Kelli Whitlock Burton

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is six times higher in people with COVID-19 in the 6 weeks following infection, according to a new study that also showed receipt of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine reduced GSB risk by 59%.

METHODOLOGY:

• The nested-case control study analyzed data from the largest healthcare provider in Israel for 3.2 million patients aged 16 years and older, with no history of GBS.
• GBS cases (n = 76) were identified based on hospital discharge data from January 2021 to June 2022.
• For every GBS case, investigators chose 10 controls at random, matched for age, gender, and follow-up duration (n = 760).
• Investigators examined the association between GBS and SARS-CoV-2 infection, established through documentation of prior positive SARS-CoV-2 test (PCR or antigen), and any COVID-19 vaccine administration.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among those diagnosed with GBS, 8 were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection only, 7 were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination only, and 1 patient was exposed to both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 6 weeks, leaving 60 GBS patients without exposure to either infection or vaccination.
• All COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in GBS cases within 6 weeks of the index date, and all but two doses administered in controls in the same timeframe, were Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
• Compared with people without GBS, those with the condition were more than six times as likely to have had SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 weeks of GBS diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 6.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-15.56).
• People who received the COVID-19 vaccine were 59% less likely to develop GBS than those who did not get the vaccine (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“While Guillain-Barré is extremely rare, people should be aware that having a COVID infection can increase their risk of developing the disorder, and receiving an mRNA vaccine can decrease their risk,” study author Anat Arbel, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

In addition to Dr. Arbel, the other lead author is Haya Bishara, MD, of Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center. The research was published online  in the journal Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There is a possibility of misclassification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which could lead to an overestimation of the magnitude of association between infection and GBS. The diagnosis of GBS relied solely on ICD-9 coding, which has been shown in prior studies to contain errors.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was unfunded. Dr. Bishara and Dr. Arbel report no relevant financial relationships. One co-author, Eitan Auriel, MD, has received lecturer fees from Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medison.

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

TOPLINE:

More physical activity in late childhood is associated with an increase in brain volume in regions involved in cognition, emotion, learning, and psychiatric illness.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used data on 1,088 children (52% girls) in the Generation R Study, a 4-year longitudinal population-based cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• At age 10 years, children and their caregivers reported on children’s level of physical activity and sports involvement.
• Investigators measured changes in participants’ brain volume via MRI at ages 10 and 14 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Every 1 additional hour per week in sports participation was associated with a 64.0-mm³ larger volume change in subcortical gray matter (P = .04).
• Every 1 additional hour per week in total physical activity was associated with a 154.0-mm³ larger volume change in total white matter (P = .02).
• Total physical activity reported by any source (P = .03) and child reports of outdoor play (P = .01) were associated with increased amygdala volume over time.
• Total physical activity reported by the children was associated with hippocampal volume increases (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity is one of the most promising environmental exposures favorably influencing health across the lifespan,” the authors write. “This study adds to prior literature by highlighting the neurodevelopmental benefits physical activity may have on the architecture of the amygdala and hippocampus.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fernando Estévez-López, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, the SPORT Research Group and CERNEP Research Center at the University of Almería (Spain), and Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online on in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only accounted for confounders at baseline, does not establish causation, and utilized unvalidated questionnaires to gather information on physical activity.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors report receiving financial support, but there was no specific funding for this study. Dr. Estévez-López reports no relevant financial conflicts. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

More physical activity in late childhood is associated with an increase in brain volume in regions involved in cognition, emotion, learning, and psychiatric illness.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used data on 1,088 children (52% girls) in the Generation R Study, a 4-year longitudinal population-based cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• At age 10 years, children and their caregivers reported on children’s level of physical activity and sports involvement.
• Investigators measured changes in participants’ brain volume via MRI at ages 10 and 14 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Every 1 additional hour per week in sports participation was associated with a 64.0-mm³ larger volume change in subcortical gray matter (P = .04).
• Every 1 additional hour per week in total physical activity was associated with a 154.0-mm³ larger volume change in total white matter (P = .02).
• Total physical activity reported by any source (P = .03) and child reports of outdoor play (P = .01) were associated with increased amygdala volume over time.
• Total physical activity reported by the children was associated with hippocampal volume increases (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity is one of the most promising environmental exposures favorably influencing health across the lifespan,” the authors write. “This study adds to prior literature by highlighting the neurodevelopmental benefits physical activity may have on the architecture of the amygdala and hippocampus.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fernando Estévez-López, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, the SPORT Research Group and CERNEP Research Center at the University of Almería (Spain), and Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online on in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only accounted for confounders at baseline, does not establish causation, and utilized unvalidated questionnaires to gather information on physical activity.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors report receiving financial support, but there was no specific funding for this study. Dr. Estévez-López reports no relevant financial conflicts. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

More physical activity in late childhood is associated with an increase in brain volume in regions involved in cognition, emotion, learning, and psychiatric illness.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators used data on 1,088 children (52% girls) in the Generation R Study, a 4-year longitudinal population-based cohort study in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• At age 10 years, children and their caregivers reported on children’s level of physical activity and sports involvement.
• Investigators measured changes in participants’ brain volume via MRI at ages 10 and 14 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Every 1 additional hour per week in sports participation was associated with a 64.0-mm³ larger volume change in subcortical gray matter (P = .04).
• Every 1 additional hour per week in total physical activity was associated with a 154.0-mm³ larger volume change in total white matter (P = .02).
• Total physical activity reported by any source (P = .03) and child reports of outdoor play (P = .01) were associated with increased amygdala volume over time.
• Total physical activity reported by the children was associated with hippocampal volume increases (P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Physical activity is one of the most promising environmental exposures favorably influencing health across the lifespan,” the authors write. “This study adds to prior literature by highlighting the neurodevelopmental benefits physical activity may have on the architecture of the amygdala and hippocampus.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Fernando Estévez-López, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, the SPORT Research Group and CERNEP Research Center at the University of Almería (Spain), and Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online on in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only accounted for confounders at baseline, does not establish causation, and utilized unvalidated questionnaires to gather information on physical activity.

DISCLOSURES:

Individual authors report receiving financial support, but there was no specific funding for this study. Dr. Estévez-López reports no relevant financial conflicts. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
• Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
• Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
• The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
• There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
• Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
• Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
• The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
• There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
• Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
• Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
• The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
• There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

New guidelines on determining brain death offer the first updated recommendations in more than a decade for adult and pediatric patients.

The consensus practice guideline on brain death, also known as death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), was developed by a panel of 20 experts from different specialties, institutions, and medical societies.

As with previous guidelines, the updated version stipulates that brain death should be declared when a patient with a known cause of catastrophic brain injury has permanent loss of function of the brain, including the brain stem, which results in coma, brain stem areflexia, and apnea in the setting of an adequate stimulus.

But the updated version also clarifies questions on neurological examinations and apnea testing and offers new guidance on pre-evaluation targets for blood pressure and body temperature and evaluating brain death in patients who are pregnant, are on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or have an injury to the base of the brain.

Also, for the first time, the guidance clarifies that clinicians don’t need to obtain consent before performing a brain death evaluation, unless institutional policy, state laws, or regulations stipulate otherwise.

“The 2023 guidelines will be considered the standard of care in the U.S.,” lead author David M. Greer, MD, chair and chief of neurology, Boston University, and chief of neurology, Boston Medical Center, said in an interview. “Each hospital in the U.S. is responsible for its own policy for BD/DNC determination, and our hope is that they will quickly revise their policies in accordance with this new national standard.”

The guidelines, which are accompanied by a three-page checklist and a free digital app, were published online in Neurology.
 

Four years in the making

Work on the 85 recommendations in the new report began more than 4 years ago as a collaborative effort by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Neurology Society, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

A lack of high-quality evidence on brain death determination led panelists to devise an evidence-informed formal consensus process to develop the guidelines, which involved three rounds of anonymous voting on each recommendation and the rationales behind them.

The strength of each recommendation was based on the level of consensus reached through voting, with Level A denoting a recommendation that “must” be followed, Level B one that “should” be followed, and Level C one that “may” be followed.

The majority of recommendations received an A or B rating. Only one recommendation, about whether a second clinical exam is needed in adults, garnered a C rating.

In children, the guidelines recommend that clinicians must perform two clinical examinations and two apnea tests 12 hours apart. In adults, only one exam is required. Both of those recommendations were rated Level A. A recommendation for a second exam in adults received the single Level C rating.
 

A uniform set of guidelines?

The new guidelines replace adult practice guidance published by AAN in 2010 and guideline for infants and children released in 2011 by AAP, CNS, and SCCM, and for the first time combine brain death guidelines for adult and pediatric patients into one document.

“It is important for clinicians to review the new guideline carefully and ensure their hospital brain death guidelines are updated to be consistent with the new guideline in order to prevent inaccurate determinations of death,” guidelines coauthor Ariane Lewis, MD, NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview.

The 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) is the legal foundation for the declaration of BD/DNC in the United States, but it only stipulates that brain death determination must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

There is no single national standard, and states and hospitals are free to adopt their own, which many have done. One goal of the new guidelines was to create a uniform set of guidelines that all institutions follow.

“This is a step toward having a set of guidelines that are accepted by most of the societies and clinical specialties involved in this sort of diagnosis,” that could lead to a national-level policy, Fernando Goldenberg, MD, professor of neurology and director of neuroscience critical care, University of Chicago Medicine, said in an interview.

Dr. Goldenberg was not part of the panel that developed the updated guidelines, but was a coauthor of a consensus statement from the World Brain Death Project in 2020.

Developing a singular global guideline for brain death determination is unlikely, Dr. Goldenberg said. Policies vary widely across the world, and some countries don’t even recognize brain death.

“But this attempts to unify things at the U.S. level, which is very important,” he said.
 

Permanent vs. irreversible

Dr. Goldenberg said that combining adult and pediatric guidelines into one document will be very helpful for clinicians like him who treat patients from age 16 years and up.

The expanded guidance on apnea testing, recommendations on specific ancillary tests to use or avoid, and inclusion of language stipulating that prior consent is not needed to perform a brain death evaluation are also useful.

He also noted that the section on credentialing and training of clinicians who perform BD/DNC evaluations recognizes advanced practice providers, the first time he recalls seeing these professionals included in brain death guidelines.

However, the panel’s decision to use the term “permanent” to describe loss of brain function instead of “irreversible” gave Dr. Goldenberg pause.

The UDDA provides that an individual is declared legally dead when “circulatory and respiratory functions irreversibly stop; or all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, irreversibly stop.”

Earlier in October, the American College of Physicians released a position paper on cardiorespiratory death determination that called for a revision of the UDDA language.

The ACP suggested that “irreversibly” be replaced with “permanently” with regard to the cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, but that “irreversible” be kept in the description of brain death.

“Permanent means that there is damage that is potentially reversible and irreversible means that the damage is so profound, it cannot be reversed even if an attempt to do so is performed,” Dr. Goldenberg said.

Even though the World Brain Death Project, on which he worked, also used “permanent” to describe brain function loss, Dr. Goldenberg said he aligns with ACP’s position.

“The understanding of brain death is that the damage is so profound, it is irreversible, even if you were to try,” he said. “Therefore, I think that the most appropriate term for brain death should be irreversible as opposed to permanent.”

The report was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Greer has received travel funding from Boston University; serves as editor-in-chief for Seminars in Neurology; receives publishing royalties for 50 Studies Every Neurologist Should Know and Successful Leadership in Academic Medicine; has received honoraria from AAN; has received research funding from Becton, Dickinson, and Company; and has served as expert witness in legal proceedings. Dr. Lewis has received honoraria from AAN and Neurodiem, serves as Neurology deputy editor of disputes and debates, and serves as deputy editor of seminars in Neurology. Dr. Goldenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New guidelines on determining brain death offer the first updated recommendations in more than a decade for adult and pediatric patients.

The consensus practice guideline on brain death, also known as death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), was developed by a panel of 20 experts from different specialties, institutions, and medical societies.

As with previous guidelines, the updated version stipulates that brain death should be declared when a patient with a known cause of catastrophic brain injury has permanent loss of function of the brain, including the brain stem, which results in coma, brain stem areflexia, and apnea in the setting of an adequate stimulus.

But the updated version also clarifies questions on neurological examinations and apnea testing and offers new guidance on pre-evaluation targets for blood pressure and body temperature and evaluating brain death in patients who are pregnant, are on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or have an injury to the base of the brain.

Also, for the first time, the guidance clarifies that clinicians don’t need to obtain consent before performing a brain death evaluation, unless institutional policy, state laws, or regulations stipulate otherwise.

“The 2023 guidelines will be considered the standard of care in the U.S.,” lead author David M. Greer, MD, chair and chief of neurology, Boston University, and chief of neurology, Boston Medical Center, said in an interview. “Each hospital in the U.S. is responsible for its own policy for BD/DNC determination, and our hope is that they will quickly revise their policies in accordance with this new national standard.”

The guidelines, which are accompanied by a three-page checklist and a free digital app, were published online in Neurology.
 

Four years in the making

Work on the 85 recommendations in the new report began more than 4 years ago as a collaborative effort by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Neurology Society, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

A lack of high-quality evidence on brain death determination led panelists to devise an evidence-informed formal consensus process to develop the guidelines, which involved three rounds of anonymous voting on each recommendation and the rationales behind them.

The strength of each recommendation was based on the level of consensus reached through voting, with Level A denoting a recommendation that “must” be followed, Level B one that “should” be followed, and Level C one that “may” be followed.

The majority of recommendations received an A or B rating. Only one recommendation, about whether a second clinical exam is needed in adults, garnered a C rating.

In children, the guidelines recommend that clinicians must perform two clinical examinations and two apnea tests 12 hours apart. In adults, only one exam is required. Both of those recommendations were rated Level A. A recommendation for a second exam in adults received the single Level C rating.
 

A uniform set of guidelines?

The new guidelines replace adult practice guidance published by AAN in 2010 and guideline for infants and children released in 2011 by AAP, CNS, and SCCM, and for the first time combine brain death guidelines for adult and pediatric patients into one document.

“It is important for clinicians to review the new guideline carefully and ensure their hospital brain death guidelines are updated to be consistent with the new guideline in order to prevent inaccurate determinations of death,” guidelines coauthor Ariane Lewis, MD, NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview.

The 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) is the legal foundation for the declaration of BD/DNC in the United States, but it only stipulates that brain death determination must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

There is no single national standard, and states and hospitals are free to adopt their own, which many have done. One goal of the new guidelines was to create a uniform set of guidelines that all institutions follow.

“This is a step toward having a set of guidelines that are accepted by most of the societies and clinical specialties involved in this sort of diagnosis,” that could lead to a national-level policy, Fernando Goldenberg, MD, professor of neurology and director of neuroscience critical care, University of Chicago Medicine, said in an interview.

Dr. Goldenberg was not part of the panel that developed the updated guidelines, but was a coauthor of a consensus statement from the World Brain Death Project in 2020.

Developing a singular global guideline for brain death determination is unlikely, Dr. Goldenberg said. Policies vary widely across the world, and some countries don’t even recognize brain death.

“But this attempts to unify things at the U.S. level, which is very important,” he said.
 

Permanent vs. irreversible

Dr. Goldenberg said that combining adult and pediatric guidelines into one document will be very helpful for clinicians like him who treat patients from age 16 years and up.

The expanded guidance on apnea testing, recommendations on specific ancillary tests to use or avoid, and inclusion of language stipulating that prior consent is not needed to perform a brain death evaluation are also useful.

He also noted that the section on credentialing and training of clinicians who perform BD/DNC evaluations recognizes advanced practice providers, the first time he recalls seeing these professionals included in brain death guidelines.

However, the panel’s decision to use the term “permanent” to describe loss of brain function instead of “irreversible” gave Dr. Goldenberg pause.

The UDDA provides that an individual is declared legally dead when “circulatory and respiratory functions irreversibly stop; or all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, irreversibly stop.”

Earlier in October, the American College of Physicians released a position paper on cardiorespiratory death determination that called for a revision of the UDDA language.

The ACP suggested that “irreversibly” be replaced with “permanently” with regard to the cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, but that “irreversible” be kept in the description of brain death.

“Permanent means that there is damage that is potentially reversible and irreversible means that the damage is so profound, it cannot be reversed even if an attempt to do so is performed,” Dr. Goldenberg said.

Even though the World Brain Death Project, on which he worked, also used “permanent” to describe brain function loss, Dr. Goldenberg said he aligns with ACP’s position.

“The understanding of brain death is that the damage is so profound, it is irreversible, even if you were to try,” he said. “Therefore, I think that the most appropriate term for brain death should be irreversible as opposed to permanent.”

The report was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Greer has received travel funding from Boston University; serves as editor-in-chief for Seminars in Neurology; receives publishing royalties for 50 Studies Every Neurologist Should Know and Successful Leadership in Academic Medicine; has received honoraria from AAN; has received research funding from Becton, Dickinson, and Company; and has served as expert witness in legal proceedings. Dr. Lewis has received honoraria from AAN and Neurodiem, serves as Neurology deputy editor of disputes and debates, and serves as deputy editor of seminars in Neurology. Dr. Goldenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New guidelines on determining brain death offer the first updated recommendations in more than a decade for adult and pediatric patients.

The consensus practice guideline on brain death, also known as death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC), was developed by a panel of 20 experts from different specialties, institutions, and medical societies.

As with previous guidelines, the updated version stipulates that brain death should be declared when a patient with a known cause of catastrophic brain injury has permanent loss of function of the brain, including the brain stem, which results in coma, brain stem areflexia, and apnea in the setting of an adequate stimulus.

But the updated version also clarifies questions on neurological examinations and apnea testing and offers new guidance on pre-evaluation targets for blood pressure and body temperature and evaluating brain death in patients who are pregnant, are on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or have an injury to the base of the brain.

Also, for the first time, the guidance clarifies that clinicians don’t need to obtain consent before performing a brain death evaluation, unless institutional policy, state laws, or regulations stipulate otherwise.

“The 2023 guidelines will be considered the standard of care in the U.S.,” lead author David M. Greer, MD, chair and chief of neurology, Boston University, and chief of neurology, Boston Medical Center, said in an interview. “Each hospital in the U.S. is responsible for its own policy for BD/DNC determination, and our hope is that they will quickly revise their policies in accordance with this new national standard.”

The guidelines, which are accompanied by a three-page checklist and a free digital app, were published online in Neurology.
 

Four years in the making

Work on the 85 recommendations in the new report began more than 4 years ago as a collaborative effort by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Neurology Society, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

A lack of high-quality evidence on brain death determination led panelists to devise an evidence-informed formal consensus process to develop the guidelines, which involved three rounds of anonymous voting on each recommendation and the rationales behind them.

The strength of each recommendation was based on the level of consensus reached through voting, with Level A denoting a recommendation that “must” be followed, Level B one that “should” be followed, and Level C one that “may” be followed.

The majority of recommendations received an A or B rating. Only one recommendation, about whether a second clinical exam is needed in adults, garnered a C rating.

In children, the guidelines recommend that clinicians must perform two clinical examinations and two apnea tests 12 hours apart. In adults, only one exam is required. Both of those recommendations were rated Level A. A recommendation for a second exam in adults received the single Level C rating.
 

A uniform set of guidelines?

The new guidelines replace adult practice guidance published by AAN in 2010 and guideline for infants and children released in 2011 by AAP, CNS, and SCCM, and for the first time combine brain death guidelines for adult and pediatric patients into one document.

“It is important for clinicians to review the new guideline carefully and ensure their hospital brain death guidelines are updated to be consistent with the new guideline in order to prevent inaccurate determinations of death,” guidelines coauthor Ariane Lewis, MD, NYU Langone Health, New York, said in an interview.

The 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) is the legal foundation for the declaration of BD/DNC in the United States, but it only stipulates that brain death determination must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

There is no single national standard, and states and hospitals are free to adopt their own, which many have done. One goal of the new guidelines was to create a uniform set of guidelines that all institutions follow.

“This is a step toward having a set of guidelines that are accepted by most of the societies and clinical specialties involved in this sort of diagnosis,” that could lead to a national-level policy, Fernando Goldenberg, MD, professor of neurology and director of neuroscience critical care, University of Chicago Medicine, said in an interview.

Dr. Goldenberg was not part of the panel that developed the updated guidelines, but was a coauthor of a consensus statement from the World Brain Death Project in 2020.

Developing a singular global guideline for brain death determination is unlikely, Dr. Goldenberg said. Policies vary widely across the world, and some countries don’t even recognize brain death.

“But this attempts to unify things at the U.S. level, which is very important,” he said.
 

Permanent vs. irreversible

Dr. Goldenberg said that combining adult and pediatric guidelines into one document will be very helpful for clinicians like him who treat patients from age 16 years and up.

The expanded guidance on apnea testing, recommendations on specific ancillary tests to use or avoid, and inclusion of language stipulating that prior consent is not needed to perform a brain death evaluation are also useful.

He also noted that the section on credentialing and training of clinicians who perform BD/DNC evaluations recognizes advanced practice providers, the first time he recalls seeing these professionals included in brain death guidelines.

However, the panel’s decision to use the term “permanent” to describe loss of brain function instead of “irreversible” gave Dr. Goldenberg pause.

The UDDA provides that an individual is declared legally dead when “circulatory and respiratory functions irreversibly stop; or all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, irreversibly stop.”

Earlier in October, the American College of Physicians released a position paper on cardiorespiratory death determination that called for a revision of the UDDA language.

The ACP suggested that “irreversibly” be replaced with “permanently” with regard to the cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, but that “irreversible” be kept in the description of brain death.

“Permanent means that there is damage that is potentially reversible and irreversible means that the damage is so profound, it cannot be reversed even if an attempt to do so is performed,” Dr. Goldenberg said.

Even though the World Brain Death Project, on which he worked, also used “permanent” to describe brain function loss, Dr. Goldenberg said he aligns with ACP’s position.

“The understanding of brain death is that the damage is so profound, it is irreversible, even if you were to try,” he said. “Therefore, I think that the most appropriate term for brain death should be irreversible as opposed to permanent.”

The report was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Greer has received travel funding from Boston University; serves as editor-in-chief for Seminars in Neurology; receives publishing royalties for 50 Studies Every Neurologist Should Know and Successful Leadership in Academic Medicine; has received honoraria from AAN; has received research funding from Becton, Dickinson, and Company; and has served as expert witness in legal proceedings. Dr. Lewis has received honoraria from AAN and Neurodiem, serves as Neurology deputy editor of disputes and debates, and serves as deputy editor of seminars in Neurology. Dr. Goldenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for dementia before age 90 years was significantly higher among people with a history of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and was highest among those diagnosed before age 70 years regardless of when PPI treatment was initiated.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used four Danish registries to collect data on dementia diagnoses and prescription PPI use among 1,983,785 individuals aged 60-75 years between 2000 and 2018.
• The median follow-up time was 10.3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 99,384 (5.0%) cases of all-cause dementia during follow-up, with a median age of diagnosis of 79 years.
• Twenty-one-point-two percent of dementia cases and 18.9% of controls reported a history of PPI use.
• Risk for all-cause dementia before age 90 years was 36% higher with PPI use in people aged 60-69 years at baseline (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.43) and 6% higher in those who were age 80-89 years at baseline (aIRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09).
• Investigators found significant increased dementia risk before age 90 years with PPI use regardless of when PPI treatment began and found no link between PPI use and dementia diagnoses after age 90 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“The association between PPI use and dementia was unambiguously largest among the youngest cases of dementia, potentially suggestive of a critical window of exposure where midlife PPI use affects dementia risk to a larger degree compared to late-life use,” the authors wrote. “Further, the finding could signify a declining impact of individual risk factors with advancing age owing to lengthy ongoing neuropathological processes.”

SOURCE:

Lead author of the study was Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, department of neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet. It was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include data on PPI prescriptions before 1995, over-the-counter PPI use, and in-hospital intravenous use of PPI during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for dementia before age 90 years was significantly higher among people with a history of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and was highest among those diagnosed before age 70 years regardless of when PPI treatment was initiated.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used four Danish registries to collect data on dementia diagnoses and prescription PPI use among 1,983,785 individuals aged 60-75 years between 2000 and 2018.
• The median follow-up time was 10.3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 99,384 (5.0%) cases of all-cause dementia during follow-up, with a median age of diagnosis of 79 years.
• Twenty-one-point-two percent of dementia cases and 18.9% of controls reported a history of PPI use.
• Risk for all-cause dementia before age 90 years was 36% higher with PPI use in people aged 60-69 years at baseline (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.43) and 6% higher in those who were age 80-89 years at baseline (aIRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09).
• Investigators found significant increased dementia risk before age 90 years with PPI use regardless of when PPI treatment began and found no link between PPI use and dementia diagnoses after age 90 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“The association between PPI use and dementia was unambiguously largest among the youngest cases of dementia, potentially suggestive of a critical window of exposure where midlife PPI use affects dementia risk to a larger degree compared to late-life use,” the authors wrote. “Further, the finding could signify a declining impact of individual risk factors with advancing age owing to lengthy ongoing neuropathological processes.”

SOURCE:

Lead author of the study was Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, department of neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet. It was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include data on PPI prescriptions before 1995, over-the-counter PPI use, and in-hospital intravenous use of PPI during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts.

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

TOPLINE:

The risk for dementia before age 90 years was significantly higher among people with a history of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and was highest among those diagnosed before age 70 years regardless of when PPI treatment was initiated.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used four Danish registries to collect data on dementia diagnoses and prescription PPI use among 1,983,785 individuals aged 60-75 years between 2000 and 2018.
• The median follow-up time was 10.3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 99,384 (5.0%) cases of all-cause dementia during follow-up, with a median age of diagnosis of 79 years.
• Twenty-one-point-two percent of dementia cases and 18.9% of controls reported a history of PPI use.
• Risk for all-cause dementia before age 90 years was 36% higher with PPI use in people aged 60-69 years at baseline (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.43) and 6% higher in those who were age 80-89 years at baseline (aIRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09).
• Investigators found significant increased dementia risk before age 90 years with PPI use regardless of when PPI treatment began and found no link between PPI use and dementia diagnoses after age 90 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“The association between PPI use and dementia was unambiguously largest among the youngest cases of dementia, potentially suggestive of a critical window of exposure where midlife PPI use affects dementia risk to a larger degree compared to late-life use,” the authors wrote. “Further, the finding could signify a declining impact of individual risk factors with advancing age owing to lengthy ongoing neuropathological processes.”

SOURCE:

Lead author of the study was Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, department of neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet. It was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not include data on PPI prescriptions before 1995, over-the-counter PPI use, and in-hospital intravenous use of PPI during the study period.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts.

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

TOPLINE:

People with a history of depression or stress were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer’s disease (AD) later in life compared with those without either condition, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Longitudinal cohort study of 1,362,548 people with records in the Region Stockholm administrative health care database with a diagnosis of stress-induced exhaustion disorder (SED), depression, or both between 2012 and 2013.
• Cohort followed for diagnosis of MCI or AD between 2014 and 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• SED diagnosed in 0.3%, depression in 2.9% and both SED and depression in 0.1%
• Compared with people without SED or depression, AD risk was more than double in patients with SED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 99% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-4.91) or depression (aOR, 2.32; 99% CI, 1.85-2.90) and four times higher in patients with both SED and depression (aOR, 4.00; 99% CI, 1.67-9.58)
• Risk for MCI was also higher in people with SED (aOR, 1.87; 99% CI,1.20-2.91), depression (aOR, 2.85; 99% CI, 2.53-3.22) or both SED and depression (aOR, 3.87; 99% CI, 2.39-6.27) vs patients with no history of SED or depression.
• Only patients with depression had a higher risk for another dementia type (aOR, 2.39; 99% CI, 1.92-2.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“Future studies should examine the possibility that symptoms of depression and/or chronic stress could be prodromal symptoms of dementia rather than risk factors,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Johanna Wallensten, doctoral student, department of clinical sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues and funded by the Karolinska Institute. It was published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

Use of a health care registry could have led to over- or underestimation of depression, MCI and AD. The study probably captures most people with depression but not most people with depressive symptoms.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with a history of depression or stress were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer’s disease (AD) later in life compared with those without either condition, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Longitudinal cohort study of 1,362,548 people with records in the Region Stockholm administrative health care database with a diagnosis of stress-induced exhaustion disorder (SED), depression, or both between 2012 and 2013.
• Cohort followed for diagnosis of MCI or AD between 2014 and 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• SED diagnosed in 0.3%, depression in 2.9% and both SED and depression in 0.1%
• Compared with people without SED or depression, AD risk was more than double in patients with SED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 99% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-4.91) or depression (aOR, 2.32; 99% CI, 1.85-2.90) and four times higher in patients with both SED and depression (aOR, 4.00; 99% CI, 1.67-9.58)
• Risk for MCI was also higher in people with SED (aOR, 1.87; 99% CI,1.20-2.91), depression (aOR, 2.85; 99% CI, 2.53-3.22) or both SED and depression (aOR, 3.87; 99% CI, 2.39-6.27) vs patients with no history of SED or depression.
• Only patients with depression had a higher risk for another dementia type (aOR, 2.39; 99% CI, 1.92-2.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“Future studies should examine the possibility that symptoms of depression and/or chronic stress could be prodromal symptoms of dementia rather than risk factors,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Johanna Wallensten, doctoral student, department of clinical sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues and funded by the Karolinska Institute. It was published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

Use of a health care registry could have led to over- or underestimation of depression, MCI and AD. The study probably captures most people with depression but not most people with depressive symptoms.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

People with a history of depression or stress were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer’s disease (AD) later in life compared with those without either condition, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Longitudinal cohort study of 1,362,548 people with records in the Region Stockholm administrative health care database with a diagnosis of stress-induced exhaustion disorder (SED), depression, or both between 2012 and 2013.
• Cohort followed for diagnosis of MCI or AD between 2014 and 2022.

TAKEAWAY:

• SED diagnosed in 0.3%, depression in 2.9% and both SED and depression in 0.1%
• Compared with people without SED or depression, AD risk was more than double in patients with SED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 99% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-4.91) or depression (aOR, 2.32; 99% CI, 1.85-2.90) and four times higher in patients with both SED and depression (aOR, 4.00; 99% CI, 1.67-9.58)
• Risk for MCI was also higher in people with SED (aOR, 1.87; 99% CI,1.20-2.91), depression (aOR, 2.85; 99% CI, 2.53-3.22) or both SED and depression (aOR, 3.87; 99% CI, 2.39-6.27) vs patients with no history of SED or depression.
• Only patients with depression had a higher risk for another dementia type (aOR, 2.39; 99% CI, 1.92-2.96).

IN PRACTICE:

“Future studies should examine the possibility that symptoms of depression and/or chronic stress could be prodromal symptoms of dementia rather than risk factors,” study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Johanna Wallensten, doctoral student, department of clinical sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues and funded by the Karolinska Institute. It was published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

Use of a health care registry could have led to over- or underestimation of depression, MCI and AD. The study probably captures most people with depression but not most people with depressive symptoms.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A national shortage of neurologists is creating “neurology deserts” around the country, forcing patients to wait longer and drive farther for care, news that comes as no revelation to Thomas Vidic, MD, clinical associate professor of neurology at Indiana University, South Bend.

In 2013, Dr. Vidic and other members of an American Academy of Neurology Workforce Task Force coauthored a report that predicted the demand for neurologists would outstrip supply by 2025. A decade later, it appears the situation is even more dire than anticipated.

While a nationwide physician shortage is affecting all specialties, neurology is facing a particularly difficult confluence of events. Advances in treatments for migraine, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and other neurological disorders have created a growing demand for care of pediatric and adult patients.

Over the next 7-27 years, as the number of Americans over age 65 increases, the incidences of Parkinson’s and dementia are set to double, and stroke cases are expected to rise by 20%.

At the same time, physician retirement and burnout are siphoning off neurologists from a workforce that isn’t growing fast enough. The American Medical Association reports the number of neurologists who treat patients in the United States grew by only 598 over the last decade, from 12,761 to 13,359.

This perfect storm has created what another AAN report calls a “grave threat” to patient care. The neurologist shortage “reduces access to care, worsens patient outcomes, and erodes career satisfaction and quality of life for neurologists as they face increasingly insurmountable demands,” write the authors of that 2019 report.

“We’re in trouble,” said Dr. Vidic. “We have a tremendous need for neurologists that we’re just not supporting.”
 

How did we get here?

Some of the challenges related to neurologist recruitment and retention are similar to those in other specialties. Compensation is certainly a factor, Dr. Vidic said.

Although neurologists’ incomes have increased significantly over the past decade, they still rank in the lower half of all medical specialties. In addition, only 50% of neurologists believe they are fairly compensated.

Burnout is another significant challenge. In 2019, before the pandemic, 53% of neurologists surveyed in Medscape’s National Physician Burnout, Depression, and Suicide Report indicated they were burned out. That percentage increased slightly in 2023, to 55%, with most respondents reporting a strong to severe impact on their lives.

The most common reason for burnout was administration and paperwork that cuts into neurologists’ time with patients. Charting and completing prior authorization and step therapy forms required by most insurers take an average of 17.6 hours a week for neurologists – much longer than the overall physician average and higher than almost all other specialties.

But perhaps the biggest contributor to the nationwide neurologist shortage is a 26-year cap on Medicare funding for medical residency. Enacted as part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, the legislation limits Medicare funding for medical residency training at 1996 levels. Most medical residencies are funded by the federal government and Medicare is the largest participating program.

As a result of the cap, the number of total residents in the United States – which grew by 20.6% between 1987 and 1997 – increased by only 8% from 1997 to 2007.

A new study on patients’ long travel times to neurology clinics, published in Neurology, is the latest to illustrate the real-world impact of too few neurologists amid growing caseloads.

Researchers found that 17% of the 563,216 Medicare beneficiaries who visited a neurologist in 2018 had to travel an average of 81 miles one way. Those long distances were endured most often by patients with brain and spinal cord cancers, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and multiple sclerosis.

While the neurologist shortage affects every state, a 2020 study suggests rural areas are most affected. This analysis of Medicare recipients showed that just 21% of rural residents with a neurological condition had access to a nearby specialist, compared with 27% of urban dwellers. The findings are similar to those of a 2017 report that identified “neurology deserts” in a number of states across the country.

Wait times for new neurology patients are reported to be among the longest of all specialties, with an average of 30 days for adult patients and 5-6 months for pediatric patients.


 

More neurology instruction needed

“It’s really hard knowing there are families out there who need the care but can’t get to it in a timely manner,” said Tyler Allison, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Working in a rural state means Dr. Allison has patients who drive 6 hours or more for an appointment. Although telemedicine has reduced the number of trips for many of his existing pediatric cases, it has had little impact on new patients. This is particularly frustrating, he said, when he sees a new patient with a condition that could have been treated by a primary care physician in their home community.

“One of the biggest problems we have in the child neurology world is that we don’t have enough primary care physicians who feel they are adequately trained to care for these patients,” said Dr. Allison, who also is the program director of the Child Neurology Residency Program at Children’s Mercy Kansas City.

“Sometimes I see patients where, frankly, I only need to see them once to provide reassurance to the family and then they go back to their primary care doctor,” he said. “It’s the kind of thing that if we trained people appropriately from the beginning, it would shorten our wait list.”

Indeed, increasing neurology instruction during medical school is one recommendation offered in a 2019 report that characterized the neurologist shortage as a “grave threat.”

Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges show U.S. medical schools required an average of 4.4 weeks of neurology instruction in 2019-2020. Of the disciplines included in the AAMC report, only radiology and surgical specialties required a shorter clinical course. Many medical schools also require a neurology rotation, usually during the third year.

“There are still medical schools that do not require a neurology rotation,” said Dr. Vidic. Indiana University’s medical school requires a 1-month neurology rotation. “Per capita, we turn out more neurologists than any other medical school in the country because we give the exposure.”
 

General neurologists needed

The 2019 AAN report also calls for a renewed focus on general neurology in residency training as a way to ease patient wait times.

“General neurologists in the community can care for 75%-85% of patients with neurological disease,” said Michael Markowski, DO, a general neurologist in Cape Cod, Mass., who chaired the AAN’s general neurology task force from 2019 to 2020.

“Our residency training programs aren’t doing anything wrong, but we have data that show we have to start doing something different if we’re going to care for the one in three Americans with neurological disease who deserve care in their community rather than having to travel to subspecialty centers, which are primarily located in larger cities,” he said.

Based on an AAN survey, only about one-third of U.S. neurologists identify as general neurologists; most focus on movement disorders, dementia or Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, or another neurology subspecialty. It’s a sharp contrast from Europe, where the vast majority of neurologists identify as general neurologists.

“It was striking, the difference between the neurologists across Europe who identify as general neurologists, in comparison to the U.S.,” said Dr. Markowski, who was the AAN representative for the European Academy of Neurology General Neurology Task Force. “Close to 28% of U.S. neurologists identify as general neurologists, but across 37 European nations, that [percentage] is 76%.”

In Europe, general neurology rotations make up at least half of the first year of medical residency, Dr. Markowski said, adding that in the United States, there is more focus on inpatient rather than outpatient neurology rotations.

“If you never see that role model during your training who is a general neurologist, who can see the vast majority of all neurology patients, why would you think you could do that when you graduate?” Dr. Markowski said.
 

A legislative solution

While expanding neurology instruction in medical school and increasing exposure to general neurology rotations in residency could help, the clearest path to increasing the number of neurologists in the United States is to lift the decades-old residency cap.

The Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would do just that, adding 14,000 new medical residency positions over 7 years. The bill has bipartisan support, with hundreds of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Nearly 100 professional societies and medical and hospital groups have submitted testimony in support.

Similar legislation has been introduced at least six times since 2007 and no bill has ever made it out of committee. It’s unclear whether the latest version will meet a similar fate, but its expected price tag of $10-$12 billion over 10 years is a large hurdle to overcome.

Congress did take a small step in 2021 to increase residency spots, with legislation that allocated funding for 1,000 new positions over 5 years. Congress added another 200 spots to that total in a bill passed last year.

Critics say the slots are tied up in Medicare red tape and it’s a far cry from the 14,000 new positions experts say are needed to address the physician shortage.

“We absolutely want the larger bill, and we think that’s the way to go, but we’ll continue to work and try to add as many positions as we can,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy for AAMC.

Congress is also considering legislation to speed up prior reauthorization for Medicare, something the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is also seeking to do through rule changes. Nearly 30 state legislatures are debating similar legislation at the state level. And another bill in Congress would expand the Conrad State 30 program, which allows states to request J-1 visa waivers for international physicians to work in underserved areas.

“The solutions to this problem are multifactorial, and the answer that worked 10 years ago won’t be the right answer today, and the answer that works today won’t be the right answer 10 years from now,” Dr. Vidic said. “All we have to do is keep making changes, keep evolving, and the playing field continually changes.”

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

A national shortage of neurologists is creating “neurology deserts” around the country, forcing patients to wait longer and drive farther for care, news that comes as no revelation to Thomas Vidic, MD, clinical associate professor of neurology at Indiana University, South Bend.

In 2013, Dr. Vidic and other members of an American Academy of Neurology Workforce Task Force coauthored a report that predicted the demand for neurologists would outstrip supply by 2025. A decade later, it appears the situation is even more dire than anticipated.

While a nationwide physician shortage is affecting all specialties, neurology is facing a particularly difficult confluence of events. Advances in treatments for migraine, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and other neurological disorders have created a growing demand for care of pediatric and adult patients.

Over the next 7-27 years, as the number of Americans over age 65 increases, the incidences of Parkinson’s and dementia are set to double, and stroke cases are expected to rise by 20%.

At the same time, physician retirement and burnout are siphoning off neurologists from a workforce that isn’t growing fast enough. The American Medical Association reports the number of neurologists who treat patients in the United States grew by only 598 over the last decade, from 12,761 to 13,359.

This perfect storm has created what another AAN report calls a “grave threat” to patient care. The neurologist shortage “reduces access to care, worsens patient outcomes, and erodes career satisfaction and quality of life for neurologists as they face increasingly insurmountable demands,” write the authors of that 2019 report.

“We’re in trouble,” said Dr. Vidic. “We have a tremendous need for neurologists that we’re just not supporting.”
 

How did we get here?

Some of the challenges related to neurologist recruitment and retention are similar to those in other specialties. Compensation is certainly a factor, Dr. Vidic said.

Although neurologists’ incomes have increased significantly over the past decade, they still rank in the lower half of all medical specialties. In addition, only 50% of neurologists believe they are fairly compensated.

Burnout is another significant challenge. In 2019, before the pandemic, 53% of neurologists surveyed in Medscape’s National Physician Burnout, Depression, and Suicide Report indicated they were burned out. That percentage increased slightly in 2023, to 55%, with most respondents reporting a strong to severe impact on their lives.

The most common reason for burnout was administration and paperwork that cuts into neurologists’ time with patients. Charting and completing prior authorization and step therapy forms required by most insurers take an average of 17.6 hours a week for neurologists – much longer than the overall physician average and higher than almost all other specialties.

But perhaps the biggest contributor to the nationwide neurologist shortage is a 26-year cap on Medicare funding for medical residency. Enacted as part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, the legislation limits Medicare funding for medical residency training at 1996 levels. Most medical residencies are funded by the federal government and Medicare is the largest participating program.

As a result of the cap, the number of total residents in the United States – which grew by 20.6% between 1987 and 1997 – increased by only 8% from 1997 to 2007.

A new study on patients’ long travel times to neurology clinics, published in Neurology, is the latest to illustrate the real-world impact of too few neurologists amid growing caseloads.

Researchers found that 17% of the 563,216 Medicare beneficiaries who visited a neurologist in 2018 had to travel an average of 81 miles one way. Those long distances were endured most often by patients with brain and spinal cord cancers, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and multiple sclerosis.

While the neurologist shortage affects every state, a 2020 study suggests rural areas are most affected. This analysis of Medicare recipients showed that just 21% of rural residents with a neurological condition had access to a nearby specialist, compared with 27% of urban dwellers. The findings are similar to those of a 2017 report that identified “neurology deserts” in a number of states across the country.

Wait times for new neurology patients are reported to be among the longest of all specialties, with an average of 30 days for adult patients and 5-6 months for pediatric patients.


 

More neurology instruction needed

“It’s really hard knowing there are families out there who need the care but can’t get to it in a timely manner,” said Tyler Allison, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Working in a rural state means Dr. Allison has patients who drive 6 hours or more for an appointment. Although telemedicine has reduced the number of trips for many of his existing pediatric cases, it has had little impact on new patients. This is particularly frustrating, he said, when he sees a new patient with a condition that could have been treated by a primary care physician in their home community.

“One of the biggest problems we have in the child neurology world is that we don’t have enough primary care physicians who feel they are adequately trained to care for these patients,” said Dr. Allison, who also is the program director of the Child Neurology Residency Program at Children’s Mercy Kansas City.

“Sometimes I see patients where, frankly, I only need to see them once to provide reassurance to the family and then they go back to their primary care doctor,” he said. “It’s the kind of thing that if we trained people appropriately from the beginning, it would shorten our wait list.”

Indeed, increasing neurology instruction during medical school is one recommendation offered in a 2019 report that characterized the neurologist shortage as a “grave threat.”

Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges show U.S. medical schools required an average of 4.4 weeks of neurology instruction in 2019-2020. Of the disciplines included in the AAMC report, only radiology and surgical specialties required a shorter clinical course. Many medical schools also require a neurology rotation, usually during the third year.

“There are still medical schools that do not require a neurology rotation,” said Dr. Vidic. Indiana University’s medical school requires a 1-month neurology rotation. “Per capita, we turn out more neurologists than any other medical school in the country because we give the exposure.”
 

General neurologists needed

The 2019 AAN report also calls for a renewed focus on general neurology in residency training as a way to ease patient wait times.

“General neurologists in the community can care for 75%-85% of patients with neurological disease,” said Michael Markowski, DO, a general neurologist in Cape Cod, Mass., who chaired the AAN’s general neurology task force from 2019 to 2020.

“Our residency training programs aren’t doing anything wrong, but we have data that show we have to start doing something different if we’re going to care for the one in three Americans with neurological disease who deserve care in their community rather than having to travel to subspecialty centers, which are primarily located in larger cities,” he said.

Based on an AAN survey, only about one-third of U.S. neurologists identify as general neurologists; most focus on movement disorders, dementia or Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, or another neurology subspecialty. It’s a sharp contrast from Europe, where the vast majority of neurologists identify as general neurologists.

“It was striking, the difference between the neurologists across Europe who identify as general neurologists, in comparison to the U.S.,” said Dr. Markowski, who was the AAN representative for the European Academy of Neurology General Neurology Task Force. “Close to 28% of U.S. neurologists identify as general neurologists, but across 37 European nations, that [percentage] is 76%.”

In Europe, general neurology rotations make up at least half of the first year of medical residency, Dr. Markowski said, adding that in the United States, there is more focus on inpatient rather than outpatient neurology rotations.

“If you never see that role model during your training who is a general neurologist, who can see the vast majority of all neurology patients, why would you think you could do that when you graduate?” Dr. Markowski said.
 

A legislative solution

While expanding neurology instruction in medical school and increasing exposure to general neurology rotations in residency could help, the clearest path to increasing the number of neurologists in the United States is to lift the decades-old residency cap.

The Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would do just that, adding 14,000 new medical residency positions over 7 years. The bill has bipartisan support, with hundreds of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Nearly 100 professional societies and medical and hospital groups have submitted testimony in support.

Similar legislation has been introduced at least six times since 2007 and no bill has ever made it out of committee. It’s unclear whether the latest version will meet a similar fate, but its expected price tag of $10-$12 billion over 10 years is a large hurdle to overcome.

Congress did take a small step in 2021 to increase residency spots, with legislation that allocated funding for 1,000 new positions over 5 years. Congress added another 200 spots to that total in a bill passed last year.

Critics say the slots are tied up in Medicare red tape and it’s a far cry from the 14,000 new positions experts say are needed to address the physician shortage.

“We absolutely want the larger bill, and we think that’s the way to go, but we’ll continue to work and try to add as many positions as we can,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy for AAMC.

Congress is also considering legislation to speed up prior reauthorization for Medicare, something the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is also seeking to do through rule changes. Nearly 30 state legislatures are debating similar legislation at the state level. And another bill in Congress would expand the Conrad State 30 program, which allows states to request J-1 visa waivers for international physicians to work in underserved areas.

“The solutions to this problem are multifactorial, and the answer that worked 10 years ago won’t be the right answer today, and the answer that works today won’t be the right answer 10 years from now,” Dr. Vidic said. “All we have to do is keep making changes, keep evolving, and the playing field continually changes.”

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

A national shortage of neurologists is creating “neurology deserts” around the country, forcing patients to wait longer and drive farther for care, news that comes as no revelation to Thomas Vidic, MD, clinical associate professor of neurology at Indiana University, South Bend.

In 2013, Dr. Vidic and other members of an American Academy of Neurology Workforce Task Force coauthored a report that predicted the demand for neurologists would outstrip supply by 2025. A decade later, it appears the situation is even more dire than anticipated.

While a nationwide physician shortage is affecting all specialties, neurology is facing a particularly difficult confluence of events. Advances in treatments for migraine, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and other neurological disorders have created a growing demand for care of pediatric and adult patients.

Over the next 7-27 years, as the number of Americans over age 65 increases, the incidences of Parkinson’s and dementia are set to double, and stroke cases are expected to rise by 20%.

At the same time, physician retirement and burnout are siphoning off neurologists from a workforce that isn’t growing fast enough. The American Medical Association reports the number of neurologists who treat patients in the United States grew by only 598 over the last decade, from 12,761 to 13,359.

This perfect storm has created what another AAN report calls a “grave threat” to patient care. The neurologist shortage “reduces access to care, worsens patient outcomes, and erodes career satisfaction and quality of life for neurologists as they face increasingly insurmountable demands,” write the authors of that 2019 report.

“We’re in trouble,” said Dr. Vidic. “We have a tremendous need for neurologists that we’re just not supporting.”
 

How did we get here?

Some of the challenges related to neurologist recruitment and retention are similar to those in other specialties. Compensation is certainly a factor, Dr. Vidic said.

Although neurologists’ incomes have increased significantly over the past decade, they still rank in the lower half of all medical specialties. In addition, only 50% of neurologists believe they are fairly compensated.

Burnout is another significant challenge. In 2019, before the pandemic, 53% of neurologists surveyed in Medscape’s National Physician Burnout, Depression, and Suicide Report indicated they were burned out. That percentage increased slightly in 2023, to 55%, with most respondents reporting a strong to severe impact on their lives.

The most common reason for burnout was administration and paperwork that cuts into neurologists’ time with patients. Charting and completing prior authorization and step therapy forms required by most insurers take an average of 17.6 hours a week for neurologists – much longer than the overall physician average and higher than almost all other specialties.

But perhaps the biggest contributor to the nationwide neurologist shortage is a 26-year cap on Medicare funding for medical residency. Enacted as part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, the legislation limits Medicare funding for medical residency training at 1996 levels. Most medical residencies are funded by the federal government and Medicare is the largest participating program.

As a result of the cap, the number of total residents in the United States – which grew by 20.6% between 1987 and 1997 – increased by only 8% from 1997 to 2007.

A new study on patients’ long travel times to neurology clinics, published in Neurology, is the latest to illustrate the real-world impact of too few neurologists amid growing caseloads.

Researchers found that 17% of the 563,216 Medicare beneficiaries who visited a neurologist in 2018 had to travel an average of 81 miles one way. Those long distances were endured most often by patients with brain and spinal cord cancers, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and multiple sclerosis.

While the neurologist shortage affects every state, a 2020 study suggests rural areas are most affected. This analysis of Medicare recipients showed that just 21% of rural residents with a neurological condition had access to a nearby specialist, compared with 27% of urban dwellers. The findings are similar to those of a 2017 report that identified “neurology deserts” in a number of states across the country.

Wait times for new neurology patients are reported to be among the longest of all specialties, with an average of 30 days for adult patients and 5-6 months for pediatric patients.


 

More neurology instruction needed

“It’s really hard knowing there are families out there who need the care but can’t get to it in a timely manner,” said Tyler Allison, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

Working in a rural state means Dr. Allison has patients who drive 6 hours or more for an appointment. Although telemedicine has reduced the number of trips for many of his existing pediatric cases, it has had little impact on new patients. This is particularly frustrating, he said, when he sees a new patient with a condition that could have been treated by a primary care physician in their home community.

“One of the biggest problems we have in the child neurology world is that we don’t have enough primary care physicians who feel they are adequately trained to care for these patients,” said Dr. Allison, who also is the program director of the Child Neurology Residency Program at Children’s Mercy Kansas City.

“Sometimes I see patients where, frankly, I only need to see them once to provide reassurance to the family and then they go back to their primary care doctor,” he said. “It’s the kind of thing that if we trained people appropriately from the beginning, it would shorten our wait list.”

Indeed, increasing neurology instruction during medical school is one recommendation offered in a 2019 report that characterized the neurologist shortage as a “grave threat.”

Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges show U.S. medical schools required an average of 4.4 weeks of neurology instruction in 2019-2020. Of the disciplines included in the AAMC report, only radiology and surgical specialties required a shorter clinical course. Many medical schools also require a neurology rotation, usually during the third year.

“There are still medical schools that do not require a neurology rotation,” said Dr. Vidic. Indiana University’s medical school requires a 1-month neurology rotation. “Per capita, we turn out more neurologists than any other medical school in the country because we give the exposure.”
 

General neurologists needed

The 2019 AAN report also calls for a renewed focus on general neurology in residency training as a way to ease patient wait times.

“General neurologists in the community can care for 75%-85% of patients with neurological disease,” said Michael Markowski, DO, a general neurologist in Cape Cod, Mass., who chaired the AAN’s general neurology task force from 2019 to 2020.

“Our residency training programs aren’t doing anything wrong, but we have data that show we have to start doing something different if we’re going to care for the one in three Americans with neurological disease who deserve care in their community rather than having to travel to subspecialty centers, which are primarily located in larger cities,” he said.

Based on an AAN survey, only about one-third of U.S. neurologists identify as general neurologists; most focus on movement disorders, dementia or Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, or another neurology subspecialty. It’s a sharp contrast from Europe, where the vast majority of neurologists identify as general neurologists.

“It was striking, the difference between the neurologists across Europe who identify as general neurologists, in comparison to the U.S.,” said Dr. Markowski, who was the AAN representative for the European Academy of Neurology General Neurology Task Force. “Close to 28% of U.S. neurologists identify as general neurologists, but across 37 European nations, that [percentage] is 76%.”

In Europe, general neurology rotations make up at least half of the first year of medical residency, Dr. Markowski said, adding that in the United States, there is more focus on inpatient rather than outpatient neurology rotations.

“If you never see that role model during your training who is a general neurologist, who can see the vast majority of all neurology patients, why would you think you could do that when you graduate?” Dr. Markowski said.
 

A legislative solution

While expanding neurology instruction in medical school and increasing exposure to general neurology rotations in residency could help, the clearest path to increasing the number of neurologists in the United States is to lift the decades-old residency cap.

The Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2023 would do just that, adding 14,000 new medical residency positions over 7 years. The bill has bipartisan support, with hundreds of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Nearly 100 professional societies and medical and hospital groups have submitted testimony in support.

Similar legislation has been introduced at least six times since 2007 and no bill has ever made it out of committee. It’s unclear whether the latest version will meet a similar fate, but its expected price tag of $10-$12 billion over 10 years is a large hurdle to overcome.

Congress did take a small step in 2021 to increase residency spots, with legislation that allocated funding for 1,000 new positions over 5 years. Congress added another 200 spots to that total in a bill passed last year.

Critics say the slots are tied up in Medicare red tape and it’s a far cry from the 14,000 new positions experts say are needed to address the physician shortage.

“We absolutely want the larger bill, and we think that’s the way to go, but we’ll continue to work and try to add as many positions as we can,” said Leonard Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy for AAMC.

Congress is also considering legislation to speed up prior reauthorization for Medicare, something the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is also seeking to do through rule changes. Nearly 30 state legislatures are debating similar legislation at the state level. And another bill in Congress would expand the Conrad State 30 program, which allows states to request J-1 visa waivers for international physicians to work in underserved areas.

“The solutions to this problem are multifactorial, and the answer that worked 10 years ago won’t be the right answer today, and the answer that works today won’t be the right answer 10 years from now,” Dr. Vidic said. “All we have to do is keep making changes, keep evolving, and the playing field continually changes.”

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

TOPLINE:

Young adults who simultaneously use alcohol and marijuana (SAM) consume more drinks, are high for more hours in the day, and report more negative alcohol-related consequences.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2-year study included 409 people aged 18-25 years with a history of simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use (50.9% were women; 48.2% were non-Hispanic White; 48.9% were college students).
• Participants completed daily online surveys about substance use and negative substance-related consequences for 14 continuous days every 4 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Alcohol use was reported on 36.1% of survey days, marijuana use on 28.0%, and alcohol and marijuana use on 15.0%.
• Negative substance-related consequences were reported on 28.0% of drinking days and 56.4% of marijuana days.
• SAM use was reported in 81.7% of alcohol users and 86.6% of marijuana users.
• On SAM use days, participants consumed an average of 37% more drinks, with 43% more negative alcohol consequences; were high for 10% more hours; and were more likely to feel clumsy or dizzy, compared with non-SAM use days.

IN PRACTICE:

“This finding should be integrated into psychoeducational programs highlighting the risk of combining alcohol and marijuana,” the authors write. “A more nuanced harm-reduction [approach] could also encourage young adults to closely monitor and limit the amount of each substance being used if they choose to combine substances.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Anne M. Fairlie, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, and funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The study was published online in Alcohol Clinical and Experimental Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study participants were recruited based on their substance use and lived in a region where recreational marijuana is legal, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. Substance use and consequences were self-reported and subject to bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Young adults who simultaneously use alcohol and marijuana (SAM) consume more drinks, are high for more hours in the day, and report more negative alcohol-related consequences.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2-year study included 409 people aged 18-25 years with a history of simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use (50.9% were women; 48.2% were non-Hispanic White; 48.9% were college students).
• Participants completed daily online surveys about substance use and negative substance-related consequences for 14 continuous days every 4 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Alcohol use was reported on 36.1% of survey days, marijuana use on 28.0%, and alcohol and marijuana use on 15.0%.
• Negative substance-related consequences were reported on 28.0% of drinking days and 56.4% of marijuana days.
• SAM use was reported in 81.7% of alcohol users and 86.6% of marijuana users.
• On SAM use days, participants consumed an average of 37% more drinks, with 43% more negative alcohol consequences; were high for 10% more hours; and were more likely to feel clumsy or dizzy, compared with non-SAM use days.

IN PRACTICE:

“This finding should be integrated into psychoeducational programs highlighting the risk of combining alcohol and marijuana,” the authors write. “A more nuanced harm-reduction [approach] could also encourage young adults to closely monitor and limit the amount of each substance being used if they choose to combine substances.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Anne M. Fairlie, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, and funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The study was published online in Alcohol Clinical and Experimental Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study participants were recruited based on their substance use and lived in a region where recreational marijuana is legal, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. Substance use and consequences were self-reported and subject to bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Young adults who simultaneously use alcohol and marijuana (SAM) consume more drinks, are high for more hours in the day, and report more negative alcohol-related consequences.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 2-year study included 409 people aged 18-25 years with a history of simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use (50.9% were women; 48.2% were non-Hispanic White; 48.9% were college students).
• Participants completed daily online surveys about substance use and negative substance-related consequences for 14 continuous days every 4 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Alcohol use was reported on 36.1% of survey days, marijuana use on 28.0%, and alcohol and marijuana use on 15.0%.
• Negative substance-related consequences were reported on 28.0% of drinking days and 56.4% of marijuana days.
• SAM use was reported in 81.7% of alcohol users and 86.6% of marijuana users.
• On SAM use days, participants consumed an average of 37% more drinks, with 43% more negative alcohol consequences; were high for 10% more hours; and were more likely to feel clumsy or dizzy, compared with non-SAM use days.

IN PRACTICE:

“This finding should be integrated into psychoeducational programs highlighting the risk of combining alcohol and marijuana,” the authors write. “A more nuanced harm-reduction [approach] could also encourage young adults to closely monitor and limit the amount of each substance being used if they choose to combine substances.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Anne M. Fairlie, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, and funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The study was published online in Alcohol Clinical and Experimental Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Study participants were recruited based on their substance use and lived in a region where recreational marijuana is legal, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations. Substance use and consequences were self-reported and subject to bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 10 hours a day of sedentary behavior significantly increases the risk of dementia in older adults, a new study suggests.

The study of nearly 50,000 adults in the UK Biobank shows that dementia risk increased 8% with 10 hours of sedentary time and 63% with 12 hours. That’s particularly concerning because Americans spend an average of 9.5 hours a day sitting.

Sleep wasn’t factored into the sedentary time and how someone accumulated the 10 hours – either in one continuous block or broken up throughout the day – was irrelevant.

“Our analysis cannot determine whether there is a causal link, so prescriptive conclusions are not really possible; however. I think it is very reasonable to conclude that sitting less and moving more may help reduce risk of dementia,” lead investigator David Raichlen, PhD, professor of biological sciences and anthropology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

A surprising find?

The study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the UK Biobank of 49,841 adults aged 60 years or older who wore an accelerometer on their wrists 24 hours a day for a week. Participants had no history of dementia when they wore the movement monitoring device.

Investigators used machine-based learning to determine sedentary time based on readings from the accelerometers. Sleep was not included as sedentary behavior.

Over a mean follow-up of 6.72 years, 414 participants were diagnosed with dementia.

Investigators found that dementia risk rises by 8% at 10 hours a day (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08; P < .001) and 63% at 12 hours a day (aHR, 1.63; P < .001), compared with 9.27 hours a day. Those who logged 15 hours of sedentary behavior a day had more than triple the dementia risk (aHR, 3.21; P < .001).

Although previous studies had found that breaking up sedentary periods with short bursts of activity help offset some negative health effects of sitting, that wasn’t the case here. Dementia risk was elevated whether participants were sedentary for 10 uninterrupted hours or multiple sedentary periods that totaled 10 hours over the whole day.

“This was surprising,” Dr. Raichlen said. “We expected to find that patterns of sedentary behavior would play a role in risk of dementia, but once you take into account the daily volume of time spent sedentary, how you get there doesn’t seem to matter as much.”

The study did not examine how participants spent sedentary time, but an earlier study by Dr. Raichlen found that watching TV was associated with a greater risk of dementia in older adults, compared with working on a computer.
 

More research welcome

Dr. Raichlen noted that the number of dementia cases in the study is low and that the view of sedentary behavior is based on 1 week of accelerometer readings. A longitudinal study is needed to determine if the findings last over a longer time period.

In a comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach for the Alzheimer’s Association, says that earlier studies reported an association between sedentary time and dementia, so these results aren’t “particularly surprising.”

“However, reports that did not find an association have also been published, so additional research on possible associations is welcome,” she said.

It’s also important to note that this observational study doesn’t establish a causal relationship between inactivity and cognitive function, which Dr. Sexton said means the influence of other dementia risk factors that are also exacerbated by sedentary behavior can’t be ruled out.

“Although results remained significant after adjusting for several of these factors, further research is required to better understand the various elements that may influence the observed relationship,” noted Dr. Sexton, who was not part of the study. “Reverse causality – that changes in the brain related to dementia are causing the sedentary behavior – cannot be ruled out.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the state of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Dr. Raichlen and Dr. Sexton report no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 10 hours a day of sedentary behavior significantly increases the risk of dementia in older adults, a new study suggests.

The study of nearly 50,000 adults in the UK Biobank shows that dementia risk increased 8% with 10 hours of sedentary time and 63% with 12 hours. That’s particularly concerning because Americans spend an average of 9.5 hours a day sitting.

Sleep wasn’t factored into the sedentary time and how someone accumulated the 10 hours – either in one continuous block or broken up throughout the day – was irrelevant.

“Our analysis cannot determine whether there is a causal link, so prescriptive conclusions are not really possible; however. I think it is very reasonable to conclude that sitting less and moving more may help reduce risk of dementia,” lead investigator David Raichlen, PhD, professor of biological sciences and anthropology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

A surprising find?

The study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the UK Biobank of 49,841 adults aged 60 years or older who wore an accelerometer on their wrists 24 hours a day for a week. Participants had no history of dementia when they wore the movement monitoring device.

Investigators used machine-based learning to determine sedentary time based on readings from the accelerometers. Sleep was not included as sedentary behavior.

Over a mean follow-up of 6.72 years, 414 participants were diagnosed with dementia.

Investigators found that dementia risk rises by 8% at 10 hours a day (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08; P < .001) and 63% at 12 hours a day (aHR, 1.63; P < .001), compared with 9.27 hours a day. Those who logged 15 hours of sedentary behavior a day had more than triple the dementia risk (aHR, 3.21; P < .001).

Although previous studies had found that breaking up sedentary periods with short bursts of activity help offset some negative health effects of sitting, that wasn’t the case here. Dementia risk was elevated whether participants were sedentary for 10 uninterrupted hours or multiple sedentary periods that totaled 10 hours over the whole day.

“This was surprising,” Dr. Raichlen said. “We expected to find that patterns of sedentary behavior would play a role in risk of dementia, but once you take into account the daily volume of time spent sedentary, how you get there doesn’t seem to matter as much.”

The study did not examine how participants spent sedentary time, but an earlier study by Dr. Raichlen found that watching TV was associated with a greater risk of dementia in older adults, compared with working on a computer.
 

More research welcome

Dr. Raichlen noted that the number of dementia cases in the study is low and that the view of sedentary behavior is based on 1 week of accelerometer readings. A longitudinal study is needed to determine if the findings last over a longer time period.

In a comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach for the Alzheimer’s Association, says that earlier studies reported an association between sedentary time and dementia, so these results aren’t “particularly surprising.”

“However, reports that did not find an association have also been published, so additional research on possible associations is welcome,” she said.

It’s also important to note that this observational study doesn’t establish a causal relationship between inactivity and cognitive function, which Dr. Sexton said means the influence of other dementia risk factors that are also exacerbated by sedentary behavior can’t be ruled out.

“Although results remained significant after adjusting for several of these factors, further research is required to better understand the various elements that may influence the observed relationship,” noted Dr. Sexton, who was not part of the study. “Reverse causality – that changes in the brain related to dementia are causing the sedentary behavior – cannot be ruled out.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the state of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Dr. Raichlen and Dr. Sexton report no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 10 hours a day of sedentary behavior significantly increases the risk of dementia in older adults, a new study suggests.

The study of nearly 50,000 adults in the UK Biobank shows that dementia risk increased 8% with 10 hours of sedentary time and 63% with 12 hours. That’s particularly concerning because Americans spend an average of 9.5 hours a day sitting.

Sleep wasn’t factored into the sedentary time and how someone accumulated the 10 hours – either in one continuous block or broken up throughout the day – was irrelevant.

“Our analysis cannot determine whether there is a causal link, so prescriptive conclusions are not really possible; however. I think it is very reasonable to conclude that sitting less and moving more may help reduce risk of dementia,” lead investigator David Raichlen, PhD, professor of biological sciences and anthropology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

A surprising find?

The study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the UK Biobank of 49,841 adults aged 60 years or older who wore an accelerometer on their wrists 24 hours a day for a week. Participants had no history of dementia when they wore the movement monitoring device.

Investigators used machine-based learning to determine sedentary time based on readings from the accelerometers. Sleep was not included as sedentary behavior.

Over a mean follow-up of 6.72 years, 414 participants were diagnosed with dementia.

Investigators found that dementia risk rises by 8% at 10 hours a day (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08; P < .001) and 63% at 12 hours a day (aHR, 1.63; P < .001), compared with 9.27 hours a day. Those who logged 15 hours of sedentary behavior a day had more than triple the dementia risk (aHR, 3.21; P < .001).

Although previous studies had found that breaking up sedentary periods with short bursts of activity help offset some negative health effects of sitting, that wasn’t the case here. Dementia risk was elevated whether participants were sedentary for 10 uninterrupted hours or multiple sedentary periods that totaled 10 hours over the whole day.

“This was surprising,” Dr. Raichlen said. “We expected to find that patterns of sedentary behavior would play a role in risk of dementia, but once you take into account the daily volume of time spent sedentary, how you get there doesn’t seem to matter as much.”

The study did not examine how participants spent sedentary time, but an earlier study by Dr. Raichlen found that watching TV was associated with a greater risk of dementia in older adults, compared with working on a computer.
 

More research welcome

Dr. Raichlen noted that the number of dementia cases in the study is low and that the view of sedentary behavior is based on 1 week of accelerometer readings. A longitudinal study is needed to determine if the findings last over a longer time period.

In a comment, Claire Sexton, DPhil, senior director of scientific programs and outreach for the Alzheimer’s Association, says that earlier studies reported an association between sedentary time and dementia, so these results aren’t “particularly surprising.”

“However, reports that did not find an association have also been published, so additional research on possible associations is welcome,” she said.

It’s also important to note that this observational study doesn’t establish a causal relationship between inactivity and cognitive function, which Dr. Sexton said means the influence of other dementia risk factors that are also exacerbated by sedentary behavior can’t be ruled out.

“Although results remained significant after adjusting for several of these factors, further research is required to better understand the various elements that may influence the observed relationship,” noted Dr. Sexton, who was not part of the study. “Reverse causality – that changes in the brain related to dementia are causing the sedentary behavior – cannot be ruled out.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the state of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Dr. Raichlen and Dr. Sexton report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A single dose of an experimental psilocybin drug offered significant sustained improvement in symptoms and disability in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) over a 6-week period, results of a study suggest.

The randomized, phase 2 trial was conducted at 11 sites across the United States and is the latest to demonstrate the psychedelic drug’s potential as a treatment for depression.

The project was funded by Usona Institute, a nonprofit medical research organization based in Madison, Wisc. The institute issued a press statement, but researchers did not comment further on the findings.

“As the largest and most rigorous study conducted across a wide spectrum of individuals with major depressive disorder, the results show promise for all people struggling with this condition,” lead author Charles Raison, MD, director of clinical and translational research at Usona, said in the statement. 

The 34 coauthors on the study are affiliated with public universities, research centers, and private companies. Eight of the investigators are identified as employees of Usona Institute.

Declining further comment, an institute spokesperson told this news organization that, “Usona has chosen the approach of no interviews, and this applies for all coauthors.”

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Largest study to date

Usona’s investigational psilocybin drug has been granted a breakthrough designation by the Food and Drug Administration, a process designed to speed drug development and review.

Previous smaller studies have suggested a rapid antidepressant response with psilocybin, but they have been small, unblinded, and have had short duration of follow-up, they write. This randomized, double-blind, phase 2 clinical trial is the largest study of psilocybin for depression to date, the researchers note.

It included 104 adults aged 21-65 years with MDD who had a current depressive episode of at least 60 days and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score of 28 or more at baseline.

Participants had to be free of psychedelic drugs for at least 5 years, have had no active suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior in the prior 12 months, no personal or first-degree family history of psychosis or mania, and no history of moderate/severe alcohol or drug use disorder.

Before the study, participants had a 7- to 35-day screening period for psychiatric medication tapering, underwent baseline assessments, and received 6-8 hours of preparation with two facilitators who would be with them during dosing.

Dosing occurred within 7 days of baseline assessments. During the 6- to 8-hour session, participants received either a single 25-mg oral dose of psilocybin or 100-mg dose of niacin. One participant randomly assigned to receive psilocybin received the incorrect treatment, resulting in 50 participants receiving psilocybin and 54 receiving niacin.

Participants returned the next day, the next week, and then every 2 weeks for assessments, for a follow-up of 6 weeks.
 

Psychosocial support

Participants who received psilocybin reported significantly greater improvements in MDD symptoms, compared with those who received niacin. MADRS scores – a scale from 0 to 60 where higher scores indicate more severe depression – showed greater reductions with treatment vs. placebo at 8 days (mean difference, −12.0; 95% confidence interval, −16.6 to −7.4; P < .001), and at day 43 (mean difference, −12.3; 95% CI, −17.5 to −7.2; P < .001).

More participants receiving psilocybin had sustained depressive symptom response (42% vs. 11%; P = .002) and more improvement in the Sheehan Disability Scale score, which measures functional disability, 43 days after treatment (P < .001).

The effects persisted through the end of the study, although the differences between groups were no longer significant by week 6.

“This is another exciting piece of evidence that adds to the current literature regarding the potential efficacy of psilocybin for the treatment of mental health conditions, particularly depression,” said Greg Fonzo, MD, codirector of the Center for Psychedelic Research and Therapy at the University of Texas at Austin, who commented on the findings.

Significantly more people in the psilocybin group reported at least one treatment-related adverse event (AE, 82% vs. 44%), although most were mild to moderate. Headache and nausea were the most common side effects and most resolved within 1 day of dosing.

While those numbers are high, Dr. Fonzo said they’re not out of line with AEs reported in other studies.

“Particularly with the types of adverse events reported here, like headache and nausea, those are things you would typically expect to see in this treatment,” said Dr. Fonzo, who was not part of the research.

“But it is high, and it underscores that this is not a treatment without certain risks, even though it was good that they were primarily mild in severity,” he added.
 

A ‘stepping stone’ to FDA approval?

The use of tools to measure disability in addition to symptoms of depression severity is a strength of the study, Dr. Fonzo added. The use of an active comparator and the 6-week follow-up also offer something new over previous studies.

Despite the longer follow up, questions remain about the durability of response, something only a longer study could answer, Dr. Fonzo said. The small and homogeneous sample-size are also a concern. Nearly 90% of participants were White, and more than half had an income of $75,000 a year or higher.

“It’s another stepping stone in the process to FDA approval, but the next step in that process would be much larger phase 3 trials that would have much larger samples, a longer follow-up, and hopefully have a more inclusive swath of the population,” Dr. Fonzo said.

But perhaps one of the most significant limitations is the use of niacin as an active comparator, said Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

The use of an agent that doesn’t produce effects similar to those expected from a psychedelic introduced the potential for functional unblinding, Dr. Alexander said. Investigators did not ask participants to guess whether they received psilocybin or niacin, so the quality of the blinding was not assessed in the study.

“We’d like to see the use of [an] active comparator that might have a chance of obscuring to people as to whether they’ve been randomized to the treatment arm or control arm,” said Dr. Alexander, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Why not use a benzodiazepine or another drug that produces a transient euphoria that would better obscure whether or not people were receiving the psilocybin?”

The authors of an accompanying editorial shared these concerns, also noting that the study included “a significant number of patients who did not respond to therapy.”

“It is important to analyze and understand adverse outcomes in psychedelic trials and conduct longitudinal studies to determine how sustained the effects will be and what may initiate a recrudescence of symptoms,” write Rachel Yehuda, PhD, and Amy Lehrner, PhD, both of the Peters VA Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Future studies will help identify who is most likely to benefit from psychedelics, whether booster or repeated treatment is safe and beneficial, and what the optimal dose and therapeutic frameworks are.”

A long-term follow-up of the current trial was terminated last year because of low enrollment. The spokesperson with Usona Institute did not respond to questions about that study, and the institute’s statement only added that preparations are underway to launch another study that “will provide additional safety and efficacy data to support submission of a new drug application to the FDA.”

Usona published its manufacturing process that it used to synthesize psilocybin in an open-access journal and signed a statement on “open science and open praxis” with psilocybin and similar substances, which appears on their website. That statement was signed by 31 research and service organizations around the world and nearly 150 scientists, scholars, and practitioners.

The study was funded by Usona Institute. Dr. Raison reported receiving personal fees from Usona Institute and grants to Usona Institute from Dr. Bronner’s All-One, Fournier Family Foundation, Good Ventures, Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, Tiny Blue Dot Foundation, Turnbull Family Foundation, and William A. Linton during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Novartis, Sage/Biogen, Emory Healthcare, and Vail Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonzo and Dr. Alexander report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Yehuda reports receiving nonfinancial support from the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies Public Benefit (MAPS PBC) and grants from COMPASS Pathways. Dr. Lehrner is an investigator on trials sponsored by MAPS PBC and COMPASS Pathways.

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

A single dose of an experimental psilocybin drug offered significant sustained improvement in symptoms and disability in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) over a 6-week period, results of a study suggest.

The randomized, phase 2 trial was conducted at 11 sites across the United States and is the latest to demonstrate the psychedelic drug’s potential as a treatment for depression.

The project was funded by Usona Institute, a nonprofit medical research organization based in Madison, Wisc. The institute issued a press statement, but researchers did not comment further on the findings.

“As the largest and most rigorous study conducted across a wide spectrum of individuals with major depressive disorder, the results show promise for all people struggling with this condition,” lead author Charles Raison, MD, director of clinical and translational research at Usona, said in the statement. 

The 34 coauthors on the study are affiliated with public universities, research centers, and private companies. Eight of the investigators are identified as employees of Usona Institute.

Declining further comment, an institute spokesperson told this news organization that, “Usona has chosen the approach of no interviews, and this applies for all coauthors.”

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Largest study to date

Usona’s investigational psilocybin drug has been granted a breakthrough designation by the Food and Drug Administration, a process designed to speed drug development and review.

Previous smaller studies have suggested a rapid antidepressant response with psilocybin, but they have been small, unblinded, and have had short duration of follow-up, they write. This randomized, double-blind, phase 2 clinical trial is the largest study of psilocybin for depression to date, the researchers note.

It included 104 adults aged 21-65 years with MDD who had a current depressive episode of at least 60 days and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score of 28 or more at baseline.

Participants had to be free of psychedelic drugs for at least 5 years, have had no active suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior in the prior 12 months, no personal or first-degree family history of psychosis or mania, and no history of moderate/severe alcohol or drug use disorder.

Before the study, participants had a 7- to 35-day screening period for psychiatric medication tapering, underwent baseline assessments, and received 6-8 hours of preparation with two facilitators who would be with them during dosing.

Dosing occurred within 7 days of baseline assessments. During the 6- to 8-hour session, participants received either a single 25-mg oral dose of psilocybin or 100-mg dose of niacin. One participant randomly assigned to receive psilocybin received the incorrect treatment, resulting in 50 participants receiving psilocybin and 54 receiving niacin.

Participants returned the next day, the next week, and then every 2 weeks for assessments, for a follow-up of 6 weeks.
 

Psychosocial support

Participants who received psilocybin reported significantly greater improvements in MDD symptoms, compared with those who received niacin. MADRS scores – a scale from 0 to 60 where higher scores indicate more severe depression – showed greater reductions with treatment vs. placebo at 8 days (mean difference, −12.0; 95% confidence interval, −16.6 to −7.4; P < .001), and at day 43 (mean difference, −12.3; 95% CI, −17.5 to −7.2; P < .001).

More participants receiving psilocybin had sustained depressive symptom response (42% vs. 11%; P = .002) and more improvement in the Sheehan Disability Scale score, which measures functional disability, 43 days after treatment (P < .001).

The effects persisted through the end of the study, although the differences between groups were no longer significant by week 6.

“This is another exciting piece of evidence that adds to the current literature regarding the potential efficacy of psilocybin for the treatment of mental health conditions, particularly depression,” said Greg Fonzo, MD, codirector of the Center for Psychedelic Research and Therapy at the University of Texas at Austin, who commented on the findings.

Significantly more people in the psilocybin group reported at least one treatment-related adverse event (AE, 82% vs. 44%), although most were mild to moderate. Headache and nausea were the most common side effects and most resolved within 1 day of dosing.

While those numbers are high, Dr. Fonzo said they’re not out of line with AEs reported in other studies.

“Particularly with the types of adverse events reported here, like headache and nausea, those are things you would typically expect to see in this treatment,” said Dr. Fonzo, who was not part of the research.

“But it is high, and it underscores that this is not a treatment without certain risks, even though it was good that they were primarily mild in severity,” he added.
 

A ‘stepping stone’ to FDA approval?

The use of tools to measure disability in addition to symptoms of depression severity is a strength of the study, Dr. Fonzo added. The use of an active comparator and the 6-week follow-up also offer something new over previous studies.

Despite the longer follow up, questions remain about the durability of response, something only a longer study could answer, Dr. Fonzo said. The small and homogeneous sample-size are also a concern. Nearly 90% of participants were White, and more than half had an income of $75,000 a year or higher.

“It’s another stepping stone in the process to FDA approval, but the next step in that process would be much larger phase 3 trials that would have much larger samples, a longer follow-up, and hopefully have a more inclusive swath of the population,” Dr. Fonzo said.

But perhaps one of the most significant limitations is the use of niacin as an active comparator, said Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

The use of an agent that doesn’t produce effects similar to those expected from a psychedelic introduced the potential for functional unblinding, Dr. Alexander said. Investigators did not ask participants to guess whether they received psilocybin or niacin, so the quality of the blinding was not assessed in the study.

“We’d like to see the use of [an] active comparator that might have a chance of obscuring to people as to whether they’ve been randomized to the treatment arm or control arm,” said Dr. Alexander, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Why not use a benzodiazepine or another drug that produces a transient euphoria that would better obscure whether or not people were receiving the psilocybin?”

The authors of an accompanying editorial shared these concerns, also noting that the study included “a significant number of patients who did not respond to therapy.”

“It is important to analyze and understand adverse outcomes in psychedelic trials and conduct longitudinal studies to determine how sustained the effects will be and what may initiate a recrudescence of symptoms,” write Rachel Yehuda, PhD, and Amy Lehrner, PhD, both of the Peters VA Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Future studies will help identify who is most likely to benefit from psychedelics, whether booster or repeated treatment is safe and beneficial, and what the optimal dose and therapeutic frameworks are.”

A long-term follow-up of the current trial was terminated last year because of low enrollment. The spokesperson with Usona Institute did not respond to questions about that study, and the institute’s statement only added that preparations are underway to launch another study that “will provide additional safety and efficacy data to support submission of a new drug application to the FDA.”

Usona published its manufacturing process that it used to synthesize psilocybin in an open-access journal and signed a statement on “open science and open praxis” with psilocybin and similar substances, which appears on their website. That statement was signed by 31 research and service organizations around the world and nearly 150 scientists, scholars, and practitioners.

The study was funded by Usona Institute. Dr. Raison reported receiving personal fees from Usona Institute and grants to Usona Institute from Dr. Bronner’s All-One, Fournier Family Foundation, Good Ventures, Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, Tiny Blue Dot Foundation, Turnbull Family Foundation, and William A. Linton during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Novartis, Sage/Biogen, Emory Healthcare, and Vail Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonzo and Dr. Alexander report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Yehuda reports receiving nonfinancial support from the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies Public Benefit (MAPS PBC) and grants from COMPASS Pathways. Dr. Lehrner is an investigator on trials sponsored by MAPS PBC and COMPASS Pathways.

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

A single dose of an experimental psilocybin drug offered significant sustained improvement in symptoms and disability in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) over a 6-week period, results of a study suggest.

The randomized, phase 2 trial was conducted at 11 sites across the United States and is the latest to demonstrate the psychedelic drug’s potential as a treatment for depression.

The project was funded by Usona Institute, a nonprofit medical research organization based in Madison, Wisc. The institute issued a press statement, but researchers did not comment further on the findings.

“As the largest and most rigorous study conducted across a wide spectrum of individuals with major depressive disorder, the results show promise for all people struggling with this condition,” lead author Charles Raison, MD, director of clinical and translational research at Usona, said in the statement. 

The 34 coauthors on the study are affiliated with public universities, research centers, and private companies. Eight of the investigators are identified as employees of Usona Institute.

Declining further comment, an institute spokesperson told this news organization that, “Usona has chosen the approach of no interviews, and this applies for all coauthors.”

The findings were published online in JAMA.
 

Largest study to date

Usona’s investigational psilocybin drug has been granted a breakthrough designation by the Food and Drug Administration, a process designed to speed drug development and review.

Previous smaller studies have suggested a rapid antidepressant response with psilocybin, but they have been small, unblinded, and have had short duration of follow-up, they write. This randomized, double-blind, phase 2 clinical trial is the largest study of psilocybin for depression to date, the researchers note.

It included 104 adults aged 21-65 years with MDD who had a current depressive episode of at least 60 days and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score of 28 or more at baseline.

Participants had to be free of psychedelic drugs for at least 5 years, have had no active suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior in the prior 12 months, no personal or first-degree family history of psychosis or mania, and no history of moderate/severe alcohol or drug use disorder.

Before the study, participants had a 7- to 35-day screening period for psychiatric medication tapering, underwent baseline assessments, and received 6-8 hours of preparation with two facilitators who would be with them during dosing.

Dosing occurred within 7 days of baseline assessments. During the 6- to 8-hour session, participants received either a single 25-mg oral dose of psilocybin or 100-mg dose of niacin. One participant randomly assigned to receive psilocybin received the incorrect treatment, resulting in 50 participants receiving psilocybin and 54 receiving niacin.

Participants returned the next day, the next week, and then every 2 weeks for assessments, for a follow-up of 6 weeks.
 

Psychosocial support

Participants who received psilocybin reported significantly greater improvements in MDD symptoms, compared with those who received niacin. MADRS scores – a scale from 0 to 60 where higher scores indicate more severe depression – showed greater reductions with treatment vs. placebo at 8 days (mean difference, −12.0; 95% confidence interval, −16.6 to −7.4; P < .001), and at day 43 (mean difference, −12.3; 95% CI, −17.5 to −7.2; P < .001).

More participants receiving psilocybin had sustained depressive symptom response (42% vs. 11%; P = .002) and more improvement in the Sheehan Disability Scale score, which measures functional disability, 43 days after treatment (P < .001).

The effects persisted through the end of the study, although the differences between groups were no longer significant by week 6.

“This is another exciting piece of evidence that adds to the current literature regarding the potential efficacy of psilocybin for the treatment of mental health conditions, particularly depression,” said Greg Fonzo, MD, codirector of the Center for Psychedelic Research and Therapy at the University of Texas at Austin, who commented on the findings.

Significantly more people in the psilocybin group reported at least one treatment-related adverse event (AE, 82% vs. 44%), although most were mild to moderate. Headache and nausea were the most common side effects and most resolved within 1 day of dosing.

While those numbers are high, Dr. Fonzo said they’re not out of line with AEs reported in other studies.

“Particularly with the types of adverse events reported here, like headache and nausea, those are things you would typically expect to see in this treatment,” said Dr. Fonzo, who was not part of the research.

“But it is high, and it underscores that this is not a treatment without certain risks, even though it was good that they were primarily mild in severity,” he added.
 

A ‘stepping stone’ to FDA approval?

The use of tools to measure disability in addition to symptoms of depression severity is a strength of the study, Dr. Fonzo added. The use of an active comparator and the 6-week follow-up also offer something new over previous studies.

Despite the longer follow up, questions remain about the durability of response, something only a longer study could answer, Dr. Fonzo said. The small and homogeneous sample-size are also a concern. Nearly 90% of participants were White, and more than half had an income of $75,000 a year or higher.

“It’s another stepping stone in the process to FDA approval, but the next step in that process would be much larger phase 3 trials that would have much larger samples, a longer follow-up, and hopefully have a more inclusive swath of the population,” Dr. Fonzo said.

But perhaps one of the most significant limitations is the use of niacin as an active comparator, said Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

The use of an agent that doesn’t produce effects similar to those expected from a psychedelic introduced the potential for functional unblinding, Dr. Alexander said. Investigators did not ask participants to guess whether they received psilocybin or niacin, so the quality of the blinding was not assessed in the study.

“We’d like to see the use of [an] active comparator that might have a chance of obscuring to people as to whether they’ve been randomized to the treatment arm or control arm,” said Dr. Alexander, who wasn’t involved in the study. “Why not use a benzodiazepine or another drug that produces a transient euphoria that would better obscure whether or not people were receiving the psilocybin?”

The authors of an accompanying editorial shared these concerns, also noting that the study included “a significant number of patients who did not respond to therapy.”

“It is important to analyze and understand adverse outcomes in psychedelic trials and conduct longitudinal studies to determine how sustained the effects will be and what may initiate a recrudescence of symptoms,” write Rachel Yehuda, PhD, and Amy Lehrner, PhD, both of the Peters VA Medical Center and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“Future studies will help identify who is most likely to benefit from psychedelics, whether booster or repeated treatment is safe and beneficial, and what the optimal dose and therapeutic frameworks are.”

A long-term follow-up of the current trial was terminated last year because of low enrollment. The spokesperson with Usona Institute did not respond to questions about that study, and the institute’s statement only added that preparations are underway to launch another study that “will provide additional safety and efficacy data to support submission of a new drug application to the FDA.”

Usona published its manufacturing process that it used to synthesize psilocybin in an open-access journal and signed a statement on “open science and open praxis” with psilocybin and similar substances, which appears on their website. That statement was signed by 31 research and service organizations around the world and nearly 150 scientists, scholars, and practitioners.

The study was funded by Usona Institute. Dr. Raison reported receiving personal fees from Usona Institute and grants to Usona Institute from Dr. Bronner’s All-One, Fournier Family Foundation, Good Ventures, Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, Tiny Blue Dot Foundation, Turnbull Family Foundation, and William A. Linton during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Novartis, Sage/Biogen, Emory Healthcare, and Vail Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Fonzo and Dr. Alexander report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Yehuda reports receiving nonfinancial support from the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies Public Benefit (MAPS PBC) and grants from COMPASS Pathways. Dr. Lehrner is an investigator on trials sponsored by MAPS PBC and COMPASS Pathways.

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