User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
My inspiration
Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.
Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*
When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.
Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.
On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.
When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
*This article was updated 2/19/2020.
Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.
Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*
When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.
Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.
On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.
When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
*This article was updated 2/19/2020.
Kobe Bryant knew me. Not personally, of course. I never received an autograph or shook his hand. But once in a while if I was up early enough, I’d run into Kobe at the gym in Newport Beach where he and I both worked out. As he did for all his fans at the gym, he’d make eye contact with me and nod hello. He was always focused on his workout – working with a trainer, never with headphones on. In person, he appeared enormous. Unlike most retired professional athletes, he still was in great shape. No doubt he could have suited up in purple and gold, and played against the Clippers that night if needed.
Being from New England, I never was a Laker fan. But I thought, if Kobe can head to the gym after midnight and take a 1,000 shots to prepare for a game, then I could set my alarm for 4 a.m. and take a few dozen more questions from my First Aid books. Head down, “Kryptonite” cranked on my iPod, I wasn’t going to let anyone in that test room outwork me. Neither did he. I put in the time and, like Kobe in the 2002 conference finals against Sacramento, I crushed it.*
When we moved to California, I followed Kobe and the Lakers until he retired. To be clear, I didn’t aspire to be like him, firstly because I’m slightly shorter than Michael Bloomberg, but also because although accomplished, Kobe made some poor choices at times. Indeed, it seems he might have been kinder and more considerate when he was at the top. But in his retirement he looked to be toiling to make reparations, refocusing his prodigious energy and talent for the benefit of others rather than for just for scoring 81 points. His Rolls Royce was there before mine at the gym, and I was there early. He was still getting up early and now preparing to be a great venture capitalist, podcaster, author, and father to his girls.
Watching him carry kettle bells across the floor one morning, I wondered, do people like Kobe Bryant look to others for inspiration? Or are they are born with an endless supply of it? For me, I seemed to push harder and faster when watching idols pass by. Whether it was Kobe or Clayton Christensen (author of “The Innovator’s Dilemma”), Joe Jorizzo, or Barack Obama, I found I could do just a bit more if I had them in mind.
On game days, Kobe spoke of arriving at the arena early, long before anyone. He would use the silent, solo time to reflect on what he needed to do perform that night. I tried this last week, arriving at our clinic early, before any patients or staff. I turned the lights on and took a few minutes to think about what we needed to accomplish that day. I previewed patients on my schedule, searched Up to Date for the latest recommendations on a difficult case. I didn’t know Kobe, but I felt like I did.
When I received the text that Kobe Bryant had died, I was actually working on this column. So I decided to change the topic to write about people who inspire me, ironically inspired by him again. May he rest in peace.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.
*This article was updated 2/19/2020.
Private equity firms acquiring more physician group practices
Lead author Jane M. Zhu, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues examined physician group practice acquisitions by private equity firms using the Irving Levin Associates Health Care M&A data set, which includes manually collected and verified transactional information on health care mergers and acquisitions. Investigators linked acquisitions to the SK&A data set, a commercial data set of verified physicians and practice-level characteristics of U.S. office-based practices.
Of about 18,000 unique group medical practices, private equity firms acquired 355 physician practice acquisitions from 2013 to 2016, a trend that rose from 59 practices in 2013 to 136 practices in 2016, Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported on Feb. 18 , 2020, in a research letter published in JAMA.
Acquired practices had a mean of four sites, 16 physicians in each practice, and 6 physicians affiliated with each site, the data found. Overall, 81% of these medical practices reported accepting new patients, 83% accepted Medicare, and 60% accepted Medicaid. The majority of acquired practices were in the South (44%).
Anesthesiology (19%) and multispecialty (19%) were the most commonly represented medical groups in the acquisitions, followed by emergency medicine (12%), family practice (11%), and dermatology (10%). In addition, from 2015 to 2016, the number of acquired cardiology, ophthalmology, radiology, and ob.gyn. practices increased. Within acquired practices, anesthesiologists represented the majority of all physicians, followed by emergency medicine specialists, family physicians, and dermatologists.
Dr. Zhu and colleagues cited a key limitation: Because the data are based on transactions that have been publicly announced, the acquisition of smaller practices might have been underestimated.
Still, the findings demonstrate that private equity acquisitions of physician medical groups are accelerating across multiple specialties, Dr. Zhu said in an interview.
“From our data, acquired medical groups seem to have relatively large footprints with multiple office sites and multiple physicians, which mirrors a typical investment strategy for these firms,” she said.
Dr. Zhu said that more research is needed about how these purchases affect practice patterns, delivery of care, and clinician behavior. Private equity firms expect greater than 20% annual returns, and such financial incentives may conflict with the need for longer-term investments in practice stability, physician recruitment, quality, and safety, according to the study.
“In theory, there may be greater efficiencies introduced from private equity investment – for example, through administrative and billing efficiencies, reorganizing practice structures, or strengthening technology supports,” Dr. Zhu said. “But because of private equity firms’ emphasis on return on investment, there may be unintended consequences of these purchases on practice stability and patient care. We don’t yet know what these effects will be, and we need robust, longitudinal data to investigate this question.”
Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported that they had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zhu JM et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 18;323(17):663-5.
Lead author Jane M. Zhu, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues examined physician group practice acquisitions by private equity firms using the Irving Levin Associates Health Care M&A data set, which includes manually collected and verified transactional information on health care mergers and acquisitions. Investigators linked acquisitions to the SK&A data set, a commercial data set of verified physicians and practice-level characteristics of U.S. office-based practices.
Of about 18,000 unique group medical practices, private equity firms acquired 355 physician practice acquisitions from 2013 to 2016, a trend that rose from 59 practices in 2013 to 136 practices in 2016, Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported on Feb. 18 , 2020, in a research letter published in JAMA.
Acquired practices had a mean of four sites, 16 physicians in each practice, and 6 physicians affiliated with each site, the data found. Overall, 81% of these medical practices reported accepting new patients, 83% accepted Medicare, and 60% accepted Medicaid. The majority of acquired practices were in the South (44%).
Anesthesiology (19%) and multispecialty (19%) were the most commonly represented medical groups in the acquisitions, followed by emergency medicine (12%), family practice (11%), and dermatology (10%). In addition, from 2015 to 2016, the number of acquired cardiology, ophthalmology, radiology, and ob.gyn. practices increased. Within acquired practices, anesthesiologists represented the majority of all physicians, followed by emergency medicine specialists, family physicians, and dermatologists.
Dr. Zhu and colleagues cited a key limitation: Because the data are based on transactions that have been publicly announced, the acquisition of smaller practices might have been underestimated.
Still, the findings demonstrate that private equity acquisitions of physician medical groups are accelerating across multiple specialties, Dr. Zhu said in an interview.
“From our data, acquired medical groups seem to have relatively large footprints with multiple office sites and multiple physicians, which mirrors a typical investment strategy for these firms,” she said.
Dr. Zhu said that more research is needed about how these purchases affect practice patterns, delivery of care, and clinician behavior. Private equity firms expect greater than 20% annual returns, and such financial incentives may conflict with the need for longer-term investments in practice stability, physician recruitment, quality, and safety, according to the study.
“In theory, there may be greater efficiencies introduced from private equity investment – for example, through administrative and billing efficiencies, reorganizing practice structures, or strengthening technology supports,” Dr. Zhu said. “But because of private equity firms’ emphasis on return on investment, there may be unintended consequences of these purchases on practice stability and patient care. We don’t yet know what these effects will be, and we need robust, longitudinal data to investigate this question.”
Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported that they had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zhu JM et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 18;323(17):663-5.
Lead author Jane M. Zhu, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues examined physician group practice acquisitions by private equity firms using the Irving Levin Associates Health Care M&A data set, which includes manually collected and verified transactional information on health care mergers and acquisitions. Investigators linked acquisitions to the SK&A data set, a commercial data set of verified physicians and practice-level characteristics of U.S. office-based practices.
Of about 18,000 unique group medical practices, private equity firms acquired 355 physician practice acquisitions from 2013 to 2016, a trend that rose from 59 practices in 2013 to 136 practices in 2016, Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported on Feb. 18 , 2020, in a research letter published in JAMA.
Acquired practices had a mean of four sites, 16 physicians in each practice, and 6 physicians affiliated with each site, the data found. Overall, 81% of these medical practices reported accepting new patients, 83% accepted Medicare, and 60% accepted Medicaid. The majority of acquired practices were in the South (44%).
Anesthesiology (19%) and multispecialty (19%) were the most commonly represented medical groups in the acquisitions, followed by emergency medicine (12%), family practice (11%), and dermatology (10%). In addition, from 2015 to 2016, the number of acquired cardiology, ophthalmology, radiology, and ob.gyn. practices increased. Within acquired practices, anesthesiologists represented the majority of all physicians, followed by emergency medicine specialists, family physicians, and dermatologists.
Dr. Zhu and colleagues cited a key limitation: Because the data are based on transactions that have been publicly announced, the acquisition of smaller practices might have been underestimated.
Still, the findings demonstrate that private equity acquisitions of physician medical groups are accelerating across multiple specialties, Dr. Zhu said in an interview.
“From our data, acquired medical groups seem to have relatively large footprints with multiple office sites and multiple physicians, which mirrors a typical investment strategy for these firms,” she said.
Dr. Zhu said that more research is needed about how these purchases affect practice patterns, delivery of care, and clinician behavior. Private equity firms expect greater than 20% annual returns, and such financial incentives may conflict with the need for longer-term investments in practice stability, physician recruitment, quality, and safety, according to the study.
“In theory, there may be greater efficiencies introduced from private equity investment – for example, through administrative and billing efficiencies, reorganizing practice structures, or strengthening technology supports,” Dr. Zhu said. “But because of private equity firms’ emphasis on return on investment, there may be unintended consequences of these purchases on practice stability and patient care. We don’t yet know what these effects will be, and we need robust, longitudinal data to investigate this question.”
Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported that they had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Zhu JM et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 18;323(17):663-5.
FROM JAMA
Tramadol use for noncancer pain linked with increased hip fracture risk
The risk of hip fracture was higher among patients treated with tramadol for chronic noncancer pain than among those treated with other commonly used NSAIDs in a large population-based cohort in the United Kingdom.
The incidence of hip fracture over a 12-month period among 293,912 propensity score-matched tramadol and codeine recipients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database during 2000-2017 was 3.7 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio for hip fracture, 1.28), Jie Wei, PhD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.
Hip fracture incidence per 1,000 person-years was also higher in propensity score–matched cohorts of patients receiving tramadol vs. naproxen (2.9 vs. 1.7; HR, 1.69), ibuprofen (3.4 vs. 2.0; HR, 1.65), celecoxib (3.4 vs. 1.8; HR, 1.85), or etoricoxib (2.9 vs. 1.5; HR, 1.96), the investigators found.
Tramadol is considered a weak opioid and is commonly used for the treatment of pain based on a lower perceived risk of serious cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects versus NSAIDs, and of addiction and respiratory depression versus traditional opioids, they explained. Several professional organizations also have “strongly or conditionally recommended tramadol” as a first- or second-line treatment for conditions such as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain.
The potential mechanisms for the association between tramadol and hip fracture require further study, but “[c]onsidering the significant impact of hip fracture on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs, our results point to the need to consider tramadol’s associated risk of fracture in clinical practice and treatment guidelines,” they concluded.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central South University. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Wei J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Feb 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3935.
The risk of hip fracture was higher among patients treated with tramadol for chronic noncancer pain than among those treated with other commonly used NSAIDs in a large population-based cohort in the United Kingdom.
The incidence of hip fracture over a 12-month period among 293,912 propensity score-matched tramadol and codeine recipients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database during 2000-2017 was 3.7 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio for hip fracture, 1.28), Jie Wei, PhD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.
Hip fracture incidence per 1,000 person-years was also higher in propensity score–matched cohorts of patients receiving tramadol vs. naproxen (2.9 vs. 1.7; HR, 1.69), ibuprofen (3.4 vs. 2.0; HR, 1.65), celecoxib (3.4 vs. 1.8; HR, 1.85), or etoricoxib (2.9 vs. 1.5; HR, 1.96), the investigators found.
Tramadol is considered a weak opioid and is commonly used for the treatment of pain based on a lower perceived risk of serious cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects versus NSAIDs, and of addiction and respiratory depression versus traditional opioids, they explained. Several professional organizations also have “strongly or conditionally recommended tramadol” as a first- or second-line treatment for conditions such as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain.
The potential mechanisms for the association between tramadol and hip fracture require further study, but “[c]onsidering the significant impact of hip fracture on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs, our results point to the need to consider tramadol’s associated risk of fracture in clinical practice and treatment guidelines,” they concluded.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central South University. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Wei J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Feb 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3935.
The risk of hip fracture was higher among patients treated with tramadol for chronic noncancer pain than among those treated with other commonly used NSAIDs in a large population-based cohort in the United Kingdom.
The incidence of hip fracture over a 12-month period among 293,912 propensity score-matched tramadol and codeine recipients in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database during 2000-2017 was 3.7 vs. 2.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio for hip fracture, 1.28), Jie Wei, PhD, of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.
Hip fracture incidence per 1,000 person-years was also higher in propensity score–matched cohorts of patients receiving tramadol vs. naproxen (2.9 vs. 1.7; HR, 1.69), ibuprofen (3.4 vs. 2.0; HR, 1.65), celecoxib (3.4 vs. 1.8; HR, 1.85), or etoricoxib (2.9 vs. 1.5; HR, 1.96), the investigators found.
Tramadol is considered a weak opioid and is commonly used for the treatment of pain based on a lower perceived risk of serious cardiovascular and gastrointestinal effects versus NSAIDs, and of addiction and respiratory depression versus traditional opioids, they explained. Several professional organizations also have “strongly or conditionally recommended tramadol” as a first- or second-line treatment for conditions such as osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain.
The potential mechanisms for the association between tramadol and hip fracture require further study, but “[c]onsidering the significant impact of hip fracture on morbidity, mortality, and health care costs, our results point to the need to consider tramadol’s associated risk of fracture in clinical practice and treatment guidelines,” they concluded.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of Central South University. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Wei J et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Feb 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3935.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH
Antiepileptic drugs may not independently impair cognition
according to research published online ahead of print Feb. 3 in Neurology. Optimizing AED therapy to reduce or prevent seizures is thus unlikely to affect cognition, according to the investigators.
Patients who take AEDs commonly report cognitive problems, but investigations into the cognitive effects of AEDs have yielded inconsistent results. “We were also interested in this association, as we often treat complex patients taking multiple or high-dose AEDs, and our patients often report cognitive dysfunction,” said Emma Foster, MBBS, an epilepsy fellow at Alfred Health and the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Victoria, Australia. “We were particularly interested to examine how much AEDs affect cognition relative to other factors. We commonly see patients in our tertiary epilepsy care unit who have had severe epilepsy for a long time or who have psychiatric disorders, and these factors may also contribute to cognitive dysfunction.”
Researchers analyzed patients admitted for video EEG monitoring
For their study, Dr. Foster and colleagues prospectively enrolled patients admitted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital’s video EEG monitoring unit between January 2009 and December 2016. Patients were included in the study if they were age 18 years or older, had been admitted for diagnostic or surgical evaluation, and had complete data for the relevant variables. Patients were prescribed AED monotherapy or polytherapy.
The researchers based epilepsy diagnoses on the 2014 International League Against Epilepsy criteria. Diagnoses of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) were based on a consensus of epileptologists at weekly multidisciplinary clinical meetings, which was supported by evaluation of all available data. Some patients received a diagnosis of comorbid epilepsy and PNES. If data were insufficient to support a diagnosis of epilepsy or PNES, the admission was considered nondiagnostic.
All participants underwent neuropsychologic and neuropsychiatric screening. Researchers assessed patients’ objective, global cognitive function using the Neuropsychiatry Unit Cognitive Assessment Tool (NUCOG), a validated instrument. Patients responded to the Quality of Life in Epilepsy inventory (QOLIE-89) to provide a measure of subjective cognitive function. They also responded to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to screen for mood disorders.
Dr. Foster and colleagues measured seizure frequency through patient self-report. Patients averaged their seizure frequency during the 12-month period before admission to the video EEG unit. They categorized it according to a 12-point system in which 0 denotes patients who are seizure-free and not taking AEDs and 12 denotes patients in status epilepticus. Patients with PNES used the same scale to report event frequency, although the system was not designed for this purpose.
Almost half of patients were prescribed polypharmacy
The researchers included 331 patients in their analysis. The population’s mean age was 39.3 years, and about 62% of patients were female. Approximately 47% of patients had epilepsy, 25.7% had PNES, 6.6% had comorbid epilepsy and PNES, and 20.5% had a nondiagnostic outcome. Among patients with epilepsy, most (54.5%) had temporal lobe epilepsy, followed by extratemporal focal epilepsy (32.1%) and generalized epilepsy (13.5%). The mean number of AEDs prescribed on admission was 1.6, and mean seizure or event frequency score was 7.2, which indicated 1-3 seizures per month. Mean HADS depression score was within the normal range (5.7), and mean HADS anxiety score was in the borderline range (8.2).
Approximately 45% of patients were prescribed AED polypharmacy on admission, 25.1% were prescribed AED monotherapy, and 29.9% were prescribed no AED. Levetiracetam, valproate, and carbamazepine were the most frequently prescribed AEDs. Most patients with epilepsy (73.1%) were on polypharmacy, compared with 17.6% of patients with PNES, 63.6% of patients with epilepsy and PNES, and 8.8% of nondiagnostic patients.
Older age and greater seizure frequency predicted impaired objective cognitive function. Comorbid epilepsy and PNES appeared to predict impaired objective cognitive function as well, but the data were inconclusive. No AED was a significant predictor of objective cognitive function. Higher depression and anxiety scores and greater seizure frequency predicted impaired subjective cognitive function. No AED predicted subjective cognitive function.
Future studies could address particular cognitive domains
Previous studies have suggested that treatment with topiramate predicts objective or subjective cognitive function, but Dr. Foster and colleagues did not observe this result. The current findings suggest that topiramate may have a less significant effect on cognition than the literature suggests, they wrote. In addition, more evidence is needed to fully understand the effects of clobazam, valproate, phenytoin, and gabapentin because the analysis was underpowered for these drugs.
Although NUCOG assesses global cognitive function reliably, its ability to measure particular cognitive subdomains is limited. “We aim to conduct future research investigating the complex associations between different cognitive functions, including processing speed, and specific AEDs in this heterogeneous population,” said Dr. Foster.
Despite the study’s large sample size, the researchers could not explore potential interactions between various predictor variables. “Epilepsy may interact with the aging process or with other medical conditions associated with aging, such as hypertension and diabetes, and this may increase the risk of cognitive decline,” said Dr. Foster. “Older age may also be associated with reduced capacity to metabolize drugs, increased sensitivity to the cognitive and neurological effects of drugs, less cognitive reserve, and increased likelihood of taking multiple medications, which, along with AEDs, may exert a cognitive effect.”
The current findings may reduce concerns about the effects of AEDs on cognitive function and encourage neurologists to pursue the proper dosing for optimal seizure control, wrote the authors. “However, it is possible that some individuals may be more susceptible than others to AED-related cognitive dysfunction,” said Dr. Foster. “We do not have a robust way to predict who these patients will be, and it is still good practice to make patients aware that some people experience adverse cognitive effects from AEDs. However, it needs to be emphasized that it is unlikely to be the sole reason for their cognitive impairment. Other issues, such as poor seizure control or unrecognized or undertreated mood disorders, are even more important factors for impaired cognition.”
Patients who report cognitive problems should be screened for mood disorders, Dr. Foster continued. “It would also be important to consider whether the patients’ cognitive complaints arise from subtle clinical or subclinical seizure activity and subsequent postictal periods. To investigate this [question] further, clinicians may arrange for prolonged EEG monitoring. This [monitoring] could be done in an ambulatory setting or during an inpatient admission.”
The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Foster and other investigators reported research funding from professional associations and pharmaceutical companies that was unrelated to the study.
SOURCE: Foster E et al. Neurology. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009061.
according to research published online ahead of print Feb. 3 in Neurology. Optimizing AED therapy to reduce or prevent seizures is thus unlikely to affect cognition, according to the investigators.
Patients who take AEDs commonly report cognitive problems, but investigations into the cognitive effects of AEDs have yielded inconsistent results. “We were also interested in this association, as we often treat complex patients taking multiple or high-dose AEDs, and our patients often report cognitive dysfunction,” said Emma Foster, MBBS, an epilepsy fellow at Alfred Health and the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Victoria, Australia. “We were particularly interested to examine how much AEDs affect cognition relative to other factors. We commonly see patients in our tertiary epilepsy care unit who have had severe epilepsy for a long time or who have psychiatric disorders, and these factors may also contribute to cognitive dysfunction.”
Researchers analyzed patients admitted for video EEG monitoring
For their study, Dr. Foster and colleagues prospectively enrolled patients admitted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital’s video EEG monitoring unit between January 2009 and December 2016. Patients were included in the study if they were age 18 years or older, had been admitted for diagnostic or surgical evaluation, and had complete data for the relevant variables. Patients were prescribed AED monotherapy or polytherapy.
The researchers based epilepsy diagnoses on the 2014 International League Against Epilepsy criteria. Diagnoses of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) were based on a consensus of epileptologists at weekly multidisciplinary clinical meetings, which was supported by evaluation of all available data. Some patients received a diagnosis of comorbid epilepsy and PNES. If data were insufficient to support a diagnosis of epilepsy or PNES, the admission was considered nondiagnostic.
All participants underwent neuropsychologic and neuropsychiatric screening. Researchers assessed patients’ objective, global cognitive function using the Neuropsychiatry Unit Cognitive Assessment Tool (NUCOG), a validated instrument. Patients responded to the Quality of Life in Epilepsy inventory (QOLIE-89) to provide a measure of subjective cognitive function. They also responded to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to screen for mood disorders.
Dr. Foster and colleagues measured seizure frequency through patient self-report. Patients averaged their seizure frequency during the 12-month period before admission to the video EEG unit. They categorized it according to a 12-point system in which 0 denotes patients who are seizure-free and not taking AEDs and 12 denotes patients in status epilepticus. Patients with PNES used the same scale to report event frequency, although the system was not designed for this purpose.
Almost half of patients were prescribed polypharmacy
The researchers included 331 patients in their analysis. The population’s mean age was 39.3 years, and about 62% of patients were female. Approximately 47% of patients had epilepsy, 25.7% had PNES, 6.6% had comorbid epilepsy and PNES, and 20.5% had a nondiagnostic outcome. Among patients with epilepsy, most (54.5%) had temporal lobe epilepsy, followed by extratemporal focal epilepsy (32.1%) and generalized epilepsy (13.5%). The mean number of AEDs prescribed on admission was 1.6, and mean seizure or event frequency score was 7.2, which indicated 1-3 seizures per month. Mean HADS depression score was within the normal range (5.7), and mean HADS anxiety score was in the borderline range (8.2).
Approximately 45% of patients were prescribed AED polypharmacy on admission, 25.1% were prescribed AED monotherapy, and 29.9% were prescribed no AED. Levetiracetam, valproate, and carbamazepine were the most frequently prescribed AEDs. Most patients with epilepsy (73.1%) were on polypharmacy, compared with 17.6% of patients with PNES, 63.6% of patients with epilepsy and PNES, and 8.8% of nondiagnostic patients.
Older age and greater seizure frequency predicted impaired objective cognitive function. Comorbid epilepsy and PNES appeared to predict impaired objective cognitive function as well, but the data were inconclusive. No AED was a significant predictor of objective cognitive function. Higher depression and anxiety scores and greater seizure frequency predicted impaired subjective cognitive function. No AED predicted subjective cognitive function.
Future studies could address particular cognitive domains
Previous studies have suggested that treatment with topiramate predicts objective or subjective cognitive function, but Dr. Foster and colleagues did not observe this result. The current findings suggest that topiramate may have a less significant effect on cognition than the literature suggests, they wrote. In addition, more evidence is needed to fully understand the effects of clobazam, valproate, phenytoin, and gabapentin because the analysis was underpowered for these drugs.
Although NUCOG assesses global cognitive function reliably, its ability to measure particular cognitive subdomains is limited. “We aim to conduct future research investigating the complex associations between different cognitive functions, including processing speed, and specific AEDs in this heterogeneous population,” said Dr. Foster.
Despite the study’s large sample size, the researchers could not explore potential interactions between various predictor variables. “Epilepsy may interact with the aging process or with other medical conditions associated with aging, such as hypertension and diabetes, and this may increase the risk of cognitive decline,” said Dr. Foster. “Older age may also be associated with reduced capacity to metabolize drugs, increased sensitivity to the cognitive and neurological effects of drugs, less cognitive reserve, and increased likelihood of taking multiple medications, which, along with AEDs, may exert a cognitive effect.”
The current findings may reduce concerns about the effects of AEDs on cognitive function and encourage neurologists to pursue the proper dosing for optimal seizure control, wrote the authors. “However, it is possible that some individuals may be more susceptible than others to AED-related cognitive dysfunction,” said Dr. Foster. “We do not have a robust way to predict who these patients will be, and it is still good practice to make patients aware that some people experience adverse cognitive effects from AEDs. However, it needs to be emphasized that it is unlikely to be the sole reason for their cognitive impairment. Other issues, such as poor seizure control or unrecognized or undertreated mood disorders, are even more important factors for impaired cognition.”
Patients who report cognitive problems should be screened for mood disorders, Dr. Foster continued. “It would also be important to consider whether the patients’ cognitive complaints arise from subtle clinical or subclinical seizure activity and subsequent postictal periods. To investigate this [question] further, clinicians may arrange for prolonged EEG monitoring. This [monitoring] could be done in an ambulatory setting or during an inpatient admission.”
The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Foster and other investigators reported research funding from professional associations and pharmaceutical companies that was unrelated to the study.
SOURCE: Foster E et al. Neurology. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009061.
according to research published online ahead of print Feb. 3 in Neurology. Optimizing AED therapy to reduce or prevent seizures is thus unlikely to affect cognition, according to the investigators.
Patients who take AEDs commonly report cognitive problems, but investigations into the cognitive effects of AEDs have yielded inconsistent results. “We were also interested in this association, as we often treat complex patients taking multiple or high-dose AEDs, and our patients often report cognitive dysfunction,” said Emma Foster, MBBS, an epilepsy fellow at Alfred Health and the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Victoria, Australia. “We were particularly interested to examine how much AEDs affect cognition relative to other factors. We commonly see patients in our tertiary epilepsy care unit who have had severe epilepsy for a long time or who have psychiatric disorders, and these factors may also contribute to cognitive dysfunction.”
Researchers analyzed patients admitted for video EEG monitoring
For their study, Dr. Foster and colleagues prospectively enrolled patients admitted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital’s video EEG monitoring unit between January 2009 and December 2016. Patients were included in the study if they were age 18 years or older, had been admitted for diagnostic or surgical evaluation, and had complete data for the relevant variables. Patients were prescribed AED monotherapy or polytherapy.
The researchers based epilepsy diagnoses on the 2014 International League Against Epilepsy criteria. Diagnoses of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) were based on a consensus of epileptologists at weekly multidisciplinary clinical meetings, which was supported by evaluation of all available data. Some patients received a diagnosis of comorbid epilepsy and PNES. If data were insufficient to support a diagnosis of epilepsy or PNES, the admission was considered nondiagnostic.
All participants underwent neuropsychologic and neuropsychiatric screening. Researchers assessed patients’ objective, global cognitive function using the Neuropsychiatry Unit Cognitive Assessment Tool (NUCOG), a validated instrument. Patients responded to the Quality of Life in Epilepsy inventory (QOLIE-89) to provide a measure of subjective cognitive function. They also responded to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to screen for mood disorders.
Dr. Foster and colleagues measured seizure frequency through patient self-report. Patients averaged their seizure frequency during the 12-month period before admission to the video EEG unit. They categorized it according to a 12-point system in which 0 denotes patients who are seizure-free and not taking AEDs and 12 denotes patients in status epilepticus. Patients with PNES used the same scale to report event frequency, although the system was not designed for this purpose.
Almost half of patients were prescribed polypharmacy
The researchers included 331 patients in their analysis. The population’s mean age was 39.3 years, and about 62% of patients were female. Approximately 47% of patients had epilepsy, 25.7% had PNES, 6.6% had comorbid epilepsy and PNES, and 20.5% had a nondiagnostic outcome. Among patients with epilepsy, most (54.5%) had temporal lobe epilepsy, followed by extratemporal focal epilepsy (32.1%) and generalized epilepsy (13.5%). The mean number of AEDs prescribed on admission was 1.6, and mean seizure or event frequency score was 7.2, which indicated 1-3 seizures per month. Mean HADS depression score was within the normal range (5.7), and mean HADS anxiety score was in the borderline range (8.2).
Approximately 45% of patients were prescribed AED polypharmacy on admission, 25.1% were prescribed AED monotherapy, and 29.9% were prescribed no AED. Levetiracetam, valproate, and carbamazepine were the most frequently prescribed AEDs. Most patients with epilepsy (73.1%) were on polypharmacy, compared with 17.6% of patients with PNES, 63.6% of patients with epilepsy and PNES, and 8.8% of nondiagnostic patients.
Older age and greater seizure frequency predicted impaired objective cognitive function. Comorbid epilepsy and PNES appeared to predict impaired objective cognitive function as well, but the data were inconclusive. No AED was a significant predictor of objective cognitive function. Higher depression and anxiety scores and greater seizure frequency predicted impaired subjective cognitive function. No AED predicted subjective cognitive function.
Future studies could address particular cognitive domains
Previous studies have suggested that treatment with topiramate predicts objective or subjective cognitive function, but Dr. Foster and colleagues did not observe this result. The current findings suggest that topiramate may have a less significant effect on cognition than the literature suggests, they wrote. In addition, more evidence is needed to fully understand the effects of clobazam, valproate, phenytoin, and gabapentin because the analysis was underpowered for these drugs.
Although NUCOG assesses global cognitive function reliably, its ability to measure particular cognitive subdomains is limited. “We aim to conduct future research investigating the complex associations between different cognitive functions, including processing speed, and specific AEDs in this heterogeneous population,” said Dr. Foster.
Despite the study’s large sample size, the researchers could not explore potential interactions between various predictor variables. “Epilepsy may interact with the aging process or with other medical conditions associated with aging, such as hypertension and diabetes, and this may increase the risk of cognitive decline,” said Dr. Foster. “Older age may also be associated with reduced capacity to metabolize drugs, increased sensitivity to the cognitive and neurological effects of drugs, less cognitive reserve, and increased likelihood of taking multiple medications, which, along with AEDs, may exert a cognitive effect.”
The current findings may reduce concerns about the effects of AEDs on cognitive function and encourage neurologists to pursue the proper dosing for optimal seizure control, wrote the authors. “However, it is possible that some individuals may be more susceptible than others to AED-related cognitive dysfunction,” said Dr. Foster. “We do not have a robust way to predict who these patients will be, and it is still good practice to make patients aware that some people experience adverse cognitive effects from AEDs. However, it needs to be emphasized that it is unlikely to be the sole reason for their cognitive impairment. Other issues, such as poor seizure control or unrecognized or undertreated mood disorders, are even more important factors for impaired cognition.”
Patients who report cognitive problems should be screened for mood disorders, Dr. Foster continued. “It would also be important to consider whether the patients’ cognitive complaints arise from subtle clinical or subclinical seizure activity and subsequent postictal periods. To investigate this [question] further, clinicians may arrange for prolonged EEG monitoring. This [monitoring] could be done in an ambulatory setting or during an inpatient admission.”
The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Foster and other investigators reported research funding from professional associations and pharmaceutical companies that was unrelated to the study.
SOURCE: Foster E et al. Neurology. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009061.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Thrombectomy access lags for U.S. stroke patients
In 2017, roughly 3 years after evidence from several studies made endovascular thrombectomy first-line treatment for selected acute ischemic stroke patients, the treatment was available at barely more than one-third of all U.S. stroke centers, available within 30-minute access to just over 30% of Americans, and available within 15-minute access to one-fifth of U.S. residents, based on information in a comprehensive U.S. database.
These numbers showed that “current direct EVT [endovascular thrombectomy] access in the United States is suboptimal under predominate EMS routing protocols,” Amrou Sarraj, MD, and his associates wrote in an article published online in Stroke on Feb. 12. “Only in eight states did the coverage exceed 25% of the population, and nine states had coverage for less than 10% of the population. These results reflect limited access to an effective treatment modality that would improve clinical outcomes in patients with large strokes and prevent potentially devastating disability,” wrote Dr. Sarraj, chief of the general neurology service at Memorial-Hermann Hospital in Houston and coauthors.
Their analysis of data collected in 2017 by the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) database, maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, identified two apparently effective ways to improve EVT access for acute ischemic stroke patients: First, systematically divert patients to a nearby center that offers EVT even when it means bypassing a closer stroke center that does not perform EVT when the added travel time is less than 15 minutes. Second, convert selected stroke centers that currently do not perform EVT into centers that do. Between these two approaches, the strategy of having ambulances bypass stroke centers that do not perform EVT and continuing to ones that do generally has the greater potential to boost access, the authors found. They based their analysis exclusively on their calculations of expected consequences rather than actual experience.
The calculations showed that bypassing non-EVT centers when the added bypass time computed to less than 15 minutes linked with an anticipated overall U.S. gain in access of about 17%, or 52 million people, extending the ability of acute ischemic stroke patients able to quickly reach an EVT center to about 37% of the American public. The second approach to boost access, converting the top 10% of stroke centers based on case volume that currently do not provide EVT to centers that do offer it, would result in expanded access for about 23 million additional Americans, raising the total with access to about 27% of the public, the new report said.
As part of this analysis, the MEDPAR data identified 1,941 U.S. centers providing stroke services during 2017, of which 713 (37%) had performed at least one EVT procedure. By comparison, 2015 MEDPAR data showed 577 U.S. stroke centers performing EVT, indicating that during the 2-3 years following several reports in early 2015 on the net benefits of EVT for acute ischemic stroke patients, the number of U.S. stroke centers offering this treatment had grown by a relative 24%. Based on the locations of the stroke centers that made EVT available in 2017, Dr. Sarraj and coauthors calculated that the 713 EVT-capable stroke centers provided emergency access within a 15-minute ground-ambulance trip for 61 million Americans (20% of the U.S. population), and within a 30-minute ground-transport trip to 95 million residents (31%).
Boosting these numbers by implementing a systematic bypass of stroke patients past non-EVT stroke centers to nearby centers that are EVT capable “has the benefit of ease of implementation and requires less time and resources,” the authors said. However, they also noted the heterogeneity of circumstances based on variables like population density and stroke center distribution, which means that in some locations the most effective way to boost access would be by increasing the number of stroke centers that provide EVT.
In 2018, Dr. Sarraj and associates reported results from a similar analysis of MEDPAR data that used 30-minute and 60-minute ground-transport times as the criteria for their calculations.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sarraj reported receiving research funding from Stryker Neurovascular outside of this work. One coauthor reported serving in roles for the University of Texas Health System for which the institution has been funded via various industry and government grants, and another coauthor reported receiving research funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the National Institutes of Health, Genentech, and CSL Behring, as well as consulting fees from Frazer Ltd.
SOURCE: Sarraj A et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.028850.
In 2017, roughly 3 years after evidence from several studies made endovascular thrombectomy first-line treatment for selected acute ischemic stroke patients, the treatment was available at barely more than one-third of all U.S. stroke centers, available within 30-minute access to just over 30% of Americans, and available within 15-minute access to one-fifth of U.S. residents, based on information in a comprehensive U.S. database.
These numbers showed that “current direct EVT [endovascular thrombectomy] access in the United States is suboptimal under predominate EMS routing protocols,” Amrou Sarraj, MD, and his associates wrote in an article published online in Stroke on Feb. 12. “Only in eight states did the coverage exceed 25% of the population, and nine states had coverage for less than 10% of the population. These results reflect limited access to an effective treatment modality that would improve clinical outcomes in patients with large strokes and prevent potentially devastating disability,” wrote Dr. Sarraj, chief of the general neurology service at Memorial-Hermann Hospital in Houston and coauthors.
Their analysis of data collected in 2017 by the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) database, maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, identified two apparently effective ways to improve EVT access for acute ischemic stroke patients: First, systematically divert patients to a nearby center that offers EVT even when it means bypassing a closer stroke center that does not perform EVT when the added travel time is less than 15 minutes. Second, convert selected stroke centers that currently do not perform EVT into centers that do. Between these two approaches, the strategy of having ambulances bypass stroke centers that do not perform EVT and continuing to ones that do generally has the greater potential to boost access, the authors found. They based their analysis exclusively on their calculations of expected consequences rather than actual experience.
The calculations showed that bypassing non-EVT centers when the added bypass time computed to less than 15 minutes linked with an anticipated overall U.S. gain in access of about 17%, or 52 million people, extending the ability of acute ischemic stroke patients able to quickly reach an EVT center to about 37% of the American public. The second approach to boost access, converting the top 10% of stroke centers based on case volume that currently do not provide EVT to centers that do offer it, would result in expanded access for about 23 million additional Americans, raising the total with access to about 27% of the public, the new report said.
As part of this analysis, the MEDPAR data identified 1,941 U.S. centers providing stroke services during 2017, of which 713 (37%) had performed at least one EVT procedure. By comparison, 2015 MEDPAR data showed 577 U.S. stroke centers performing EVT, indicating that during the 2-3 years following several reports in early 2015 on the net benefits of EVT for acute ischemic stroke patients, the number of U.S. stroke centers offering this treatment had grown by a relative 24%. Based on the locations of the stroke centers that made EVT available in 2017, Dr. Sarraj and coauthors calculated that the 713 EVT-capable stroke centers provided emergency access within a 15-minute ground-ambulance trip for 61 million Americans (20% of the U.S. population), and within a 30-minute ground-transport trip to 95 million residents (31%).
Boosting these numbers by implementing a systematic bypass of stroke patients past non-EVT stroke centers to nearby centers that are EVT capable “has the benefit of ease of implementation and requires less time and resources,” the authors said. However, they also noted the heterogeneity of circumstances based on variables like population density and stroke center distribution, which means that in some locations the most effective way to boost access would be by increasing the number of stroke centers that provide EVT.
In 2018, Dr. Sarraj and associates reported results from a similar analysis of MEDPAR data that used 30-minute and 60-minute ground-transport times as the criteria for their calculations.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sarraj reported receiving research funding from Stryker Neurovascular outside of this work. One coauthor reported serving in roles for the University of Texas Health System for which the institution has been funded via various industry and government grants, and another coauthor reported receiving research funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the National Institutes of Health, Genentech, and CSL Behring, as well as consulting fees from Frazer Ltd.
SOURCE: Sarraj A et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.028850.
In 2017, roughly 3 years after evidence from several studies made endovascular thrombectomy first-line treatment for selected acute ischemic stroke patients, the treatment was available at barely more than one-third of all U.S. stroke centers, available within 30-minute access to just over 30% of Americans, and available within 15-minute access to one-fifth of U.S. residents, based on information in a comprehensive U.S. database.
These numbers showed that “current direct EVT [endovascular thrombectomy] access in the United States is suboptimal under predominate EMS routing protocols,” Amrou Sarraj, MD, and his associates wrote in an article published online in Stroke on Feb. 12. “Only in eight states did the coverage exceed 25% of the population, and nine states had coverage for less than 10% of the population. These results reflect limited access to an effective treatment modality that would improve clinical outcomes in patients with large strokes and prevent potentially devastating disability,” wrote Dr. Sarraj, chief of the general neurology service at Memorial-Hermann Hospital in Houston and coauthors.
Their analysis of data collected in 2017 by the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) database, maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, identified two apparently effective ways to improve EVT access for acute ischemic stroke patients: First, systematically divert patients to a nearby center that offers EVT even when it means bypassing a closer stroke center that does not perform EVT when the added travel time is less than 15 minutes. Second, convert selected stroke centers that currently do not perform EVT into centers that do. Between these two approaches, the strategy of having ambulances bypass stroke centers that do not perform EVT and continuing to ones that do generally has the greater potential to boost access, the authors found. They based their analysis exclusively on their calculations of expected consequences rather than actual experience.
The calculations showed that bypassing non-EVT centers when the added bypass time computed to less than 15 minutes linked with an anticipated overall U.S. gain in access of about 17%, or 52 million people, extending the ability of acute ischemic stroke patients able to quickly reach an EVT center to about 37% of the American public. The second approach to boost access, converting the top 10% of stroke centers based on case volume that currently do not provide EVT to centers that do offer it, would result in expanded access for about 23 million additional Americans, raising the total with access to about 27% of the public, the new report said.
As part of this analysis, the MEDPAR data identified 1,941 U.S. centers providing stroke services during 2017, of which 713 (37%) had performed at least one EVT procedure. By comparison, 2015 MEDPAR data showed 577 U.S. stroke centers performing EVT, indicating that during the 2-3 years following several reports in early 2015 on the net benefits of EVT for acute ischemic stroke patients, the number of U.S. stroke centers offering this treatment had grown by a relative 24%. Based on the locations of the stroke centers that made EVT available in 2017, Dr. Sarraj and coauthors calculated that the 713 EVT-capable stroke centers provided emergency access within a 15-minute ground-ambulance trip for 61 million Americans (20% of the U.S. population), and within a 30-minute ground-transport trip to 95 million residents (31%).
Boosting these numbers by implementing a systematic bypass of stroke patients past non-EVT stroke centers to nearby centers that are EVT capable “has the benefit of ease of implementation and requires less time and resources,” the authors said. However, they also noted the heterogeneity of circumstances based on variables like population density and stroke center distribution, which means that in some locations the most effective way to boost access would be by increasing the number of stroke centers that provide EVT.
In 2018, Dr. Sarraj and associates reported results from a similar analysis of MEDPAR data that used 30-minute and 60-minute ground-transport times as the criteria for their calculations.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sarraj reported receiving research funding from Stryker Neurovascular outside of this work. One coauthor reported serving in roles for the University of Texas Health System for which the institution has been funded via various industry and government grants, and another coauthor reported receiving research funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the National Institutes of Health, Genentech, and CSL Behring, as well as consulting fees from Frazer Ltd.
SOURCE: Sarraj A et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.028850.
FROM STROKE
AAN publishes guideline on the treatment of sleep problems in children with autism
The guideline was published online ahead of print Feb. 12 in Neurology.
“While up to 40% of children and teens in the general population will have sleep problems at some point during their childhood, such problems usually lessen with age,” lead author Ashura Williams Buckley, MD, director of the Sleep and Neurodevelopment Service at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Md., said in a press release. “For children and teens with autism, sleep problems are more common and more likely to persist, resulting in poor health and poor quality of life. Some sleep problems may be directly related to autism, but others are not. Regardless, autism symptoms may make sleep problems worse.”
Few evidence-based treatments are available
Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues developed the current guideline to evaluate which pharmacologic, behavioral, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions improve bedtime resistance, sleep onset latency, sleep continuity, total sleep time, and daytime behavior in children and adolescents with ASD. The panel evaluated 900 abstracts of articles that had been included in systematic reviews, as well as 1,087 additional abstracts. One hundred thirty-nine articles were potentially relevant, 12 met criteria for data extraction, and eight were rated class III or higher and were included in the panel’s review.
The authors observed what they called a dearth of evidence-based treatments for sleep dysregulation in ASD. Evidence indicates that melatonin, with or without cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT), improves several sleep outcomes, compared with placebo. “Evidence for other interventions is largely lacking,” wrote Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues. They observed a lack of long-term safety data for melatonin in children, which they considered concerning, because melatonin affects the hypothalamic–gonadal axis and can potentially influence pubertal development.
Screening for comorbid conditions and concomitant medications
The guideline recommends that clinicians assess children with ASD and sleep disturbances for coexisting conditions and concomitant medications that could be contributing to these sleep disturbances. They should ensure that children receive appropriate treatment for coexisting conditions and adjust or discontinue potentially problematic medications appropriately, according to the guideline.
Furthermore, clinicians should counsel parents or guardians about behavioral strategies as a first-line treatment for improving sleep function. These strategies could be administered alone or with pharmacologic or neutraceutical approaches as needed, according to the authors. Suggested behavioral approaches include unmodified extinction (i.e., imposing a bedtime and ignoring a child’s protests), graduated extinction (i.e., ignoring protests for a specified period before responding), positive routines (i.e., establishing pre-bedtime calming rituals), and bedtime fading (i.e., putting a child to bed close to the time he or she begins to fall asleep).
If a child’s contributing coexisting conditions and medications have been addressed and behavioral strategies have not been helpful, clinicians should offer melatonin, according to the guideline. Because over-the-counter formulations contain variable concentrations of melatonin, clinicians should write a prescription for it or recommend high-purity pharmaceutical grade melatonin. The initial dose should be 1-3 mg/day at 60-30 minutes before bedtime. The dose can be titrated to 10 mg/day. Clinicians also should counsel children and their parents about potential adverse events of melatonin and the lack of long-term safety data, according to the guideline.
In addition, clinicians should advise children and parents that no evidence supports the routine use of weighted blankets or specialized mattress technology for improving sleep. Parents who ask about weighted blankets should be told that the reviewed trial reported no serious adverse events with this intervention, and that blankets could be a reasonable nonpharmacologic approach for some patients, according to the guideline.
Optimal outcome measures are undefined
Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues also suggested areas for future research. Investigators have not yet defined optimal outcome measures (e.g., questionnaires, polysomnography, and actigraphy) that balance tolerability and accuracy, they wrote. Clinically important differences for most measures also have yet to be determined. Researchers should investigate whether long-term adverse events are associated with chronic melatonin use and study patients with ASD and comorbid mood disorders, wrote the authors. “Research tying the underlying neurobiology in early-life sleep disruption to behavior might help clinicians and researchers understand which treatments might work for which people with ASD,” they concluded.
The AAN supported the development of the guideline. Dr. Williams Buckley had no conflicts of interest. Six authors had conflicts of interest that the AAN deemed not significant enough to prevent their participation in the development of the guideline.
SOURCE: Williams Buckley A et al. Neurology. 2020;94:393-405. doi: 10.1212/WNL0000000000009033.
The guideline was published online ahead of print Feb. 12 in Neurology.
“While up to 40% of children and teens in the general population will have sleep problems at some point during their childhood, such problems usually lessen with age,” lead author Ashura Williams Buckley, MD, director of the Sleep and Neurodevelopment Service at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Md., said in a press release. “For children and teens with autism, sleep problems are more common and more likely to persist, resulting in poor health and poor quality of life. Some sleep problems may be directly related to autism, but others are not. Regardless, autism symptoms may make sleep problems worse.”
Few evidence-based treatments are available
Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues developed the current guideline to evaluate which pharmacologic, behavioral, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions improve bedtime resistance, sleep onset latency, sleep continuity, total sleep time, and daytime behavior in children and adolescents with ASD. The panel evaluated 900 abstracts of articles that had been included in systematic reviews, as well as 1,087 additional abstracts. One hundred thirty-nine articles were potentially relevant, 12 met criteria for data extraction, and eight were rated class III or higher and were included in the panel’s review.
The authors observed what they called a dearth of evidence-based treatments for sleep dysregulation in ASD. Evidence indicates that melatonin, with or without cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT), improves several sleep outcomes, compared with placebo. “Evidence for other interventions is largely lacking,” wrote Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues. They observed a lack of long-term safety data for melatonin in children, which they considered concerning, because melatonin affects the hypothalamic–gonadal axis and can potentially influence pubertal development.
Screening for comorbid conditions and concomitant medications
The guideline recommends that clinicians assess children with ASD and sleep disturbances for coexisting conditions and concomitant medications that could be contributing to these sleep disturbances. They should ensure that children receive appropriate treatment for coexisting conditions and adjust or discontinue potentially problematic medications appropriately, according to the guideline.
Furthermore, clinicians should counsel parents or guardians about behavioral strategies as a first-line treatment for improving sleep function. These strategies could be administered alone or with pharmacologic or neutraceutical approaches as needed, according to the authors. Suggested behavioral approaches include unmodified extinction (i.e., imposing a bedtime and ignoring a child’s protests), graduated extinction (i.e., ignoring protests for a specified period before responding), positive routines (i.e., establishing pre-bedtime calming rituals), and bedtime fading (i.e., putting a child to bed close to the time he or she begins to fall asleep).
If a child’s contributing coexisting conditions and medications have been addressed and behavioral strategies have not been helpful, clinicians should offer melatonin, according to the guideline. Because over-the-counter formulations contain variable concentrations of melatonin, clinicians should write a prescription for it or recommend high-purity pharmaceutical grade melatonin. The initial dose should be 1-3 mg/day at 60-30 minutes before bedtime. The dose can be titrated to 10 mg/day. Clinicians also should counsel children and their parents about potential adverse events of melatonin and the lack of long-term safety data, according to the guideline.
In addition, clinicians should advise children and parents that no evidence supports the routine use of weighted blankets or specialized mattress technology for improving sleep. Parents who ask about weighted blankets should be told that the reviewed trial reported no serious adverse events with this intervention, and that blankets could be a reasonable nonpharmacologic approach for some patients, according to the guideline.
Optimal outcome measures are undefined
Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues also suggested areas for future research. Investigators have not yet defined optimal outcome measures (e.g., questionnaires, polysomnography, and actigraphy) that balance tolerability and accuracy, they wrote. Clinically important differences for most measures also have yet to be determined. Researchers should investigate whether long-term adverse events are associated with chronic melatonin use and study patients with ASD and comorbid mood disorders, wrote the authors. “Research tying the underlying neurobiology in early-life sleep disruption to behavior might help clinicians and researchers understand which treatments might work for which people with ASD,” they concluded.
The AAN supported the development of the guideline. Dr. Williams Buckley had no conflicts of interest. Six authors had conflicts of interest that the AAN deemed not significant enough to prevent their participation in the development of the guideline.
SOURCE: Williams Buckley A et al. Neurology. 2020;94:393-405. doi: 10.1212/WNL0000000000009033.
The guideline was published online ahead of print Feb. 12 in Neurology.
“While up to 40% of children and teens in the general population will have sleep problems at some point during their childhood, such problems usually lessen with age,” lead author Ashura Williams Buckley, MD, director of the Sleep and Neurodevelopment Service at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Md., said in a press release. “For children and teens with autism, sleep problems are more common and more likely to persist, resulting in poor health and poor quality of life. Some sleep problems may be directly related to autism, but others are not. Regardless, autism symptoms may make sleep problems worse.”
Few evidence-based treatments are available
Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues developed the current guideline to evaluate which pharmacologic, behavioral, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions improve bedtime resistance, sleep onset latency, sleep continuity, total sleep time, and daytime behavior in children and adolescents with ASD. The panel evaluated 900 abstracts of articles that had been included in systematic reviews, as well as 1,087 additional abstracts. One hundred thirty-nine articles were potentially relevant, 12 met criteria for data extraction, and eight were rated class III or higher and were included in the panel’s review.
The authors observed what they called a dearth of evidence-based treatments for sleep dysregulation in ASD. Evidence indicates that melatonin, with or without cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT), improves several sleep outcomes, compared with placebo. “Evidence for other interventions is largely lacking,” wrote Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues. They observed a lack of long-term safety data for melatonin in children, which they considered concerning, because melatonin affects the hypothalamic–gonadal axis and can potentially influence pubertal development.
Screening for comorbid conditions and concomitant medications
The guideline recommends that clinicians assess children with ASD and sleep disturbances for coexisting conditions and concomitant medications that could be contributing to these sleep disturbances. They should ensure that children receive appropriate treatment for coexisting conditions and adjust or discontinue potentially problematic medications appropriately, according to the guideline.
Furthermore, clinicians should counsel parents or guardians about behavioral strategies as a first-line treatment for improving sleep function. These strategies could be administered alone or with pharmacologic or neutraceutical approaches as needed, according to the authors. Suggested behavioral approaches include unmodified extinction (i.e., imposing a bedtime and ignoring a child’s protests), graduated extinction (i.e., ignoring protests for a specified period before responding), positive routines (i.e., establishing pre-bedtime calming rituals), and bedtime fading (i.e., putting a child to bed close to the time he or she begins to fall asleep).
If a child’s contributing coexisting conditions and medications have been addressed and behavioral strategies have not been helpful, clinicians should offer melatonin, according to the guideline. Because over-the-counter formulations contain variable concentrations of melatonin, clinicians should write a prescription for it or recommend high-purity pharmaceutical grade melatonin. The initial dose should be 1-3 mg/day at 60-30 minutes before bedtime. The dose can be titrated to 10 mg/day. Clinicians also should counsel children and their parents about potential adverse events of melatonin and the lack of long-term safety data, according to the guideline.
In addition, clinicians should advise children and parents that no evidence supports the routine use of weighted blankets or specialized mattress technology for improving sleep. Parents who ask about weighted blankets should be told that the reviewed trial reported no serious adverse events with this intervention, and that blankets could be a reasonable nonpharmacologic approach for some patients, according to the guideline.
Optimal outcome measures are undefined
Dr. Williams Buckley and colleagues also suggested areas for future research. Investigators have not yet defined optimal outcome measures (e.g., questionnaires, polysomnography, and actigraphy) that balance tolerability and accuracy, they wrote. Clinically important differences for most measures also have yet to be determined. Researchers should investigate whether long-term adverse events are associated with chronic melatonin use and study patients with ASD and comorbid mood disorders, wrote the authors. “Research tying the underlying neurobiology in early-life sleep disruption to behavior might help clinicians and researchers understand which treatments might work for which people with ASD,” they concluded.
The AAN supported the development of the guideline. Dr. Williams Buckley had no conflicts of interest. Six authors had conflicts of interest that the AAN deemed not significant enough to prevent their participation in the development of the guideline.
SOURCE: Williams Buckley A et al. Neurology. 2020;94:393-405. doi: 10.1212/WNL0000000000009033.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Key clinical point: The AAN has published a guideline on the treatment of sleep problems in children with autism.
Major finding: The guideline recommends behavioral strategies as a first-line treatment.
Study details: A review of 1,987 peer-reviewed studies.
Disclosures: The AAN funded the development of the guideline. The first author had no conflicts of interest, and the other authors had no significant conflicts.
Source: Williams Buckley A et al. Neurology. 2020;94:393-405. doi: 10.1212/WNL0000000000009033.
Trump seeks to cut NIH, CDC budgets, some Medicare spending
The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.
In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.
But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.
For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.
The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.
Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.
The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82).
Budget ‘would thwart’ progress
A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.
“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.
David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.
“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.
Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.
In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.
Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.
‘Untenable cuts’
AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”
This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.
“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.
The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.
“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”
Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.
“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.
In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.
“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.
He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.
Medical malpractice overhaul
The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.
The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”
Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.
These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.
Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.
Site-neutral policy
A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.
In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”
Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.
“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.
HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.
The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year.
Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.
Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.
In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.
But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.
For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.
The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.
Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.
The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82).
Budget ‘would thwart’ progress
A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.
“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.
David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.
“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.
Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.
In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.
Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.
‘Untenable cuts’
AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”
This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.
“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.
The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.
“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”
Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.
“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.
In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.
“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.
He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.
Medical malpractice overhaul
The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.
The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”
Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.
These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.
Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.
Site-neutral policy
A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.
In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”
Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.
“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.
HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.
The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year.
Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.
Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Trump administration on Feb. 10 argued for cutting spending for a federal agency at the forefront of the efforts to combat the coronavirus, while also seeking to slow spending in certain parts of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
President Donald Trump presented his fiscal 2021 request to Congress for refilling the coffers of federal agencies. In any administration, an annual budget serves only as a political blueprint, as the White House document itself makes no changes in federal spending.
In Mr. Trump’s case, several of his requests for agencies within the Department of Health & Human Services run counter to recent budget trends. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked together in recent years to increase budgets for major federal health agencies.
But Mr. Trump asked Congress to cut annual budget authority for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases by $430 million to $5.446 billion for fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress has raised the annual budget for NIAID, a key agency in combating the coronavirus, from $5.545 billion in fiscal 2019 to $5.876 billion in fiscal 2020, which began in October, according to an HHS summary of Mr. Trump’s request.
For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is central to the battle against the coronavirus, Mr. Trump proposed a drop in discretionary funding to $5.627 billion. In contrast, Congress raised the CDC budget from $6.544 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.917 in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump also wants to cut $559 million from the budget of the National Cancer Institute, dropping it to $5.881 billion in fiscal 2021. In contrast, Congress raised NCI’s budget from $6.121 billion in fiscal 2019 to $6.440 billion in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump requested a $2.6 billion reduction in the National Institutes of Health’s total discretionary budget, seeking to drop it to $37.70 billion. In contrast, Congress raised NIH’s budget from $37.887 in fiscal 2019 to $40.304 billion in fiscal 2020.
Mr. Trump’s budget proposal also includes an estimate of $152 billion in savings over a decade for Medicaid through the implementation of what the administration calls “community engagement” requirements.
The Trump administration has been at odds with Democrats for years about whether work requirements should be attached to Medicaid. “Well-designed community engagement incentives have great potential to improve health and well-being while empowering beneficiaries to rise out of poverty,” HHS said in a budget document.
Yet researchers last year reported that Arkansas’ attempt to attach work requirements to Medicaid caused almost 17,000 adults to lose this health care coverage within the first 6 months, and there was no significant difference in employment.
The researchers say this loss of coverage was partly a result of bureaucratic obstacles and confusion about the new rules. In June 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid, Benjamin D. Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Sep 12;381[11]:1073-82).
Budget ‘would thwart’ progress
A few medical groups on Monday quickly criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals.
“In a time where our nation continues to face significant public health challenges — including 2019 novel coronavirus, climate change, gun violence, and costly chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer – the administration should be investing more resources in better health, not cutting federal health budgets,” said Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, in a statement.
David J. Skorton, MD, chief executive and president of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also urged increased investment in fighting disease.
“We must continue the bipartisan budget trajectory set forth by Congress over the last several years, not reverse course,” Dr. Skorton said in a statement.
Mr. Trump’s proposed cuts in medical research “would thwart scientific progress on strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure medical conditions that affect countless patients nationwide,” he said.
In total, the new 2021 appropriations for HHS would fall by $9.46 billion to $85.667 billion under Mr. Trump’s proposal. Appropriations, also called discretionary budget authority, represents the operating budgets for federal agencies. These are decided through annual spending bills.
Congress has separate sets of laws for handling payments the federal government makes through Medicare and Medicaid. These are known as mandatory spending.
‘Untenable cuts’
AAMC’s Dr. Skorton also objected to what he termed Mr. Trump’s bid “to reduce and consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, and children’s hospital graduate medical education into a single grant program.”
This would force teaching hospitals to absorb $52 billion in “untenable cuts,” he said.
“The proposal ignores the intent of the Medicare GME program, which is to ensure an adequate physician workforce to care for Medicare beneficiaries and support the critical patient care missions of America’s teaching hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said.
The budget also seeks cuts to Medicaid, which come in addition to the administration’s “recent proposals to scale back Medicaid coverage,” Dr. Skorton said.
“More than 26% of all Medicaid hospitalizations occur at AAMC-member teaching hospitals, even though these institutions represent only 5% of all hospitals,” Dr. Skorton said. “Each of the administration’s proposals on their own would be devastating for patients – and combined, they would be disastrous.”
Rick Pollack, the chief executive and president of the American Hospital Association, described Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 proposal as another bid to undermine medical care in the United States.
“Every year, we adapt to a constantly changing environment, but every year, the administration aims to gut our nation’s health care infrastructure,” Mr. Pollack said in a statement.
In it, he noted that about one in five people in America depend on Medicaid, with children accounting for a large proportion of those covered by the state-federal program.
“The budget’s proposal on Medicaid financing and service delivery would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the Medicaid program annually,” Mr. Pollack said.
He also objected to “hundreds of billions of proposed reductions to Medicare” endorsed by Mr. Trump.
Medical malpractice overhaul
The Trump administration also offered many suggestions for changing federal laws to reduce health care spending. Among these was a proposed overhaul of the approach to medical malpractice cases.
The president’s budget proposal estimates $40 billion in savings over a decade from steps to limit medical liability, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
“The current medical liability system does not work for patients or providers, nor does it promote high-quality, evidence-based care,” OMB said. “Providers practice with a threat of potentially frivolous lawsuits, and injured patients often do not receive just compensation for their injuries.”
Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for a cap on noneconomic damage awards of $250,000, which would increase with inflation over time, and a 3-year statute of limitations. Under this plan, courts could also modify attorney’s fee arrangements. HHS could provide guidance to states on how to create expert panels and administrative health care tribunals to review medical liability.
These steps would lead to lower health care spending, with clinicians dropping “defensive medicine practices,” OMB said. That would benefit the Medicare and Medicaid programs as well as lowering costs of health insurance in general.
Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget also includes a series of proposals for Medicare that it estimates would, in aggregate, save $755.5 billion over a decade.
Site-neutral policy
A large chunk of the estimated Medicare savings in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 health budget would come from lowering payments to hospitals for services provided in their outpatient and physician offices.
In the fiscal 2021 proposal, HHS noted that “Medicare generally pays on-campus hospital outpatient departments substantially more than physician offices for the same services.”
Mr. Trump’s budget proposal seeks a more expansive shift to what’s called a “site-neutral” payment for services delivered in hospital outpatient programs or physician offices. This would bring these payments more in line with those made to independent physician practices.
“This proposal would eliminate the often significant disparity between what Medicare pays in these different settings for the same services,” HHS said in the budget summary.
HHS estimated this change in policy would generate $117.2 billion in savings over a decade. Combined with saving from medical malpractice reforms, the Trump administration estimates these two moves combined could save about $164 billion over a decade.
The site-neutral policy has been a legal battleground, with hospital and physician groups winning a round last year.
Another Medicare proposal included in Mr. Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget homes in on this issue for cases where a hospital owns a physician office. Medicare now pays most off-campus hospital outpatient departments higher rates than the program’s physician fee schedule dictates for the same services.
Switching to a site-neutral policy for these hospital-owned physician offices would result in $47.2 billion in savings over a decade, HHS said in the budget document.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Seminal, highly anticipated Alzheimer’s trial falters
DIAN-TU top-line results negative
Top-line results from the seminal phase 2/3 Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer’s Network–Trials Unit (DIAN-TU) study show that the novel drugs gantenerumab (Roche) and solanezumab (Lilly) did not meet the primary endpoint in patients with early-stage, dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease (AD), investigators have announced.
In the international trial, which included almost 200 participants, the two experimental agents were evaluated separately. However, initial analyses showed that neither significantly slowed cognitive decline, the primary outcome measure, nor memory loss.
Still, the researchers noted that they will continue exploring data from DIAN-TU’s cognitive and clinical outcomes and are awaiting analyses of various biomarkers.
“Although the drugs we evaluated were not successful, the trial will move us forward in understanding Alzheimer’s,” principal investigator Randall J. Bateman, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, said in a news release.
Funders for the trial included the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association.
“While the top-line data fell short, the Alzheimer’s Association looks forward to a more complete report at upcoming scientific conferences. We learn from every trial,” Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in the organization’s own release.
Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, agreed with Dr. Carrillo that, although the results were disappointing, the data will be beneficial for the field.
“It’s always a difficult day when we get news like this,” Dr. Edelmayer said in an interview. However, “this research is going to absolutely provide valuable information once we can really pick through all of the data.”
Rare condition
Dominantly inherited AD, also known as familial AD or autosomal dominant AD, is rare but can affect memory and cognitive skills in individuals as young as age 30. It is caused by mutations on chromosomes 21, 14, and/or 1 that play a part in the breakdown of amyloid proteins and formation of amyloid plaques.
Both gantenerumab and solanezumab were created to target and neutralize amyloid-beta, albeit through different mechanisms. Both are also being assessed in other trials as treatment for more common forms of AD.
As reported by Medscape Medical News, results of the phase 3 EXPEDITION3 trial of solanezumab in patients with mild AD were negative, as were two other phase 3 trials. The drug is now being evaluated in the ongoing solanezumab Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s (A4) study.
Although the phase 3 SCARLET ROAD trial of gantenerumab for mild AD was stopped early for futility in 2014, it was continued as an open-label extension at the high dose for 2 years. During that period, follow-up analyses showed a dramatic decline in amyloid-beta deposition in the participants – leading to the launch of the phase 3 GRADUATE 1 and GRADUATE 2 trials.
Starting in 2012, DIAN-TU was conducted at 24 sites in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, and Australia. It followed 194 adult patients for up to 7 years (average duration, 5 years). Its original estimated completion date was December 2020, as stated on clinicaltrials.gov.
All participants had family members with a genetic mutation that causes early-onset Alzheimer’s disease. They already had very mild symptoms of cognitive decline and memory loss at the start of the trial or were expected to develop symptoms within 15 years of enrollment.
“People who inherit the mutation are all but guaranteed to develop symptoms at about the same age their parents did,” the release noted.
“While devastating for families, such mutations allow researchers to identify people in the early stages of the disease before their behavior and memory begin to change,” it added.
The Alzheimer’s Association noted in its release that a child of a parent with the mutation has a 50/50 chance of inheriting the disease. “This form affects less than 1% of the individuals living with Alzheimer’s disease today,” Dr. Edelmayer noted.
Detailed data coming soon
Trial participants were randomly assigned to receive either solanezumab, gantenerumab, or matching placebo. To act as a comparator group, family members without the AD mutation were also included.
The primary measure was change from baseline in the DIAN-TU cognitive composite score. Secondary measures included changes on the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Functional Assessment Scale, the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire, the 12-item International Shopping List Test, the Memory Complaint Questionnaire, and the Wechsler Memory Scale Logical Memory/Paragraph Memory test.
The researchers also conducted imaging scans and collected samples of blood and cerebrospinal fluid.
Along with announcing the negative top-line results for the trial, the investigators noted that “a more detailed analysis of the trial’s data” will be presented at the Advances in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Therapies in Vienna on April 2, 2020, and at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference in Amsterdam in July.
The researchers will continue to explore all data gathered – but already new insights have been discovered into the development and progression of AD, Dr. Bateman noted.
Included among these discoveries is that brain changes that occur as the disease progresses are similar among those with the inherited, early-onset form of AD and the late-onset form.
“The trial’s innovative design ... will make advances for future Alzheimer’s trials. Ongoing and continued research and trials will bring us closer to our goal to stop Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Bateman said. “We will continue until we are successful.”
“These results reflect the difficult nature of treating [AD] and the great need for continued research,” said Daniel Skovronsky, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer and president of Lilly Research Labs.
“If we have learned one thing after more than 30 years of Alzheimer’s research, it is that even negative results propel the science forward,” he added.
Lilly noted in a statement that the DIAN-TU top-line results will not affect its ongoing A4 study of solanezumab. Roche noted in its own statement that the findings also will not affect the company’s ongoing GRADUATE studies of gantenerumab.
“The work doesn’t stop here”
Richard J. Hodes, MD, director of the National Institute on Aging, said that DIAN-TU will advance the field’s knowledge about a complex disease.
“We look forward to learning more through the published, peer-reviewed data, which will provide a broad range of scientists with crucial information and guidance for future research,” he said.
Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), agreed.
“While we are disappointed that patients in this study did not see a benefit, we need to keep in mind that Alzheimer’s is a complicated disease due to complex, multifactorial causes,” he said in a statement.
“ADDF has long supported a broader approach that moves past targeting beta-amyloid and advances a diverse pipeline of drugs addressing multiple targets” in AD, Dr. Fillit added. “We need multiple ‘shots on goals’ to discover effective drugs.”
Dr. Edelmayer said the results emphasize that “this story isn’t yet completely told” and that there is still a lot to learn from the data, especially regarding the biomarkers that were tested.
“With that information, we will gain valuable insight into the outcomes that have been released but will also probably better understand where we should be putting our energies and focus moving forward,” she said.
Going forward, “we will continue this fight until we have an effective treatment for all individuals living with Alzheimer’s, whether it’s dominantly inherited [AD] or the more common version, which is the late-onset or sporadic form of the disease,” said Dr. Edelmayer.
“We have to stay optimistic. The work doesn’t stop here.”
The trial was funded by Eli Lilly, Roche, the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Institute on Aging, the GHR Foundation, and FBRI.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
DIAN-TU top-line results negative
DIAN-TU top-line results negative
Top-line results from the seminal phase 2/3 Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer’s Network–Trials Unit (DIAN-TU) study show that the novel drugs gantenerumab (Roche) and solanezumab (Lilly) did not meet the primary endpoint in patients with early-stage, dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease (AD), investigators have announced.
In the international trial, which included almost 200 participants, the two experimental agents were evaluated separately. However, initial analyses showed that neither significantly slowed cognitive decline, the primary outcome measure, nor memory loss.
Still, the researchers noted that they will continue exploring data from DIAN-TU’s cognitive and clinical outcomes and are awaiting analyses of various biomarkers.
“Although the drugs we evaluated were not successful, the trial will move us forward in understanding Alzheimer’s,” principal investigator Randall J. Bateman, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, said in a news release.
Funders for the trial included the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association.
“While the top-line data fell short, the Alzheimer’s Association looks forward to a more complete report at upcoming scientific conferences. We learn from every trial,” Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in the organization’s own release.
Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, agreed with Dr. Carrillo that, although the results were disappointing, the data will be beneficial for the field.
“It’s always a difficult day when we get news like this,” Dr. Edelmayer said in an interview. However, “this research is going to absolutely provide valuable information once we can really pick through all of the data.”
Rare condition
Dominantly inherited AD, also known as familial AD or autosomal dominant AD, is rare but can affect memory and cognitive skills in individuals as young as age 30. It is caused by mutations on chromosomes 21, 14, and/or 1 that play a part in the breakdown of amyloid proteins and formation of amyloid plaques.
Both gantenerumab and solanezumab were created to target and neutralize amyloid-beta, albeit through different mechanisms. Both are also being assessed in other trials as treatment for more common forms of AD.
As reported by Medscape Medical News, results of the phase 3 EXPEDITION3 trial of solanezumab in patients with mild AD were negative, as were two other phase 3 trials. The drug is now being evaluated in the ongoing solanezumab Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s (A4) study.
Although the phase 3 SCARLET ROAD trial of gantenerumab for mild AD was stopped early for futility in 2014, it was continued as an open-label extension at the high dose for 2 years. During that period, follow-up analyses showed a dramatic decline in amyloid-beta deposition in the participants – leading to the launch of the phase 3 GRADUATE 1 and GRADUATE 2 trials.
Starting in 2012, DIAN-TU was conducted at 24 sites in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, and Australia. It followed 194 adult patients for up to 7 years (average duration, 5 years). Its original estimated completion date was December 2020, as stated on clinicaltrials.gov.
All participants had family members with a genetic mutation that causes early-onset Alzheimer’s disease. They already had very mild symptoms of cognitive decline and memory loss at the start of the trial or were expected to develop symptoms within 15 years of enrollment.
“People who inherit the mutation are all but guaranteed to develop symptoms at about the same age their parents did,” the release noted.
“While devastating for families, such mutations allow researchers to identify people in the early stages of the disease before their behavior and memory begin to change,” it added.
The Alzheimer’s Association noted in its release that a child of a parent with the mutation has a 50/50 chance of inheriting the disease. “This form affects less than 1% of the individuals living with Alzheimer’s disease today,” Dr. Edelmayer noted.
Detailed data coming soon
Trial participants were randomly assigned to receive either solanezumab, gantenerumab, or matching placebo. To act as a comparator group, family members without the AD mutation were also included.
The primary measure was change from baseline in the DIAN-TU cognitive composite score. Secondary measures included changes on the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Functional Assessment Scale, the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire, the 12-item International Shopping List Test, the Memory Complaint Questionnaire, and the Wechsler Memory Scale Logical Memory/Paragraph Memory test.
The researchers also conducted imaging scans and collected samples of blood and cerebrospinal fluid.
Along with announcing the negative top-line results for the trial, the investigators noted that “a more detailed analysis of the trial’s data” will be presented at the Advances in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Therapies in Vienna on April 2, 2020, and at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference in Amsterdam in July.
The researchers will continue to explore all data gathered – but already new insights have been discovered into the development and progression of AD, Dr. Bateman noted.
Included among these discoveries is that brain changes that occur as the disease progresses are similar among those with the inherited, early-onset form of AD and the late-onset form.
“The trial’s innovative design ... will make advances for future Alzheimer’s trials. Ongoing and continued research and trials will bring us closer to our goal to stop Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Bateman said. “We will continue until we are successful.”
“These results reflect the difficult nature of treating [AD] and the great need for continued research,” said Daniel Skovronsky, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer and president of Lilly Research Labs.
“If we have learned one thing after more than 30 years of Alzheimer’s research, it is that even negative results propel the science forward,” he added.
Lilly noted in a statement that the DIAN-TU top-line results will not affect its ongoing A4 study of solanezumab. Roche noted in its own statement that the findings also will not affect the company’s ongoing GRADUATE studies of gantenerumab.
“The work doesn’t stop here”
Richard J. Hodes, MD, director of the National Institute on Aging, said that DIAN-TU will advance the field’s knowledge about a complex disease.
“We look forward to learning more through the published, peer-reviewed data, which will provide a broad range of scientists with crucial information and guidance for future research,” he said.
Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), agreed.
“While we are disappointed that patients in this study did not see a benefit, we need to keep in mind that Alzheimer’s is a complicated disease due to complex, multifactorial causes,” he said in a statement.
“ADDF has long supported a broader approach that moves past targeting beta-amyloid and advances a diverse pipeline of drugs addressing multiple targets” in AD, Dr. Fillit added. “We need multiple ‘shots on goals’ to discover effective drugs.”
Dr. Edelmayer said the results emphasize that “this story isn’t yet completely told” and that there is still a lot to learn from the data, especially regarding the biomarkers that were tested.
“With that information, we will gain valuable insight into the outcomes that have been released but will also probably better understand where we should be putting our energies and focus moving forward,” she said.
Going forward, “we will continue this fight until we have an effective treatment for all individuals living with Alzheimer’s, whether it’s dominantly inherited [AD] or the more common version, which is the late-onset or sporadic form of the disease,” said Dr. Edelmayer.
“We have to stay optimistic. The work doesn’t stop here.”
The trial was funded by Eli Lilly, Roche, the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Institute on Aging, the GHR Foundation, and FBRI.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Top-line results from the seminal phase 2/3 Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer’s Network–Trials Unit (DIAN-TU) study show that the novel drugs gantenerumab (Roche) and solanezumab (Lilly) did not meet the primary endpoint in patients with early-stage, dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease (AD), investigators have announced.
In the international trial, which included almost 200 participants, the two experimental agents were evaluated separately. However, initial analyses showed that neither significantly slowed cognitive decline, the primary outcome measure, nor memory loss.
Still, the researchers noted that they will continue exploring data from DIAN-TU’s cognitive and clinical outcomes and are awaiting analyses of various biomarkers.
“Although the drugs we evaluated were not successful, the trial will move us forward in understanding Alzheimer’s,” principal investigator Randall J. Bateman, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis, said in a news release.
Funders for the trial included the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association.
“While the top-line data fell short, the Alzheimer’s Association looks forward to a more complete report at upcoming scientific conferences. We learn from every trial,” Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in the organization’s own release.
Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, agreed with Dr. Carrillo that, although the results were disappointing, the data will be beneficial for the field.
“It’s always a difficult day when we get news like this,” Dr. Edelmayer said in an interview. However, “this research is going to absolutely provide valuable information once we can really pick through all of the data.”
Rare condition
Dominantly inherited AD, also known as familial AD or autosomal dominant AD, is rare but can affect memory and cognitive skills in individuals as young as age 30. It is caused by mutations on chromosomes 21, 14, and/or 1 that play a part in the breakdown of amyloid proteins and formation of amyloid plaques.
Both gantenerumab and solanezumab were created to target and neutralize amyloid-beta, albeit through different mechanisms. Both are also being assessed in other trials as treatment for more common forms of AD.
As reported by Medscape Medical News, results of the phase 3 EXPEDITION3 trial of solanezumab in patients with mild AD were negative, as were two other phase 3 trials. The drug is now being evaluated in the ongoing solanezumab Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s (A4) study.
Although the phase 3 SCARLET ROAD trial of gantenerumab for mild AD was stopped early for futility in 2014, it was continued as an open-label extension at the high dose for 2 years. During that period, follow-up analyses showed a dramatic decline in amyloid-beta deposition in the participants – leading to the launch of the phase 3 GRADUATE 1 and GRADUATE 2 trials.
Starting in 2012, DIAN-TU was conducted at 24 sites in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, and Australia. It followed 194 adult patients for up to 7 years (average duration, 5 years). Its original estimated completion date was December 2020, as stated on clinicaltrials.gov.
All participants had family members with a genetic mutation that causes early-onset Alzheimer’s disease. They already had very mild symptoms of cognitive decline and memory loss at the start of the trial or were expected to develop symptoms within 15 years of enrollment.
“People who inherit the mutation are all but guaranteed to develop symptoms at about the same age their parents did,” the release noted.
“While devastating for families, such mutations allow researchers to identify people in the early stages of the disease before their behavior and memory begin to change,” it added.
The Alzheimer’s Association noted in its release that a child of a parent with the mutation has a 50/50 chance of inheriting the disease. “This form affects less than 1% of the individuals living with Alzheimer’s disease today,” Dr. Edelmayer noted.
Detailed data coming soon
Trial participants were randomly assigned to receive either solanezumab, gantenerumab, or matching placebo. To act as a comparator group, family members without the AD mutation were also included.
The primary measure was change from baseline in the DIAN-TU cognitive composite score. Secondary measures included changes on the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Functional Assessment Scale, the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire, the 12-item International Shopping List Test, the Memory Complaint Questionnaire, and the Wechsler Memory Scale Logical Memory/Paragraph Memory test.
The researchers also conducted imaging scans and collected samples of blood and cerebrospinal fluid.
Along with announcing the negative top-line results for the trial, the investigators noted that “a more detailed analysis of the trial’s data” will be presented at the Advances in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Therapies in Vienna on April 2, 2020, and at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference in Amsterdam in July.
The researchers will continue to explore all data gathered – but already new insights have been discovered into the development and progression of AD, Dr. Bateman noted.
Included among these discoveries is that brain changes that occur as the disease progresses are similar among those with the inherited, early-onset form of AD and the late-onset form.
“The trial’s innovative design ... will make advances for future Alzheimer’s trials. Ongoing and continued research and trials will bring us closer to our goal to stop Alzheimer’s,” Dr. Bateman said. “We will continue until we are successful.”
“These results reflect the difficult nature of treating [AD] and the great need for continued research,” said Daniel Skovronsky, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer and president of Lilly Research Labs.
“If we have learned one thing after more than 30 years of Alzheimer’s research, it is that even negative results propel the science forward,” he added.
Lilly noted in a statement that the DIAN-TU top-line results will not affect its ongoing A4 study of solanezumab. Roche noted in its own statement that the findings also will not affect the company’s ongoing GRADUATE studies of gantenerumab.
“The work doesn’t stop here”
Richard J. Hodes, MD, director of the National Institute on Aging, said that DIAN-TU will advance the field’s knowledge about a complex disease.
“We look forward to learning more through the published, peer-reviewed data, which will provide a broad range of scientists with crucial information and guidance for future research,” he said.
Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), agreed.
“While we are disappointed that patients in this study did not see a benefit, we need to keep in mind that Alzheimer’s is a complicated disease due to complex, multifactorial causes,” he said in a statement.
“ADDF has long supported a broader approach that moves past targeting beta-amyloid and advances a diverse pipeline of drugs addressing multiple targets” in AD, Dr. Fillit added. “We need multiple ‘shots on goals’ to discover effective drugs.”
Dr. Edelmayer said the results emphasize that “this story isn’t yet completely told” and that there is still a lot to learn from the data, especially regarding the biomarkers that were tested.
“With that information, we will gain valuable insight into the outcomes that have been released but will also probably better understand where we should be putting our energies and focus moving forward,” she said.
Going forward, “we will continue this fight until we have an effective treatment for all individuals living with Alzheimer’s, whether it’s dominantly inherited [AD] or the more common version, which is the late-onset or sporadic form of the disease,” said Dr. Edelmayer.
“We have to stay optimistic. The work doesn’t stop here.”
The trial was funded by Eli Lilly, Roche, the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Institute on Aging, the GHR Foundation, and FBRI.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Functional outcomes of SLAH may be superior to those of open resection
BALTIMORE – , according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. In addition, improvements in functional status are strongly associated with improvements in global cognitive performance.
Previous data have indicated that SLAH results in superior cognitive outcomes, compared with selective and standard open resection, in the treatment of medial temporal lobe epilepsy. The rates of seizure freedom following these procedures are equivalent. Daniel Drane, PhD, associate professor of neurology at Emory University in Atlanta, and colleagues hypothesized that the preservation of cognitive skills following SLAH would be apparent in real-world settings. To test this hypothesis, they investigated changes in functional status following SLAH.
Functional status correlated with neurocognitive change
Dr. Drane and colleagues compared functional outcomes in 53 patients who underwent SLAH at the Emory University Epilepsy Center and 20 patients who underwent open resection at the same center. The investigators created a hierarchical classification of functional status using the following criteria (from best to worst): employed and independent with all activities of daily living (ADLs), unemployed and independent with all ADLs, unemployed and independent with lower ADLs only (i.e., independent with self-care, but not with management of finances, medications, etc.), and unemployed and unable to manage any ADLs without assistance. Dr. Drane and colleagues rated all patients on these criteria at baseline and at 1 year after surgery. They classified patients as improving, declining, or remaining stable in functional status. Finally, the investigators used Fisher’s exact test to compare the proportional ratings of change between surgical procedures.
At baseline, the proportions of patients in each functional group were similar between patients who later underwent SLAH and those who later underwent open resection. Significantly more patients who underwent SLAH, however, had functional improvement, compared with patients who underwent open resection (13.2% vs. 0%). Furthermore, fewer patients who underwent SLAH had functional decline, compared with those who underwent open resection (3.7% vs. 35%).
Dr. Drane and colleagues found a strong correlation between functional status and global ratings of neurocognitive change, but no correlation between functional status and seizure-freedom status. Patients who underwent SLAH were less likely to have a decline in employment status than were patients who underwent open resection were (4.2% vs. 45.4%).
Weighing surgical options for a given patient
“This study provides a real-world metric of meaningful change following surgery, which is, critically, independent of seizure freedom outcome,” said Dr. Drane. “If a patient becomes seizure free but declines in functional status, presumably due to compromised cognitive function, this outcome is likely not going to lead to a better quality of life. Overall, our data suggest that functional status is driven more by cognitive outcome than by seizure freedom, and that it is an equally important metric for determining whether or not surgery has been successful. We would hope that the epilepsy surgical team would try to balance the desire to achieve seizure freedom against the potential risks and benefits of surgery on cognitive performance and functional status.”
Neurologists must consider various factors when deciding whether open resection or SLAH is the better option for a given patient. “Our prior work has shown that SLAH will not cause naming or object recognition deficits, while such deficits will result in a substantial proportion of patients undergoing open resection procedures,” said Dr. Drane. “Declarative memory can seemingly be hurt by either procedure, although it would appear that rates of decline are substantially less following SLAH. As functional status appears to be related to cognitive outcome, SLAH would always be the better choice from the standpoint of risk analysis, particularly since one can almost always go back an complete an open resection at a later date.
“Seizure freedom rates appear to be slightly higher with open resection than with SLAH,” Dr. Drane continued. “This [result] would be the one factor that would represent the one reason to opt for an open resection rather than SLAH. Factors that might push one in this direction could be risk for SUDEP (i.e., someone at very high risk may want to just be done with the seizures) and impaired baseline cognitive functioning (i.e., someone with severely impaired cognitive functioning might be viewed as having less to lose). In the latter case, however, we would caution that low-functioning individuals can sometimes lose their remaining functional abilities even if we cannot do a very good job of measuring cognitive change in such cases due to their poor baseline performance.”
The hemisphere to undergo operation also may influence the choice of procedure. “Some epileptologists will suggest that the choice of using SLAH is more important for patients having surgery involving their language-dominant cerebral hemisphere,” said Dr. Drane. “While postsurgical deficits in these patients are clearly more easy to identify, I would argue that a case can be made for starting with SLAH in the nondominant temporal lobe cases as well. Many of the functions that can be potentially harmed by surgical procedures involving the nondominant (typically right) hemisphere have more subtle effects, but their cumulative impact can yet be harmful.”
The study was partially supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and Medtronic. The investigators did not report any conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Drane DL et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.34.
BALTIMORE – , according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. In addition, improvements in functional status are strongly associated with improvements in global cognitive performance.
Previous data have indicated that SLAH results in superior cognitive outcomes, compared with selective and standard open resection, in the treatment of medial temporal lobe epilepsy. The rates of seizure freedom following these procedures are equivalent. Daniel Drane, PhD, associate professor of neurology at Emory University in Atlanta, and colleagues hypothesized that the preservation of cognitive skills following SLAH would be apparent in real-world settings. To test this hypothesis, they investigated changes in functional status following SLAH.
Functional status correlated with neurocognitive change
Dr. Drane and colleagues compared functional outcomes in 53 patients who underwent SLAH at the Emory University Epilepsy Center and 20 patients who underwent open resection at the same center. The investigators created a hierarchical classification of functional status using the following criteria (from best to worst): employed and independent with all activities of daily living (ADLs), unemployed and independent with all ADLs, unemployed and independent with lower ADLs only (i.e., independent with self-care, but not with management of finances, medications, etc.), and unemployed and unable to manage any ADLs without assistance. Dr. Drane and colleagues rated all patients on these criteria at baseline and at 1 year after surgery. They classified patients as improving, declining, or remaining stable in functional status. Finally, the investigators used Fisher’s exact test to compare the proportional ratings of change between surgical procedures.
At baseline, the proportions of patients in each functional group were similar between patients who later underwent SLAH and those who later underwent open resection. Significantly more patients who underwent SLAH, however, had functional improvement, compared with patients who underwent open resection (13.2% vs. 0%). Furthermore, fewer patients who underwent SLAH had functional decline, compared with those who underwent open resection (3.7% vs. 35%).
Dr. Drane and colleagues found a strong correlation between functional status and global ratings of neurocognitive change, but no correlation between functional status and seizure-freedom status. Patients who underwent SLAH were less likely to have a decline in employment status than were patients who underwent open resection were (4.2% vs. 45.4%).
Weighing surgical options for a given patient
“This study provides a real-world metric of meaningful change following surgery, which is, critically, independent of seizure freedom outcome,” said Dr. Drane. “If a patient becomes seizure free but declines in functional status, presumably due to compromised cognitive function, this outcome is likely not going to lead to a better quality of life. Overall, our data suggest that functional status is driven more by cognitive outcome than by seizure freedom, and that it is an equally important metric for determining whether or not surgery has been successful. We would hope that the epilepsy surgical team would try to balance the desire to achieve seizure freedom against the potential risks and benefits of surgery on cognitive performance and functional status.”
Neurologists must consider various factors when deciding whether open resection or SLAH is the better option for a given patient. “Our prior work has shown that SLAH will not cause naming or object recognition deficits, while such deficits will result in a substantial proportion of patients undergoing open resection procedures,” said Dr. Drane. “Declarative memory can seemingly be hurt by either procedure, although it would appear that rates of decline are substantially less following SLAH. As functional status appears to be related to cognitive outcome, SLAH would always be the better choice from the standpoint of risk analysis, particularly since one can almost always go back an complete an open resection at a later date.
“Seizure freedom rates appear to be slightly higher with open resection than with SLAH,” Dr. Drane continued. “This [result] would be the one factor that would represent the one reason to opt for an open resection rather than SLAH. Factors that might push one in this direction could be risk for SUDEP (i.e., someone at very high risk may want to just be done with the seizures) and impaired baseline cognitive functioning (i.e., someone with severely impaired cognitive functioning might be viewed as having less to lose). In the latter case, however, we would caution that low-functioning individuals can sometimes lose their remaining functional abilities even if we cannot do a very good job of measuring cognitive change in such cases due to their poor baseline performance.”
The hemisphere to undergo operation also may influence the choice of procedure. “Some epileptologists will suggest that the choice of using SLAH is more important for patients having surgery involving their language-dominant cerebral hemisphere,” said Dr. Drane. “While postsurgical deficits in these patients are clearly more easy to identify, I would argue that a case can be made for starting with SLAH in the nondominant temporal lobe cases as well. Many of the functions that can be potentially harmed by surgical procedures involving the nondominant (typically right) hemisphere have more subtle effects, but their cumulative impact can yet be harmful.”
The study was partially supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and Medtronic. The investigators did not report any conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Drane DL et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.34.
BALTIMORE – , according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. In addition, improvements in functional status are strongly associated with improvements in global cognitive performance.
Previous data have indicated that SLAH results in superior cognitive outcomes, compared with selective and standard open resection, in the treatment of medial temporal lobe epilepsy. The rates of seizure freedom following these procedures are equivalent. Daniel Drane, PhD, associate professor of neurology at Emory University in Atlanta, and colleagues hypothesized that the preservation of cognitive skills following SLAH would be apparent in real-world settings. To test this hypothesis, they investigated changes in functional status following SLAH.
Functional status correlated with neurocognitive change
Dr. Drane and colleagues compared functional outcomes in 53 patients who underwent SLAH at the Emory University Epilepsy Center and 20 patients who underwent open resection at the same center. The investigators created a hierarchical classification of functional status using the following criteria (from best to worst): employed and independent with all activities of daily living (ADLs), unemployed and independent with all ADLs, unemployed and independent with lower ADLs only (i.e., independent with self-care, but not with management of finances, medications, etc.), and unemployed and unable to manage any ADLs without assistance. Dr. Drane and colleagues rated all patients on these criteria at baseline and at 1 year after surgery. They classified patients as improving, declining, or remaining stable in functional status. Finally, the investigators used Fisher’s exact test to compare the proportional ratings of change between surgical procedures.
At baseline, the proportions of patients in each functional group were similar between patients who later underwent SLAH and those who later underwent open resection. Significantly more patients who underwent SLAH, however, had functional improvement, compared with patients who underwent open resection (13.2% vs. 0%). Furthermore, fewer patients who underwent SLAH had functional decline, compared with those who underwent open resection (3.7% vs. 35%).
Dr. Drane and colleagues found a strong correlation between functional status and global ratings of neurocognitive change, but no correlation between functional status and seizure-freedom status. Patients who underwent SLAH were less likely to have a decline in employment status than were patients who underwent open resection were (4.2% vs. 45.4%).
Weighing surgical options for a given patient
“This study provides a real-world metric of meaningful change following surgery, which is, critically, independent of seizure freedom outcome,” said Dr. Drane. “If a patient becomes seizure free but declines in functional status, presumably due to compromised cognitive function, this outcome is likely not going to lead to a better quality of life. Overall, our data suggest that functional status is driven more by cognitive outcome than by seizure freedom, and that it is an equally important metric for determining whether or not surgery has been successful. We would hope that the epilepsy surgical team would try to balance the desire to achieve seizure freedom against the potential risks and benefits of surgery on cognitive performance and functional status.”
Neurologists must consider various factors when deciding whether open resection or SLAH is the better option for a given patient. “Our prior work has shown that SLAH will not cause naming or object recognition deficits, while such deficits will result in a substantial proportion of patients undergoing open resection procedures,” said Dr. Drane. “Declarative memory can seemingly be hurt by either procedure, although it would appear that rates of decline are substantially less following SLAH. As functional status appears to be related to cognitive outcome, SLAH would always be the better choice from the standpoint of risk analysis, particularly since one can almost always go back an complete an open resection at a later date.
“Seizure freedom rates appear to be slightly higher with open resection than with SLAH,” Dr. Drane continued. “This [result] would be the one factor that would represent the one reason to opt for an open resection rather than SLAH. Factors that might push one in this direction could be risk for SUDEP (i.e., someone at very high risk may want to just be done with the seizures) and impaired baseline cognitive functioning (i.e., someone with severely impaired cognitive functioning might be viewed as having less to lose). In the latter case, however, we would caution that low-functioning individuals can sometimes lose their remaining functional abilities even if we cannot do a very good job of measuring cognitive change in such cases due to their poor baseline performance.”
The hemisphere to undergo operation also may influence the choice of procedure. “Some epileptologists will suggest that the choice of using SLAH is more important for patients having surgery involving their language-dominant cerebral hemisphere,” said Dr. Drane. “While postsurgical deficits in these patients are clearly more easy to identify, I would argue that a case can be made for starting with SLAH in the nondominant temporal lobe cases as well. Many of the functions that can be potentially harmed by surgical procedures involving the nondominant (typically right) hemisphere have more subtle effects, but their cumulative impact can yet be harmful.”
The study was partially supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and Medtronic. The investigators did not report any conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Drane DL et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.34.
REPORTING FROM AES 2019
Mobile stroke unit had clinical impact on EVT
In its first year of operation, a mobile stroke unit in Melbourne demonstrated substantial savings in time to commencement of both thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), results from a prospective study showed.
“While previously published data from MSU [mobile stroke unit] services in Europe and North America show substantial reductions in time to thrombolysis of approximately 30-45 minutes, little is known about the clinical impact on EVT,” first author Henry Zhao, MBBS, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Stroke.
Launched in November 2017, the Melbourne MSU is based at a large comprehensive stroke center and operates with a 20-km radius, servicing about 1.7 million people within the city of Melbourne. It is staffed with an onboard neurologist or senior stroke fellow who provides primary assessment and treatment decisions, a stroke advanced practice nurse who provides clinical support and treatment administration, a clinician who provides CT imaging, and advanced life support and mobile intensive care paramedics who provide transport logistics and paramedicine support. For the current analysis, MSU patients who received reperfusion therapy were compared with control patients presenting to metropolitan Melbourne stroke units via standard ambulance within MSU operating hours. The primary outcome was median time difference in first ambulance dispatch to treatment, which the researchers used quantile regression analysis to determine. Time savings were subsequently converted to disability-adjusted life years (DALY) avoiding using published estimates.
Dr. Zhao of the Melbourne Brain Centre and department of neurology at Royal Melbourne Hospital and his colleagues reported that, in its first year of operation, the Melbourne MSU administered prehospital thrombolysis to 100 patients with a mean age of nearly 74 years. More than half of the patients (62%) were male. Compared with controls, the median time savings per MSU patient was 26 minutes for dispatch to hospital arrival and 15 minutes for hospital arrival to thrombolysis (P less than .0010 for both associations). The calculated overall time saving from dispatch to thrombolysis was 42.5 minutes.
Over the same time period, 41 MSU patients with a mean age of 76 years received EVT dispatch-to-treatment time saving of 51 minutes (P less than 0.001). This included a median time saving of 17 minutes for EVT hospital arrival to arterial puncture for MSU patients (P = .001). Overall estimated median DALYs saved through earlier provision of reperfusion therapies were 20.9 for thrombolysis and 24.6 for EVT.
“The benefit in EVT patients was primarily driven by prehospital MSU diagnosis of large vessel occlusion, which enabled bypass of a local non-EVT center directly to a comprehensive stroke center in almost 50% of patients with large vessel occlusion,” the researchers wrote. “Even when patients were located close to an EVT center, MSU pre-notification and facilitated workflows achieved a reduction in hospital arrival to arterial puncture by one-third. Furthermore, the time saving was seen despite the majority of EVT patients receiving repeat imaging in hospital to visualize the extracranial circulation.”
The study is scheduled to be presented at the International Stroke Conference on Feb. 20.
The Melbourne MSU received funding from the Australian Commonwealth Government, Victorian State Government, Royal Melbourne Hospital Neurosciences Foundation, Stroke Foundation, the Florey Institute of Neurosciences and Mental Health, the University of Melbourne, Boehringer Ingelheim, and private donation. Dr. Zhao disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Zhao H et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.119.027843.
In its first year of operation, a mobile stroke unit in Melbourne demonstrated substantial savings in time to commencement of both thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), results from a prospective study showed.
“While previously published data from MSU [mobile stroke unit] services in Europe and North America show substantial reductions in time to thrombolysis of approximately 30-45 minutes, little is known about the clinical impact on EVT,” first author Henry Zhao, MBBS, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Stroke.
Launched in November 2017, the Melbourne MSU is based at a large comprehensive stroke center and operates with a 20-km radius, servicing about 1.7 million people within the city of Melbourne. It is staffed with an onboard neurologist or senior stroke fellow who provides primary assessment and treatment decisions, a stroke advanced practice nurse who provides clinical support and treatment administration, a clinician who provides CT imaging, and advanced life support and mobile intensive care paramedics who provide transport logistics and paramedicine support. For the current analysis, MSU patients who received reperfusion therapy were compared with control patients presenting to metropolitan Melbourne stroke units via standard ambulance within MSU operating hours. The primary outcome was median time difference in first ambulance dispatch to treatment, which the researchers used quantile regression analysis to determine. Time savings were subsequently converted to disability-adjusted life years (DALY) avoiding using published estimates.
Dr. Zhao of the Melbourne Brain Centre and department of neurology at Royal Melbourne Hospital and his colleagues reported that, in its first year of operation, the Melbourne MSU administered prehospital thrombolysis to 100 patients with a mean age of nearly 74 years. More than half of the patients (62%) were male. Compared with controls, the median time savings per MSU patient was 26 minutes for dispatch to hospital arrival and 15 minutes for hospital arrival to thrombolysis (P less than .0010 for both associations). The calculated overall time saving from dispatch to thrombolysis was 42.5 minutes.
Over the same time period, 41 MSU patients with a mean age of 76 years received EVT dispatch-to-treatment time saving of 51 minutes (P less than 0.001). This included a median time saving of 17 minutes for EVT hospital arrival to arterial puncture for MSU patients (P = .001). Overall estimated median DALYs saved through earlier provision of reperfusion therapies were 20.9 for thrombolysis and 24.6 for EVT.
“The benefit in EVT patients was primarily driven by prehospital MSU diagnosis of large vessel occlusion, which enabled bypass of a local non-EVT center directly to a comprehensive stroke center in almost 50% of patients with large vessel occlusion,” the researchers wrote. “Even when patients were located close to an EVT center, MSU pre-notification and facilitated workflows achieved a reduction in hospital arrival to arterial puncture by one-third. Furthermore, the time saving was seen despite the majority of EVT patients receiving repeat imaging in hospital to visualize the extracranial circulation.”
The study is scheduled to be presented at the International Stroke Conference on Feb. 20.
The Melbourne MSU received funding from the Australian Commonwealth Government, Victorian State Government, Royal Melbourne Hospital Neurosciences Foundation, Stroke Foundation, the Florey Institute of Neurosciences and Mental Health, the University of Melbourne, Boehringer Ingelheim, and private donation. Dr. Zhao disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Zhao H et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.119.027843.
In its first year of operation, a mobile stroke unit in Melbourne demonstrated substantial savings in time to commencement of both thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), results from a prospective study showed.
“While previously published data from MSU [mobile stroke unit] services in Europe and North America show substantial reductions in time to thrombolysis of approximately 30-45 minutes, little is known about the clinical impact on EVT,” first author Henry Zhao, MBBS, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Stroke.
Launched in November 2017, the Melbourne MSU is based at a large comprehensive stroke center and operates with a 20-km radius, servicing about 1.7 million people within the city of Melbourne. It is staffed with an onboard neurologist or senior stroke fellow who provides primary assessment and treatment decisions, a stroke advanced practice nurse who provides clinical support and treatment administration, a clinician who provides CT imaging, and advanced life support and mobile intensive care paramedics who provide transport logistics and paramedicine support. For the current analysis, MSU patients who received reperfusion therapy were compared with control patients presenting to metropolitan Melbourne stroke units via standard ambulance within MSU operating hours. The primary outcome was median time difference in first ambulance dispatch to treatment, which the researchers used quantile regression analysis to determine. Time savings were subsequently converted to disability-adjusted life years (DALY) avoiding using published estimates.
Dr. Zhao of the Melbourne Brain Centre and department of neurology at Royal Melbourne Hospital and his colleagues reported that, in its first year of operation, the Melbourne MSU administered prehospital thrombolysis to 100 patients with a mean age of nearly 74 years. More than half of the patients (62%) were male. Compared with controls, the median time savings per MSU patient was 26 minutes for dispatch to hospital arrival and 15 minutes for hospital arrival to thrombolysis (P less than .0010 for both associations). The calculated overall time saving from dispatch to thrombolysis was 42.5 minutes.
Over the same time period, 41 MSU patients with a mean age of 76 years received EVT dispatch-to-treatment time saving of 51 minutes (P less than 0.001). This included a median time saving of 17 minutes for EVT hospital arrival to arterial puncture for MSU patients (P = .001). Overall estimated median DALYs saved through earlier provision of reperfusion therapies were 20.9 for thrombolysis and 24.6 for EVT.
“The benefit in EVT patients was primarily driven by prehospital MSU diagnosis of large vessel occlusion, which enabled bypass of a local non-EVT center directly to a comprehensive stroke center in almost 50% of patients with large vessel occlusion,” the researchers wrote. “Even when patients were located close to an EVT center, MSU pre-notification and facilitated workflows achieved a reduction in hospital arrival to arterial puncture by one-third. Furthermore, the time saving was seen despite the majority of EVT patients receiving repeat imaging in hospital to visualize the extracranial circulation.”
The study is scheduled to be presented at the International Stroke Conference on Feb. 20.
The Melbourne MSU received funding from the Australian Commonwealth Government, Victorian State Government, Royal Melbourne Hospital Neurosciences Foundation, Stroke Foundation, the Florey Institute of Neurosciences and Mental Health, the University of Melbourne, Boehringer Ingelheim, and private donation. Dr. Zhao disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Zhao H et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.119.027843.
FROM STROKE
Key clinical point: A mobile stroke unit (MSU) substantially reduced time to reperfusion therapies.
Major finding: Compared with controls, the median time savings per MSU patient was 26 minutes for dispatch to hospital arrival and 15 minutes for hospital arrival to thrombolysis (P less than .0010 for both associations).
Study details: A prospective study of 100 stroke patients.
Disclosures: The Melbourne MSU received funding from the Australian Commonwealth Government, Victorian State Government, Royal Melbourne Hospital Neurosciences Foundation, Stroke Foundation, the Florey Institute of Neurosciences and Mental Health, the University of Melbourne, Boehringer Ingelheim, and private donation. Dr. Zhao disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.
Source: Zhao H et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.119.027843.