurologist. Helping with the diagnosis and determining what is a bad stroke that needs to go to a higher level of medical care, or whether it is something the local hospital could take care of, would be useful,” said Dr. Guzik.

“Also helping EMS figure out which hospital to go to, or once they are on their way, being able to talk to the neurologist or neurosurgeon or the emergency room doctor and make a plan before the patient gets here, so we can expedite care when the patient arrives, is where apps can be particularly useful,” she added.

There are limitations to what apps can do, however. In the case of stroke, patients may often have important barriers that do not allow them to use apps at all, she said.

“Regardless of how they are being taken care of, a lot of our stroke patients will have problems with technology. A stroke can make texting difficult. Patients may have language difficulties, weakness, or cognitive impairment. They are relying on caregivers. All of this makes it difficult for a tech solution to be the automatic solution, unless things are done in a thoughtful way to make sure that it is appropriate for stroke patients.

“Also, there are a lot of elderly patients who may not necessarily be the most tech savvy and do not have as much digital literacy as younger patients. Another limitation to consider is that some people may not even have easy access to technology. So we must make sure that this is all done with an equity focus,” said Dr. Guzik.

The study was funded by the Associazione Nazionale fra le Imprese Assicuratrici (ANIA). Dr. Pilato and Dr. Guzik reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr. Matthew Watto, here with my very good friend, Dr. Paul Williams. It’s time to talk about headaches. We did a great recent podcast on migraines, Headache Update: Making Migraines Less Painful with Dr. Kevin Weber. One of the quotes from that episode that stayed with me was when he said, “I tell my patients to think about migraine as an irritable old miser set in their ways, and your brain is set in its ways. It doesn’t like changes in routine. It doesn’t like lack of sleep, it doesn’t like being hungry, it doesn’t like being thirsty, and it doesn’t like changes in the weather.” That’s a reminder of the good, old-fashioned primary care tips for taking care of headache.

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right. Conservative supportive management goes by the wayside because we focus on the medications. But I thought that was a really nice way to start the episode.

Dr. Watto: I asked him about cervicogenic headaches, which I guess you have to diagnose by giving a cervical steroid injection and see if the patient feels better, but he said he doesn’t do this. This is expert opinion territory. He asks his patients with chronic headache about cervical neck pain, because if they have it, he goes after it with physical therapy, which can help with the headaches. I thought that was a great pearl that I hadn’t heard before.

Give the audience a pearl from this great episode.

Dr. Williams: We talked about foundational treatments. We reviewed some of the abortive therapies and over-the-counter products. Some patients do quite well with acetaminophen or NSAIDs. We also talked about triptans, which are the standard medicines that we all know about. You can use those in combination, by the way. Patients can take their triptan with the NSAID that works best for them. They don’t have to be used one at a time, trying one and then trying the other one if the first one doesn’t help. Dr. Weber gave us practical guides in terms of which triptans he favors. He mentioned rizatriptan and naratriptan, which is one that I had not used with any frequency. I’ve seen rizatriptan a fair amount and that one seems to be covered by most insurances. He favors those two triptans.

He also reminded us that even though there is theoretical concern for serotonin toxicity because these are serotonergic and you’ll see these scary pop-ups in your electronic health record, that concern is almost purely theoretical. It hasn’t been borne out. They are really safe medications to use. But do use caution if you have a patient with known cardiovascular disease or cerebrovascular disease. We spent a fair amount of time talking about chest pressure as a common side effect. We also talked about some of the newer agents.

Dr. Watto: I wanted to add something about the triptans. Part of the reason he favors rizatriptan and naratriptan is that they are newer. He thinks they tend to have fewer side effects. But he did mention sumatriptan because it comes in the most different formulations. If patients have severe nausea, there is a subcutaneous version of sumatriptan and also an intranasal version.

The new kids on the block are the CGRP receptor antagonists, and they are available for preventive and abortive therapy. The abortive therapies are probably what people will be seeing most often in primary care – ubrogepant and rimegepant. Patients can take ubrogepant for abortive therapy and then repeat it if necessary. That’s similar to what patients are used to with the triptans. Rimegepant is taken once daily for abortive therapy or every other day as a preventive agent. Those are two of the agents that you might see patients taking. I’ve certainly started to see them.

There are also a whole bunch of monoclonal antibodies that affect the CGRP pathway. Those are given either once a month by subcutaneous injection or once every 3 months, and one is an infusion. They are pretty safe, and the big appeal is that they can be used in patients with cardiovascular disease. He also said that he has some patients who take them because triptans can cause the medication overuse side effect, but the CGRP receptor antagonists don’t. It’s an option for some patients to take the CGRP receptor antagonists on certain days for abortive therapy and then they can take the triptans the rest of the month.

Dr. Weber said that in his practice, these new drugs have really been great, which I can imagine, if you’re a specialist, patients have exhausted many of the typical therapies we offer in primary care.

Paul, bring us home here. What else should we tell the audience about? In primary care, what can we offer these patients?

Dr. Williams: A lot of the stuff we can offer works, by the way. It’s exciting to have fancy new medications to use, but you don’t even necessarily need to get to that point. We have a lot of medications that we can use for migraine prophylaxis, such as the beta-blockers and antihypertensives. Candesartan was a new one to me, an angiotensin receptor blocker that apparently has good evidence for migraine prophylaxis and Dr. Weber swears by it. We talked about some of the antiseizure medications, such as topiramate, which is probably the one with the most comfort in primary care. Some older folks may be using valproic acid or the tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline and nortriptyline) because people with migraine often will have comorbid anxiety or trouble sleeping, so I find that can sometimes be an effective medication or if they have comorbid neuropathic pain.

Another one that was new to me was venlafaxine as migraine prophylaxis. It’s not something I’d heard about before this episode. Certainly, for someone with chronic pain or a mood disorder that’s comorbid with migraines, it may be worth a shot. So there are options that we can exhaust first, and we may actually be doing our specialist friends a favor by trying one or two of these in advance, because then by the time the patient gets to the neurologist, it makes the prior authorization process much easier for the newer, fancier-pants medications that we’re all very excited about.

Dr. Watto: Paul, we’ve teased this fantastic podcast episode filled with so much more great stuff, so people should check out Headache Update: Making Migraines Less Painful with Dr. Kevin Weber.

Until next time, this has been another episode of The Curbsiders, bringing you a little knowledge food for your brain hole.

The Curbsiders is an internal medicine podcast, in which three board-certified internists interview experts on clinically important topics. In a collaboration with Medscape, the Curbsiders share clinical pearls and practice-changing knowledge from selected podcasts.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr. Matthew Watto, here with my very good friend, Dr. Paul Williams. It’s time to talk about headaches. We did a great recent podcast on migraines, Headache Update: Making Migraines Less Painful with Dr. Kevin Weber. One of the quotes from that episode that stayed with me was when he said, “I tell my patients to think about migraine as an irritable old miser set in their ways, and your brain is set in its ways. It doesn’t like changes in routine. It doesn’t like lack of sleep, it doesn’t like being hungry, it doesn’t like being thirsty, and it doesn’t like changes in the weather.” That’s a reminder of the good, old-fashioned primary care tips for taking care of headache.

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right. Conservative supportive management goes by the wayside because we focus on the medications. But I thought that was a really nice way to start the episode.

Dr. Watto: I asked him about cervicogenic headaches, which I guess you have to diagnose by giving a cervical steroid injection and see if the patient feels better, but he said he doesn’t do this. This is expert opinion territory. He asks his patients with chronic headache about cervical neck pain, because if they have it, he goes after it with physical therapy, which can help with the headaches. I thought that was a great pearl that I hadn’t heard before.

Give the audience a pearl from this great episode.

Dr. Williams: We talked about foundational treatments. We reviewed some of the abortive therapies and over-the-counter products. Some patients do quite well with acetaminophen or NSAIDs. We also talked about triptans, which are the standard medicines that we all know about. You can use those in combination, by the way. Patients can take their triptan with the NSAID that works best for them. They don’t have to be used one at a time, trying one and then trying the other one if the first one doesn’t help. Dr. Weber gave us practical guides in terms of which triptans he favors. He mentioned rizatriptan and naratriptan, which is one that I had not used with any frequency. I’ve seen rizatriptan a fair amount and that one seems to be covered by most insurances. He favors those two triptans.

He also reminded us that even though there is theoretical concern for serotonin toxicity because these are serotonergic and you’ll see these scary pop-ups in your electronic health record, that concern is almost purely theoretical. It hasn’t been borne out. They are really safe medications to use. But do use caution if you have a patient with known cardiovascular disease or cerebrovascular disease. We spent a fair amount of time talking about chest pressure as a common side effect. We also talked about some of the newer agents.

Dr. Watto: I wanted to add something about the triptans. Part of the reason he favors rizatriptan and naratriptan is that they are newer. He thinks they tend to have fewer side effects. But he did mention sumatriptan because it comes in the most different formulations. If patients have severe nausea, there is a subcutaneous version of sumatriptan and also an intranasal version.

The new kids on the block are the CGRP receptor antagonists, and they are available for preventive and abortive therapy. The abortive therapies are probably what people will be seeing most often in primary care – ubrogepant and rimegepant. Patients can take ubrogepant for abortive therapy and then repeat it if necessary. That’s similar to what patients are used to with the triptans. Rimegepant is taken once daily for abortive therapy or every other day as a preventive agent. Those are two of the agents that you might see patients taking. I’ve certainly started to see them.

There are also a whole bunch of monoclonal antibodies that affect the CGRP pathway. Those are given either once a month by subcutaneous injection or once every 3 months, and one is an infusion. They are pretty safe, and the big appeal is that they can be used in patients with cardiovascular disease. He also said that he has some patients who take them because triptans can cause the medication overuse side effect, but the CGRP receptor antagonists don’t. It’s an option for some patients to take the CGRP receptor antagonists on certain days for abortive therapy and then they can take the triptans the rest of the month.

Dr. Weber said that in his practice, these new drugs have really been great, which I can imagine, if you’re a specialist, patients have exhausted many of the typical therapies we offer in primary care.

Paul, bring us home here. What else should we tell the audience about? In primary care, what can we offer these patients?

Dr. Williams: A lot of the stuff we can offer works, by the way. It’s exciting to have fancy new medications to use, but you don’t even necessarily need to get to that point. We have a lot of medications that we can use for migraine prophylaxis, such as the beta-blockers and antihypertensives. Candesartan was a new one to me, an angiotensin receptor blocker that apparently has good evidence for migraine prophylaxis and Dr. Weber swears by it. We talked about some of the antiseizure medications, such as topiramate, which is probably the one with the most comfort in primary care. Some older folks may be using valproic acid or the tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline and nortriptyline) because people with migraine often will have comorbid anxiety or trouble sleeping, so I find that can sometimes be an effective medication or if they have comorbid neuropathic pain.

Another one that was new to me was venlafaxine as migraine prophylaxis. It’s not something I’d heard about before this episode. Certainly, for someone with chronic pain or a mood disorder that’s comorbid with migraines, it may be worth a shot. So there are options that we can exhaust first, and we may actually be doing our specialist friends a favor by trying one or two of these in advance, because then by the time the patient gets to the neurologist, it makes the prior authorization process much easier for the newer, fancier-pants medications that we’re all very excited about.

Dr. Watto: Paul, we’ve teased this fantastic podcast episode filled with so much more great stuff, so people should check out Headache Update: Making Migraines Less Painful with Dr. Kevin Weber.

Until next time, this has been another episode of The Curbsiders, bringing you a little knowledge food for your brain hole.

The Curbsiders is an internal medicine podcast, in which three board-certified internists interview experts on clinically important topics. In a collaboration with Medscape, the Curbsiders share clinical pearls and practice-changing knowledge from selected podcasts.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr. Matthew Watto, here with my very good friend, Dr. Paul Williams. It’s time to talk about headaches. We did a great recent podcast on migraines, Headache Update: Making Migraines Less Painful with Dr. Kevin Weber. One of the quotes from that episode that stayed with me was when he said, “I tell my patients to think about migraine as an irritable old miser set in their ways, and your brain is set in its ways. It doesn’t like changes in routine. It doesn’t like lack of sleep, it doesn’t like being hungry, it doesn’t like being thirsty, and it doesn’t like changes in the weather.” That’s a reminder of the good, old-fashioned primary care tips for taking care of headache.

Paul N. Williams, MD: That’s right. Conservative supportive management goes by the wayside because we focus on the medications. But I thought that was a really nice way to start the episode.

Dr. Watto: I asked him about cervicogenic headaches, which I guess you have to diagnose by giving a cervical steroid injection and see if the patient feels better, but he said he doesn’t do this. This is expert opinion territory. He asks his patients with chronic headache about cervical neck pain, because if they have it, he goes after it with physical therapy, which can help with the headaches. I thought that was a great pearl that I hadn’t heard before.

Give the audience a pearl from this great episode.

Dr. Williams: We talked about foundational treatments. We reviewed some of the abortive therapies and over-the-counter products. Some patients do quite well with acetaminophen or NSAIDs. We also talked about triptans, which are the standard medicines that we all know about. You can use those in combination, by the way. Patients can take their triptan with the NSAID that works best for them. They don’t have to be used one at a time, trying one and then trying the other one if the first one doesn’t help. Dr. Weber gave us practical guides in terms of which triptans he favors. He mentioned rizatriptan and naratriptan, which is one that I had not used with any frequency. I’ve seen rizatriptan a fair amount and that one seems to be covered by most insurances. He favors those two triptans.

He also reminded us that even though there is theoretical concern for serotonin toxicity because these are serotonergic and you’ll see these scary pop-ups in your electronic health record, that concern is almost purely theoretical. It hasn’t been borne out. They are really safe medications to use. But do use caution if you have a patient with known cardiovascular disease or cerebrovascular disease. We spent a fair amount of time talking about chest pressure as a common side effect. We also talked about some of the newer agents.

Dr. Watto: I wanted to add something about the triptans. Part of the reason he favors rizatriptan and naratriptan is that they are newer. He thinks they tend to have fewer side effects. But he did mention sumatriptan because it comes in the most different formulations. If patients have severe nausea, there is a subcutaneous version of sumatriptan and also an intranasal version.

The new kids on the block are the CGRP receptor antagonists, and they are available for preventive and abortive therapy. The abortive therapies are probably what people will be seeing most often in primary care – ubrogepant and rimegepant. Patients can take ubrogepant for abortive therapy and then repeat it if necessary. That’s similar to what patients are used to with the triptans. Rimegepant is taken once daily for abortive therapy or every other day as a preventive agent. Those are two of the agents that you might see patients taking. I’ve certainly started to see them.

There are also a whole bunch of monoclonal antibodies that affect the CGRP pathway. Those are given either once a month by subcutaneous injection or once every 3 months, and one is an infusion. They are pretty safe, and the big appeal is that they can be used in patients with cardiovascular disease. He also said that he has some patients who take them because triptans can cause the medication overuse side effect, but the CGRP receptor antagonists don’t. It’s an option for some patients to take the CGRP receptor antagonists on certain days for abortive therapy and then they can take the triptans the rest of the month.

Dr. Weber said that in his practice, these new drugs have really been great, which I can imagine, if you’re a specialist, patients have exhausted many of the typical therapies we offer in primary care.

Paul, bring us home here. What else should we tell the audience about? In primary care, what can we offer these patients?

Dr. Williams: A lot of the stuff we can offer works, by the way. It’s exciting to have fancy new medications to use, but you don’t even necessarily need to get to that point. We have a lot of medications that we can use for migraine prophylaxis, such as the beta-blockers and antihypertensives. Candesartan was a new one to me, an angiotensin receptor blocker that apparently has good evidence for migraine prophylaxis and Dr. Weber swears by it. We talked about some of the antiseizure medications, such as topiramate, which is probably the one with the most comfort in primary care. Some older folks may be using valproic acid or the tricyclic antidepressants (amitriptyline and nortriptyline) because people with migraine often will have comorbid anxiety or trouble sleeping, so I find that can sometimes be an effective medication or if they have comorbid neuropathic pain.

Another one that was new to me was venlafaxine as migraine prophylaxis. It’s not something I’d heard about before this episode. Certainly, for someone with chronic pain or a mood disorder that’s comorbid with migraines, it may be worth a shot. So there are options that we can exhaust first, and we may actually be doing our specialist friends a favor by trying one or two of these in advance, because then by the time the patient gets to the neurologist, it makes the prior authorization process much easier for the newer, fancier-pants medications that we’re all very excited about.

Dr. Watto: Paul, we’ve teased this fantastic podcast episode filled with so much more great stuff, so people should check out Headache Update: Making Migraines Less Painful with Dr. Kevin Weber.

Until next time, this has been another episode of The Curbsiders, bringing you a little knowledge food for your brain hole.

The Curbsiders is an internal medicine podcast, in which three board-certified internists interview experts on clinically important topics. In a collaboration with Medscape, the Curbsiders share clinical pearls and practice-changing knowledge from selected podcasts.

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

CINCINNATI – A new analysis of data from a phase 3 clinical trial suggests that an inhaled diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco, Neurelis Inc.) works about as well among patients with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS) as it does with other patients with pediatric encephalopathies.

LGS is a severe form of epilepsy that generally begins in early childhood and has a poor prognosis and seizures that are often treatment refractory. The findings of the analysis should be encouraging to physicians who may view patients with LGS as not benefiting from treatment, said Daniel C. Tarquinio, DO, who presented the results at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

“Their response to their first appropriate weight-based rescue dose of Valtoco was essentially no different. They were subtly different, but they’re not really meaningful differences. Very few needed a second dose. In practice this is helpful because we know that kids with LGS, we think of them as having worse epilepsy, if you will. But if they need rescue, if we prescribe an appropriate rescue dose based on their weight, that the same rescue will work for them as it will for a kid that doesn’t have – quote unquote – as bad epilepsy that needs rescue,” said Dr. Tarquinio, a child neurologist and epileptologist and founder of the Center for Rare Neurological Diseases.

During the Q&A, Dr. Tarquinio was asked if there is something about the biology of LGS that would suggest it might respond differently to the drug. Dr. Tarquinio said no. “The reason we even looked at this is because many clinicians told us that their sense was [that patients with LGS] did not respond as well to rescue in general no matter what they use. This allowed us to go back and look at a controlled data set and say, at least in our controlled dataset, they respond the same,” he said.

Grace Gombolay, MD, who moderated the session, agreed that the results should be encouraging. “It seems like a lot of clinicians have the sense that Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome is a very terrible refractory epilepsy syndrome, and so doing rescue doesn’t seem to make sense if they don’t really respond. I think it’s helpful to know because there are actually studies showing that Valtoco seems to actually work in those patients, so it’s actually useful clinically to prescribe those patients and give it a shot,” said Dr. Gombolay, director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at Emory University, Atlanta.

LGS patients may experience hundreds of seizures per day. “It’s really hard for parents to quantify, did they get better? Did the rescue help or not, because they’re still having some seizures. I think the sense is, ‘oh, this isn’t working.’ That’s probably the bias. I think this is good data that if you are able to get Valtoco for your patients, I think it’s worth a shot even in Lennox-Gastaut,” said Dr. Gombolay.

The researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the phase 3, open-label, repeat-dose safety study of Valtoco. The study included a 12-month treatment period with visits at day 30 and every 60 days following. Patients had the option of staying on the drug following the end of the treatment period. Seizure and dosing information were obtained from a diary. The study enrolled 163 patients whose physicians believed they would need to be treated with a benzodiazepine at least once every other month to achieve seizure control. Dosing was determined by a combination of age and weight. If a second dose was required, caregivers were instructed to provide it 4-12 hours after the first dose.

In the study cohort, 47.9% of patients were aged 6-17 years. The researchers looked specifically at 73 cases of seizure clusters. In nine cases, the patient had LGS (five male, four female). Nearly all (95.9%) of LGS cluster cases were treated with a single dose and 4.1% were exposed to a second dose. Among 64 cases involving a patient with pediatric epileptic encephalopathies, 89.4% were treated with a single dose and 10.6% received a second. The safety profile was similar between patients with LGS and those with pediatric encephalopathies.

Dr. Gombolay has no relevant financial disclosures.

CINCINNATI – A new analysis of data from a phase 3 clinical trial suggests that an inhaled diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco, Neurelis Inc.) works about as well among patients with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS) as it does with other patients with pediatric encephalopathies.

LGS is a severe form of epilepsy that generally begins in early childhood and has a poor prognosis and seizures that are often treatment refractory. The findings of the analysis should be encouraging to physicians who may view patients with LGS as not benefiting from treatment, said Daniel C. Tarquinio, DO, who presented the results at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

“Their response to their first appropriate weight-based rescue dose of Valtoco was essentially no different. They were subtly different, but they’re not really meaningful differences. Very few needed a second dose. In practice this is helpful because we know that kids with LGS, we think of them as having worse epilepsy, if you will. But if they need rescue, if we prescribe an appropriate rescue dose based on their weight, that the same rescue will work for them as it will for a kid that doesn’t have – quote unquote – as bad epilepsy that needs rescue,” said Dr. Tarquinio, a child neurologist and epileptologist and founder of the Center for Rare Neurological Diseases.

During the Q&A, Dr. Tarquinio was asked if there is something about the biology of LGS that would suggest it might respond differently to the drug. Dr. Tarquinio said no. “The reason we even looked at this is because many clinicians told us that their sense was [that patients with LGS] did not respond as well to rescue in general no matter what they use. This allowed us to go back and look at a controlled data set and say, at least in our controlled dataset, they respond the same,” he said.

Grace Gombolay, MD, who moderated the session, agreed that the results should be encouraging. “It seems like a lot of clinicians have the sense that Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome is a very terrible refractory epilepsy syndrome, and so doing rescue doesn’t seem to make sense if they don’t really respond. I think it’s helpful to know because there are actually studies showing that Valtoco seems to actually work in those patients, so it’s actually useful clinically to prescribe those patients and give it a shot,” said Dr. Gombolay, director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at Emory University, Atlanta.

LGS patients may experience hundreds of seizures per day. “It’s really hard for parents to quantify, did they get better? Did the rescue help or not, because they’re still having some seizures. I think the sense is, ‘oh, this isn’t working.’ That’s probably the bias. I think this is good data that if you are able to get Valtoco for your patients, I think it’s worth a shot even in Lennox-Gastaut,” said Dr. Gombolay.

The researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the phase 3, open-label, repeat-dose safety study of Valtoco. The study included a 12-month treatment period with visits at day 30 and every 60 days following. Patients had the option of staying on the drug following the end of the treatment period. Seizure and dosing information were obtained from a diary. The study enrolled 163 patients whose physicians believed they would need to be treated with a benzodiazepine at least once every other month to achieve seizure control. Dosing was determined by a combination of age and weight. If a second dose was required, caregivers were instructed to provide it 4-12 hours after the first dose.

In the study cohort, 47.9% of patients were aged 6-17 years. The researchers looked specifically at 73 cases of seizure clusters. In nine cases, the patient had LGS (five male, four female). Nearly all (95.9%) of LGS cluster cases were treated with a single dose and 4.1% were exposed to a second dose. Among 64 cases involving a patient with pediatric epileptic encephalopathies, 89.4% were treated with a single dose and 10.6% received a second. The safety profile was similar between patients with LGS and those with pediatric encephalopathies.

Dr. Gombolay has no relevant financial disclosures.

CINCINNATI – A new analysis of data from a phase 3 clinical trial suggests that an inhaled diazepam nasal spray (Valtoco, Neurelis Inc.) works about as well among patients with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome (LGS) as it does with other patients with pediatric encephalopathies.

LGS is a severe form of epilepsy that generally begins in early childhood and has a poor prognosis and seizures that are often treatment refractory. The findings of the analysis should be encouraging to physicians who may view patients with LGS as not benefiting from treatment, said Daniel C. Tarquinio, DO, who presented the results at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

“Their response to their first appropriate weight-based rescue dose of Valtoco was essentially no different. They were subtly different, but they’re not really meaningful differences. Very few needed a second dose. In practice this is helpful because we know that kids with LGS, we think of them as having worse epilepsy, if you will. But if they need rescue, if we prescribe an appropriate rescue dose based on their weight, that the same rescue will work for them as it will for a kid that doesn’t have – quote unquote – as bad epilepsy that needs rescue,” said Dr. Tarquinio, a child neurologist and epileptologist and founder of the Center for Rare Neurological Diseases.

During the Q&A, Dr. Tarquinio was asked if there is something about the biology of LGS that would suggest it might respond differently to the drug. Dr. Tarquinio said no. “The reason we even looked at this is because many clinicians told us that their sense was [that patients with LGS] did not respond as well to rescue in general no matter what they use. This allowed us to go back and look at a controlled data set and say, at least in our controlled dataset, they respond the same,” he said.

Grace Gombolay, MD, who moderated the session, agreed that the results should be encouraging. “It seems like a lot of clinicians have the sense that Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome is a very terrible refractory epilepsy syndrome, and so doing rescue doesn’t seem to make sense if they don’t really respond. I think it’s helpful to know because there are actually studies showing that Valtoco seems to actually work in those patients, so it’s actually useful clinically to prescribe those patients and give it a shot,” said Dr. Gombolay, director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at Emory University, Atlanta.

LGS patients may experience hundreds of seizures per day. “It’s really hard for parents to quantify, did they get better? Did the rescue help or not, because they’re still having some seizures. I think the sense is, ‘oh, this isn’t working.’ That’s probably the bias. I think this is good data that if you are able to get Valtoco for your patients, I think it’s worth a shot even in Lennox-Gastaut,” said Dr. Gombolay.

The researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the phase 3, open-label, repeat-dose safety study of Valtoco. The study included a 12-month treatment period with visits at day 30 and every 60 days following. Patients had the option of staying on the drug following the end of the treatment period. Seizure and dosing information were obtained from a diary. The study enrolled 163 patients whose physicians believed they would need to be treated with a benzodiazepine at least once every other month to achieve seizure control. Dosing was determined by a combination of age and weight. If a second dose was required, caregivers were instructed to provide it 4-12 hours after the first dose.

In the study cohort, 47.9% of patients were aged 6-17 years. The researchers looked specifically at 73 cases of seizure clusters. In nine cases, the patient had LGS (five male, four female). Nearly all (95.9%) of LGS cluster cases were treated with a single dose and 4.1% were exposed to a second dose. Among 64 cases involving a patient with pediatric epileptic encephalopathies, 89.4% were treated with a single dose and 10.6% received a second. The safety profile was similar between patients with LGS and those with pediatric encephalopathies.

Dr. Gombolay has no relevant financial disclosures.

The authors of a new evidence review recommend the Canadian TIA Risk Score for managing patients who present to the emergency department or physician’s office with an apparent transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke.

“Many hospitals do not have enough stroke neurologists to see every patient with TIA or minor stroke within 24 hours. Likewise, many emergency departments around the world are stretched beyond capacity,” study author Jeffery J. Perry, MD, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said in an interview.

“This review corresponds to most of the recommendations by the American Heart Association and the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations,” he said. “It does, however, go further to differentiate high-risk versus low-risk patients for subsequent stroke using the Canadian TIA Score and offers practical suggestions for how to provide high-quality care in environments without the capacity to provide immediate vascular imaging, immediate MRI scanning, and immediate stroke specialist assessments.”

Most patients at low risk of a subsequent stroke (that is, patients with < 1% risk for a subsequent stroke at 7 days) can be managed safely as outpatients without causing delays in their departure for vascular imaging or neurology consultation during their initial emergency department visits, Dr. Perry added. “The Canadian TIA Score can be used to determine the urgency for an assessment by a stroke neurologist.”

The study was published  in CMAJ.
 

Score stratifies risk

Dr. Perry, lead author of the Canadian TIA Score validation study, said that the CMAJ editorial board approached him to write the review and to incorporate the new score into the latest recommendations. To include the latest evidence, Dr. Perry and colleagues reviewed the most recent position statements on TIA and minor stroke management and searched the literature for relevant articles. They note that the nomenclature related to TIA and minor stroke is inconsistent, that it’s not necessary to differentiate between the two from a clinical standpoint, and that the term “acute ischemic cerebrovascular syndrome” has been proposed to include both.

Broadly, the team’s recommended strategy for the diagnosis and management of the condition includes the following steps:

• Diagnosis: Sudden loss of motor function and impaired speech are strong indicators; symptoms tend to be negative (for example, loss of vision rather than flashing lights).
• Risk assessment: Use of the Canadian TIA Score to stratify 7-day stroke risk (low risk: < 1%, medium risk: 1%-5%, high risk: > 5%).
• Investigations: Urgent CT within 48 hours; vascular imaging to identify acutely symptomatic carotid stenosis in medium- to high-risk patients, as determined on the basis of the TIA score; ECG to identify atrial fibrillation or flutter and to optimize anticoagulant use; if the index of suspicion is high, echocardiography should be employed to look for cardioembolic sources.
• Management: Dual antiplatelet therapy for 21 days in medium- and high-risk patients; hypertension should be managed; patients should be referred for stroke clinic assessment; aggressive lifestyle changes should be initiated to lower lipid levels.

“I believe that our recommendations should be incorporated with the clinical guidelines,” said Dr. Perry.
 

Caveats and concerns

Commenting on the article, Steven M. Greenberg, MD, PhD, vice chair for faculty development of the department of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, “Although the proposed guidelines are broadly evidence-based and consistent with standard of care, there are several areas where stroke specialists might disagree and suggest alternative strategies.” Dr. Greenberg was not involved in the study.

While some lower-risk features, such as repetitive or stereotyped symptoms or vertigo, can be more suggestive of TIA mimics, he said that “these features need to be scrutinized quite carefully. Critical carotid stenosis, for example, can give rise to brief, repetitive, stereotyped low-flow TIAs that require urgent revascularization.”

Vertigo might be a feature of brainstem or cerebellar TIA or minor stroke, said Dr. Greenberg, especially in the setting of other posterior circulation symptoms. Validated guidelines for differentiating peripheral vertigo and CNS vertigo are available, he noted.

“Another caveat is that the studies demonstrating benefit of brief dual antiplatelet therapy following acute TIA or minor stroke were based on ABCD2 rather than the Canadian TIA score,” he said. “It is therefore important for any score-based recommendations to be applied in the overall context of existing stroke prevention guidelines.”

In addition to the recommendation for urgent vascular imaging of patients whose presentations suggest bona fide TIA or minor stroke, most guidelines also recommend extended cardiac monitoring and transthoracic ECG to identify potential sources of embolism, Dr. Greenberg added. “Users of these guidelines should also be aware of the limited yield of head CT, which is able to detect some old strokes, large acute strokes – presumably not relevant to patients presenting with TIA or minor stroke – and acute intracranial hemorrhages.”

Louis R. Caplan, MD, founder of the Harvard Stroke Registry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, also commented on the study.

While the review “is okay for care by nonstroke specialists, ideally, major referral centers could have a TIA or stroke clinic, as is present in much of Western Europe,” he said. This would allow the stroke etiology to be investigated for each patient.

“Many patients can be treated with the regimen outlined by the authors, but some with other conditions, such as atrial cardiopathy, patent foramen ovale, atrial myxoma, thrombus within the cardiac ventricle or atrium, will require anticoagulants,” he noted. “Thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy would be considered in some. Each stroke patient is different, and management cannot be homogenized into one remedy. One size does not fit all.”

In an accompanying commentary, Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, and Michael D. Hill, MD, both of the University of Calgary (Alta.), presented their team’s approach to the acute management of patients with likely cerebral ischemia. Such management includes risk assessment and stratification by clinical symptoms, rather than a particular score. They also typically conduct CT angiography. “If the CTA is completely normal (that is, no occlusion, no atherosclerosis or arterial dissection and no other vascular abnormality), we rely on the high negative predictive value of this result and discharge the patient home on antiplatelet treatment with outpatient follow-up, including MRI of the brain (since CT cannot reliably rule out minor ischemia) within the first week,” they write.

The review was conducted without commercial funding. Dr. Perry, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Caplan, Dr. Coutts, and Dr. Hill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The authors of a new evidence review recommend the Canadian TIA Risk Score for managing patients who present to the emergency department or physician’s office with an apparent transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke.

“Many hospitals do not have enough stroke neurologists to see every patient with TIA or minor stroke within 24 hours. Likewise, many emergency departments around the world are stretched beyond capacity,” study author Jeffery J. Perry, MD, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said in an interview.

“This review corresponds to most of the recommendations by the American Heart Association and the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations,” he said. “It does, however, go further to differentiate high-risk versus low-risk patients for subsequent stroke using the Canadian TIA Score and offers practical suggestions for how to provide high-quality care in environments without the capacity to provide immediate vascular imaging, immediate MRI scanning, and immediate stroke specialist assessments.”

Most patients at low risk of a subsequent stroke (that is, patients with < 1% risk for a subsequent stroke at 7 days) can be managed safely as outpatients without causing delays in their departure for vascular imaging or neurology consultation during their initial emergency department visits, Dr. Perry added. “The Canadian TIA Score can be used to determine the urgency for an assessment by a stroke neurologist.”

The study was published  in CMAJ.
 

Score stratifies risk

Dr. Perry, lead author of the Canadian TIA Score validation study, said that the CMAJ editorial board approached him to write the review and to incorporate the new score into the latest recommendations. To include the latest evidence, Dr. Perry and colleagues reviewed the most recent position statements on TIA and minor stroke management and searched the literature for relevant articles. They note that the nomenclature related to TIA and minor stroke is inconsistent, that it’s not necessary to differentiate between the two from a clinical standpoint, and that the term “acute ischemic cerebrovascular syndrome” has been proposed to include both.

Broadly, the team’s recommended strategy for the diagnosis and management of the condition includes the following steps:

• Diagnosis: Sudden loss of motor function and impaired speech are strong indicators; symptoms tend to be negative (for example, loss of vision rather than flashing lights).
• Risk assessment: Use of the Canadian TIA Score to stratify 7-day stroke risk (low risk: < 1%, medium risk: 1%-5%, high risk: > 5%).
• Investigations: Urgent CT within 48 hours; vascular imaging to identify acutely symptomatic carotid stenosis in medium- to high-risk patients, as determined on the basis of the TIA score; ECG to identify atrial fibrillation or flutter and to optimize anticoagulant use; if the index of suspicion is high, echocardiography should be employed to look for cardioembolic sources.
• Management: Dual antiplatelet therapy for 21 days in medium- and high-risk patients; hypertension should be managed; patients should be referred for stroke clinic assessment; aggressive lifestyle changes should be initiated to lower lipid levels.

“I believe that our recommendations should be incorporated with the clinical guidelines,” said Dr. Perry.
 

Caveats and concerns

Commenting on the article, Steven M. Greenberg, MD, PhD, vice chair for faculty development of the department of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, “Although the proposed guidelines are broadly evidence-based and consistent with standard of care, there are several areas where stroke specialists might disagree and suggest alternative strategies.” Dr. Greenberg was not involved in the study.

While some lower-risk features, such as repetitive or stereotyped symptoms or vertigo, can be more suggestive of TIA mimics, he said that “these features need to be scrutinized quite carefully. Critical carotid stenosis, for example, can give rise to brief, repetitive, stereotyped low-flow TIAs that require urgent revascularization.”

Vertigo might be a feature of brainstem or cerebellar TIA or minor stroke, said Dr. Greenberg, especially in the setting of other posterior circulation symptoms. Validated guidelines for differentiating peripheral vertigo and CNS vertigo are available, he noted.

“Another caveat is that the studies demonstrating benefit of brief dual antiplatelet therapy following acute TIA or minor stroke were based on ABCD2 rather than the Canadian TIA score,” he said. “It is therefore important for any score-based recommendations to be applied in the overall context of existing stroke prevention guidelines.”

In addition to the recommendation for urgent vascular imaging of patients whose presentations suggest bona fide TIA or minor stroke, most guidelines also recommend extended cardiac monitoring and transthoracic ECG to identify potential sources of embolism, Dr. Greenberg added. “Users of these guidelines should also be aware of the limited yield of head CT, which is able to detect some old strokes, large acute strokes – presumably not relevant to patients presenting with TIA or minor stroke – and acute intracranial hemorrhages.”

Louis R. Caplan, MD, founder of the Harvard Stroke Registry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, also commented on the study.

While the review “is okay for care by nonstroke specialists, ideally, major referral centers could have a TIA or stroke clinic, as is present in much of Western Europe,” he said. This would allow the stroke etiology to be investigated for each patient.

“Many patients can be treated with the regimen outlined by the authors, but some with other conditions, such as atrial cardiopathy, patent foramen ovale, atrial myxoma, thrombus within the cardiac ventricle or atrium, will require anticoagulants,” he noted. “Thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy would be considered in some. Each stroke patient is different, and management cannot be homogenized into one remedy. One size does not fit all.”

In an accompanying commentary, Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, and Michael D. Hill, MD, both of the University of Calgary (Alta.), presented their team’s approach to the acute management of patients with likely cerebral ischemia. Such management includes risk assessment and stratification by clinical symptoms, rather than a particular score. They also typically conduct CT angiography. “If the CTA is completely normal (that is, no occlusion, no atherosclerosis or arterial dissection and no other vascular abnormality), we rely on the high negative predictive value of this result and discharge the patient home on antiplatelet treatment with outpatient follow-up, including MRI of the brain (since CT cannot reliably rule out minor ischemia) within the first week,” they write.

The review was conducted without commercial funding. Dr. Perry, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Caplan, Dr. Coutts, and Dr. Hill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The authors of a new evidence review recommend the Canadian TIA Risk Score for managing patients who present to the emergency department or physician’s office with an apparent transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke.

“Many hospitals do not have enough stroke neurologists to see every patient with TIA or minor stroke within 24 hours. Likewise, many emergency departments around the world are stretched beyond capacity,” study author Jeffery J. Perry, MD, senior scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said in an interview.

“This review corresponds to most of the recommendations by the American Heart Association and the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations,” he said. “It does, however, go further to differentiate high-risk versus low-risk patients for subsequent stroke using the Canadian TIA Score and offers practical suggestions for how to provide high-quality care in environments without the capacity to provide immediate vascular imaging, immediate MRI scanning, and immediate stroke specialist assessments.”

Most patients at low risk of a subsequent stroke (that is, patients with < 1% risk for a subsequent stroke at 7 days) can be managed safely as outpatients without causing delays in their departure for vascular imaging or neurology consultation during their initial emergency department visits, Dr. Perry added. “The Canadian TIA Score can be used to determine the urgency for an assessment by a stroke neurologist.”

The study was published  in CMAJ.
 

Score stratifies risk

Dr. Perry, lead author of the Canadian TIA Score validation study, said that the CMAJ editorial board approached him to write the review and to incorporate the new score into the latest recommendations. To include the latest evidence, Dr. Perry and colleagues reviewed the most recent position statements on TIA and minor stroke management and searched the literature for relevant articles. They note that the nomenclature related to TIA and minor stroke is inconsistent, that it’s not necessary to differentiate between the two from a clinical standpoint, and that the term “acute ischemic cerebrovascular syndrome” has been proposed to include both.

Broadly, the team’s recommended strategy for the diagnosis and management of the condition includes the following steps:

• Diagnosis: Sudden loss of motor function and impaired speech are strong indicators; symptoms tend to be negative (for example, loss of vision rather than flashing lights).
• Risk assessment: Use of the Canadian TIA Score to stratify 7-day stroke risk (low risk: < 1%, medium risk: 1%-5%, high risk: > 5%).
• Investigations: Urgent CT within 48 hours; vascular imaging to identify acutely symptomatic carotid stenosis in medium- to high-risk patients, as determined on the basis of the TIA score; ECG to identify atrial fibrillation or flutter and to optimize anticoagulant use; if the index of suspicion is high, echocardiography should be employed to look for cardioembolic sources.
• Management: Dual antiplatelet therapy for 21 days in medium- and high-risk patients; hypertension should be managed; patients should be referred for stroke clinic assessment; aggressive lifestyle changes should be initiated to lower lipid levels.

“I believe that our recommendations should be incorporated with the clinical guidelines,” said Dr. Perry.
 

Caveats and concerns

Commenting on the article, Steven M. Greenberg, MD, PhD, vice chair for faculty development of the department of neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said, “Although the proposed guidelines are broadly evidence-based and consistent with standard of care, there are several areas where stroke specialists might disagree and suggest alternative strategies.” Dr. Greenberg was not involved in the study.

While some lower-risk features, such as repetitive or stereotyped symptoms or vertigo, can be more suggestive of TIA mimics, he said that “these features need to be scrutinized quite carefully. Critical carotid stenosis, for example, can give rise to brief, repetitive, stereotyped low-flow TIAs that require urgent revascularization.”

Vertigo might be a feature of brainstem or cerebellar TIA or minor stroke, said Dr. Greenberg, especially in the setting of other posterior circulation symptoms. Validated guidelines for differentiating peripheral vertigo and CNS vertigo are available, he noted.

“Another caveat is that the studies demonstrating benefit of brief dual antiplatelet therapy following acute TIA or minor stroke were based on ABCD2 rather than the Canadian TIA score,” he said. “It is therefore important for any score-based recommendations to be applied in the overall context of existing stroke prevention guidelines.”

In addition to the recommendation for urgent vascular imaging of patients whose presentations suggest bona fide TIA or minor stroke, most guidelines also recommend extended cardiac monitoring and transthoracic ECG to identify potential sources of embolism, Dr. Greenberg added. “Users of these guidelines should also be aware of the limited yield of head CT, which is able to detect some old strokes, large acute strokes – presumably not relevant to patients presenting with TIA or minor stroke – and acute intracranial hemorrhages.”

Louis R. Caplan, MD, founder of the Harvard Stroke Registry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, also commented on the study.

While the review “is okay for care by nonstroke specialists, ideally, major referral centers could have a TIA or stroke clinic, as is present in much of Western Europe,” he said. This would allow the stroke etiology to be investigated for each patient.

“Many patients can be treated with the regimen outlined by the authors, but some with other conditions, such as atrial cardiopathy, patent foramen ovale, atrial myxoma, thrombus within the cardiac ventricle or atrium, will require anticoagulants,” he noted. “Thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy would be considered in some. Each stroke patient is different, and management cannot be homogenized into one remedy. One size does not fit all.”

In an accompanying commentary, Shelagh B. Coutts, MD, and Michael D. Hill, MD, both of the University of Calgary (Alta.), presented their team’s approach to the acute management of patients with likely cerebral ischemia. Such management includes risk assessment and stratification by clinical symptoms, rather than a particular score. They also typically conduct CT angiography. “If the CTA is completely normal (that is, no occlusion, no atherosclerosis or arterial dissection and no other vascular abnormality), we rely on the high negative predictive value of this result and discharge the patient home on antiplatelet treatment with outpatient follow-up, including MRI of the brain (since CT cannot reliably rule out minor ischemia) within the first week,” they write.

The review was conducted without commercial funding. Dr. Perry, Dr. Greenberg, Dr. Caplan, Dr. Coutts, and Dr. Hill have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pediatric patients with epilepsy have an increased risk of cardiovascular complications later in life, but little is known about how they progress. A new study finds that abnormalities in electrocardiograms are linked to an earlier age of diagnosis and longer epilepsy duration.

The findings could help researchers in the search for biomarkers that could predict later problems in children with epilepsy. “In pediatric neurology I think we’re a little bit removed from some of the cardiovascular complications that can happen within epilepsy, but cardiovascular complications are well established, especially in adults that have epilepsy. Adults with epilepsy are more likely to have coronary artery disease, atherosclerosis, arrhythmias, heart attacks, and sudden cardiac death. It’s a pretty substantial difference compared with their nonepileptic peers. So knowing that, the big question is, how do these changes develop, and how do we really counsel our patients in regards to these complications?” said Brittnie Bartlett, MD, during her presentation of the research at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

Identifying factors that increase cardiac complications

Previous studies suggested that epilepsy duration might be linked to cardiovascular complications. In children with Dravet syndrome, epilepsy duration has been shown to be associated with cardiac complications. Pathological T wave alternans, which indicates ventricular instability, has been observed in adults with longstanding epilepsy but not adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

“So our question in this preliminary report of our data is: What factors in our general pediatric epilepsy cohort can we identify that put them at a greater risk for having EKG changes, and specifically, we wanted to verify these findings from the other studies that epilepsy duration is, in fact, a risk factor for these EKG changes in general [among children] with epilepsy aside from channelopathies,” said Dr. Bartlett, who is an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine and a child neurologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

She presented a striking finding that cardiovascular changes appear early. “The most important thing I want you all to make note of is the fact that, in this baseline study that we got on these kids, 47% already had changes that we were seeing on their EKGs,” said Dr. Bartlett.

The researchers also looked for factors associated with EKG changes, and found that duration of epilepsy and age at diagnosis were the two salient factors. “Our kids that did have EKG changes present had an average epilepsy duration of 73 months, as opposed to [the children] that did not have EKG changes and had an average epilepsy duration of 46 months,” said Dr. Bartlett.

Other factors, such epilepsy type, etiology, refractory epilepsy, and seizure frequency had no statistically significant association with EKG changes. They also saw no associations with high-risk seizure medications, even though some antiseizure drugs have been shown to be linked to EKG changes.

“We were able to confirm our hypothesis that EKG changes were more prevalent with longer duration of epilepsy. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to find any other clues that would help us counsel our patients, but this is part of a longitudinal prospective study that we’ll be following these kids over a couple of years’ time, so maybe we’ll be able to tease out some of these differences. Ideally, we’d be able to find some kind of a biomarker for future cardiovascular complications, and right now we’re working with some multivariable models to verify some of these findings,” said Dr. Bartlett.

Implications for clinical practice

During the Q&A, Dr. Bartlett was asked if all kids with epilepsy should undergo an EKG. She recommended against it for now. “At this point, I don’t think we have enough clear data to support getting an EKG on every kid with epilepsy. I do think it’s good practice to do them on all kids with channelopathies. As a general practice, I tend to have a low threshold towards many kids with epilepsy, but a lot of these cardiovascular risk factors tend to pop up more in adulthood, so it’s more preventative,” she said.

Grace Gombolay, MD, who moderated the session where the poster was presented, was asked for comment on the study. “What’s surprising about it is that up to half of patients actually had EKG changes, different what from what we see in normal population, and it’s interesting to think about the implications. One of the things that our epilepsy patients are at risk for is SUDEP – sudden, unexplained death in epilepsy. It’s interesting to think about what these EKG changes mean for clinical care. I think it’s too early to say at this time, but this might be one of those markers for SUDEP,” said Dr. Gombolay, who is an assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, and director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

The researchers prospectively studied 213 patients who were recruited. 46% were female, 42% were white, 41% were Hispanic, and 13% were African American. The mean age at enrollment was 116 months, and mean age of seizure onset was 45 months.

The researchers found that 47% had abnormal EKG readings. None of the changes were pathologic, but they may reflect changes to cardiac electrophysiology, according to Dr. Bartlett. Those with abnormal readings were older on average (11.6 vs. 8.3 years; P < .005) and had a longer epilepsy duration (73 vs. 46 months; P = .004).

Dr. Gombolay has no relevant financial disclosures.

Pediatric patients with epilepsy have an increased risk of cardiovascular complications later in life, but little is known about how they progress. A new study finds that abnormalities in electrocardiograms are linked to an earlier age of diagnosis and longer epilepsy duration.

The findings could help researchers in the search for biomarkers that could predict later problems in children with epilepsy. “In pediatric neurology I think we’re a little bit removed from some of the cardiovascular complications that can happen within epilepsy, but cardiovascular complications are well established, especially in adults that have epilepsy. Adults with epilepsy are more likely to have coronary artery disease, atherosclerosis, arrhythmias, heart attacks, and sudden cardiac death. It’s a pretty substantial difference compared with their nonepileptic peers. So knowing that, the big question is, how do these changes develop, and how do we really counsel our patients in regards to these complications?” said Brittnie Bartlett, MD, during her presentation of the research at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

Identifying factors that increase cardiac complications

Previous studies suggested that epilepsy duration might be linked to cardiovascular complications. In children with Dravet syndrome, epilepsy duration has been shown to be associated with cardiac complications. Pathological T wave alternans, which indicates ventricular instability, has been observed in adults with longstanding epilepsy but not adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

“So our question in this preliminary report of our data is: What factors in our general pediatric epilepsy cohort can we identify that put them at a greater risk for having EKG changes, and specifically, we wanted to verify these findings from the other studies that epilepsy duration is, in fact, a risk factor for these EKG changes in general [among children] with epilepsy aside from channelopathies,” said Dr. Bartlett, who is an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine and a child neurologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

She presented a striking finding that cardiovascular changes appear early. “The most important thing I want you all to make note of is the fact that, in this baseline study that we got on these kids, 47% already had changes that we were seeing on their EKGs,” said Dr. Bartlett.

The researchers also looked for factors associated with EKG changes, and found that duration of epilepsy and age at diagnosis were the two salient factors. “Our kids that did have EKG changes present had an average epilepsy duration of 73 months, as opposed to [the children] that did not have EKG changes and had an average epilepsy duration of 46 months,” said Dr. Bartlett.

Other factors, such epilepsy type, etiology, refractory epilepsy, and seizure frequency had no statistically significant association with EKG changes. They also saw no associations with high-risk seizure medications, even though some antiseizure drugs have been shown to be linked to EKG changes.

“We were able to confirm our hypothesis that EKG changes were more prevalent with longer duration of epilepsy. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to find any other clues that would help us counsel our patients, but this is part of a longitudinal prospective study that we’ll be following these kids over a couple of years’ time, so maybe we’ll be able to tease out some of these differences. Ideally, we’d be able to find some kind of a biomarker for future cardiovascular complications, and right now we’re working with some multivariable models to verify some of these findings,” said Dr. Bartlett.

Implications for clinical practice

During the Q&A, Dr. Bartlett was asked if all kids with epilepsy should undergo an EKG. She recommended against it for now. “At this point, I don’t think we have enough clear data to support getting an EKG on every kid with epilepsy. I do think it’s good practice to do them on all kids with channelopathies. As a general practice, I tend to have a low threshold towards many kids with epilepsy, but a lot of these cardiovascular risk factors tend to pop up more in adulthood, so it’s more preventative,” she said.

Grace Gombolay, MD, who moderated the session where the poster was presented, was asked for comment on the study. “What’s surprising about it is that up to half of patients actually had EKG changes, different what from what we see in normal population, and it’s interesting to think about the implications. One of the things that our epilepsy patients are at risk for is SUDEP – sudden, unexplained death in epilepsy. It’s interesting to think about what these EKG changes mean for clinical care. I think it’s too early to say at this time, but this might be one of those markers for SUDEP,” said Dr. Gombolay, who is an assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, and director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

The researchers prospectively studied 213 patients who were recruited. 46% were female, 42% were white, 41% were Hispanic, and 13% were African American. The mean age at enrollment was 116 months, and mean age of seizure onset was 45 months.

The researchers found that 47% had abnormal EKG readings. None of the changes were pathologic, but they may reflect changes to cardiac electrophysiology, according to Dr. Bartlett. Those with abnormal readings were older on average (11.6 vs. 8.3 years; P < .005) and had a longer epilepsy duration (73 vs. 46 months; P = .004).

Dr. Gombolay has no relevant financial disclosures.

Pediatric patients with epilepsy have an increased risk of cardiovascular complications later in life, but little is known about how they progress. A new study finds that abnormalities in electrocardiograms are linked to an earlier age of diagnosis and longer epilepsy duration.

The findings could help researchers in the search for biomarkers that could predict later problems in children with epilepsy. “In pediatric neurology I think we’re a little bit removed from some of the cardiovascular complications that can happen within epilepsy, but cardiovascular complications are well established, especially in adults that have epilepsy. Adults with epilepsy are more likely to have coronary artery disease, atherosclerosis, arrhythmias, heart attacks, and sudden cardiac death. It’s a pretty substantial difference compared with their nonepileptic peers. So knowing that, the big question is, how do these changes develop, and how do we really counsel our patients in regards to these complications?” said Brittnie Bartlett, MD, during her presentation of the research at the 2022 annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

Identifying factors that increase cardiac complications

Previous studies suggested that epilepsy duration might be linked to cardiovascular complications. In children with Dravet syndrome, epilepsy duration has been shown to be associated with cardiac complications. Pathological T wave alternans, which indicates ventricular instability, has been observed in adults with longstanding epilepsy but not adults with newly diagnosed epilepsy.

“So our question in this preliminary report of our data is: What factors in our general pediatric epilepsy cohort can we identify that put them at a greater risk for having EKG changes, and specifically, we wanted to verify these findings from the other studies that epilepsy duration is, in fact, a risk factor for these EKG changes in general [among children] with epilepsy aside from channelopathies,” said Dr. Bartlett, who is an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine and a child neurologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston.

She presented a striking finding that cardiovascular changes appear early. “The most important thing I want you all to make note of is the fact that, in this baseline study that we got on these kids, 47% already had changes that we were seeing on their EKGs,” said Dr. Bartlett.

The researchers also looked for factors associated with EKG changes, and found that duration of epilepsy and age at diagnosis were the two salient factors. “Our kids that did have EKG changes present had an average epilepsy duration of 73 months, as opposed to [the children] that did not have EKG changes and had an average epilepsy duration of 46 months,” said Dr. Bartlett.

Other factors, such epilepsy type, etiology, refractory epilepsy, and seizure frequency had no statistically significant association with EKG changes. They also saw no associations with high-risk seizure medications, even though some antiseizure drugs have been shown to be linked to EKG changes.

“We were able to confirm our hypothesis that EKG changes were more prevalent with longer duration of epilepsy. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to find any other clues that would help us counsel our patients, but this is part of a longitudinal prospective study that we’ll be following these kids over a couple of years’ time, so maybe we’ll be able to tease out some of these differences. Ideally, we’d be able to find some kind of a biomarker for future cardiovascular complications, and right now we’re working with some multivariable models to verify some of these findings,” said Dr. Bartlett.

Implications for clinical practice

During the Q&A, Dr. Bartlett was asked if all kids with epilepsy should undergo an EKG. She recommended against it for now. “At this point, I don’t think we have enough clear data to support getting an EKG on every kid with epilepsy. I do think it’s good practice to do them on all kids with channelopathies. As a general practice, I tend to have a low threshold towards many kids with epilepsy, but a lot of these cardiovascular risk factors tend to pop up more in adulthood, so it’s more preventative,” she said.

Grace Gombolay, MD, who moderated the session where the poster was presented, was asked for comment on the study. “What’s surprising about it is that up to half of patients actually had EKG changes, different what from what we see in normal population, and it’s interesting to think about the implications. One of the things that our epilepsy patients are at risk for is SUDEP – sudden, unexplained death in epilepsy. It’s interesting to think about what these EKG changes mean for clinical care. I think it’s too early to say at this time, but this might be one of those markers for SUDEP,” said Dr. Gombolay, who is an assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, and director of the Pediatric Neuroimmunology and Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

The researchers prospectively studied 213 patients who were recruited. 46% were female, 42% were white, 41% were Hispanic, and 13% were African American. The mean age at enrollment was 116 months, and mean age of seizure onset was 45 months.

The researchers found that 47% had abnormal EKG readings. None of the changes were pathologic, but they may reflect changes to cardiac electrophysiology, according to Dr. Bartlett. Those with abnormal readings were older on average (11.6 vs. 8.3 years; P < .005) and had a longer epilepsy duration (73 vs. 46 months; P = .004).

Dr. Gombolay has no relevant financial disclosures.