Clinical Neurology News

This is a lot of paper.

It’s not a chart. Or mortgage forms. Or Family and Medical Leave Act paperwork.

It’s a research protocol for a study I’m involved in.

Now, I understand that research needs detailed protocols. It’s serious business, and when it’s happening at multiple sites they all need to know exactly what the plan is, what steps should be followed, who qualifies and who doesn’t, and so on.

But here’s what irritates me: That huge pile showed up at my office about an hour after all of the same documents were delivered to me by email, as PDFs.

Not only that, but someone had paid a messenger service to get them to me promptly. When I asked why I was told “because it’s the protocol that each site have both paper and digital copies.”

I don’t understand this at all. To me, the whole thing seems pretty wasteful on multiple levels. I’m told there are 28 sites for this study, so there’s a minimum stack of 28 times that one involved. Of course, each site probably has three to five copies (at least). Then, if the protocol is amended in a few months ... you get the idea.

To me this seems ridiculously wasteful. That’s a lot of paper and ink and shipping charges. If the whole thing can be sent digitally for a lot less money, why are they requiring both? If they need a signed signature sheet saying I read it, why not just print up that sheet? It’s one page instead of a huge pile. If I can digitally sign a document to refinance my house, why can’t I do it to acknowledge reading the protocol? I’m more likely to read study data on my iPad, anyway.

Not only that, now I have to store that stack in my office for several years, in spite of also having it on my hard drive.

Obviously, this is just a fraction of research costs, but it’s still money wasted.

The environmental issues of trees, water to make paper, the ink cartridges, and fuel to transport documents are all there, too. I could certainly go on.

I guess the overlying problem is that we’re still between two worlds (paper and digital) and, in spite of the marked shift to the latter, many are still insisting we try to live in both. At some point it gets silly. And costly.

I’m sure we won’t become completely paperless in my career, but there are plenty of ways we can eliminate its often-unnecessary overhead. Money is just the most obvious one.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This is a lot of paper.

It’s not a chart. Or mortgage forms. Or Family and Medical Leave Act paperwork.

It’s a research protocol for a study I’m involved in.

Now, I understand that research needs detailed protocols. It’s serious business, and when it’s happening at multiple sites they all need to know exactly what the plan is, what steps should be followed, who qualifies and who doesn’t, and so on.

But here’s what irritates me: That huge pile showed up at my office about an hour after all of the same documents were delivered to me by email, as PDFs.

Not only that, but someone had paid a messenger service to get them to me promptly. When I asked why I was told “because it’s the protocol that each site have both paper and digital copies.”

I don’t understand this at all. To me, the whole thing seems pretty wasteful on multiple levels. I’m told there are 28 sites for this study, so there’s a minimum stack of 28 times that one involved. Of course, each site probably has three to five copies (at least). Then, if the protocol is amended in a few months ... you get the idea.

To me this seems ridiculously wasteful. That’s a lot of paper and ink and shipping charges. If the whole thing can be sent digitally for a lot less money, why are they requiring both? If they need a signed signature sheet saying I read it, why not just print up that sheet? It’s one page instead of a huge pile. If I can digitally sign a document to refinance my house, why can’t I do it to acknowledge reading the protocol? I’m more likely to read study data on my iPad, anyway.

Not only that, now I have to store that stack in my office for several years, in spite of also having it on my hard drive.

Obviously, this is just a fraction of research costs, but it’s still money wasted.

The environmental issues of trees, water to make paper, the ink cartridges, and fuel to transport documents are all there, too. I could certainly go on.

I guess the overlying problem is that we’re still between two worlds (paper and digital) and, in spite of the marked shift to the latter, many are still insisting we try to live in both. At some point it gets silly. And costly.

I’m sure we won’t become completely paperless in my career, but there are plenty of ways we can eliminate its often-unnecessary overhead. Money is just the most obvious one.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This is a lot of paper.

It’s not a chart. Or mortgage forms. Or Family and Medical Leave Act paperwork.

It’s a research protocol for a study I’m involved in.

Now, I understand that research needs detailed protocols. It’s serious business, and when it’s happening at multiple sites they all need to know exactly what the plan is, what steps should be followed, who qualifies and who doesn’t, and so on.

But here’s what irritates me: That huge pile showed up at my office about an hour after all of the same documents were delivered to me by email, as PDFs.

Not only that, but someone had paid a messenger service to get them to me promptly. When I asked why I was told “because it’s the protocol that each site have both paper and digital copies.”

I don’t understand this at all. To me, the whole thing seems pretty wasteful on multiple levels. I’m told there are 28 sites for this study, so there’s a minimum stack of 28 times that one involved. Of course, each site probably has three to five copies (at least). Then, if the protocol is amended in a few months ... you get the idea.

To me this seems ridiculously wasteful. That’s a lot of paper and ink and shipping charges. If the whole thing can be sent digitally for a lot less money, why are they requiring both? If they need a signed signature sheet saying I read it, why not just print up that sheet? It’s one page instead of a huge pile. If I can digitally sign a document to refinance my house, why can’t I do it to acknowledge reading the protocol? I’m more likely to read study data on my iPad, anyway.

Not only that, now I have to store that stack in my office for several years, in spite of also having it on my hard drive.

Obviously, this is just a fraction of research costs, but it’s still money wasted.

The environmental issues of trees, water to make paper, the ink cartridges, and fuel to transport documents are all there, too. I could certainly go on.

I guess the overlying problem is that we’re still between two worlds (paper and digital) and, in spite of the marked shift to the latter, many are still insisting we try to live in both. At some point it gets silly. And costly.

I’m sure we won’t become completely paperless in my career, but there are plenty of ways we can eliminate its often-unnecessary overhead. Money is just the most obvious one.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

LOS ANGELES – In a subanalysis of the TST (Treat Stroke to Target) trial, restricting analysis to only French participants followed for an average of 5 years demonstrated an even more robust potential to reduce recurrent stroke and other major cardiovascular events by treating patients to an LDL target of below 70 mg/dL. Treating LDL to a mean of 66 mg/dL versus 96 mg/dL was associated with a 26% relative risk reduction for the composite endpoint of ischemic stroke, MI, new symptoms requiring urgent coronary or carotid revascularization, and vascular death in an adjusted analysis.

“The results are similar to the main paper but even more spectacular, with no increase in hemorrhagic stroke whatsoever, and positive results on any stroke,” study investigator Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurology and Stroke Centre, Bichat University Hospital, Paris, said.

Dr. Amarenco presented the findings as a late-breaking abstract at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The trial was published simultaneously in the journal Stroke.

In the full TST trial population, risk was reduced by 22% with more-aggressive LDL-lowering treatment, compared with the more lax 90-110 mg/dL target.

The TST cohort included both French and Korean participants. Dr. Amarenco and colleagues focused on the French population in the current study because the group was larger (2,148 vs. 742 Korean participants) and had a longer follow-up, an average of 5.3 years compared to 2.0 years among Korean patients. The initial study had shown “very significant results in the French patients and no apparent effect in Korean patients,” he said. The longer duration of treatment in the French cohort could have contributed to the greater risk reduction, said Dr. Amarenco.

A 2017 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel statement noted that exposure time to lipid-lowering drugs correlates with outcomes. The European Stroke Organization and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines each recommend intensive statin treatment to lower serum lipids following an ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin or after a transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, the current researchers noted that the recommendations do not specify specific target numbers.

“Therefore, there is uncertainty about the target levels of LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Aiming at different targets

To learn more, Dr. Amarenco and colleagues randomly assigned 1,073 of the French patients to a target LDL treatment group of 70 mg/dL and another 1,075 to a target range of 90-110 mg/dL. They enrolled participants at 61 sites in France. Mean age was 67 years. All participants had experienced an ischemic stroke within 3 months or a TIA within 15 days of baseline. They presented either with a modified Rankin Scale poststroke score of 0-3 or a TIA that included at least arm and leg motor deficit or speech disturbance that lasted more than 10 minutes.

Investigators could use any type and any dose of statin to reach the respective targets. Statins could be prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with ezetimibe (Zetia) or other agents. The baseline mean LDL cholesterol level was 137 mg/dL in the lower target group and 138 mg/dL in the higher target group, respectively (3.5 mmol/L in both groups). Dr. Amarenco and colleagues measured LDL cholesterol levels at 3 weeks postrandomization and then every 6 months.

A smaller proportion of the lower LDL cholesterol target group experienced the adverse composite outcome, 9.6%, compared with 12.9% of the higher LDL cholesterol target group. This translated to a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.94; P = .015). The absolute risk reduction was 3.3% with a number needed to treat of 30.

An analysis adjusted for covariates showed a hazard ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.95; P = .019).

Cerebral infarction and acute cerebral artery revascularization were reduced by 27% (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .046). Cerebral infarction or intracranial hemorrhage (all strokes) were reduced by 28% (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P = .023). In this case, there was an absolute risk reduction of 2.9% and a number needed to treat of 34.

In contrast, MI or urgent coronary revascularization following new symptoms were not significantly reduced (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.67-1.20; P = .18). The investigators also reported nonsignificant results regarding vascular death (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.32; P = .32] and all deaths (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74-1.35; P = .99).

Dr. Amarenco and colleagues also tracked adverse events. They found intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 13 (1.2%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL and in 11 (1%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol of 100 ± 10 mg/dL. In this analysis, the hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.53-2.62; P = .70), and the absolute difference was 0.2%.

The investigators also reported that 10.3% of the lower LDL target group vs 13.6% of the higher LDL target group experienced either the primary outcome or intracranial hemorrhage. This translated to a 25% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96; P = .021), an absolute risk reduction of 3.3% and a number needed to treat of 30.
 

Avoiding one in four events

Assessing the French participants in the TST trial showed that targeting LDL below 70 mg/dL for more than 5 years avoided more than one in four subsequent major cardiovascular events among adults who experienced a recent ischemic stroke or TIA.

Furthermore, more intense LDL lowering also avoided more than one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or urgent carotid revascularizations following a TIA, as well as one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or hemorrhages (all strokes), compared with the higher LDL target.

“This was obtained without increasing the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with a number needed to treat of 30,” the researchers noted. “In the context of all randomized clinical trials with statin and other lipid-lowering drugs, there is no reason to think that Asian patients do not benefit from statin treatment and from a lower target LDL cholesterol,” the researchers added.

Therefore, they plan to continue assessing the 742 Korean participants until they reach a median of 5 years of follow-up.

Clinically validating results

“My feeling is that these data are highly supportive of a practice that many of us have been using for years without this level of evidence,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, said when asked to comment on the study.

Prior secondary analyses of studies, including research into patients with intracranial atherosclerosis, demonstrated benefit from treating to this lower LDL cholesterol target. “These studies were suggestive enough that many of us were treating patients aggressively with statins,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology and chief of the division of neurology clinical outcomes research and population sciences at Columbia University in New York.

“But this really confirms that [fact] with clinical trial evidence,” said Dr. Elkind, “and I think will be very useful to us as clinicians.”

The results could be used to counsel patients about the potential benefits of statin therapy or to motivate primary care providers to treat patients more aggressively, said Dr. Elkind, who will begin his term as president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association in July.

This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health and from SOS-Attaque Cérébrale Association, with unrestricted grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Merck for French sites and from Pfizer for South Korean sites.

Dr. Amarenco receives research grant support and consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Elkind had has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SOURCE: Amarenko P et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 9.

LOS ANGELES – In a subanalysis of the TST (Treat Stroke to Target) trial, restricting analysis to only French participants followed for an average of 5 years demonstrated an even more robust potential to reduce recurrent stroke and other major cardiovascular events by treating patients to an LDL target of below 70 mg/dL. Treating LDL to a mean of 66 mg/dL versus 96 mg/dL was associated with a 26% relative risk reduction for the composite endpoint of ischemic stroke, MI, new symptoms requiring urgent coronary or carotid revascularization, and vascular death in an adjusted analysis.

“The results are similar to the main paper but even more spectacular, with no increase in hemorrhagic stroke whatsoever, and positive results on any stroke,” study investigator Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurology and Stroke Centre, Bichat University Hospital, Paris, said.

Dr. Amarenco presented the findings as a late-breaking abstract at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The trial was published simultaneously in the journal Stroke.

In the full TST trial population, risk was reduced by 22% with more-aggressive LDL-lowering treatment, compared with the more lax 90-110 mg/dL target.

The TST cohort included both French and Korean participants. Dr. Amarenco and colleagues focused on the French population in the current study because the group was larger (2,148 vs. 742 Korean participants) and had a longer follow-up, an average of 5.3 years compared to 2.0 years among Korean patients. The initial study had shown “very significant results in the French patients and no apparent effect in Korean patients,” he said. The longer duration of treatment in the French cohort could have contributed to the greater risk reduction, said Dr. Amarenco.

A 2017 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel statement noted that exposure time to lipid-lowering drugs correlates with outcomes. The European Stroke Organization and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines each recommend intensive statin treatment to lower serum lipids following an ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin or after a transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, the current researchers noted that the recommendations do not specify specific target numbers.

“Therefore, there is uncertainty about the target levels of LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Aiming at different targets

To learn more, Dr. Amarenco and colleagues randomly assigned 1,073 of the French patients to a target LDL treatment group of 70 mg/dL and another 1,075 to a target range of 90-110 mg/dL. They enrolled participants at 61 sites in France. Mean age was 67 years. All participants had experienced an ischemic stroke within 3 months or a TIA within 15 days of baseline. They presented either with a modified Rankin Scale poststroke score of 0-3 or a TIA that included at least arm and leg motor deficit or speech disturbance that lasted more than 10 minutes.

Investigators could use any type and any dose of statin to reach the respective targets. Statins could be prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with ezetimibe (Zetia) or other agents. The baseline mean LDL cholesterol level was 137 mg/dL in the lower target group and 138 mg/dL in the higher target group, respectively (3.5 mmol/L in both groups). Dr. Amarenco and colleagues measured LDL cholesterol levels at 3 weeks postrandomization and then every 6 months.

A smaller proportion of the lower LDL cholesterol target group experienced the adverse composite outcome, 9.6%, compared with 12.9% of the higher LDL cholesterol target group. This translated to a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.94; P = .015). The absolute risk reduction was 3.3% with a number needed to treat of 30.

An analysis adjusted for covariates showed a hazard ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.95; P = .019).

Cerebral infarction and acute cerebral artery revascularization were reduced by 27% (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .046). Cerebral infarction or intracranial hemorrhage (all strokes) were reduced by 28% (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P = .023). In this case, there was an absolute risk reduction of 2.9% and a number needed to treat of 34.

In contrast, MI or urgent coronary revascularization following new symptoms were not significantly reduced (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.67-1.20; P = .18). The investigators also reported nonsignificant results regarding vascular death (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.32; P = .32] and all deaths (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74-1.35; P = .99).

Dr. Amarenco and colleagues also tracked adverse events. They found intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 13 (1.2%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL and in 11 (1%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol of 100 ± 10 mg/dL. In this analysis, the hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.53-2.62; P = .70), and the absolute difference was 0.2%.

The investigators also reported that 10.3% of the lower LDL target group vs 13.6% of the higher LDL target group experienced either the primary outcome or intracranial hemorrhage. This translated to a 25% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96; P = .021), an absolute risk reduction of 3.3% and a number needed to treat of 30.
 

Avoiding one in four events

Assessing the French participants in the TST trial showed that targeting LDL below 70 mg/dL for more than 5 years avoided more than one in four subsequent major cardiovascular events among adults who experienced a recent ischemic stroke or TIA.

Furthermore, more intense LDL lowering also avoided more than one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or urgent carotid revascularizations following a TIA, as well as one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or hemorrhages (all strokes), compared with the higher LDL target.

“This was obtained without increasing the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with a number needed to treat of 30,” the researchers noted. “In the context of all randomized clinical trials with statin and other lipid-lowering drugs, there is no reason to think that Asian patients do not benefit from statin treatment and from a lower target LDL cholesterol,” the researchers added.

Therefore, they plan to continue assessing the 742 Korean participants until they reach a median of 5 years of follow-up.

Clinically validating results

“My feeling is that these data are highly supportive of a practice that many of us have been using for years without this level of evidence,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, said when asked to comment on the study.

Prior secondary analyses of studies, including research into patients with intracranial atherosclerosis, demonstrated benefit from treating to this lower LDL cholesterol target. “These studies were suggestive enough that many of us were treating patients aggressively with statins,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology and chief of the division of neurology clinical outcomes research and population sciences at Columbia University in New York.

“But this really confirms that [fact] with clinical trial evidence,” said Dr. Elkind, “and I think will be very useful to us as clinicians.”

The results could be used to counsel patients about the potential benefits of statin therapy or to motivate primary care providers to treat patients more aggressively, said Dr. Elkind, who will begin his term as president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association in July.

This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health and from SOS-Attaque Cérébrale Association, with unrestricted grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Merck for French sites and from Pfizer for South Korean sites.

Dr. Amarenco receives research grant support and consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Elkind had has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SOURCE: Amarenko P et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 9.

LOS ANGELES – In a subanalysis of the TST (Treat Stroke to Target) trial, restricting analysis to only French participants followed for an average of 5 years demonstrated an even more robust potential to reduce recurrent stroke and other major cardiovascular events by treating patients to an LDL target of below 70 mg/dL. Treating LDL to a mean of 66 mg/dL versus 96 mg/dL was associated with a 26% relative risk reduction for the composite endpoint of ischemic stroke, MI, new symptoms requiring urgent coronary or carotid revascularization, and vascular death in an adjusted analysis.

“The results are similar to the main paper but even more spectacular, with no increase in hemorrhagic stroke whatsoever, and positive results on any stroke,” study investigator Pierre Amarenco, MD, professor and chair of the department of neurology and Stroke Centre, Bichat University Hospital, Paris, said.

Dr. Amarenco presented the findings as a late-breaking abstract at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. The trial was published simultaneously in the journal Stroke.

In the full TST trial population, risk was reduced by 22% with more-aggressive LDL-lowering treatment, compared with the more lax 90-110 mg/dL target.

The TST cohort included both French and Korean participants. Dr. Amarenco and colleagues focused on the French population in the current study because the group was larger (2,148 vs. 742 Korean participants) and had a longer follow-up, an average of 5.3 years compared to 2.0 years among Korean patients. The initial study had shown “very significant results in the French patients and no apparent effect in Korean patients,” he said. The longer duration of treatment in the French cohort could have contributed to the greater risk reduction, said Dr. Amarenco.

A 2017 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel statement noted that exposure time to lipid-lowering drugs correlates with outcomes. The European Stroke Organization and the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines each recommend intensive statin treatment to lower serum lipids following an ischemic stroke of atherosclerotic origin or after a transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, the current researchers noted that the recommendations do not specify specific target numbers.

“Therefore, there is uncertainty about the target levels of LDL cholesterol,” he said.
 

Aiming at different targets

To learn more, Dr. Amarenco and colleagues randomly assigned 1,073 of the French patients to a target LDL treatment group of 70 mg/dL and another 1,075 to a target range of 90-110 mg/dL. They enrolled participants at 61 sites in France. Mean age was 67 years. All participants had experienced an ischemic stroke within 3 months or a TIA within 15 days of baseline. They presented either with a modified Rankin Scale poststroke score of 0-3 or a TIA that included at least arm and leg motor deficit or speech disturbance that lasted more than 10 minutes.

Investigators could use any type and any dose of statin to reach the respective targets. Statins could be prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with ezetimibe (Zetia) or other agents. The baseline mean LDL cholesterol level was 137 mg/dL in the lower target group and 138 mg/dL in the higher target group, respectively (3.5 mmol/L in both groups). Dr. Amarenco and colleagues measured LDL cholesterol levels at 3 weeks postrandomization and then every 6 months.

A smaller proportion of the lower LDL cholesterol target group experienced the adverse composite outcome, 9.6%, compared with 12.9% of the higher LDL cholesterol target group. This translated to a hazard ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.94; P = .015). The absolute risk reduction was 3.3% with a number needed to treat of 30.

An analysis adjusted for covariates showed a hazard ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.95; P = .019).

Cerebral infarction and acute cerebral artery revascularization were reduced by 27% (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .046). Cerebral infarction or intracranial hemorrhage (all strokes) were reduced by 28% (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P = .023). In this case, there was an absolute risk reduction of 2.9% and a number needed to treat of 34.

In contrast, MI or urgent coronary revascularization following new symptoms were not significantly reduced (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.67-1.20; P = .18). The investigators also reported nonsignificant results regarding vascular death (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44-1.32; P = .32] and all deaths (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74-1.35; P = .99).

Dr. Amarenco and colleagues also tracked adverse events. They found intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 13 (1.2%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol below 70 mg/dL and in 11 (1%) patients assigned an LDL cholesterol of 100 ± 10 mg/dL. In this analysis, the hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.53-2.62; P = .70), and the absolute difference was 0.2%.

The investigators also reported that 10.3% of the lower LDL target group vs 13.6% of the higher LDL target group experienced either the primary outcome or intracranial hemorrhage. This translated to a 25% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96; P = .021), an absolute risk reduction of 3.3% and a number needed to treat of 30.
 

Avoiding one in four events

Assessing the French participants in the TST trial showed that targeting LDL below 70 mg/dL for more than 5 years avoided more than one in four subsequent major cardiovascular events among adults who experienced a recent ischemic stroke or TIA.

Furthermore, more intense LDL lowering also avoided more than one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or urgent carotid revascularizations following a TIA, as well as one in four recurrent cerebral infarctions or hemorrhages (all strokes), compared with the higher LDL target.

“This was obtained without increasing the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with a number needed to treat of 30,” the researchers noted. “In the context of all randomized clinical trials with statin and other lipid-lowering drugs, there is no reason to think that Asian patients do not benefit from statin treatment and from a lower target LDL cholesterol,” the researchers added.

Therefore, they plan to continue assessing the 742 Korean participants until they reach a median of 5 years of follow-up.

Clinically validating results

“My feeling is that these data are highly supportive of a practice that many of us have been using for years without this level of evidence,” Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, said when asked to comment on the study.

Prior secondary analyses of studies, including research into patients with intracranial atherosclerosis, demonstrated benefit from treating to this lower LDL cholesterol target. “These studies were suggestive enough that many of us were treating patients aggressively with statins,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology and chief of the division of neurology clinical outcomes research and population sciences at Columbia University in New York.

“But this really confirms that [fact] with clinical trial evidence,” said Dr. Elkind, “and I think will be very useful to us as clinicians.”

The results could be used to counsel patients about the potential benefits of statin therapy or to motivate primary care providers to treat patients more aggressively, said Dr. Elkind, who will begin his term as president of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association in July.

This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health and from SOS-Attaque Cérébrale Association, with unrestricted grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Merck for French sites and from Pfizer for South Korean sites.

Dr. Amarenco receives research grant support and consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Elkind had has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SOURCE: Amarenko P et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 9.

While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.

Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.

This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.

A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.

“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”

As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.

We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
 

Make it easy

A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.

Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”

Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.

According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”

If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
 

Make it meaningful

Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.

Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.

In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.

When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
 

Put the patient, not the portal, at the center

History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.

They may simply have been ahead of their time.

A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.

It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.

Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.

If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

Reference

Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.

While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.

Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.

This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.

A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.

“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”

As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.

We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
 

Make it easy

A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.

Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”

Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.

According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”

If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
 

Make it meaningful

Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.

Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.

In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.

When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
 

Put the patient, not the portal, at the center

History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.

They may simply have been ahead of their time.

A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.

It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.

Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.

If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

Reference

Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.

While preparing to write this technology column, I received a great deal of insight from the unlikeliest of sources: my mother-in-law.

Now don’t get me wrong – she’s a truly lovely, intelligent, and capable woman. I have sought her advice often on many things and have always been impressed by her wisdom and pragmatism, but I’ve just never thought of asking her for her opinion on medicine or technology, as I considered her knowledge of both subjects to be limited.

This occasion changed my opinion. In fact, I believe that, as health care IT becomes more complex, people like my mother-in-law may be exactly who we should be looking to for answers.

A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law and I were discussing her recent trip to the doctor. When she mentioned some lab tests, I suggested that we log in to her patient portal to view the results. This elicited several questions and a declaration of frustration.

“Which portal?” she asked. “I have so many and can’t keep all of the websites and passwords straight! Why can’t all of my doctors use the same portal, and why do they all have different password requirements?”

As she spoke these words, I was immediately struck with an unfortunate reality of EHRs: We have done a brilliant job creating state-of-the-art digital castles and have filled them with the data needed to revolutionize care and improve population health – but we haven’t given our patients the keys to get inside.

We must ask ourselves if, in trying to construct fortresses of information around our patients, we have lost sight of the individuals in the center. I believe that we can answer this question and improve the benefits of patient portals, but we all must agree to a few simple steps to streamline the experience for everyone.
 

Make it easy

A study recently published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine surveyed several hospitals on their usage of patient portals. After determining whether or not the institutions had such portals, the authors then investigated to find out what, if any, guidance was provided to patients about how to use them.

Their findings are frustrating, though not surprising. While 89% of hospitals had some form of patient portal, only 65% of those “had links that were easily found, defined as links accessible within two clicks from the home page.”

Furthermore, even in cases where portals were easily found, good instructions on how to use them were missing. Those instructions that did exist centered on rules and restrictions and laying out “terms and conditions” and informing patients on “what not to do,” rather than explaining how to make the most of the experience.

According to the authors, “this focus on curtailing behavior, and the hurdles placed on finding and understanding guidance, suggest that some hospitals may be prioritizing reducing liability over improving the patient experience with portals.”

If we want our patients to use them, portals must be easy to access and intuitive to use. They also must provide value.
 

Make it meaningful

Patient portals have proliferated exponentially over the last 10 years, thanks to government incentive programs. One such program, known as “meaningful use,” is primarily responsible for this, as it made implementation of a patient portal one of its core requirements.

Sadly, in spite of its oft-reviled name, the meaningful use program never defined patient-friendly standards of usability for patient portals. As a result, current portals just aren’t very good. Patients like my mother-in-law find them to be too numerous, too unfriendly to use, and too limited, so they are not being used to their full potential.

In fact, many institutions may choose not to enable all of the available features in order to limit technical issues and reduce the burden on providers. In the study referenced above, only 63% of portals offered the ability for patients to communicate directly with their physicians, and only 43% offered the ability to refill prescriptions.

When enabled, these functions improve patient engagement and efficiency. Without them, patients are less likely to log on, and physicians are forced to rely on less-efficient telephone calls or traditional letters to communicate results to their patients.
 

Put the patient, not the portal, at the center

History has all but forgotten the attempts by tech giants such as Google and Microsoft to create personal health records. While these initially seemed like a wonderful concept, they sadly proved to be a total flop. Some patients embraced the idea, but security concerns and the lack of buy-in from EHR vendors significantly limited their uptake.

They may simply have been ahead of their time.

A decade later, wearable technology and telemedicine are ushering in a new era of patient-centric care. Individuals have been embracing a greater share of the responsibility for their own personal health information, yet most EHRs lack the ability to easily incorporate data acquired outside physicians’ offices.

It’s time for EHR vendors to go all in and change that. Instead of enslaving patients to the tyranny of fragmented health records, they should prioritize the creation of a robust, standardized, and portable health record that travels with the patient, not the other way around.

Have any other ideas on how to improve patient engagement? We’d love to hear about them and share them in a future column.

If you want to contribute but don’t have any ideas, we have a suggestion: Ask your mother-in-law. You may be surprised at what you learn!

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health.

Reference

Lee JL et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05528-z.

LAS VEGAS – Clinicians should spend 1 hour with patients who present with a chief complaint of insomnia, rather than rushing to a treatment after a 10- to 15-minute office visit, according to John W. Winkelman, MD, PhD.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Why? Because sleep problems are usually multifactorial, involving psychiatric illness, sleep disorders, medical illness, medication, and poor sleep hygiene/stress,” he said at an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “There are usually many contributing problems, and sleep quality is only as strong as the weakest link. Maybe you don’t have an hour [to meet with new patients], but you need to give adequate time, otherwise you’re not going to do justice to the problem.”

During that first visit, Dr. Winkelman recommends establishing and prioritizing goals with the patient. “Ask, ‘what is it that bothers you most about your insomnia? Is it the time awake at night, your total sleep time, or how you feel during the day?’ Because we’re going to use different approaches based on that chief complaint of the insomnia,” said Dr. Winkelman, chief of the Massachusetts General Sleep Disorders Clinical Research Program in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia [CBT-I], for instance, is very good at reducing time awake at night. It won’t increase total sleep time, but it reduces time awake at night dramatically.”

According to the DSM-5, insomnia disorder is marked by dissatisfaction with sleep quality or quantity associated with at least one of the following: difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, and early morning awakening. “Just getting up to pee five times a night is not insomnia,” he said. “Just taking an hour and a half to fall asleep at the beginning of the night is not insomnia. There has to be distress or dysfunction related to the sleep disturbance, for a minimum of three times per week for 3 months.”

Most sleep problems are transient, but 25%-30% last more than 1 year. The differential diagnosis for chronic insomnia includes primary psychiatric disorders, medications, substances, restless legs syndrome, sleep schedule disorders, and obstructive sleep apnea.

“In general, we do not order sleep studies in people with insomnia unless we suspect sleep apnea; it’s just a waste of time,” said Dr. Winkelman, who is also a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Indications for polysomnography include loud snoring plus one of the following: daytime sleepiness, witnessed apneas, or refractory hypertension. Other indications include abnormal behaviors or movements during sleep, unexplained excessive daytime sleepiness, and refractory sleep complaints, especially repetitive brief awakenings.

Many common cognitive and behavioral issues can produce or worsen insomnia, including inconsistent bedtimes and wake times. “That irregular schedule wreaks havoc with sleep,” he said. “It messes up the circadian rhythm. Also, homeostatic drive needs to build up: We need to be awake 16 or more hours in order to be sleepy. If people are sleeping until noon on Sundays and then trying to go to bed at their usual time, 10 or 11 at night, they’ve only been awake 10 or 11 hours. That’s why they’re going to have problems falling asleep. Also, a lot of people doze off after dinner in front of the TV. That doesn’t help.”

Spending excessive time in bed can also trigger or worsen insomnia. Dr. Winkelman recommends that people restrict their access to bed to the number of hours it is reasonable to sleep. “I see a lot of people in their 70s and 80s spending 10 hours in bed,” he said. “It doesn’t sound that crazy, but there is no way they’re going to get 10 hours of sleep. It’s physically impossible, so they spend 2 or 3 hours awake at night.” Clock-watching is another no-no. “In the middle of the night you wake up, look at the clock, and say to yourself: ‘Oh my god, I’ve been awake for 3 hours. I have 4 hours left. I need 7 hours. That means I need to go to sleep now!’ ”

An estimated 30%-40% of people with chronic insomnia have a psychiatric disorder. That means “you have to be thorough in your evaluation and act as if you’re doing a structured interview,” Dr. Winkelman said. “Ask about obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, et cetera, so that you understand the complete myriad of psychiatric illnesses, because psychiatric illnesses run in gangs. Comorbidity is generally the rule.”

The first-line treatment for chronic insomnia disorder is CBT-I, a multicomponent approach that includes time-in-bed restriction, stimulus control, cognitive therapy, relaxation therapy, and sleep hygiene. According to Dr. Winkelman, the cornerstone of CBT-I is time-in-bed restriction. “Many people with insomnia are spending 8.5 hours in bed to get 6.5 hours of sleep,” he said. “What you do is restrict access to bed to 6.5 hours; you initially sleep deprive them. Over the first few weeks, they hate you. After a few weeks when they start sleeping well, you start gradually increasing time in bed, but they rarely get back to the 8.5 hours in bed they were spending beforehand.”

Online CBT-I programs such as Sleepio can also be effective for improving sleep latency and wake after sleep onset, but not for total sleep time (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74[1]:68-75). “Not everybody responds to CBT; 50% don’t respond at a couple of months,” he said. “These are the people you need to think about medication for.”

Medications commonly used for chronic insomnia include benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BzRAs) – temazepam, eszopiclone, triazolam, zolpidem, and zaleplon are Food and Drug Administration approved – melatonin agonists, orexin antagonists, sedating antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and dopaminergic antagonists. “Each of the agents in these categories has somewhat similar mechanisms of action, and similar efficacy and contraindications,” Dr. Winkelman said. “The best way to divide the benzodiazepine receptor agonists is based on half-life. How long do you want drug on receptor in somebody with insomnia? Probably not much longer than 8 hours. Nevertheless, some psychiatrists love clonazepam, which has a 40-hour half-life. The circumstances under which clonazepam should be used for insomnia are small, such as in people with a daytime anxiety disorder.”

Consider trying triazolam, zolpidem, and zaleplon for patients who have problems falling asleep, he said, while oxazepam and eszopiclone are sensible options for people who have difficulty falling and staying asleep. Clinical response to BzRAs is common, yet only about half of people who have insomnia remit with one of these agents.

Dr. Winkelman said that patients and physicians often ask him whether BzRAs and other agents used as sleep aids are addictive. Abuse is identified when recurrent use causes clinically and functionally significant impairment, such as health problems; disability; and failure to meet major responsibilities at work, home, or school. “These are concerns with BzRAs. Misuse and abuse generally occur in younger people. Once you get to 35 years old, misuse rates get very low. In older people, rates of side effects go up.

“Tolerance, physiological and psychological dependence, and nonmedical diversion are also of concern,” he said. However, for the majority of people, BzRA hypnotics are effective and safe.

As for other agents, meta-analyses have demonstrated that melatonin 1-3 mg can help people fall asleep when it’s not being endogenously released. “That’s during the day,” he said. “That might be most relevant for jet lag and for people doing shift work.” Two orexin antagonists on the market for insomnia include suvorexant and lemborexant 10-20 mg. Advantages of these include little abuse liability and few side effects. “In one head-to-head polysomnography study in the elderly, lemborexant was superior to zolpidem 6.25 mg CR on both objective and subjective ability to fall asleep and stay asleep,” Dr. Winkelman said. (JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2[12]:e1918254).

Antidepressants are another treatment option, including mirtazapine 15-30 mg, trazodone 25-100 mg, and amitriptyline and doxepin (10-50 mg). Advantages include little abuse liability, while potential drawbacks include daytime sedation, weight gain, and anticholinergic side effects. Meanwhile, atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine 25-100 mg have long been known to be helpful for sleep. “Advantages are that they’re anxiolytic, they’re mood stabilizing, and there is little abuse liability,” Dr. Winkelman said. “Drawbacks are that they’re probably less effective than BzRAs, they cause daytime sedation, weight gain, risks of extrapyramidal symptoms and glucose and lipid abnormalities.”

Dr. Winkelman said that he uses “a fair amount” of the anticonvulsant gabapentin as a second- or third-line hypnotic agent. “I usually start with 300 mg [at bedtime],” he added. “Drawbacks are that it’s probably less effective than BzRAs; it affects cognition; and can cause daytime sedation, dizziness, and weight gain. There are also concerns about abuse.”

Dr. Winkelman reported that he has received grant/research support from Merck, the RLS Foundation, and Luitpold Pharmaceuticals. He is also a consultant for Advance Medical, Avadel Pharmaceuticals, and UpToDate and is a member of the speakers’ bureau for Luitpold.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

LAS VEGAS – Clinicians should spend 1 hour with patients who present with a chief complaint of insomnia, rather than rushing to a treatment after a 10- to 15-minute office visit, according to John W. Winkelman, MD, PhD.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Why? Because sleep problems are usually multifactorial, involving psychiatric illness, sleep disorders, medical illness, medication, and poor sleep hygiene/stress,” he said at an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “There are usually many contributing problems, and sleep quality is only as strong as the weakest link. Maybe you don’t have an hour [to meet with new patients], but you need to give adequate time, otherwise you’re not going to do justice to the problem.”

During that first visit, Dr. Winkelman recommends establishing and prioritizing goals with the patient. “Ask, ‘what is it that bothers you most about your insomnia? Is it the time awake at night, your total sleep time, or how you feel during the day?’ Because we’re going to use different approaches based on that chief complaint of the insomnia,” said Dr. Winkelman, chief of the Massachusetts General Sleep Disorders Clinical Research Program in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia [CBT-I], for instance, is very good at reducing time awake at night. It won’t increase total sleep time, but it reduces time awake at night dramatically.”

According to the DSM-5, insomnia disorder is marked by dissatisfaction with sleep quality or quantity associated with at least one of the following: difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, and early morning awakening. “Just getting up to pee five times a night is not insomnia,” he said. “Just taking an hour and a half to fall asleep at the beginning of the night is not insomnia. There has to be distress or dysfunction related to the sleep disturbance, for a minimum of three times per week for 3 months.”

Most sleep problems are transient, but 25%-30% last more than 1 year. The differential diagnosis for chronic insomnia includes primary psychiatric disorders, medications, substances, restless legs syndrome, sleep schedule disorders, and obstructive sleep apnea.

“In general, we do not order sleep studies in people with insomnia unless we suspect sleep apnea; it’s just a waste of time,” said Dr. Winkelman, who is also a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Indications for polysomnography include loud snoring plus one of the following: daytime sleepiness, witnessed apneas, or refractory hypertension. Other indications include abnormal behaviors or movements during sleep, unexplained excessive daytime sleepiness, and refractory sleep complaints, especially repetitive brief awakenings.

Many common cognitive and behavioral issues can produce or worsen insomnia, including inconsistent bedtimes and wake times. “That irregular schedule wreaks havoc with sleep,” he said. “It messes up the circadian rhythm. Also, homeostatic drive needs to build up: We need to be awake 16 or more hours in order to be sleepy. If people are sleeping until noon on Sundays and then trying to go to bed at their usual time, 10 or 11 at night, they’ve only been awake 10 or 11 hours. That’s why they’re going to have problems falling asleep. Also, a lot of people doze off after dinner in front of the TV. That doesn’t help.”

Spending excessive time in bed can also trigger or worsen insomnia. Dr. Winkelman recommends that people restrict their access to bed to the number of hours it is reasonable to sleep. “I see a lot of people in their 70s and 80s spending 10 hours in bed,” he said. “It doesn’t sound that crazy, but there is no way they’re going to get 10 hours of sleep. It’s physically impossible, so they spend 2 or 3 hours awake at night.” Clock-watching is another no-no. “In the middle of the night you wake up, look at the clock, and say to yourself: ‘Oh my god, I’ve been awake for 3 hours. I have 4 hours left. I need 7 hours. That means I need to go to sleep now!’ ”

An estimated 30%-40% of people with chronic insomnia have a psychiatric disorder. That means “you have to be thorough in your evaluation and act as if you’re doing a structured interview,” Dr. Winkelman said. “Ask about obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, et cetera, so that you understand the complete myriad of psychiatric illnesses, because psychiatric illnesses run in gangs. Comorbidity is generally the rule.”

The first-line treatment for chronic insomnia disorder is CBT-I, a multicomponent approach that includes time-in-bed restriction, stimulus control, cognitive therapy, relaxation therapy, and sleep hygiene. According to Dr. Winkelman, the cornerstone of CBT-I is time-in-bed restriction. “Many people with insomnia are spending 8.5 hours in bed to get 6.5 hours of sleep,” he said. “What you do is restrict access to bed to 6.5 hours; you initially sleep deprive them. Over the first few weeks, they hate you. After a few weeks when they start sleeping well, you start gradually increasing time in bed, but they rarely get back to the 8.5 hours in bed they were spending beforehand.”

Online CBT-I programs such as Sleepio can also be effective for improving sleep latency and wake after sleep onset, but not for total sleep time (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74[1]:68-75). “Not everybody responds to CBT; 50% don’t respond at a couple of months,” he said. “These are the people you need to think about medication for.”

Medications commonly used for chronic insomnia include benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BzRAs) – temazepam, eszopiclone, triazolam, zolpidem, and zaleplon are Food and Drug Administration approved – melatonin agonists, orexin antagonists, sedating antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and dopaminergic antagonists. “Each of the agents in these categories has somewhat similar mechanisms of action, and similar efficacy and contraindications,” Dr. Winkelman said. “The best way to divide the benzodiazepine receptor agonists is based on half-life. How long do you want drug on receptor in somebody with insomnia? Probably not much longer than 8 hours. Nevertheless, some psychiatrists love clonazepam, which has a 40-hour half-life. The circumstances under which clonazepam should be used for insomnia are small, such as in people with a daytime anxiety disorder.”

Consider trying triazolam, zolpidem, and zaleplon for patients who have problems falling asleep, he said, while oxazepam and eszopiclone are sensible options for people who have difficulty falling and staying asleep. Clinical response to BzRAs is common, yet only about half of people who have insomnia remit with one of these agents.

Dr. Winkelman said that patients and physicians often ask him whether BzRAs and other agents used as sleep aids are addictive. Abuse is identified when recurrent use causes clinically and functionally significant impairment, such as health problems; disability; and failure to meet major responsibilities at work, home, or school. “These are concerns with BzRAs. Misuse and abuse generally occur in younger people. Once you get to 35 years old, misuse rates get very low. In older people, rates of side effects go up.

“Tolerance, physiological and psychological dependence, and nonmedical diversion are also of concern,” he said. However, for the majority of people, BzRA hypnotics are effective and safe.

As for other agents, meta-analyses have demonstrated that melatonin 1-3 mg can help people fall asleep when it’s not being endogenously released. “That’s during the day,” he said. “That might be most relevant for jet lag and for people doing shift work.” Two orexin antagonists on the market for insomnia include suvorexant and lemborexant 10-20 mg. Advantages of these include little abuse liability and few side effects. “In one head-to-head polysomnography study in the elderly, lemborexant was superior to zolpidem 6.25 mg CR on both objective and subjective ability to fall asleep and stay asleep,” Dr. Winkelman said. (JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2[12]:e1918254).

Antidepressants are another treatment option, including mirtazapine 15-30 mg, trazodone 25-100 mg, and amitriptyline and doxepin (10-50 mg). Advantages include little abuse liability, while potential drawbacks include daytime sedation, weight gain, and anticholinergic side effects. Meanwhile, atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine 25-100 mg have long been known to be helpful for sleep. “Advantages are that they’re anxiolytic, they’re mood stabilizing, and there is little abuse liability,” Dr. Winkelman said. “Drawbacks are that they’re probably less effective than BzRAs, they cause daytime sedation, weight gain, risks of extrapyramidal symptoms and glucose and lipid abnormalities.”

Dr. Winkelman said that he uses “a fair amount” of the anticonvulsant gabapentin as a second- or third-line hypnotic agent. “I usually start with 300 mg [at bedtime],” he added. “Drawbacks are that it’s probably less effective than BzRAs; it affects cognition; and can cause daytime sedation, dizziness, and weight gain. There are also concerns about abuse.”

Dr. Winkelman reported that he has received grant/research support from Merck, the RLS Foundation, and Luitpold Pharmaceuticals. He is also a consultant for Advance Medical, Avadel Pharmaceuticals, and UpToDate and is a member of the speakers’ bureau for Luitpold.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

LAS VEGAS – Clinicians should spend 1 hour with patients who present with a chief complaint of insomnia, rather than rushing to a treatment after a 10- to 15-minute office visit, according to John W. Winkelman, MD, PhD.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Why? Because sleep problems are usually multifactorial, involving psychiatric illness, sleep disorders, medical illness, medication, and poor sleep hygiene/stress,” he said at an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “There are usually many contributing problems, and sleep quality is only as strong as the weakest link. Maybe you don’t have an hour [to meet with new patients], but you need to give adequate time, otherwise you’re not going to do justice to the problem.”

During that first visit, Dr. Winkelman recommends establishing and prioritizing goals with the patient. “Ask, ‘what is it that bothers you most about your insomnia? Is it the time awake at night, your total sleep time, or how you feel during the day?’ Because we’re going to use different approaches based on that chief complaint of the insomnia,” said Dr. Winkelman, chief of the Massachusetts General Sleep Disorders Clinical Research Program in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia [CBT-I], for instance, is very good at reducing time awake at night. It won’t increase total sleep time, but it reduces time awake at night dramatically.”

According to the DSM-5, insomnia disorder is marked by dissatisfaction with sleep quality or quantity associated with at least one of the following: difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, and early morning awakening. “Just getting up to pee five times a night is not insomnia,” he said. “Just taking an hour and a half to fall asleep at the beginning of the night is not insomnia. There has to be distress or dysfunction related to the sleep disturbance, for a minimum of three times per week for 3 months.”

Most sleep problems are transient, but 25%-30% last more than 1 year. The differential diagnosis for chronic insomnia includes primary psychiatric disorders, medications, substances, restless legs syndrome, sleep schedule disorders, and obstructive sleep apnea.

“In general, we do not order sleep studies in people with insomnia unless we suspect sleep apnea; it’s just a waste of time,” said Dr. Winkelman, who is also a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Indications for polysomnography include loud snoring plus one of the following: daytime sleepiness, witnessed apneas, or refractory hypertension. Other indications include abnormal behaviors or movements during sleep, unexplained excessive daytime sleepiness, and refractory sleep complaints, especially repetitive brief awakenings.

Many common cognitive and behavioral issues can produce or worsen insomnia, including inconsistent bedtimes and wake times. “That irregular schedule wreaks havoc with sleep,” he said. “It messes up the circadian rhythm. Also, homeostatic drive needs to build up: We need to be awake 16 or more hours in order to be sleepy. If people are sleeping until noon on Sundays and then trying to go to bed at their usual time, 10 or 11 at night, they’ve only been awake 10 or 11 hours. That’s why they’re going to have problems falling asleep. Also, a lot of people doze off after dinner in front of the TV. That doesn’t help.”

Spending excessive time in bed can also trigger or worsen insomnia. Dr. Winkelman recommends that people restrict their access to bed to the number of hours it is reasonable to sleep. “I see a lot of people in their 70s and 80s spending 10 hours in bed,” he said. “It doesn’t sound that crazy, but there is no way they’re going to get 10 hours of sleep. It’s physically impossible, so they spend 2 or 3 hours awake at night.” Clock-watching is another no-no. “In the middle of the night you wake up, look at the clock, and say to yourself: ‘Oh my god, I’ve been awake for 3 hours. I have 4 hours left. I need 7 hours. That means I need to go to sleep now!’ ”

An estimated 30%-40% of people with chronic insomnia have a psychiatric disorder. That means “you have to be thorough in your evaluation and act as if you’re doing a structured interview,” Dr. Winkelman said. “Ask about obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, et cetera, so that you understand the complete myriad of psychiatric illnesses, because psychiatric illnesses run in gangs. Comorbidity is generally the rule.”

The first-line treatment for chronic insomnia disorder is CBT-I, a multicomponent approach that includes time-in-bed restriction, stimulus control, cognitive therapy, relaxation therapy, and sleep hygiene. According to Dr. Winkelman, the cornerstone of CBT-I is time-in-bed restriction. “Many people with insomnia are spending 8.5 hours in bed to get 6.5 hours of sleep,” he said. “What you do is restrict access to bed to 6.5 hours; you initially sleep deprive them. Over the first few weeks, they hate you. After a few weeks when they start sleeping well, you start gradually increasing time in bed, but they rarely get back to the 8.5 hours in bed they were spending beforehand.”

Online CBT-I programs such as Sleepio can also be effective for improving sleep latency and wake after sleep onset, but not for total sleep time (JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74[1]:68-75). “Not everybody responds to CBT; 50% don’t respond at a couple of months,” he said. “These are the people you need to think about medication for.”

Medications commonly used for chronic insomnia include benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BzRAs) – temazepam, eszopiclone, triazolam, zolpidem, and zaleplon are Food and Drug Administration approved – melatonin agonists, orexin antagonists, sedating antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and dopaminergic antagonists. “Each of the agents in these categories has somewhat similar mechanisms of action, and similar efficacy and contraindications,” Dr. Winkelman said. “The best way to divide the benzodiazepine receptor agonists is based on half-life. How long do you want drug on receptor in somebody with insomnia? Probably not much longer than 8 hours. Nevertheless, some psychiatrists love clonazepam, which has a 40-hour half-life. The circumstances under which clonazepam should be used for insomnia are small, such as in people with a daytime anxiety disorder.”

Consider trying triazolam, zolpidem, and zaleplon for patients who have problems falling asleep, he said, while oxazepam and eszopiclone are sensible options for people who have difficulty falling and staying asleep. Clinical response to BzRAs is common, yet only about half of people who have insomnia remit with one of these agents.

Dr. Winkelman said that patients and physicians often ask him whether BzRAs and other agents used as sleep aids are addictive. Abuse is identified when recurrent use causes clinically and functionally significant impairment, such as health problems; disability; and failure to meet major responsibilities at work, home, or school. “These are concerns with BzRAs. Misuse and abuse generally occur in younger people. Once you get to 35 years old, misuse rates get very low. In older people, rates of side effects go up.

“Tolerance, physiological and psychological dependence, and nonmedical diversion are also of concern,” he said. However, for the majority of people, BzRA hypnotics are effective and safe.

As for other agents, meta-analyses have demonstrated that melatonin 1-3 mg can help people fall asleep when it’s not being endogenously released. “That’s during the day,” he said. “That might be most relevant for jet lag and for people doing shift work.” Two orexin antagonists on the market for insomnia include suvorexant and lemborexant 10-20 mg. Advantages of these include little abuse liability and few side effects. “In one head-to-head polysomnography study in the elderly, lemborexant was superior to zolpidem 6.25 mg CR on both objective and subjective ability to fall asleep and stay asleep,” Dr. Winkelman said. (JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2[12]:e1918254).

Antidepressants are another treatment option, including mirtazapine 15-30 mg, trazodone 25-100 mg, and amitriptyline and doxepin (10-50 mg). Advantages include little abuse liability, while potential drawbacks include daytime sedation, weight gain, and anticholinergic side effects. Meanwhile, atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine 25-100 mg have long been known to be helpful for sleep. “Advantages are that they’re anxiolytic, they’re mood stabilizing, and there is little abuse liability,” Dr. Winkelman said. “Drawbacks are that they’re probably less effective than BzRAs, they cause daytime sedation, weight gain, risks of extrapyramidal symptoms and glucose and lipid abnormalities.”

Dr. Winkelman said that he uses “a fair amount” of the anticonvulsant gabapentin as a second- or third-line hypnotic agent. “I usually start with 300 mg [at bedtime],” he added. “Drawbacks are that it’s probably less effective than BzRAs; it affects cognition; and can cause daytime sedation, dizziness, and weight gain. There are also concerns about abuse.”

Dr. Winkelman reported that he has received grant/research support from Merck, the RLS Foundation, and Luitpold Pharmaceuticals. He is also a consultant for Advance Medical, Avadel Pharmaceuticals, and UpToDate and is a member of the speakers’ bureau for Luitpold.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

LOS ANGELES – Endovascular therapy significantly improved functional outcomes and reduced mortality at 90 days, compared with standard thrombolysis alone, new evidence from a large, prospective registry study suggests.

Participants who received both interventions were almost five times more likely to be able to walk independently at 90 days compared with those who received thrombolysis alone.

Despite multiple trials supporting the potential benefits of endovascular therapy for anterior stroke, little prospective research addresses outcomes associated with an ischemic stroke caused by a posterior basilar artery occlusion (BAO).

“Basilar artery occlusion is the ‘orphan’ of the large vessel occlusions,” Raul Gomes Nogueira, MD, PhD, said here at a late-breaking abstract session at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

“They account for about 5% of the large vessel occlusions – but have the most dismal prognosis.” Severe disability and mortality rates associated with BAO, for example, reach an estimated 68% to 78%, he said.

The results, from the EVT for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study (BASILAR), were also simultaneously published in JAMA Neurology.

Prior studies in this patient population are generally single-center, retrospective studies and “the numbers tend to be small,” said Nogueira, who is affiliated with the Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center, Grady Memorial Hospital, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Nogueira and colleagues studied 829 consecutive adults who presented with an acute, symptomatic BAO. They examined a nationwide prospective registry study of people with radiologically confirmed BAO in 47 comprehensive stroke centers across 15 provinces in China.

The median age was 65 years and 74% were men. A total 182 participants received thrombolysis therapy within 6 hours of estimated BAO onset. The 647 people in the dual intervention group also received endovascular therapy within 24 hours.

Standard medical treatment included intravenous rt-PA or urokinase, antiplatelet drugs and systematic anticoagulation alone or in combination. Endovascular therapy included mechanical thrombectomy with stent retrievers and/or thromboaspiration, balloon angioplasty, stenting, intra-arterial thrombolysis, or a combination of these interventions.

Interestingly, participants were not randomly assigned, in part because of the favorable outcomes associated with endovascular therapy. “The high number of patients who received [the dual intervention] may suggest the existence of a lack of equipoise among participating centers,” the researchers note.

Key Efficacy Endpoints

A significantly higher proportion of people in the dual treatment group achieved the primary outcome, functional improvement at 90 days, at 32%, compared with 9.3% in the thrombolysis-only group. This endpoint was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 3 or less, which reflects an ability to walk independently. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

The absolute difference between groups was 22.7% (95% confidence interval, 17.1%-28.2%) with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.70 (95% CI, 2.53-8.75; P < .001) in favor of dual intervention.

The number needed to treat for one additional patient to be able to walk unassisted was 4.4.

Other outcomes, including differences in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores from baseline to 5 to 7 days or discharge, as well as propensity score matching and subgroup analyses, likewise supported the superiority of using both interventions.
 

Safety Outcomes

Nogueira and colleagues also assessed safety. They found that symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) occurred in 45 patients, or 7.1% of the endovascular treatment group. In contrast, only one patient, or 0.5%, of the standard medical treatment alone cohort experienced an ICH. This difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

Mortality at 90 days was significantly lower in the endovascular therapy plus medical therapy group, 46.2%, compared with 71.4% in the standard medical treatment alone group (P < .001).

The absolute difference in mortality was 25.2% (95% CI, 17.6%-2.8%) favoring dual treatment, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.93 (95% CI, 1.95-4.40; P < .001).

Rates of other serious adverse events during the 90-day follow-up period were similar in the two study groups, Nogueira said.

He acknowledged that the nonrandomized design was a limitation of the registry study, adding that “sometimes in life it’s important to acknowledge the best of what can be done. It’s very hard when you have access to thrombectomy to randomize people.”

However, other researchers have attempted or are enrolling people with BAO into trials that randomly assign them to endovascular therapy and standard medical treatment or medical treatment alone.

The BEST trial in China, for example, randomly assigned 131 patients to these groups but was stopped early in September 2017. “The BEST trial was terminated prematurely because of loss of equipoise that led to a high crossover rate and drop in valid recruitment,” the current researchers note.

“The other two trials…are facing the challenge of whether they will achieve their inclusion target,” they add, “because a growing number of stroke centers are unwilling to randomize patients to standard medical treatment alone after the many positive results of trials for endovascular treatment in patients with anterior-circulation stroke.”

The BAOCHE trial from China, for example, is ongoing with approximately 110 patients enrolled so far.

Investigators for the Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS) in the Netherlands just completed enrollment of their 300th and final patient in December 2019.

“We are hopeful BASICS trial will shed additional light,” Nogueira said. The results are expected to be presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference in Vienna in May 2020.
 

More Guidance From MRI?

“With the advent of the stent retrievers and successful recanalization, we know there can be better outcomes for patients. And we know the morbidity and mortality of the basilar artery occlusions are so poor that we tend to want to be aggressive in these cases,” session comoderator Shlee S. Song, MD, director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center and associate professor of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

“I agree that we’ve lost equipoise in this cohort – that we really cannot do a randomized trial anymore. You know if you don’t do anything, 90% of the time there will be a poor outcome,” she added.

This is an important study for showing how BAO patients fare after endovascular treatment, Song said.

One unanswered question from the study is if any of the centers in China used magnetic resonance imaging to help determine the most appropriate candidates for endovascular treatment of these posterior circulation strokes, which is a common practice in the United States, she said.

The study was supported by the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, Chongqing Major Disease Prevention and Control Technology Research Project, Army Medical University Clinical Medical Research Talent Training Program, and Major Clinical Innovation Technology Project of the Second Affiliated Hospital of the Army Military Medical University. Sing had no relevant disclosures. Nogueira’s financial disclosures include working as a consultant for Stryker Neurovascular; as a principal investigator on the Imperative trial and the PROST trial; as a steering committee member for Biogen for the CHARM trial; as an advisory board member for Cerenovus/Neuravi, Phenox, Anaconda, Genentech, Biogen, Prolong Pharmaceuticals and Brainomix; and as an advisory board member with stock options for Viz.ai, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Ceretrieve, Astrocyte Pharmaceuticals, and Cerebrotech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 17.

LOS ANGELES – Endovascular therapy significantly improved functional outcomes and reduced mortality at 90 days, compared with standard thrombolysis alone, new evidence from a large, prospective registry study suggests.

Participants who received both interventions were almost five times more likely to be able to walk independently at 90 days compared with those who received thrombolysis alone.

Despite multiple trials supporting the potential benefits of endovascular therapy for anterior stroke, little prospective research addresses outcomes associated with an ischemic stroke caused by a posterior basilar artery occlusion (BAO).

“Basilar artery occlusion is the ‘orphan’ of the large vessel occlusions,” Raul Gomes Nogueira, MD, PhD, said here at a late-breaking abstract session at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

“They account for about 5% of the large vessel occlusions – but have the most dismal prognosis.” Severe disability and mortality rates associated with BAO, for example, reach an estimated 68% to 78%, he said.

The results, from the EVT for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study (BASILAR), were also simultaneously published in JAMA Neurology.

Prior studies in this patient population are generally single-center, retrospective studies and “the numbers tend to be small,” said Nogueira, who is affiliated with the Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center, Grady Memorial Hospital, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Nogueira and colleagues studied 829 consecutive adults who presented with an acute, symptomatic BAO. They examined a nationwide prospective registry study of people with radiologically confirmed BAO in 47 comprehensive stroke centers across 15 provinces in China.

The median age was 65 years and 74% were men. A total 182 participants received thrombolysis therapy within 6 hours of estimated BAO onset. The 647 people in the dual intervention group also received endovascular therapy within 24 hours.

Standard medical treatment included intravenous rt-PA or urokinase, antiplatelet drugs and systematic anticoagulation alone or in combination. Endovascular therapy included mechanical thrombectomy with stent retrievers and/or thromboaspiration, balloon angioplasty, stenting, intra-arterial thrombolysis, or a combination of these interventions.

Interestingly, participants were not randomly assigned, in part because of the favorable outcomes associated with endovascular therapy. “The high number of patients who received [the dual intervention] may suggest the existence of a lack of equipoise among participating centers,” the researchers note.

Key Efficacy Endpoints

A significantly higher proportion of people in the dual treatment group achieved the primary outcome, functional improvement at 90 days, at 32%, compared with 9.3% in the thrombolysis-only group. This endpoint was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 3 or less, which reflects an ability to walk independently. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

The absolute difference between groups was 22.7% (95% confidence interval, 17.1%-28.2%) with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.70 (95% CI, 2.53-8.75; P < .001) in favor of dual intervention.

The number needed to treat for one additional patient to be able to walk unassisted was 4.4.

Other outcomes, including differences in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores from baseline to 5 to 7 days or discharge, as well as propensity score matching and subgroup analyses, likewise supported the superiority of using both interventions.
 

Safety Outcomes

Nogueira and colleagues also assessed safety. They found that symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) occurred in 45 patients, or 7.1% of the endovascular treatment group. In contrast, only one patient, or 0.5%, of the standard medical treatment alone cohort experienced an ICH. This difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

Mortality at 90 days was significantly lower in the endovascular therapy plus medical therapy group, 46.2%, compared with 71.4% in the standard medical treatment alone group (P < .001).

The absolute difference in mortality was 25.2% (95% CI, 17.6%-2.8%) favoring dual treatment, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.93 (95% CI, 1.95-4.40; P < .001).

Rates of other serious adverse events during the 90-day follow-up period were similar in the two study groups, Nogueira said.

He acknowledged that the nonrandomized design was a limitation of the registry study, adding that “sometimes in life it’s important to acknowledge the best of what can be done. It’s very hard when you have access to thrombectomy to randomize people.”

However, other researchers have attempted or are enrolling people with BAO into trials that randomly assign them to endovascular therapy and standard medical treatment or medical treatment alone.

The BEST trial in China, for example, randomly assigned 131 patients to these groups but was stopped early in September 2017. “The BEST trial was terminated prematurely because of loss of equipoise that led to a high crossover rate and drop in valid recruitment,” the current researchers note.

“The other two trials…are facing the challenge of whether they will achieve their inclusion target,” they add, “because a growing number of stroke centers are unwilling to randomize patients to standard medical treatment alone after the many positive results of trials for endovascular treatment in patients with anterior-circulation stroke.”

The BAOCHE trial from China, for example, is ongoing with approximately 110 patients enrolled so far.

Investigators for the Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS) in the Netherlands just completed enrollment of their 300th and final patient in December 2019.

“We are hopeful BASICS trial will shed additional light,” Nogueira said. The results are expected to be presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference in Vienna in May 2020.
 

More Guidance From MRI?

“With the advent of the stent retrievers and successful recanalization, we know there can be better outcomes for patients. And we know the morbidity and mortality of the basilar artery occlusions are so poor that we tend to want to be aggressive in these cases,” session comoderator Shlee S. Song, MD, director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center and associate professor of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

“I agree that we’ve lost equipoise in this cohort – that we really cannot do a randomized trial anymore. You know if you don’t do anything, 90% of the time there will be a poor outcome,” she added.

This is an important study for showing how BAO patients fare after endovascular treatment, Song said.

One unanswered question from the study is if any of the centers in China used magnetic resonance imaging to help determine the most appropriate candidates for endovascular treatment of these posterior circulation strokes, which is a common practice in the United States, she said.

The study was supported by the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, Chongqing Major Disease Prevention and Control Technology Research Project, Army Medical University Clinical Medical Research Talent Training Program, and Major Clinical Innovation Technology Project of the Second Affiliated Hospital of the Army Military Medical University. Sing had no relevant disclosures. Nogueira’s financial disclosures include working as a consultant for Stryker Neurovascular; as a principal investigator on the Imperative trial and the PROST trial; as a steering committee member for Biogen for the CHARM trial; as an advisory board member for Cerenovus/Neuravi, Phenox, Anaconda, Genentech, Biogen, Prolong Pharmaceuticals and Brainomix; and as an advisory board member with stock options for Viz.ai, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Ceretrieve, Astrocyte Pharmaceuticals, and Cerebrotech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 17.

LOS ANGELES – Endovascular therapy significantly improved functional outcomes and reduced mortality at 90 days, compared with standard thrombolysis alone, new evidence from a large, prospective registry study suggests.

Participants who received both interventions were almost five times more likely to be able to walk independently at 90 days compared with those who received thrombolysis alone.

Despite multiple trials supporting the potential benefits of endovascular therapy for anterior stroke, little prospective research addresses outcomes associated with an ischemic stroke caused by a posterior basilar artery occlusion (BAO).

“Basilar artery occlusion is the ‘orphan’ of the large vessel occlusions,” Raul Gomes Nogueira, MD, PhD, said here at a late-breaking abstract session at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

“They account for about 5% of the large vessel occlusions – but have the most dismal prognosis.” Severe disability and mortality rates associated with BAO, for example, reach an estimated 68% to 78%, he said.

The results, from the EVT for Acute Basilar Artery Occlusion Study (BASILAR), were also simultaneously published in JAMA Neurology.

Prior studies in this patient population are generally single-center, retrospective studies and “the numbers tend to be small,” said Nogueira, who is affiliated with the Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center, Grady Memorial Hospital, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

Nogueira and colleagues studied 829 consecutive adults who presented with an acute, symptomatic BAO. They examined a nationwide prospective registry study of people with radiologically confirmed BAO in 47 comprehensive stroke centers across 15 provinces in China.

The median age was 65 years and 74% were men. A total 182 participants received thrombolysis therapy within 6 hours of estimated BAO onset. The 647 people in the dual intervention group also received endovascular therapy within 24 hours.

Standard medical treatment included intravenous rt-PA or urokinase, antiplatelet drugs and systematic anticoagulation alone or in combination. Endovascular therapy included mechanical thrombectomy with stent retrievers and/or thromboaspiration, balloon angioplasty, stenting, intra-arterial thrombolysis, or a combination of these interventions.

Interestingly, participants were not randomly assigned, in part because of the favorable outcomes associated with endovascular therapy. “The high number of patients who received [the dual intervention] may suggest the existence of a lack of equipoise among participating centers,” the researchers note.

Key Efficacy Endpoints

A significantly higher proportion of people in the dual treatment group achieved the primary outcome, functional improvement at 90 days, at 32%, compared with 9.3% in the thrombolysis-only group. This endpoint was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 3 or less, which reflects an ability to walk independently. The difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

The absolute difference between groups was 22.7% (95% confidence interval, 17.1%-28.2%) with an adjusted odds ratio of 4.70 (95% CI, 2.53-8.75; P < .001) in favor of dual intervention.

The number needed to treat for one additional patient to be able to walk unassisted was 4.4.

Other outcomes, including differences in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores from baseline to 5 to 7 days or discharge, as well as propensity score matching and subgroup analyses, likewise supported the superiority of using both interventions.
 

Safety Outcomes

Nogueira and colleagues also assessed safety. They found that symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) occurred in 45 patients, or 7.1% of the endovascular treatment group. In contrast, only one patient, or 0.5%, of the standard medical treatment alone cohort experienced an ICH. This difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

Mortality at 90 days was significantly lower in the endovascular therapy plus medical therapy group, 46.2%, compared with 71.4% in the standard medical treatment alone group (P < .001).

The absolute difference in mortality was 25.2% (95% CI, 17.6%-2.8%) favoring dual treatment, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.93 (95% CI, 1.95-4.40; P < .001).

Rates of other serious adverse events during the 90-day follow-up period were similar in the two study groups, Nogueira said.

He acknowledged that the nonrandomized design was a limitation of the registry study, adding that “sometimes in life it’s important to acknowledge the best of what can be done. It’s very hard when you have access to thrombectomy to randomize people.”

However, other researchers have attempted or are enrolling people with BAO into trials that randomly assign them to endovascular therapy and standard medical treatment or medical treatment alone.

The BEST trial in China, for example, randomly assigned 131 patients to these groups but was stopped early in September 2017. “The BEST trial was terminated prematurely because of loss of equipoise that led to a high crossover rate and drop in valid recruitment,” the current researchers note.

“The other two trials…are facing the challenge of whether they will achieve their inclusion target,” they add, “because a growing number of stroke centers are unwilling to randomize patients to standard medical treatment alone after the many positive results of trials for endovascular treatment in patients with anterior-circulation stroke.”

The BAOCHE trial from China, for example, is ongoing with approximately 110 patients enrolled so far.

Investigators for the Basilar Artery International Cooperation Study (BASICS) in the Netherlands just completed enrollment of their 300th and final patient in December 2019.

“We are hopeful BASICS trial will shed additional light,” Nogueira said. The results are expected to be presented at the European Stroke Organization Conference in Vienna in May 2020.
 

More Guidance From MRI?

“With the advent of the stent retrievers and successful recanalization, we know there can be better outcomes for patients. And we know the morbidity and mortality of the basilar artery occlusions are so poor that we tend to want to be aggressive in these cases,” session comoderator Shlee S. Song, MD, director of the Comprehensive Stroke Center and associate professor of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, told Medscape Medical News when asked to comment on the study.

“I agree that we’ve lost equipoise in this cohort – that we really cannot do a randomized trial anymore. You know if you don’t do anything, 90% of the time there will be a poor outcome,” she added.

This is an important study for showing how BAO patients fare after endovascular treatment, Song said.

One unanswered question from the study is if any of the centers in China used magnetic resonance imaging to help determine the most appropriate candidates for endovascular treatment of these posterior circulation strokes, which is a common practice in the United States, she said.

The study was supported by the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, Chongqing Major Disease Prevention and Control Technology Research Project, Army Medical University Clinical Medical Research Talent Training Program, and Major Clinical Innovation Technology Project of the Second Affiliated Hospital of the Army Military Medical University. Sing had no relevant disclosures. Nogueira’s financial disclosures include working as a consultant for Stryker Neurovascular; as a principal investigator on the Imperative trial and the PROST trial; as a steering committee member for Biogen for the CHARM trial; as an advisory board member for Cerenovus/Neuravi, Phenox, Anaconda, Genentech, Biogen, Prolong Pharmaceuticals and Brainomix; and as an advisory board member with stock options for Viz.ai, Corindus Vascular Robotics, Vesalio, Ceretrieve, Astrocyte Pharmaceuticals, and Cerebrotech.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SOURCE: Nogueira RG et al. ISC 2020. Late-breaking abstract 17.

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

agallegos@mdedge.com

The Trump administration can move forward with expanding a rule that makes it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote.

Courtesy Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Feb. 21 order allows the administration to broaden the so-called “public charge rule” while legal challenges against the expanded regulation continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision, which lifts a preliminary injunction against the expansion, applies to enforcement only in Illinois, where a district court blocked the revised rule from moving forward in October 2019. The Supreme Court’s measure follows another 5-4 order in January, in which justices lifted a nationwide injunction against the revised rule.

Under the long-standing public charge rule, immigration officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States or can deny them permanent legal status if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation allows officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. Use of these programs for more than 12 months in the aggregate during a 36-month period may result in a “public charge” designation and lead to green card denial.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued by 14 states. At least five trial courts have since blocked the measure, while appeals courts have lifted some of the injunctions and upheld enforcement.

In its Jan. 27 order lifting the nationwide injunction, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote that nationwide injunctions are being overused by trial courts with negative consequences.

“The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” he wrote. “It has become increasingly apparent that this court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”

In the court’s Feb. 21 order lifting the injunction in Illinois, justices gave no explanation for overturning the lower court’s injunction. However, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a sharply-worded dissent, criticizing her fellow justices for allowing the rule to proceed.

“In sum, the government’s only claimed hardship is that it must enforce an existing interpretation of an immigration rule in one state – just as it has done for the past 20 years – while an updated version of the rule takes effect in the remaining 49,” she wrote. “The government has not quantified or explained any burdens that would arise from this state of the world.”

ACA cases still in limbo

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has not decided whether it will hear Texas v. United States, a case that could effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act.

The high court was expected to announce whether it would take the high-profile case at a private Feb. 21 conference, but the justices have released no update. The case was relisted for consideration at the court’s Feb. 28 conference.

Texas v. United States stems from a lawsuit by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors that was filed after Congress zeroed out the ACA’s individual mandate penalty in 2017. The plaintiffs contend the now-valueless mandate is no longer constitutional and thus, the entire ACA should be struck down. Because the Trump administration declined to defend the law, a coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors intervened in the case as defendants.

In 2018, a Texas district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the entire health care law invalid. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the district court’s decision, ruling that the mandate was unconstitutional, but sending the case back to the lower court for more analysis on severability. The Democratic attorneys general and governors appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, the court could fast-track the case and schedule arguments for the current term or wait until its next term, which starts in October 2020. If justices decline to hear the case, the challenge will remain with the district court for more analysis about the law’s severability.

Another ACA-related case – Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. – also remains in limbo. Justices heard the case, which was consolidated with two similar challenges, on Dec. 10, 2019, but still have not issued a decision.

The consolidated challenges center on whether the federal government owes insurers billions based on an Affordable Care Act provision intended to help health plans mitigate risk under the law. The ACA’s risk corridor program required the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to collect funds from profitable insurers that offered qualified health plans under the exchanges and distribute the funds to insurers with excessive losses. Collections from profitable insurers under the program fell short in 2014, 2015, and 2016, while losses steadily grew, resulting in the HHS paying about 12 cents on the dollar in payments to insurers. More than 150 insurers now allege they were shortchanged and they want the Supreme Court to force the government to reimburse them to the tune of $12 billion.

The Department of Justice counters that the government is not required to pay the insurers because of appropriations measures passed by Congress in 2014 and in later years that limited the funding available to compensate insurers for their losses.

The federal government and insurers have each experienced wins and losses at the lower court level. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided in favor of the government, ruling that while the ACA required the government to compensate the insurers for their losses, the appropriations measures repealed or suspended that requirement.

A Supreme Court decision in the case could come as soon as Feb. 26.

Court to hear women’s health cases

Two closely watched reproductive health cases will go before the court this spring.

On March 4, justices will hear oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, regarding the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Doctors who perform abortions without admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles face fines and imprisonment, according to the state law, originally passed in 2014. Clinics that employ such doctors can also have their licenses revoked.

June Medical Services LLC, a women’s health clinic, sued over the law. A district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and upheld Louisiana’s law. The clinic appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Louisiana officials argue the challenge should be dismissed, and the law allowed to proceed, because the plaintiffs lack standing.

The Supreme Court in 2016 heard a similar case – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt – concerning a comparable law in Texas. In that case, justices struck down the measure as unconstitutional.

And on April 29, justices will hear arguments in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, a consolidated case about whether the Trump administration acted properly when it expanded exemptions under the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Entities that object to providing contraception on the basis of religious beliefs can opt out of complying with the mandate, according to the 2018 regulations. Additionally, nonprofit organizations and small businesses that have nonreligious moral convictions against the mandate can skip compliance. A number of states and entities sued over the new rules.

A federal appeals court temporarily barred the regulations from moving forward, ruling the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving the Trump administration did not follow appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules and that the regulations were not authorized under the ACA.

Justices will decide whether the parties have standing in the case, whether the Trump administration followed correct rule-making procedures, and if the regulations can stand.

agallegos@mdedge.com

Neurologists reported being the least happy specialty at work in the Medscape Neurologist Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report 2020. Most reported they did not plan to seek help for their depression and/or burnout, and nearly half said they wouldn’t even participate in a workplace program.

The report found that only 18% of neurologists were very happy at work, and 41% overall identified themselves as burned out. Among reasons for burnout, 61% reported mounting bureaucratic tasks as their top reason, with 40% listing spending too many hours at work.

Coping strategies varied, with isolation from others topping the list at 46%, followed by talking with close friends and family and exercise tied at 40%.

Less than half (46%) claimed there was no impact on patients, but most (65%) don’t intend to seek professional help for depression and/or burnout and haven’t done so in the past. Similarly, 48% reported it’s unlikely they’d participate in a workplace program – in fact, only 33% said they would.

A slideshow laying out the findings in the report is available on Medscape.
 

A closer look at the numbers

Over 15,000 physicians across 29 specialties completed the 10-minute survey in the summer of 2019; 62% were men and most of the group were Baby Boomers (ages 55-73), then Generation X (ages 40-54), and lastly Millennials (ages 25-39). Of the specialties surveyed, neurologists scored lowest in the happiness-at-work category, with only 18% saying they were happy. Neurologists also scored lowest in happiness outside of work (44%). Half the neurologists surveyed said they were burned out, which was slightly more than the surveyed group of physicians in general. The biggest contributors to burnout were bureaucratic tasks, too many hours at work, and lack of control. Most coped by isolating themselves, talking with family members or friends, exercising and sleep. About 65% did not seek help for burnout or depression. The main reasons were being too busy, preferring to deal with it themselves, or feeling that the problem was not significant enough to warrant intervention.

A majority of the neurologists surveyed (70%-80%) are married and 85% say they have a good marriage. Almost half of neurologists take 3-4 weeks of vacation and a third take 1-2 weeks. Neurologists surveyed drive mostly Hondas and Toyotas; 4% drive Teslas and 3% drive Porsches. One third of neurologists exercise two to three times per week and 10% exercise daily. Only 20% have a drink more than four times per week.
 

Looking for solutions

“It is a bit distressing to see how many neurologists are unhappy at work and unhappy even outside of work,” said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles. Many neurologists claim to be burned out and a small percent report depression. Most do not seek help, do not take care of themselves well enough, and do not vacation or exercise enough, added Dr. Rapoport, who also is a past president of the International Headache Society and is editor in chief of Neurology Reviews.

Dr. Rapoport believes that some studies about this situation should be done by the American Academy of Neurology and other subspecialty organizations (for example, the American Headache Society), and results should be published in the neurology and subspecialty journals. Further work in this area should include suggestions for rectifying the situation and encouraging neurologists to seek help and improve their lifestyle. “I think that one of the ways that headache specialists have avoided burnout and depression is by focusing on one subspecialty area and engaging in different types of activities, such as seeing patients in the office and hospital, giving lectures, traveling to meetings, writing papers, and balancing their professional and personal lives. It appears that we need help as a profession, and we had better help ourselves to get it.”

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Neurologists reported being the least happy specialty at work in the Medscape Neurologist Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report 2020. Most reported they did not plan to seek help for their depression and/or burnout, and nearly half said they wouldn’t even participate in a workplace program.

The report found that only 18% of neurologists were very happy at work, and 41% overall identified themselves as burned out. Among reasons for burnout, 61% reported mounting bureaucratic tasks as their top reason, with 40% listing spending too many hours at work.

Coping strategies varied, with isolation from others topping the list at 46%, followed by talking with close friends and family and exercise tied at 40%.

Less than half (46%) claimed there was no impact on patients, but most (65%) don’t intend to seek professional help for depression and/or burnout and haven’t done so in the past. Similarly, 48% reported it’s unlikely they’d participate in a workplace program – in fact, only 33% said they would.

A slideshow laying out the findings in the report is available on Medscape.
 

A closer look at the numbers

Over 15,000 physicians across 29 specialties completed the 10-minute survey in the summer of 2019; 62% were men and most of the group were Baby Boomers (ages 55-73), then Generation X (ages 40-54), and lastly Millennials (ages 25-39). Of the specialties surveyed, neurologists scored lowest in the happiness-at-work category, with only 18% saying they were happy. Neurologists also scored lowest in happiness outside of work (44%). Half the neurologists surveyed said they were burned out, which was slightly more than the surveyed group of physicians in general. The biggest contributors to burnout were bureaucratic tasks, too many hours at work, and lack of control. Most coped by isolating themselves, talking with family members or friends, exercising and sleep. About 65% did not seek help for burnout or depression. The main reasons were being too busy, preferring to deal with it themselves, or feeling that the problem was not significant enough to warrant intervention.

A majority of the neurologists surveyed (70%-80%) are married and 85% say they have a good marriage. Almost half of neurologists take 3-4 weeks of vacation and a third take 1-2 weeks. Neurologists surveyed drive mostly Hondas and Toyotas; 4% drive Teslas and 3% drive Porsches. One third of neurologists exercise two to three times per week and 10% exercise daily. Only 20% have a drink more than four times per week.
 

Looking for solutions

“It is a bit distressing to see how many neurologists are unhappy at work and unhappy even outside of work,” said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles. Many neurologists claim to be burned out and a small percent report depression. Most do not seek help, do not take care of themselves well enough, and do not vacation or exercise enough, added Dr. Rapoport, who also is a past president of the International Headache Society and is editor in chief of Neurology Reviews.

Dr. Rapoport believes that some studies about this situation should be done by the American Academy of Neurology and other subspecialty organizations (for example, the American Headache Society), and results should be published in the neurology and subspecialty journals. Further work in this area should include suggestions for rectifying the situation and encouraging neurologists to seek help and improve their lifestyle. “I think that one of the ways that headache specialists have avoided burnout and depression is by focusing on one subspecialty area and engaging in different types of activities, such as seeing patients in the office and hospital, giving lectures, traveling to meetings, writing papers, and balancing their professional and personal lives. It appears that we need help as a profession, and we had better help ourselves to get it.”

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Neurologists reported being the least happy specialty at work in the Medscape Neurologist Lifestyle, Happiness, and Burnout Report 2020. Most reported they did not plan to seek help for their depression and/or burnout, and nearly half said they wouldn’t even participate in a workplace program.

The report found that only 18% of neurologists were very happy at work, and 41% overall identified themselves as burned out. Among reasons for burnout, 61% reported mounting bureaucratic tasks as their top reason, with 40% listing spending too many hours at work.

Coping strategies varied, with isolation from others topping the list at 46%, followed by talking with close friends and family and exercise tied at 40%.

Less than half (46%) claimed there was no impact on patients, but most (65%) don’t intend to seek professional help for depression and/or burnout and haven’t done so in the past. Similarly, 48% reported it’s unlikely they’d participate in a workplace program – in fact, only 33% said they would.

A slideshow laying out the findings in the report is available on Medscape.
 

A closer look at the numbers

Over 15,000 physicians across 29 specialties completed the 10-minute survey in the summer of 2019; 62% were men and most of the group were Baby Boomers (ages 55-73), then Generation X (ages 40-54), and lastly Millennials (ages 25-39). Of the specialties surveyed, neurologists scored lowest in the happiness-at-work category, with only 18% saying they were happy. Neurologists also scored lowest in happiness outside of work (44%). Half the neurologists surveyed said they were burned out, which was slightly more than the surveyed group of physicians in general. The biggest contributors to burnout were bureaucratic tasks, too many hours at work, and lack of control. Most coped by isolating themselves, talking with family members or friends, exercising and sleep. About 65% did not seek help for burnout or depression. The main reasons were being too busy, preferring to deal with it themselves, or feeling that the problem was not significant enough to warrant intervention.

A majority of the neurologists surveyed (70%-80%) are married and 85% say they have a good marriage. Almost half of neurologists take 3-4 weeks of vacation and a third take 1-2 weeks. Neurologists surveyed drive mostly Hondas and Toyotas; 4% drive Teslas and 3% drive Porsches. One third of neurologists exercise two to three times per week and 10% exercise daily. Only 20% have a drink more than four times per week.
 

Looking for solutions

“It is a bit distressing to see how many neurologists are unhappy at work and unhappy even outside of work,” said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles. Many neurologists claim to be burned out and a small percent report depression. Most do not seek help, do not take care of themselves well enough, and do not vacation or exercise enough, added Dr. Rapoport, who also is a past president of the International Headache Society and is editor in chief of Neurology Reviews.

Dr. Rapoport believes that some studies about this situation should be done by the American Academy of Neurology and other subspecialty organizations (for example, the American Headache Society), and results should be published in the neurology and subspecialty journals. Further work in this area should include suggestions for rectifying the situation and encouraging neurologists to seek help and improve their lifestyle. “I think that one of the ways that headache specialists have avoided burnout and depression is by focusing on one subspecialty area and engaging in different types of activities, such as seeing patients in the office and hospital, giving lectures, traveling to meetings, writing papers, and balancing their professional and personal lives. It appears that we need help as a profession, and we had better help ourselves to get it.”

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has deemed the current evidence “insufficient” to make a recommendation in regard to screening for cognitive impairment in adults aged 65 years or older.

“More research is needed on the effect of screening and early detection of cognitive impairment on important patient, caregiver, and societal outcomes, including decision making, advance planning, and caregiver outcomes,” wrote lead author Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and fellow members of the task force. The statement was published in JAMA.

To update a 2014 recommendation from the USPSTF, which also found insufficient evidence to properly assess cognitive screening’s benefits and harms, the task force commissioned a systematic review of studies applicable to community-dwelling older adults who are not exhibiting signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment. For their statement, “cognitive impairment” is defined as mild cognitive impairment and mild to moderate dementia.

Ultimately, they determined several factors that limited the overall evidence, including the short duration of most trials and the heterogenous nature of interventions and inconsistencies in outcomes reported. Any evidence that suggested improvements was mostly applicable to patients with moderate dementia, meaning “its applicability to a screen-detected population is uncertain.”
 

Updating 2014 recommendations

Their statement was based on an evidence report, also published in JAMA, in which a team of researchers reviewed 287 studies that included more than 285,000 older adults; 92 of the studies were newly identified, while the other 195 were carried forward from the 2014 recommendation’s review. The researchers sought the answers to five key questions, carrying over the framework from the previous review.

“Despite the accumulation of new data, the conclusions for these key questions are essentially unchanged from the prior review,” wrote lead author Carrie D. Patnode, PhD, of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., and coauthors.

Of the questions – which concerned the accuracy of screening instruments; the harms of screening; the harms of interventions; and if screening or interventions improved decision making or outcomes for the patient, family/caregiver, or society – moderate evidence was found to support the accuracy of the instruments, treatment with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for patients with moderate dementia, and psychoeducation interventions for caregivers of patients with moderate dementia. At the same time, there was moderate evidence of adverse effects from acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with moderate dementia.

“I think, eventually, there will be sufficient evidence to justify screening, once we have what I call a tiered approach,” Marwan Sabbagh, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas, said in an interview. “The very near future will include blood tests for Alzheimer’s, or PET scans, or genetics, or something else. Right now, the cognitive screens lack the specificity and sensitivity, and the secondary screening infrastructure that would improve the accuracy doesn’t exist yet.

“I think this is a ‘not now,’ ” he added, “but I wouldn’t say ‘not ever.’ ”

Dr. Patnode and coauthors noted specific limitations in the evidence, including a lack of studies on how screening for and treating cognitive impairment affects decision making. In addition, details like quality of life and institutionalization were inconsistently reported, and “consistent and standardized reporting of results according to meaningful thresholds of clinical significance” would have been valuable across all measures.
 

Clinical implications

The implications of this report’s conclusions are substantial, especially as the rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment and dementia becomes a worldwide concern, wrote Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the data does not explicitly support screening, Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe noted that it still may have benefits. An estimated 10% of cognitive impairment is caused by at least somewhat reversible causes, and screening could also be used to improve care in medical problems that are worsened by cognitive impairment. To find the true value of these efforts, they wrote, researchers need to design and execute additional clinical trials that “answer many of the important questions surrounding screening and treatment of cognitive impairment.”

“The absence of evidence for benefit may lead to inaction,” they added, noting that clinicians screening should still consider the value of screening on a case-by-case basis in order to keep up with the impact of new disease-modifying therapies for certain neurodegenerative diseases.

All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in meetings. One member reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The study was funded by the Department of Health & Human Services. One of the authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe reported consulting for, and receiving funding from, various pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and government organizations.

SOURCES: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0435; Patnode CD et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22258.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has deemed the current evidence “insufficient” to make a recommendation in regard to screening for cognitive impairment in adults aged 65 years or older.

“More research is needed on the effect of screening and early detection of cognitive impairment on important patient, caregiver, and societal outcomes, including decision making, advance planning, and caregiver outcomes,” wrote lead author Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and fellow members of the task force. The statement was published in JAMA.

To update a 2014 recommendation from the USPSTF, which also found insufficient evidence to properly assess cognitive screening’s benefits and harms, the task force commissioned a systematic review of studies applicable to community-dwelling older adults who are not exhibiting signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment. For their statement, “cognitive impairment” is defined as mild cognitive impairment and mild to moderate dementia.

Ultimately, they determined several factors that limited the overall evidence, including the short duration of most trials and the heterogenous nature of interventions and inconsistencies in outcomes reported. Any evidence that suggested improvements was mostly applicable to patients with moderate dementia, meaning “its applicability to a screen-detected population is uncertain.”
 

Updating 2014 recommendations

Their statement was based on an evidence report, also published in JAMA, in which a team of researchers reviewed 287 studies that included more than 285,000 older adults; 92 of the studies were newly identified, while the other 195 were carried forward from the 2014 recommendation’s review. The researchers sought the answers to five key questions, carrying over the framework from the previous review.

“Despite the accumulation of new data, the conclusions for these key questions are essentially unchanged from the prior review,” wrote lead author Carrie D. Patnode, PhD, of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., and coauthors.

Of the questions – which concerned the accuracy of screening instruments; the harms of screening; the harms of interventions; and if screening or interventions improved decision making or outcomes for the patient, family/caregiver, or society – moderate evidence was found to support the accuracy of the instruments, treatment with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for patients with moderate dementia, and psychoeducation interventions for caregivers of patients with moderate dementia. At the same time, there was moderate evidence of adverse effects from acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with moderate dementia.

“I think, eventually, there will be sufficient evidence to justify screening, once we have what I call a tiered approach,” Marwan Sabbagh, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas, said in an interview. “The very near future will include blood tests for Alzheimer’s, or PET scans, or genetics, or something else. Right now, the cognitive screens lack the specificity and sensitivity, and the secondary screening infrastructure that would improve the accuracy doesn’t exist yet.

“I think this is a ‘not now,’ ” he added, “but I wouldn’t say ‘not ever.’ ”

Dr. Patnode and coauthors noted specific limitations in the evidence, including a lack of studies on how screening for and treating cognitive impairment affects decision making. In addition, details like quality of life and institutionalization were inconsistently reported, and “consistent and standardized reporting of results according to meaningful thresholds of clinical significance” would have been valuable across all measures.
 

Clinical implications

The implications of this report’s conclusions are substantial, especially as the rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment and dementia becomes a worldwide concern, wrote Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the data does not explicitly support screening, Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe noted that it still may have benefits. An estimated 10% of cognitive impairment is caused by at least somewhat reversible causes, and screening could also be used to improve care in medical problems that are worsened by cognitive impairment. To find the true value of these efforts, they wrote, researchers need to design and execute additional clinical trials that “answer many of the important questions surrounding screening and treatment of cognitive impairment.”

“The absence of evidence for benefit may lead to inaction,” they added, noting that clinicians screening should still consider the value of screening on a case-by-case basis in order to keep up with the impact of new disease-modifying therapies for certain neurodegenerative diseases.

All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in meetings. One member reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The study was funded by the Department of Health & Human Services. One of the authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe reported consulting for, and receiving funding from, various pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and government organizations.

SOURCES: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0435; Patnode CD et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22258.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has deemed the current evidence “insufficient” to make a recommendation in regard to screening for cognitive impairment in adults aged 65 years or older.

“More research is needed on the effect of screening and early detection of cognitive impairment on important patient, caregiver, and societal outcomes, including decision making, advance planning, and caregiver outcomes,” wrote lead author Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and fellow members of the task force. The statement was published in JAMA.

To update a 2014 recommendation from the USPSTF, which also found insufficient evidence to properly assess cognitive screening’s benefits and harms, the task force commissioned a systematic review of studies applicable to community-dwelling older adults who are not exhibiting signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment. For their statement, “cognitive impairment” is defined as mild cognitive impairment and mild to moderate dementia.

Ultimately, they determined several factors that limited the overall evidence, including the short duration of most trials and the heterogenous nature of interventions and inconsistencies in outcomes reported. Any evidence that suggested improvements was mostly applicable to patients with moderate dementia, meaning “its applicability to a screen-detected population is uncertain.”
 

Updating 2014 recommendations

Their statement was based on an evidence report, also published in JAMA, in which a team of researchers reviewed 287 studies that included more than 285,000 older adults; 92 of the studies were newly identified, while the other 195 were carried forward from the 2014 recommendation’s review. The researchers sought the answers to five key questions, carrying over the framework from the previous review.

“Despite the accumulation of new data, the conclusions for these key questions are essentially unchanged from the prior review,” wrote lead author Carrie D. Patnode, PhD, of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., and coauthors.

Of the questions – which concerned the accuracy of screening instruments; the harms of screening; the harms of interventions; and if screening or interventions improved decision making or outcomes for the patient, family/caregiver, or society – moderate evidence was found to support the accuracy of the instruments, treatment with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for patients with moderate dementia, and psychoeducation interventions for caregivers of patients with moderate dementia. At the same time, there was moderate evidence of adverse effects from acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with moderate dementia.

“I think, eventually, there will be sufficient evidence to justify screening, once we have what I call a tiered approach,” Marwan Sabbagh, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas, said in an interview. “The very near future will include blood tests for Alzheimer’s, or PET scans, or genetics, or something else. Right now, the cognitive screens lack the specificity and sensitivity, and the secondary screening infrastructure that would improve the accuracy doesn’t exist yet.

“I think this is a ‘not now,’ ” he added, “but I wouldn’t say ‘not ever.’ ”

Dr. Patnode and coauthors noted specific limitations in the evidence, including a lack of studies on how screening for and treating cognitive impairment affects decision making. In addition, details like quality of life and institutionalization were inconsistently reported, and “consistent and standardized reporting of results according to meaningful thresholds of clinical significance” would have been valuable across all measures.
 

Clinical implications

The implications of this report’s conclusions are substantial, especially as the rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment and dementia becomes a worldwide concern, wrote Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the data does not explicitly support screening, Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe noted that it still may have benefits. An estimated 10% of cognitive impairment is caused by at least somewhat reversible causes, and screening could also be used to improve care in medical problems that are worsened by cognitive impairment. To find the true value of these efforts, they wrote, researchers need to design and execute additional clinical trials that “answer many of the important questions surrounding screening and treatment of cognitive impairment.”

“The absence of evidence for benefit may lead to inaction,” they added, noting that clinicians screening should still consider the value of screening on a case-by-case basis in order to keep up with the impact of new disease-modifying therapies for certain neurodegenerative diseases.

All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in meetings. One member reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The study was funded by the Department of Health & Human Services. One of the authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe reported consulting for, and receiving funding from, various pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and government organizations.

SOURCES: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0435; Patnode CD et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22258.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved eptinezumab-jjmr (Vyepti, Lundbeck), the first intravenous (IV) migraine prevention medication, the company has announced.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug’s approval is based on results from two clinical studies – PROMISE-1 in episodic migraine and PROMISE-2 in chronic migraine.

The recommended dose is 100 mg every 3 months although some patients may benefit from a dose of 300 mg, the company notes. Lundbeck reports that the drug will likely be available in early April.

Roger Cady, MD, vice-president of neurology at Lundbeck, told Medscape Medical News the drug has almost immediate efficacy.

“Because it’s an IV [medication], it has very rapid benefit. In fact, we were able to demonstrate benefit on Day 1. Truly, it is going to impact on the unmet need for patients because of its profile, the way it’s delivered, and its uniqueness,” Cady said.

“Having preventive activity the day following an infusion is really important. We have in our data, if you take that time between the first day and the 28th day, whether they have episodic migraine or chronic migraine, that about 30% of the population had a 75% or more reduction in migraine days through that first month,” he added.

The clinical trial program demonstrated a treatment benefit over placebo that was observed for both doses of Vyepti as early as day 1 post-infusion, and the percentage of patients experiencing a migraine was lower for Vyepti than with placebo for most of the first 7 days, the company reports.

The safety of Vyepti was evaluated in 2076 patients with migraine who received at least one dose of the drug. The most common adverse reactions were nasopharyngitis and hypersensitivity. In PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2, 1.9% of patients treated with Vyepti discontinued treatment as a result of adverse reactions.

“The PROMISE-2 data showed that many patients can achieve reduction in migraine days of at least 75% and experience a sustained migraine improvement through 6 months, which is clinically meaningful to both physicians and patients,” said Peter Goadsby, MD, professor of neurology at King’s College, London, UK, and the University of California, San Francisco, in a press release. “Vyepti is a valuable addition for the treatment of migraine, which can help reduce the burden of this serious disease.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved eptinezumab-jjmr (Vyepti, Lundbeck), the first intravenous (IV) migraine prevention medication, the company has announced.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug’s approval is based on results from two clinical studies – PROMISE-1 in episodic migraine and PROMISE-2 in chronic migraine.

The recommended dose is 100 mg every 3 months although some patients may benefit from a dose of 300 mg, the company notes. Lundbeck reports that the drug will likely be available in early April.

Roger Cady, MD, vice-president of neurology at Lundbeck, told Medscape Medical News the drug has almost immediate efficacy.

“Because it’s an IV [medication], it has very rapid benefit. In fact, we were able to demonstrate benefit on Day 1. Truly, it is going to impact on the unmet need for patients because of its profile, the way it’s delivered, and its uniqueness,” Cady said.

“Having preventive activity the day following an infusion is really important. We have in our data, if you take that time between the first day and the 28th day, whether they have episodic migraine or chronic migraine, that about 30% of the population had a 75% or more reduction in migraine days through that first month,” he added.

The clinical trial program demonstrated a treatment benefit over placebo that was observed for both doses of Vyepti as early as day 1 post-infusion, and the percentage of patients experiencing a migraine was lower for Vyepti than with placebo for most of the first 7 days, the company reports.

The safety of Vyepti was evaluated in 2076 patients with migraine who received at least one dose of the drug. The most common adverse reactions were nasopharyngitis and hypersensitivity. In PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2, 1.9% of patients treated with Vyepti discontinued treatment as a result of adverse reactions.

“The PROMISE-2 data showed that many patients can achieve reduction in migraine days of at least 75% and experience a sustained migraine improvement through 6 months, which is clinically meaningful to both physicians and patients,” said Peter Goadsby, MD, professor of neurology at King’s College, London, UK, and the University of California, San Francisco, in a press release. “Vyepti is a valuable addition for the treatment of migraine, which can help reduce the burden of this serious disease.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved eptinezumab-jjmr (Vyepti, Lundbeck), the first intravenous (IV) migraine prevention medication, the company has announced.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the drug’s approval is based on results from two clinical studies – PROMISE-1 in episodic migraine and PROMISE-2 in chronic migraine.

The recommended dose is 100 mg every 3 months although some patients may benefit from a dose of 300 mg, the company notes. Lundbeck reports that the drug will likely be available in early April.

Roger Cady, MD, vice-president of neurology at Lundbeck, told Medscape Medical News the drug has almost immediate efficacy.

“Because it’s an IV [medication], it has very rapid benefit. In fact, we were able to demonstrate benefit on Day 1. Truly, it is going to impact on the unmet need for patients because of its profile, the way it’s delivered, and its uniqueness,” Cady said.

“Having preventive activity the day following an infusion is really important. We have in our data, if you take that time between the first day and the 28th day, whether they have episodic migraine or chronic migraine, that about 30% of the population had a 75% or more reduction in migraine days through that first month,” he added.

The clinical trial program demonstrated a treatment benefit over placebo that was observed for both doses of Vyepti as early as day 1 post-infusion, and the percentage of patients experiencing a migraine was lower for Vyepti than with placebo for most of the first 7 days, the company reports.

The safety of Vyepti was evaluated in 2076 patients with migraine who received at least one dose of the drug. The most common adverse reactions were nasopharyngitis and hypersensitivity. In PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2, 1.9% of patients treated with Vyepti discontinued treatment as a result of adverse reactions.

“The PROMISE-2 data showed that many patients can achieve reduction in migraine days of at least 75% and experience a sustained migraine improvement through 6 months, which is clinically meaningful to both physicians and patients,” said Peter Goadsby, MD, professor of neurology at King’s College, London, UK, and the University of California, San Francisco, in a press release. “Vyepti is a valuable addition for the treatment of migraine, which can help reduce the burden of this serious disease.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – A new potential neuroprotectant agent has been found to be beneficial for patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy in a large placebo-controlled trial, but only for those patients who did not also receive thrombolysis.
 

There was no difference between groups on the primary outcome in the main analysis of the trial, lead author Michael Hill, MD, reported.

However, “In our study, we found a dramatic interaction of nerinetide with alteplase. There was a large benefit of nerinetide in patients not given thrombolysis, but in patients who received alteplase, this benefit was completely obliterated,” Dr. Hill said in an interview.

“In patients not treated with thrombolysis, we found a large effect size with a 9.5% absolute improvement in patients having an independent outcome (modified Rankin Score [mRS] 0-2) and a number need to treat of 10 to 11,” he said. “We also found a mortality benefit and a reduction in the size of strokes, with all other secondary outcomes going in the right direction.

“The drug works really well in patients who do not get thrombolysis, but it doesn’t work at all in patients who have had thrombolysis. The thrombolytic appears to break the peptide down so it is inactive,” he added.

“This is the first evidence that neuroprotection is possible in human stroke. This has never been shown before,” Dr. Hill noted. “Many previous clinical trials of potential neuroprotectants have been negative. We think this is a major breakthrough. This is pretty exciting stuff with really tantalizing results.”

Dr. Hill, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary (Alta.), presented results of the ESCAPE-NA1 trial on Feb. 20 at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2020. The trial was also simultaneously published online (Lancet. 2020 Feb 20; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30258-0).

Endogenous nitric oxide

The new agent – known as NA1 or nerinetide – is a 20-amino-acid peptide with a novel mechanism of action; it inhibits signaling that leads to neuronal excitotoxicity. “It reduces endogenous nitric oxide generated inside the cell during ischemia, which is one of the main biochemical processes contributing to cell death,” Dr. Hill explained. In a primate model of ischemia reperfusion that was published in Nature in 2012, it was highly protective, he added.

The drug is given just once at the time of thrombectomy. It is short lived in the blood but detectable in the brain for up to 24 hours, he said.

The trial included 1,105 patients who had experienced acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion within a 12-hour treatment window and for whom imaging results suitable for thrombectomy were available. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous nerinetide in a single dose of 2.6 mg/kg or saline placebo at the time of thrombectomy.

Patients were stratified by intravenous alteplase treatment and by declared endovascular device choice.

“Shaking up the field”

There is still more work to do, Dr. Hill said. “We don’t fully understand the pharmacology, and we will certainly have to do another trial, but we believe this agent is going to shake the field up. This is a totally new drug, and we have to think carefully about where it could fit in.”

“The obvious first group is those patients who do not receive thrombolysis. This is a large group, as most patients do not present in time for thrombolysis. Then we can work on the biochemistry and see if we can develop a version of nerinetide that is resistant to breakdown by thrombolysis,” he said.

Another possibility would be to withhold thrombolysis and give nerinetide instead. “It may be that thrombolysis is not needed if patients are receiving thrombectomy – this is being suggested now in initial studies,” Hill stated.

They also chose a very select group of patients – those undergoing thrombectomy, who represent only 10% to 15% of stroke patients. “We have to work out how to expand that population,” he said.

Hill noted that there have been many examples in the past of potential neuroprotectant agents that have worked in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion but that failed in humans with acute stroke.

“Until recently, we have not had a reliable ischemia-reperfusion model in humans, but now with endovascular therapy, we have a situation where the blood flow is reliably restored, which is an ideal situation to test new neuroprotectant agents. That may be another factor that has contributed to our positive findings,” he said.

In an accompanying comment in The Lancet, Graeme J. Hankey, MD, of the University of Western Australia, Perth, noted that although endovascular thrombectomy after use of intravenous alteplase improves reperfusion and clinical outcomes for a fifth of patients with ischemic stroke caused by large-artery occlusion, half of patients do not recover an independent lifestyle. Cytoprotection aims to augment the resilience of neurons, neurovascular units, and white matter during ischemia until perfusion is restored (Lancet. 2020 Feb 20; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30316-0).

Dr. Hankey also pointed out that numerous cytoprotection strategies have been reported to reduce brain infarction in preclinical models of ischemic stroke but have not been found to improve clinical outcomes in clinical trials involving patients with ischemic stroke.

The advent of thrombectomy provides an opportunity to reassess cytoprotection as an adjunctive therapy for patients with types of temporary brain ischemia that align more closely with successful preclinical models of ischemia, cytoprotection, and reperfusion, he added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – A new potential neuroprotectant agent has been found to be beneficial for patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy in a large placebo-controlled trial, but only for those patients who did not also receive thrombolysis.
 

There was no difference between groups on the primary outcome in the main analysis of the trial, lead author Michael Hill, MD, reported.

However, “In our study, we found a dramatic interaction of nerinetide with alteplase. There was a large benefit of nerinetide in patients not given thrombolysis, but in patients who received alteplase, this benefit was completely obliterated,” Dr. Hill said in an interview.

“In patients not treated with thrombolysis, we found a large effect size with a 9.5% absolute improvement in patients having an independent outcome (modified Rankin Score [mRS] 0-2) and a number need to treat of 10 to 11,” he said. “We also found a mortality benefit and a reduction in the size of strokes, with all other secondary outcomes going in the right direction.

“The drug works really well in patients who do not get thrombolysis, but it doesn’t work at all in patients who have had thrombolysis. The thrombolytic appears to break the peptide down so it is inactive,” he added.

“This is the first evidence that neuroprotection is possible in human stroke. This has never been shown before,” Dr. Hill noted. “Many previous clinical trials of potential neuroprotectants have been negative. We think this is a major breakthrough. This is pretty exciting stuff with really tantalizing results.”

Dr. Hill, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary (Alta.), presented results of the ESCAPE-NA1 trial on Feb. 20 at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2020. The trial was also simultaneously published online (Lancet. 2020 Feb 20; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30258-0).

Endogenous nitric oxide

The new agent – known as NA1 or nerinetide – is a 20-amino-acid peptide with a novel mechanism of action; it inhibits signaling that leads to neuronal excitotoxicity. “It reduces endogenous nitric oxide generated inside the cell during ischemia, which is one of the main biochemical processes contributing to cell death,” Dr. Hill explained. In a primate model of ischemia reperfusion that was published in Nature in 2012, it was highly protective, he added.

The drug is given just once at the time of thrombectomy. It is short lived in the blood but detectable in the brain for up to 24 hours, he said.

The trial included 1,105 patients who had experienced acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion within a 12-hour treatment window and for whom imaging results suitable for thrombectomy were available. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous nerinetide in a single dose of 2.6 mg/kg or saline placebo at the time of thrombectomy.

Patients were stratified by intravenous alteplase treatment and by declared endovascular device choice.

“Shaking up the field”

There is still more work to do, Dr. Hill said. “We don’t fully understand the pharmacology, and we will certainly have to do another trial, but we believe this agent is going to shake the field up. This is a totally new drug, and we have to think carefully about where it could fit in.”

“The obvious first group is those patients who do not receive thrombolysis. This is a large group, as most patients do not present in time for thrombolysis. Then we can work on the biochemistry and see if we can develop a version of nerinetide that is resistant to breakdown by thrombolysis,” he said.

Another possibility would be to withhold thrombolysis and give nerinetide instead. “It may be that thrombolysis is not needed if patients are receiving thrombectomy – this is being suggested now in initial studies,” Hill stated.

They also chose a very select group of patients – those undergoing thrombectomy, who represent only 10% to 15% of stroke patients. “We have to work out how to expand that population,” he said.

Hill noted that there have been many examples in the past of potential neuroprotectant agents that have worked in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion but that failed in humans with acute stroke.

“Until recently, we have not had a reliable ischemia-reperfusion model in humans, but now with endovascular therapy, we have a situation where the blood flow is reliably restored, which is an ideal situation to test new neuroprotectant agents. That may be another factor that has contributed to our positive findings,” he said.

In an accompanying comment in The Lancet, Graeme J. Hankey, MD, of the University of Western Australia, Perth, noted that although endovascular thrombectomy after use of intravenous alteplase improves reperfusion and clinical outcomes for a fifth of patients with ischemic stroke caused by large-artery occlusion, half of patients do not recover an independent lifestyle. Cytoprotection aims to augment the resilience of neurons, neurovascular units, and white matter during ischemia until perfusion is restored (Lancet. 2020 Feb 20; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30316-0).

Dr. Hankey also pointed out that numerous cytoprotection strategies have been reported to reduce brain infarction in preclinical models of ischemic stroke but have not been found to improve clinical outcomes in clinical trials involving patients with ischemic stroke.

The advent of thrombectomy provides an opportunity to reassess cytoprotection as an adjunctive therapy for patients with types of temporary brain ischemia that align more closely with successful preclinical models of ischemia, cytoprotection, and reperfusion, he added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – A new potential neuroprotectant agent has been found to be beneficial for patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy in a large placebo-controlled trial, but only for those patients who did not also receive thrombolysis.
 

There was no difference between groups on the primary outcome in the main analysis of the trial, lead author Michael Hill, MD, reported.

However, “In our study, we found a dramatic interaction of nerinetide with alteplase. There was a large benefit of nerinetide in patients not given thrombolysis, but in patients who received alteplase, this benefit was completely obliterated,” Dr. Hill said in an interview.

“In patients not treated with thrombolysis, we found a large effect size with a 9.5% absolute improvement in patients having an independent outcome (modified Rankin Score [mRS] 0-2) and a number need to treat of 10 to 11,” he said. “We also found a mortality benefit and a reduction in the size of strokes, with all other secondary outcomes going in the right direction.

“The drug works really well in patients who do not get thrombolysis, but it doesn’t work at all in patients who have had thrombolysis. The thrombolytic appears to break the peptide down so it is inactive,” he added.

“This is the first evidence that neuroprotection is possible in human stroke. This has never been shown before,” Dr. Hill noted. “Many previous clinical trials of potential neuroprotectants have been negative. We think this is a major breakthrough. This is pretty exciting stuff with really tantalizing results.”

Dr. Hill, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary (Alta.), presented results of the ESCAPE-NA1 trial on Feb. 20 at the International Stroke Conference (ISC) 2020. The trial was also simultaneously published online (Lancet. 2020 Feb 20; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30258-0).

Endogenous nitric oxide

The new agent – known as NA1 or nerinetide – is a 20-amino-acid peptide with a novel mechanism of action; it inhibits signaling that leads to neuronal excitotoxicity. “It reduces endogenous nitric oxide generated inside the cell during ischemia, which is one of the main biochemical processes contributing to cell death,” Dr. Hill explained. In a primate model of ischemia reperfusion that was published in Nature in 2012, it was highly protective, he added.

The drug is given just once at the time of thrombectomy. It is short lived in the blood but detectable in the brain for up to 24 hours, he said.

The trial included 1,105 patients who had experienced acute ischemic stroke due to large-vessel occlusion within a 12-hour treatment window and for whom imaging results suitable for thrombectomy were available. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous nerinetide in a single dose of 2.6 mg/kg or saline placebo at the time of thrombectomy.

Patients were stratified by intravenous alteplase treatment and by declared endovascular device choice.

“Shaking up the field”

There is still more work to do, Dr. Hill said. “We don’t fully understand the pharmacology, and we will certainly have to do another trial, but we believe this agent is going to shake the field up. This is a totally new drug, and we have to think carefully about where it could fit in.”

“The obvious first group is those patients who do not receive thrombolysis. This is a large group, as most patients do not present in time for thrombolysis. Then we can work on the biochemistry and see if we can develop a version of nerinetide that is resistant to breakdown by thrombolysis,” he said.

Another possibility would be to withhold thrombolysis and give nerinetide instead. “It may be that thrombolysis is not needed if patients are receiving thrombectomy – this is being suggested now in initial studies,” Hill stated.

They also chose a very select group of patients – those undergoing thrombectomy, who represent only 10% to 15% of stroke patients. “We have to work out how to expand that population,” he said.

Hill noted that there have been many examples in the past of potential neuroprotectant agents that have worked in animal models of ischemia-reperfusion but that failed in humans with acute stroke.

“Until recently, we have not had a reliable ischemia-reperfusion model in humans, but now with endovascular therapy, we have a situation where the blood flow is reliably restored, which is an ideal situation to test new neuroprotectant agents. That may be another factor that has contributed to our positive findings,” he said.

In an accompanying comment in The Lancet, Graeme J. Hankey, MD, of the University of Western Australia, Perth, noted that although endovascular thrombectomy after use of intravenous alteplase improves reperfusion and clinical outcomes for a fifth of patients with ischemic stroke caused by large-artery occlusion, half of patients do not recover an independent lifestyle. Cytoprotection aims to augment the resilience of neurons, neurovascular units, and white matter during ischemia until perfusion is restored (Lancet. 2020 Feb 20; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30316-0).

Dr. Hankey also pointed out that numerous cytoprotection strategies have been reported to reduce brain infarction in preclinical models of ischemic stroke but have not been found to improve clinical outcomes in clinical trials involving patients with ischemic stroke.

The advent of thrombectomy provides an opportunity to reassess cytoprotection as an adjunctive therapy for patients with types of temporary brain ischemia that align more closely with successful preclinical models of ischemia, cytoprotection, and reperfusion, he added.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.