Clinical Neurology News

With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.

Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

• Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
• Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
• Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
• Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
• Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
• Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
• Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
• Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
• Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.

Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

• Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
• Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
• Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
• Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
• Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
• Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
• Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
• Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
• Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

With myriad complex, high-tech problems facing private practice in this modern era, I am periodically reminded by long-time readers to revisit some of the low-tech issues that will always require our attention.

Few are lower tech (in most cases) and more easily overlooked than theft from within. Embezzlement remains far more common in medical offices than generally assumed – and it often occurs in full view of physicians who think everything is fine. Most embezzlers are not skillful or discreet; their transgressions may go undetected for years, simply because no one suspects it is happening.

Detecting fraud is an inexact science. There is no textbook approach that one can follow, but a few simple measures will prevent or expose the most common forms:

• Make it more difficult. Theft and embezzlement are usually products of opportunity, so minimize those opportunities. No one person should be in charge of the entire bookkeeping process: The person who enters charges should be different from the one who enters payments. The one who writes checks or makes electronic fund transfers should not balance the books, and so on. Internal audits should be done on a regular basis, and all employees should know that. Your accountant can help.
• Reconcile cash receipts daily. Embezzlement does not require sophisticated technology; the most common form is simply taking cash out of the till. In a typical scenario, a patient pays a copay of $15 in cash; the receptionist records the payment as $5, and pockets the rest. Make sure a receipt is generated for every cash transaction, and that someone other than the person accepting cash reconciles the charges, receipts, and cash totals daily.
• Inventory your stock. Cash isn’t the only susceptible commodity. If you sell cosmetics or other products, inventory your stock frequently. And office personnel are not the only potential thieves: Last year, a locum tenens physician down the street conspired with a receptionist to take cash transactions for cosmetic neurotoxins and fillers “off the books” and split the spoils. That office was being ripped off twice; first for the neurotoxin and filler materials themselves, and then for the cash proceeds.
• Separate all accounting duties. Another popular ploy is false invoicing for imaginary supplies. A friend’s experience provides a good example (retold with his permission): His bookkeeper wrote sizable checks to herself, disguising them in the ledger as payments to vendors commonly used by his practice. Since the same employee also balanced the checkbook, she got away with it for years. “It wasn’t at all clever,” he told me, “and I’m embarrassed to admit that it happened to me.” Once again, separation of duties is the key to prevention. One employee should enter invoices into the data system, another should issue the check or make the electronic transfer, and a third should match invoices to goods and services received.
• Verify expense reports. False expense reporting is a subset of the fake invoice scam. When an employee asks for reimbursement of expenses, make sure those expenses are real.
• Consider computer safeguards. Computers facilitate a lot of financial chores, but they also consolidate financial data in one place, where it is potentially accessible to anybody, anywhere. Your computer vendor should be aware of this, and there should be safeguards built into your system. Ask about them. If they aren’t there, ask why.
• Hire honest employees. All applicants look great on paper, so check their references; and with their permission, you can run background checks for a few dollars on any of several public information web sites. My columns on hiring are available on the MDedge Dermatology website.
• Look for “red flags.” Examples include employees who refuse to take vacations, because someone else will have do their work or who insist on posting expenses that are a coworker’s responsibility, “just to be nice.” Anyone obviously living beyond his or her means merits suspicion as well.
• Consider bonding your employees. Dishonesty bonds are relatively inexpensive, and provide assurance of some measure of recovery if your safeguards fail. Also, just knowing that your staff is bonded will scare off most dishonest applicants. One effective screen is a question on your employment application: “Would you object to being bonded?”

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A network meta-analysis of migraine treatments in children found little evidence that prophylactic medicines work in this population.

Marta Ortiz/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Clinicians hoped that medications used in adults – such as antidepressants, antiepileptics, antihypertensive agents, calcium channel blockers, and food supplements – would find similar success in children. Unfortunately, researchers found only short-term signs of efficacy over placebo, with no benefit lasting more than 6 months.

The study, conducted by a team led by Cosima Locher, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, included 23 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials with a total of 2,217 patients; the mean age was 11 years. They compared 12 pharmacologic agents with each other or with placebo in the study, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

In a main efficacy analysis that included 19 studies, only two treatments outperformed placebo: propranolol (standardized mean difference, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (SMD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15). There were no statistically significant between-treatment differences.

The results had an overall low to moderate certainty.

When propranolol was compared to placebo, the 95% prediction interval (–0.62 to 1.82) was wider than the significant confidence interval (0.03-1.17), and comprised both beneficial and detrimental effects. A similar result was found with topiramate, with a prediction interval of –0.62 to 1.80 extending into nonsignificant effects (95% CI, 0.03-1.15). In both cases, significant effects were found only when the prediction interval was 70%.

In a long-term analysis (greater than 6 months), no treatment outperformed placebo.

The treatments generally were acceptable. The researchers found no significant difference in tolerability between any of the treatments and each other or placebo. Safety data analyzed from 13 trials revealed no significant differences between treatments and placebo.

“Because specific effects of drugs are associated with the size of the placebo effect, the lack of drug efficacy in our NMA [network meta-analysis] could be owing to a comparatively high placebo effect in children. In fact, there is indirect evidence [from other studies] that the placebo effect is more pronounced in children and adolescents than in adults,” Dr. Locher and associates said. They suggested that studies were needed to quantify the placebo effect in pediatric migraine, and if it was large, to develop innovative therapies making use of this.

The findings should lead to some changes in practice, Boris Zernikow, MD, PhD, of Children’s and Adolescents’ Hospital Datteln (Germany) wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Pharmacological prophylactic treatment of childhood migraine should be an exception rather than the rule, and nonpharmacologic approaches should be emphasized, particularly because the placebo effect is magnified in children, he said.

Many who suffer migraines in childhood will continue to be affected in adulthood, so pediatric intervention is a good opportunity to instill effective strategies. These include: using abortive medication early in an attack and using antimigraine medications for only that specific type of headache; engaging in physical activity to reduce migraine attacks; getting sufficient sleep; and learning relaxation and other psychological approaches to counter migraines.

Dr. Zernikow had no relevant financial disclosures. One study author received grants from Amgen and other support from Grunenthal and Akelos. The study received funding from the Sara Page Mayo Endowment for Pediatric Pain Research, Education, and Treatment; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Schweizer-Arau-Foundation; and the Theophrastus Foundation.

SOURCES: Locher C et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5856; Zernikow B. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5907.

A network meta-analysis of migraine treatments in children found little evidence that prophylactic medicines work in this population.

Marta Ortiz/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Clinicians hoped that medications used in adults – such as antidepressants, antiepileptics, antihypertensive agents, calcium channel blockers, and food supplements – would find similar success in children. Unfortunately, researchers found only short-term signs of efficacy over placebo, with no benefit lasting more than 6 months.

The study, conducted by a team led by Cosima Locher, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, included 23 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials with a total of 2,217 patients; the mean age was 11 years. They compared 12 pharmacologic agents with each other or with placebo in the study, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

In a main efficacy analysis that included 19 studies, only two treatments outperformed placebo: propranolol (standardized mean difference, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (SMD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15). There were no statistically significant between-treatment differences.

The results had an overall low to moderate certainty.

When propranolol was compared to placebo, the 95% prediction interval (–0.62 to 1.82) was wider than the significant confidence interval (0.03-1.17), and comprised both beneficial and detrimental effects. A similar result was found with topiramate, with a prediction interval of –0.62 to 1.80 extending into nonsignificant effects (95% CI, 0.03-1.15). In both cases, significant effects were found only when the prediction interval was 70%.

In a long-term analysis (greater than 6 months), no treatment outperformed placebo.

The treatments generally were acceptable. The researchers found no significant difference in tolerability between any of the treatments and each other or placebo. Safety data analyzed from 13 trials revealed no significant differences between treatments and placebo.

“Because specific effects of drugs are associated with the size of the placebo effect, the lack of drug efficacy in our NMA [network meta-analysis] could be owing to a comparatively high placebo effect in children. In fact, there is indirect evidence [from other studies] that the placebo effect is more pronounced in children and adolescents than in adults,” Dr. Locher and associates said. They suggested that studies were needed to quantify the placebo effect in pediatric migraine, and if it was large, to develop innovative therapies making use of this.

The findings should lead to some changes in practice, Boris Zernikow, MD, PhD, of Children’s and Adolescents’ Hospital Datteln (Germany) wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Pharmacological prophylactic treatment of childhood migraine should be an exception rather than the rule, and nonpharmacologic approaches should be emphasized, particularly because the placebo effect is magnified in children, he said.

Many who suffer migraines in childhood will continue to be affected in adulthood, so pediatric intervention is a good opportunity to instill effective strategies. These include: using abortive medication early in an attack and using antimigraine medications for only that specific type of headache; engaging in physical activity to reduce migraine attacks; getting sufficient sleep; and learning relaxation and other psychological approaches to counter migraines.

Dr. Zernikow had no relevant financial disclosures. One study author received grants from Amgen and other support from Grunenthal and Akelos. The study received funding from the Sara Page Mayo Endowment for Pediatric Pain Research, Education, and Treatment; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Schweizer-Arau-Foundation; and the Theophrastus Foundation.

SOURCES: Locher C et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5856; Zernikow B. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5907.

A network meta-analysis of migraine treatments in children found little evidence that prophylactic medicines work in this population.

Marta Ortiz/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Clinicians hoped that medications used in adults – such as antidepressants, antiepileptics, antihypertensive agents, calcium channel blockers, and food supplements – would find similar success in children. Unfortunately, researchers found only short-term signs of efficacy over placebo, with no benefit lasting more than 6 months.

The study, conducted by a team led by Cosima Locher, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, included 23 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials with a total of 2,217 patients; the mean age was 11 years. They compared 12 pharmacologic agents with each other or with placebo in the study, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

In a main efficacy analysis that included 19 studies, only two treatments outperformed placebo: propranolol (standardized mean difference, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (SMD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15). There were no statistically significant between-treatment differences.

The results had an overall low to moderate certainty.

When propranolol was compared to placebo, the 95% prediction interval (–0.62 to 1.82) was wider than the significant confidence interval (0.03-1.17), and comprised both beneficial and detrimental effects. A similar result was found with topiramate, with a prediction interval of –0.62 to 1.80 extending into nonsignificant effects (95% CI, 0.03-1.15). In both cases, significant effects were found only when the prediction interval was 70%.

In a long-term analysis (greater than 6 months), no treatment outperformed placebo.

The treatments generally were acceptable. The researchers found no significant difference in tolerability between any of the treatments and each other or placebo. Safety data analyzed from 13 trials revealed no significant differences between treatments and placebo.

“Because specific effects of drugs are associated with the size of the placebo effect, the lack of drug efficacy in our NMA [network meta-analysis] could be owing to a comparatively high placebo effect in children. In fact, there is indirect evidence [from other studies] that the placebo effect is more pronounced in children and adolescents than in adults,” Dr. Locher and associates said. They suggested that studies were needed to quantify the placebo effect in pediatric migraine, and if it was large, to develop innovative therapies making use of this.

The findings should lead to some changes in practice, Boris Zernikow, MD, PhD, of Children’s and Adolescents’ Hospital Datteln (Germany) wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Pharmacological prophylactic treatment of childhood migraine should be an exception rather than the rule, and nonpharmacologic approaches should be emphasized, particularly because the placebo effect is magnified in children, he said.

Many who suffer migraines in childhood will continue to be affected in adulthood, so pediatric intervention is a good opportunity to instill effective strategies. These include: using abortive medication early in an attack and using antimigraine medications for only that specific type of headache; engaging in physical activity to reduce migraine attacks; getting sufficient sleep; and learning relaxation and other psychological approaches to counter migraines.

Dr. Zernikow had no relevant financial disclosures. One study author received grants from Amgen and other support from Grunenthal and Akelos. The study received funding from the Sara Page Mayo Endowment for Pediatric Pain Research, Education, and Treatment; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Schweizer-Arau-Foundation; and the Theophrastus Foundation.

SOURCES: Locher C et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5856; Zernikow B. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5907.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A 28-year-old pediatrician working in a large group practice in California found a new job in Pennsylvania. The job would allow her to live with her husband, who was a nonphysician.

On her last day of work at the California job, the practice’s office manager asked her, “Do you know about the tail coverage?”

He explained that it is malpractice insurance for any cases filed against her after leaving the job. Without it, he said, she would not be covered for those claims.

The physician (who asked not to be identified) had very little savings and suddenly had to pay a five-figure bill for tail coverage. To provide the extra malpractice coverage, she and her husband had to use savings they’d set aside to buy a house.

Getting tail coverage, known formally as an extended reporting endorsement, often comes as a complete and costly surprise for new doctors, says Dennis Hursh, Esq, a health care attorney based in Middletown, Penn., who deals with physicians’ employment contracts.

“Having to pay for a tail can disrupt lives,” Hursh said. “A tail can cost about one third of a young doctor’s salary. If you don’t feel you can afford to pay that, you may be forced to stay with a job you don’t like.”

Most medical residents don’t think about tail coverage until they apply for their first job, but last year, residents at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia got a painful early lesson.

In the summer, the hospital went out of business because of financial problems. Hundreds of medical residents and fellows not only were forced to find new programs but also had to prepare to buy tail coverage for their training years at Hahnemann.

“All the guarantees have been yanked out from under us,” said Tom Sibert, MD, a former internal medicine resident at the hospital, who is now finishing his training in California. “Residents don’t have that kind of money.”

Hahnemann trainees have asked the judge in the bankruptcy proceedings to put them ahead of other creditors and to ensure their tail coverage is paid. As of early February, the issue had not been resolved.

Meanwhile, Sibert and many other former trainees were trying to get quotes for purchasing tail coverage. They have been shocked by the amounts they would have to pay.
 

How tail coverage works

Medical malpractice tail coverage protects from incidents that took place when doctors were at their previous jobs but that later resulted in malpractice claims after they had left that employer.

One type of malpractice insurance, an occurrence policy, does not need tail coverage. Occurrence policies cover any incident that occurred when the policy was in force, no matter when a claim was filed – even if it is filed many years after the claims-filing period of the policy ends.

However, most malpractice policies – as many as 85%, according to one estimate – are claims-made policies. Claims-made policies are more much common because they’re significantly less expensive than occurrence policies.

Under a claims-made policy, coverage for malpractice claims completely stops when the policy ends. It does not cover incidents that occurred when the policy was in force but for which the patients later filed claims, as the occurrence policy does. So a tail is needed to cover these claims.

Physicians in all stages of their career may need tail coverage when they leave a job, change malpractice carriers, or retire.

But young physicians often have greater problems with tail coverage, for several reasons. They tend to be employed, and as such, they cannot choose the coverage they want. As a result, they most likely get claims-made coverage. In addition, the job turnover tends to be higher for these doctors. When leaving a job, the tail comes into play. More than half of new physicians leave their first job within 5 years, and of those, more than half leave after only 1 or 2 years.

Young physicians have no experience with tails and may not even know what they are. “In training, malpractice coverage is not a problem because the program handles it,” Mr. Hursh said. Accreditation standards require that teaching hospitals buy coverage, including a tail when residents leave.

So when young physicians are offered their first job and are handed an employment contract to sign, they may not even look for tail coverage, says Mr. Hursh, who wrote The Final Hurdle, a Physician’s Guide to Negotiating a Fair Employment Agreement. Instead, “young physicians tend to focus on issues like salary, benefits, and signing bonuses,” he said.

Mr. Hursh says the tail is usually the most expensive potential cost in the contract.

There’s no easy way to get out of paying the tail coverage once it is enshrined in the contract. The full tail can cost five or even six figures, depending on the physicians’ specialty, the local malpractice premium, and the physician’s own claims history.
 

Can you negotiate your tail coverage?

Negotiating tail coverage in the employment contract involves some familiarity with medical malpractice insurance and a close reading of the contract. First, you have to determine that the employer is providing claims-made coverage, which would require a tail if you leave. Then you have to determine whether the employer will pay for the tail coverage.

Often, the contract does not even mention tail coverage. “It could merely state that the practice will be responsible for malpractice coverage while you are working there,” Mr. Hursh said. Although it never specifies the tail, this language indicates that you will be paying for it, he says.

Therefore, it’s wise to have a conversation with your prospective employer about the tail. “Some new doctors never ask the question ‘What happens if I leave? Do I get tail coverage?’ ” said Israel Teitelbaum, an attorney who is chairman of Contemporary Insurance Services, an insurance broker in Silver Spring, Md.

Talking about the tail, however, can be a touchy subject for many young doctors applying for their first job. The tail matters only if you leave the job, and you may not want to imply that you would ever want to leave. Too much money, however, is on the line for you not to ask, Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Even if the employer verbally agrees to pay for the tail coverage, experts advise that you try to get the employer’s commitment in writing and have it put it into the contract.

Getting the employer to cover the tail in the initial contract is crucial because once you have agreed to work there, “it’s much more difficult to get it changed,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. However, even if tail coverage is not in the first contract, you shouldn’t give up, he says. You should try again in the next contract a few years later.

“It’s never too late to bring it up,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. After a few years of employment, you have a track record at the job. “A doctor who is very desirable to the employer may be able to get tail coverage on contract renewal.”
 

Coverage: Large employers vs. small employers

Willingness to pay for an employee’s tail coverage varies depending on the size of the employer. Large employers – systems, hospitals, and large practices – are much more likely to cover the tail than small and medium-sized practices.

Large employers tend to pay for at least part of the tail because they realize that it is in their interest to do so. Since they have the deepest pockets, they’re often the first to be named in a lawsuit. They might have to pay the whole claim if the physician did not have tail coverage.

However, many large employers want to use tail coverage as a bargaining chip to make sure doctors stay for a while at least. One typical arrangement, Mr. Hursh says, is to pay only one-fifth of the tail if the physician leaves in the first year of employment and then to pay one fifth more in each succeeding year until year five, when the employer assumes the entire cost of the tail.

Smaller practices, on the other hand, are usually close-fisted about tail coverage. “They tend to view the tail as an unnecessary expense,” Mr. Hursh said. “They don’t want to pay for a doctor who is not generating revenue for them any more.”

Traditionally, when physicians become partners, practices are more generous and agree to pay their tails if they leave, Mr. Hursh says. But he thinks this is changing, too – recent partnership contracts he has reviewed did not provide for tail coverage.
 

Times you don’t need to pay for tail coverage

Even if you’re responsible for the tail coverage, your insurance arrangement may be such that you don’t have to pay for it, says Michelle Perron, a malpractice insurance broker in North Hampton, N.H.

For example, if the carrier at your new job is the same as the one at your old job, your coverage would continue with no break, and you would not need a tail, she says. Even if you move to another state, your old carrier might also sell policies there, and you would then likely have seamless coverage, Ms. Perron says. This would be handy if you could choose your new carrier.

Even when you change carriers, Ms. Perron says, the new one might agree to pick up the old carrier’s coverage in return for getting your business, assuming you are an independent physician buying your own coverage. The new carrier would issue prior acts coverage, also known as nose coverage.

Older doctors going into retirement also have a potential tail coverage problem, but their tail coverage premium is often waived, Ms. Perron says. The need for a tail has to do with claims arising post retirement, after your coverage has ended. Typically, if you have been with the carrier for at least 5 years and you are age 55 years or older, your carrier will waive the tail coverage premium, she says.

However, if the retired doctor starts practicing again, even part time, the carrier may want to take back the free tail, she says. Some retired doctors get around this by buying a lower-priced tail from another company, but the former carrier may still want its money back, Ms. Perron says.
 

Can you just go without tail coverage?

What happens if physicians with a tail commitment choose to wing it and not pay for the tail? If a claim was never made against them, they may believe that the expense is unnecessary. The situation, however, is not so simple.

Some states require having tail coverage. Malpractice coverage is required in seven states, and at least some of those states explicitly extend this requirement to tails. They are Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Eleven more states tie malpractice coverage, perhaps including tails, to some benefit for the doctor, such as tort reform. These states include Indiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, and Pennsylvania.

Many hospitals require tail coverage for privileges, and some insurers do as well. In addition, Ms. Perron says a missing tail reduces your prospects when looking for a job. “For the employer, having to pay coverage for a new hire will cost more than starting fresh with someone else,” she said.

Still, it’s important to remember the risk of being sued. “If you don’t buy the tail coverage, you are at risk for a lawsuit for many years to come,” Mr. Teitelbaum said.

Doctors should consider their potential lifetime risk, not just their current risk. Although only 8% of doctors younger than age 40 have been sued for malpractice, that figure climbs to almost half by the time doctors reach age 55.

The risks are higher in some specialties. About 63% of general surgeons and ob.gyns. have been sued.

Many of these claims are without merit, and doctors pay only the legal expenses of defending the case. Some doctors may think they could risk frivolous suits and cover legal expenses out of pocket. An American Medical Association survey showed that 68% of closed claims against doctors were dropped, dismissed, or withdrawn. It said these claims cost an average of more than $30,000 to defend.

However, Mr. Teitelbaum puts the defense costs for so-called frivolous suits much higher than the AMA, at $250,000 or more. “Even if you’re sure you won’t have to pay a claim, you still have to defend yourself against frivolous suits,” he said. “You won’t recover those expenses.”
 

How to lower your tail coverage cost

Physicians typically have 60 days to buy tail coverage after their regular coverage has ended. Specialized brokers such as Mr. Teitelbaum and Ms. Perron help physicians look for the best tails to buy.

The cost of the tail depends on how long you’ve been at your job when you leave it, Ms. Perron says. If you leave in the first 1 or 2 years of the policy, she says, the tail price will be lower because the coverage period is shorter.

Usually the most expensive tail available is from the carrier that issued the original policy. Why is this? “Carriers rarely sell a tail that undercuts their retail price,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “They don’t want to compete with themselves, and in fact doing so could pose regulatory problems for them.”

Instead of buying from their own carrier, doctors can purchase stand-alone tails from competitors, which Mr. Teitelbaum says are 10%-30% less expensive than the policy the original carrier issues. However, stand-alone tails are not always easy to find, especially for high-cost specialties such as neurosurgery and ob.gyn., he says.

Some physicians try to bring down the cost of the tail by limiting the duration of the tail. You can buy tails that only cover claims filed 1-5 years after the incident took place, rather than indefinitely. These limits mirror the typical statute of limitations – the time limit to file a claim in each state. This limit is as little as 2 years in some states, though it can be as long as 6 years in others.

However, some states make exceptions to the statute of limitations. The 2- to 6-year clock doesn’t start ticking until the mistake is discovered or, in the case of children, when they reach adulthood. “This means that with a limited tail, you always have risk,” Perron said.

And yet some doctors insist on these time-limited tails. “If a doctor opts for 3 years’ coverage, that’s better than no years,” Mr. Teitelbaum said. “But I would advise them to take at least 5 years because that gives you coverage for the basic statute of limitations in most states. Three-year tails do yield savings, but often they’re not enough to warrant the risk.”

Another way to reduce costs is to lower the coverage limits of the tail. The standard coverage limit is $1 million per case and $3 million per year, so doctors might be able to save money on the premium by buying limits of $200,000/$600,000. But Mr. Teitelbaum says most companies would refuse to sell a policy with a limit lower than that of the expiring policy.

Further ways to reduce the cost of the tail include buying tail coverage that doesn’t give the physician the right to approve a settlement or that doesn’t include legal fees in the coverage limits. But these options, too, raise the physician’s risks. Whichever option you choose, the important thing is to protect yourself against costly lawsuits.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After 12 months of receiving palliative care in an outpatient setting in addition to standard care, patients with Parkinson’s disease and related disorders (PDRD) had improved quality of life (QoL), compared with patients who received standard care alone, according to results from a randomized clinical trial in JAMA Neurology.

The benefits of palliative care even extended to patients’ caregivers, who also appeared to benefit from outpatient palliative care at the 12-month mark, according to lead author Benzi M. Kluger, MD, of the department of neurology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.

Between November 2015 and September 2017, Dr. Kluger and colleagues included 210 patients into the trial from three participating academic tertiary care centers who had “moderate to high palliative care needs” as assessed by the Palliative Care Needs Assessment Tool, which the researchers said are “common reasons for referral” and “reflect a desire to meet patient-centered needs rather than disease-centered markers.” Patients were primarily non-Hispanic white men with a mean age of about 70 years. The researchers also included 175 caregivers in the trial, most of whom were women, spouses to the patients, and in their caregiver role for over 5.5 years.

Patients with PDRD were randomized to receive standard care – usual care through their primary care physician and a neurologist – or “integrated outpatient palliative care,” from a team consisting of a palliative neurologist, nurse, social worker, chaplain, and board-certified palliative medicine physician. The goal of palliative care was addressing “nonmotor symptoms, goals of care, anticipatory guidance, difficult emotions, and caregiver support,” which patients received every 3 months through an in-person outpatient visit or telemedicine.

Quality of life for patients was measured through the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD) scale, and caregiver burden was assessed with the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-12). The researchers also measured symptom burden and other QoL measures using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale–Revised for Parkinson’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Prolonged Grief Disorder questionnaire, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Spiritual Well-Being.

Overall, 87 of 105 (82.1%) of patients in the palliative care group went to all their outpatient palliative care visits, and 19 of 106 (17.9%) patients received palliative care through telemedicine. Patients in the palliative care group also attended more neurology visits (4.66 visits) than those in the standard care (3.16 visits) group.

Quality of life significantly improved for patients in the palliative care group, compared with patients receiving standard care only at 6 months (0.66 vs. –0.84; between-group difference, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-3.27; P = .009) and at 12 months (0.68 vs. –0.42; between-group difference, 1.36; 95% CI, −0.01 to 2.73; P = .05). These results remained significant at 6 months and 12 months after researchers used multiple imputation to fill in missing data. While there was no significant difference in caregiver burden between groups at 6 months, there was a statistically significant difference at 12 months favoring the palliative care group (between-group difference, −2.60; 95% CI, −4.58 to −0.61; P = .01).

Patients receiving palliative care also had better nonmotor symptom burden, motor symptom severity, and were more likely to complete advance directives, compared with patients receiving standard care alone. “We hypothesize that motor improvements may have reflected an unanticipated benefit of our palliative care team’s general goal of encouraging activities that promoted joy, meaning, and connection,” Dr. Kluger and colleagues said. Researchers also noted that the intervention patients with greater need for palliative care tended to benefit more than patients with patients with lower palliative care needs.

“Because the palliative care intervention is time-intensive and resource-intensive, future studies should optimize triage tools and consider alternative models of care delivery, such as telemedicine or care navigators, to provide key aspects of the intervention at lower cost,” they said.

In a related editorial, Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, from the Center of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders, at Radboud University Medical Center, in the Netherlands, and colleagues acknowledged that the study by Kluger et al. is “timely and practical” because it introduces a system for outpatient palliative care for patients with PDRD at a time when there is “growing awareness that palliative care may also benefit persons with neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease.”

The study is also important because it highlights that patients at varying stages of disease, including mild disease, may benefit from an integrated outpatient palliative model, which is not usually considered when determining candidates for palliative care in other scenarios, such as in patients with cancer. Future studies are warranted to assess how palliative care models can be implemented in different disease states and health care settings, they said.

“These new studies should continue to highlight the fact that palliative care is not about terminal diseases and dying,” Dr. Bloem and colleagues concluded. “As Kluger and colleagues indicate in their important clinical trial, palliative care is about how to live well.”

Six authors reported receiving a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which was the funding source for the study. Two authors reported receiving grants from the University Hospital Foundation during the study. One author reported receiving grants from Allergan and Merz Pharma and is a consultant for GE Pharmaceuticals and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals; another reported receiving grants from the Archstone Foundation, the California Health Care Foundation, the Cambia Health Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Institute of Nursing Research, the Stupski Foundation, and the UniHealth Foundation. Dr. Bloem and a colleague reported their institution received a center of excellence grant from the Parkinson’s Foundation.

SOURCE: Kluger B et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4992.

After 12 months of receiving palliative care in an outpatient setting in addition to standard care, patients with Parkinson’s disease and related disorders (PDRD) had improved quality of life (QoL), compared with patients who received standard care alone, according to results from a randomized clinical trial in JAMA Neurology.

The benefits of palliative care even extended to patients’ caregivers, who also appeared to benefit from outpatient palliative care at the 12-month mark, according to lead author Benzi M. Kluger, MD, of the department of neurology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.

Between November 2015 and September 2017, Dr. Kluger and colleagues included 210 patients into the trial from three participating academic tertiary care centers who had “moderate to high palliative care needs” as assessed by the Palliative Care Needs Assessment Tool, which the researchers said are “common reasons for referral” and “reflect a desire to meet patient-centered needs rather than disease-centered markers.” Patients were primarily non-Hispanic white men with a mean age of about 70 years. The researchers also included 175 caregivers in the trial, most of whom were women, spouses to the patients, and in their caregiver role for over 5.5 years.

Patients with PDRD were randomized to receive standard care – usual care through their primary care physician and a neurologist – or “integrated outpatient palliative care,” from a team consisting of a palliative neurologist, nurse, social worker, chaplain, and board-certified palliative medicine physician. The goal of palliative care was addressing “nonmotor symptoms, goals of care, anticipatory guidance, difficult emotions, and caregiver support,” which patients received every 3 months through an in-person outpatient visit or telemedicine.

Quality of life for patients was measured through the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD) scale, and caregiver burden was assessed with the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-12). The researchers also measured symptom burden and other QoL measures using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale–Revised for Parkinson’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Prolonged Grief Disorder questionnaire, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Spiritual Well-Being.

Overall, 87 of 105 (82.1%) of patients in the palliative care group went to all their outpatient palliative care visits, and 19 of 106 (17.9%) patients received palliative care through telemedicine. Patients in the palliative care group also attended more neurology visits (4.66 visits) than those in the standard care (3.16 visits) group.

Quality of life significantly improved for patients in the palliative care group, compared with patients receiving standard care only at 6 months (0.66 vs. –0.84; between-group difference, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-3.27; P = .009) and at 12 months (0.68 vs. –0.42; between-group difference, 1.36; 95% CI, −0.01 to 2.73; P = .05). These results remained significant at 6 months and 12 months after researchers used multiple imputation to fill in missing data. While there was no significant difference in caregiver burden between groups at 6 months, there was a statistically significant difference at 12 months favoring the palliative care group (between-group difference, −2.60; 95% CI, −4.58 to −0.61; P = .01).

Patients receiving palliative care also had better nonmotor symptom burden, motor symptom severity, and were more likely to complete advance directives, compared with patients receiving standard care alone. “We hypothesize that motor improvements may have reflected an unanticipated benefit of our palliative care team’s general goal of encouraging activities that promoted joy, meaning, and connection,” Dr. Kluger and colleagues said. Researchers also noted that the intervention patients with greater need for palliative care tended to benefit more than patients with patients with lower palliative care needs.

“Because the palliative care intervention is time-intensive and resource-intensive, future studies should optimize triage tools and consider alternative models of care delivery, such as telemedicine or care navigators, to provide key aspects of the intervention at lower cost,” they said.

In a related editorial, Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, from the Center of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders, at Radboud University Medical Center, in the Netherlands, and colleagues acknowledged that the study by Kluger et al. is “timely and practical” because it introduces a system for outpatient palliative care for patients with PDRD at a time when there is “growing awareness that palliative care may also benefit persons with neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease.”

The study is also important because it highlights that patients at varying stages of disease, including mild disease, may benefit from an integrated outpatient palliative model, which is not usually considered when determining candidates for palliative care in other scenarios, such as in patients with cancer. Future studies are warranted to assess how palliative care models can be implemented in different disease states and health care settings, they said.

“These new studies should continue to highlight the fact that palliative care is not about terminal diseases and dying,” Dr. Bloem and colleagues concluded. “As Kluger and colleagues indicate in their important clinical trial, palliative care is about how to live well.”

Six authors reported receiving a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which was the funding source for the study. Two authors reported receiving grants from the University Hospital Foundation during the study. One author reported receiving grants from Allergan and Merz Pharma and is a consultant for GE Pharmaceuticals and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals; another reported receiving grants from the Archstone Foundation, the California Health Care Foundation, the Cambia Health Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Institute of Nursing Research, the Stupski Foundation, and the UniHealth Foundation. Dr. Bloem and a colleague reported their institution received a center of excellence grant from the Parkinson’s Foundation.

SOURCE: Kluger B et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4992.

After 12 months of receiving palliative care in an outpatient setting in addition to standard care, patients with Parkinson’s disease and related disorders (PDRD) had improved quality of life (QoL), compared with patients who received standard care alone, according to results from a randomized clinical trial in JAMA Neurology.

The benefits of palliative care even extended to patients’ caregivers, who also appeared to benefit from outpatient palliative care at the 12-month mark, according to lead author Benzi M. Kluger, MD, of the department of neurology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues.

Between November 2015 and September 2017, Dr. Kluger and colleagues included 210 patients into the trial from three participating academic tertiary care centers who had “moderate to high palliative care needs” as assessed by the Palliative Care Needs Assessment Tool, which the researchers said are “common reasons for referral” and “reflect a desire to meet patient-centered needs rather than disease-centered markers.” Patients were primarily non-Hispanic white men with a mean age of about 70 years. The researchers also included 175 caregivers in the trial, most of whom were women, spouses to the patients, and in their caregiver role for over 5.5 years.

Patients with PDRD were randomized to receive standard care – usual care through their primary care physician and a neurologist – or “integrated outpatient palliative care,” from a team consisting of a palliative neurologist, nurse, social worker, chaplain, and board-certified palliative medicine physician. The goal of palliative care was addressing “nonmotor symptoms, goals of care, anticipatory guidance, difficult emotions, and caregiver support,” which patients received every 3 months through an in-person outpatient visit or telemedicine.

Quality of life for patients was measured through the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD) scale, and caregiver burden was assessed with the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-12). The researchers also measured symptom burden and other QoL measures using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale–Revised for Parkinson’s Disease, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Prolonged Grief Disorder questionnaire, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Spiritual Well-Being.

Overall, 87 of 105 (82.1%) of patients in the palliative care group went to all their outpatient palliative care visits, and 19 of 106 (17.9%) patients received palliative care through telemedicine. Patients in the palliative care group also attended more neurology visits (4.66 visits) than those in the standard care (3.16 visits) group.

Quality of life significantly improved for patients in the palliative care group, compared with patients receiving standard care only at 6 months (0.66 vs. –0.84; between-group difference, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-3.27; P = .009) and at 12 months (0.68 vs. –0.42; between-group difference, 1.36; 95% CI, −0.01 to 2.73; P = .05). These results remained significant at 6 months and 12 months after researchers used multiple imputation to fill in missing data. While there was no significant difference in caregiver burden between groups at 6 months, there was a statistically significant difference at 12 months favoring the palliative care group (between-group difference, −2.60; 95% CI, −4.58 to −0.61; P = .01).

Patients receiving palliative care also had better nonmotor symptom burden, motor symptom severity, and were more likely to complete advance directives, compared with patients receiving standard care alone. “We hypothesize that motor improvements may have reflected an unanticipated benefit of our palliative care team’s general goal of encouraging activities that promoted joy, meaning, and connection,” Dr. Kluger and colleagues said. Researchers also noted that the intervention patients with greater need for palliative care tended to benefit more than patients with patients with lower palliative care needs.

“Because the palliative care intervention is time-intensive and resource-intensive, future studies should optimize triage tools and consider alternative models of care delivery, such as telemedicine or care navigators, to provide key aspects of the intervention at lower cost,” they said.

In a related editorial, Bastiaan R. Bloem, MD, PhD, from the Center of Expertise for Parkinson & Movement Disorders, at Radboud University Medical Center, in the Netherlands, and colleagues acknowledged that the study by Kluger et al. is “timely and practical” because it introduces a system for outpatient palliative care for patients with PDRD at a time when there is “growing awareness that palliative care may also benefit persons with neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s disease.”

The study is also important because it highlights that patients at varying stages of disease, including mild disease, may benefit from an integrated outpatient palliative model, which is not usually considered when determining candidates for palliative care in other scenarios, such as in patients with cancer. Future studies are warranted to assess how palliative care models can be implemented in different disease states and health care settings, they said.

“These new studies should continue to highlight the fact that palliative care is not about terminal diseases and dying,” Dr. Bloem and colleagues concluded. “As Kluger and colleagues indicate in their important clinical trial, palliative care is about how to live well.”

Six authors reported receiving a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which was the funding source for the study. Two authors reported receiving grants from the University Hospital Foundation during the study. One author reported receiving grants from Allergan and Merz Pharma and is a consultant for GE Pharmaceuticals and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals; another reported receiving grants from the Archstone Foundation, the California Health Care Foundation, the Cambia Health Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the National Institute of Nursing Research, the Stupski Foundation, and the UniHealth Foundation. Dr. Bloem and a colleague reported their institution received a center of excellence grant from the Parkinson’s Foundation.

SOURCE: Kluger B et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.4992.

Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE4) directly and independently exacerbates accumulation of alpha-synuclein in patients with Lewy body dementia, whereas APOE2 may have a protective effect, based on two recent studies involving mouse models and human patients.

These insights confirm the importance of APOE in synucleinopathies, and may lead to new treatments, according to Eliezer Masliah, MD, director of the division of neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging.

“These [studies] definitely implicate a role of APOE4,” Dr. Masliah said in an interview.

According to Dr. Masliah, previous studies linked the APOE4 genotype with cognitive decline in synucleinopathies, but underlying molecular mechanisms remained unknown.

“We [now] have more direct confirmation [based on] different experimental animal models,” Dr. Masliah said. “It also means that APOE4 could be a therapeutic target for dementia with Lewy bodies.”

The two studies were published simultaneously in Science Translational Medicine. The first study was conducted by Albert A. Davis, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues; the second was led by Na Zhao, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The studies are very synergistic, but used different techniques,” said Dr. Masliah, who was not involved in the studies.

Both studies involved mice that expressed a human variant of APOE: APOE2, APOE3, or APOE4. Three independent techniques were used to concurrently overexpress alpha-synuclein; Dr. Davis and colleagues used a transgenic approach, as well as striatal injection of alpha-synuclein preformed fibrils, whereas Dr. Zhao and colleagues turned to a viral vector. Regardless of technique, each APOE variant had a distinct impact on the level of alpha-synuclein accumulation.

“In a nutshell, [Dr. Davis and colleagues] found that those mice that have synuclein and APOE4 have a much more rapid progression of the disease,” Dr. Masliah said. “They become Parkinsonian much faster, but also, they become cognitively impaired much faster, and they have more synuclein in the brain. Remarkably, on the opposite side, those that were expressing APOE2, which we know is a protective allele, actually were far less impaired. So that’s really a remarkable finding.”

The study at the Mayo Clinic echoed these findings.

“Essentially, [Dr. Zhao and colleagues] had very similar results,” Dr. Masliah said. “[In mice expressing] APOE4, synuclein accumulation was worse and pathology was worse, and with APOE2, there was relative protection.”

Both studies found that the exacerbating effect of APOE4 translated to human patients.

Dr. Davis and colleagues evaluated data from 251 patients in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative. A multivariate model showed that patients with the APOE4 genotype had faster cognitive decline, an impact that was independent of other variables, including cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of amyloid beta and tau protein (P = .0119). This finding was further supported by additional analyses involving 177 patients with Parkinson’s disease from the Washington University Movement Disorders Center, and another 1,030 patients enrolled in the NeuroGenetics Research Consortium study.

Dr. Zhao and colleagues evaluated postmortem samples from patients with Lewy body dementia who had minimal amyloid pathology. Comparing 22 APOE4 carriers versus 22 age- and sex-matched noncarriers, they found that carriers had significantly greater accumulations of alpha-synuclein (P less than .05).

According to the investigators, these findings could have both prognostic and therapeutic implications.

“[I]t is intriguing to speculate whether APOE and other potential genetic risk or resilience genes could be useful as screening tools to stratify risk for individual patients,” Dr. Davis and colleagues wrote in their paper. They went on to suggest that APOE genotyping may one day be used to personalize treatments for patients with neurodegenerative disease.

According to Dr. Masliah, several treatment strategies are under investigation.

“There are some pharmaceutical companies and also some academic groups that have been developing antibodies against APOE4 for Alzheimer’s disease, but certainly that could also be used for dementia with Lewy bodies,” he said. “There are other ways. One could [be] to suppress the expression of APOE4 with antisense or other technologies.

“There is also a very innovative technology that has been developed by the group at the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, which is to switch APOE4 to APOE3.” This technique, Dr. Masliah explained, is accomplished by breaking a disulfide bond in APOE4, which opens the structure into an isoform that mimics APOE3. “They have developed small molecules that actually can break that bond and essentially chemically switch APOE4 to APOE3,” he said.

Although multiple techniques are feasible, Dr. Masliah stressed that these therapeutic efforts are still in their infancy.

“We need to better understand the mechanisms as to how APOE4 and alpha-synuclein interact,” he said. “I think we need a lot more work in this area.”

The Davis study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology/American Brain Foundation, the BrightFocus Foundation, the Mary E. Groff Charitable Trust, and others; the investigators reported additional relationships with Biogen, Alector, Parabon, and others. The Zhao study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Lewy Body Dementia Center Without Walls; the investigators reported no competing interests. Dr. Masliah reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Davis AA et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay3069; Zhao N et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay1809.

Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE4) directly and independently exacerbates accumulation of alpha-synuclein in patients with Lewy body dementia, whereas APOE2 may have a protective effect, based on two recent studies involving mouse models and human patients.

These insights confirm the importance of APOE in synucleinopathies, and may lead to new treatments, according to Eliezer Masliah, MD, director of the division of neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging.

“These [studies] definitely implicate a role of APOE4,” Dr. Masliah said in an interview.

According to Dr. Masliah, previous studies linked the APOE4 genotype with cognitive decline in synucleinopathies, but underlying molecular mechanisms remained unknown.

“We [now] have more direct confirmation [based on] different experimental animal models,” Dr. Masliah said. “It also means that APOE4 could be a therapeutic target for dementia with Lewy bodies.”

The two studies were published simultaneously in Science Translational Medicine. The first study was conducted by Albert A. Davis, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues; the second was led by Na Zhao, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The studies are very synergistic, but used different techniques,” said Dr. Masliah, who was not involved in the studies.

Both studies involved mice that expressed a human variant of APOE: APOE2, APOE3, or APOE4. Three independent techniques were used to concurrently overexpress alpha-synuclein; Dr. Davis and colleagues used a transgenic approach, as well as striatal injection of alpha-synuclein preformed fibrils, whereas Dr. Zhao and colleagues turned to a viral vector. Regardless of technique, each APOE variant had a distinct impact on the level of alpha-synuclein accumulation.

“In a nutshell, [Dr. Davis and colleagues] found that those mice that have synuclein and APOE4 have a much more rapid progression of the disease,” Dr. Masliah said. “They become Parkinsonian much faster, but also, they become cognitively impaired much faster, and they have more synuclein in the brain. Remarkably, on the opposite side, those that were expressing APOE2, which we know is a protective allele, actually were far less impaired. So that’s really a remarkable finding.”

The study at the Mayo Clinic echoed these findings.

“Essentially, [Dr. Zhao and colleagues] had very similar results,” Dr. Masliah said. “[In mice expressing] APOE4, synuclein accumulation was worse and pathology was worse, and with APOE2, there was relative protection.”

Both studies found that the exacerbating effect of APOE4 translated to human patients.

Dr. Davis and colleagues evaluated data from 251 patients in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative. A multivariate model showed that patients with the APOE4 genotype had faster cognitive decline, an impact that was independent of other variables, including cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of amyloid beta and tau protein (P = .0119). This finding was further supported by additional analyses involving 177 patients with Parkinson’s disease from the Washington University Movement Disorders Center, and another 1,030 patients enrolled in the NeuroGenetics Research Consortium study.

Dr. Zhao and colleagues evaluated postmortem samples from patients with Lewy body dementia who had minimal amyloid pathology. Comparing 22 APOE4 carriers versus 22 age- and sex-matched noncarriers, they found that carriers had significantly greater accumulations of alpha-synuclein (P less than .05).

According to the investigators, these findings could have both prognostic and therapeutic implications.

“[I]t is intriguing to speculate whether APOE and other potential genetic risk or resilience genes could be useful as screening tools to stratify risk for individual patients,” Dr. Davis and colleagues wrote in their paper. They went on to suggest that APOE genotyping may one day be used to personalize treatments for patients with neurodegenerative disease.

According to Dr. Masliah, several treatment strategies are under investigation.

“There are some pharmaceutical companies and also some academic groups that have been developing antibodies against APOE4 for Alzheimer’s disease, but certainly that could also be used for dementia with Lewy bodies,” he said. “There are other ways. One could [be] to suppress the expression of APOE4 with antisense or other technologies.

“There is also a very innovative technology that has been developed by the group at the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, which is to switch APOE4 to APOE3.” This technique, Dr. Masliah explained, is accomplished by breaking a disulfide bond in APOE4, which opens the structure into an isoform that mimics APOE3. “They have developed small molecules that actually can break that bond and essentially chemically switch APOE4 to APOE3,” he said.

Although multiple techniques are feasible, Dr. Masliah stressed that these therapeutic efforts are still in their infancy.

“We need to better understand the mechanisms as to how APOE4 and alpha-synuclein interact,” he said. “I think we need a lot more work in this area.”

The Davis study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology/American Brain Foundation, the BrightFocus Foundation, the Mary E. Groff Charitable Trust, and others; the investigators reported additional relationships with Biogen, Alector, Parabon, and others. The Zhao study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Lewy Body Dementia Center Without Walls; the investigators reported no competing interests. Dr. Masliah reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Davis AA et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay3069; Zhao N et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay1809.

Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE4) directly and independently exacerbates accumulation of alpha-synuclein in patients with Lewy body dementia, whereas APOE2 may have a protective effect, based on two recent studies involving mouse models and human patients.

These insights confirm the importance of APOE in synucleinopathies, and may lead to new treatments, according to Eliezer Masliah, MD, director of the division of neuroscience at the National Institute on Aging.

“These [studies] definitely implicate a role of APOE4,” Dr. Masliah said in an interview.

According to Dr. Masliah, previous studies linked the APOE4 genotype with cognitive decline in synucleinopathies, but underlying molecular mechanisms remained unknown.

“We [now] have more direct confirmation [based on] different experimental animal models,” Dr. Masliah said. “It also means that APOE4 could be a therapeutic target for dementia with Lewy bodies.”

The two studies were published simultaneously in Science Translational Medicine. The first study was conducted by Albert A. Davis, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, and colleagues; the second was led by Na Zhao, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The studies are very synergistic, but used different techniques,” said Dr. Masliah, who was not involved in the studies.

Both studies involved mice that expressed a human variant of APOE: APOE2, APOE3, or APOE4. Three independent techniques were used to concurrently overexpress alpha-synuclein; Dr. Davis and colleagues used a transgenic approach, as well as striatal injection of alpha-synuclein preformed fibrils, whereas Dr. Zhao and colleagues turned to a viral vector. Regardless of technique, each APOE variant had a distinct impact on the level of alpha-synuclein accumulation.

“In a nutshell, [Dr. Davis and colleagues] found that those mice that have synuclein and APOE4 have a much more rapid progression of the disease,” Dr. Masliah said. “They become Parkinsonian much faster, but also, they become cognitively impaired much faster, and they have more synuclein in the brain. Remarkably, on the opposite side, those that were expressing APOE2, which we know is a protective allele, actually were far less impaired. So that’s really a remarkable finding.”

The study at the Mayo Clinic echoed these findings.

“Essentially, [Dr. Zhao and colleagues] had very similar results,” Dr. Masliah said. “[In mice expressing] APOE4, synuclein accumulation was worse and pathology was worse, and with APOE2, there was relative protection.”

Both studies found that the exacerbating effect of APOE4 translated to human patients.

Dr. Davis and colleagues evaluated data from 251 patients in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative. A multivariate model showed that patients with the APOE4 genotype had faster cognitive decline, an impact that was independent of other variables, including cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of amyloid beta and tau protein (P = .0119). This finding was further supported by additional analyses involving 177 patients with Parkinson’s disease from the Washington University Movement Disorders Center, and another 1,030 patients enrolled in the NeuroGenetics Research Consortium study.

Dr. Zhao and colleagues evaluated postmortem samples from patients with Lewy body dementia who had minimal amyloid pathology. Comparing 22 APOE4 carriers versus 22 age- and sex-matched noncarriers, they found that carriers had significantly greater accumulations of alpha-synuclein (P less than .05).

According to the investigators, these findings could have both prognostic and therapeutic implications.

“[I]t is intriguing to speculate whether APOE and other potential genetic risk or resilience genes could be useful as screening tools to stratify risk for individual patients,” Dr. Davis and colleagues wrote in their paper. They went on to suggest that APOE genotyping may one day be used to personalize treatments for patients with neurodegenerative disease.

According to Dr. Masliah, several treatment strategies are under investigation.

“There are some pharmaceutical companies and also some academic groups that have been developing antibodies against APOE4 for Alzheimer’s disease, but certainly that could also be used for dementia with Lewy bodies,” he said. “There are other ways. One could [be] to suppress the expression of APOE4 with antisense or other technologies.

“There is also a very innovative technology that has been developed by the group at the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, which is to switch APOE4 to APOE3.” This technique, Dr. Masliah explained, is accomplished by breaking a disulfide bond in APOE4, which opens the structure into an isoform that mimics APOE3. “They have developed small molecules that actually can break that bond and essentially chemically switch APOE4 to APOE3,” he said.

Although multiple techniques are feasible, Dr. Masliah stressed that these therapeutic efforts are still in their infancy.

“We need to better understand the mechanisms as to how APOE4 and alpha-synuclein interact,” he said. “I think we need a lot more work in this area.”

The Davis study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology/American Brain Foundation, the BrightFocus Foundation, the Mary E. Groff Charitable Trust, and others; the investigators reported additional relationships with Biogen, Alector, Parabon, and others. The Zhao study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Lewy Body Dementia Center Without Walls; the investigators reported no competing interests. Dr. Masliah reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Davis AA et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay3069; Zhao N et al. Sci Transl Med. 2020 Feb 5. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay1809.

Glioma treatment goals traditionally have focused on tumor shrinkage or prolonging survival, but it’s time for those endpoints to be supplemented by clinical outcomes that are meaningful to the patient, according to a recently published report from a neuro-oncology working group.

The group, which includes representatives of previous oncology working groups, the Food and Drug Administration, and observers from the European Medicines Agency, has established a core set of symptoms and functional points that they say could be used in clinical trials and clinical care for patients with high-grade gliomas.

“Patients want to live longer, but they also want to continue to function as well as possible for as long as possible,” said Terri S. Armstrong, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and coauthors in a report that sums up the work to date of the Fast Track COA Group.

That work, while specific to gliomas, echoes results from broader initiatives that seek to standardize patient-reported outcomes in oncology trials, Dr. Armstrong and coauthors wrote. The report was published in the Lancet Oncology.

The core set of symptom constructs and functional issues identified by the work group are represented already in patient-reported outcome measures, according to the authors.

The symptoms worth measuring fall into five categories, including pain, difficulty communicating, perceived cognition, seizures, and symptomatic adverse events. The functional issues were divided into two categories, physical functioning, including weakness or walking, and role functioning, which they defined as the ability to work or participate in social or leisure activities.

Some of those outcomes can be challenging or cumbersome to track, Dr. Armstrong and coauthors said.

Pain has “many dimensions“ and is important to track, the group wrote. Likewise, patients’ concerns related to language function also are important, but are very “noisy“ as a variable and can be specific to tumor location.

Collecting data on seizure frequency and severity is important yet complicated, because of the variability in seizures and considerable difference between focal and generalized seizures. Assessment of cognitive functioning can be lengthy and burdensome to patients.

Adverse events of relevance will vary, depending on the drug used, its mechanism of action, and available data, though some allowance needs to be made for the possibility of “overlap“ with disease-related symptoms, the report said.

Physical functioning, including walking and weakness, should be evaluated. It also would be useful to distinguish the duration of time that patients have deficits in physical functioning in the later stages of their disease progression, authors said.

Role and social functioning should be assessed in most patients with high-grade gliomas, who will have symptoms and deficits that prevent returning to a job. “Patients might spend a substantial portion of their lives feeling ill, unable to do usual activities, or meet occupational, social, financial, and family obligations,” said Dr. Armstrong and coauthors in the report.

The scales and tools used to measure symptoms and functional concerns need to be those that best fit a particular clinical trial or clinical practice scenario. Several instruments that would be appropriate are discussed in the report, including the NCI Patient-Reported Outcome of the Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events (NCI PRO-CTCAE) and symptom and function scales or items in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS).

The next steps, according to report authors, will be to figure out how the symptom and function constructs align with typical primary endpoints of glioma clinical trials, such as time to recurrence or survival.

“Strategies for introducing these constructs to clinical trial cooperative groups and sponsors will be necessary,” they concluded.

Dr. Armstrong reported employment as a senior investigator and deputy chief of the neuro-oncology branch of the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI. His coauthors reported disclosures related to several companies and interests, including AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Merck, Taiho, and Tocagen.

SOURCE: Armstrong TS et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(2):e97-103.

Glioma treatment goals traditionally have focused on tumor shrinkage or prolonging survival, but it’s time for those endpoints to be supplemented by clinical outcomes that are meaningful to the patient, according to a recently published report from a neuro-oncology working group.

The group, which includes representatives of previous oncology working groups, the Food and Drug Administration, and observers from the European Medicines Agency, has established a core set of symptoms and functional points that they say could be used in clinical trials and clinical care for patients with high-grade gliomas.

“Patients want to live longer, but they also want to continue to function as well as possible for as long as possible,” said Terri S. Armstrong, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and coauthors in a report that sums up the work to date of the Fast Track COA Group.

That work, while specific to gliomas, echoes results from broader initiatives that seek to standardize patient-reported outcomes in oncology trials, Dr. Armstrong and coauthors wrote. The report was published in the Lancet Oncology.

The core set of symptom constructs and functional issues identified by the work group are represented already in patient-reported outcome measures, according to the authors.

The symptoms worth measuring fall into five categories, including pain, difficulty communicating, perceived cognition, seizures, and symptomatic adverse events. The functional issues were divided into two categories, physical functioning, including weakness or walking, and role functioning, which they defined as the ability to work or participate in social or leisure activities.

Some of those outcomes can be challenging or cumbersome to track, Dr. Armstrong and coauthors said.

Pain has “many dimensions“ and is important to track, the group wrote. Likewise, patients’ concerns related to language function also are important, but are very “noisy“ as a variable and can be specific to tumor location.

Collecting data on seizure frequency and severity is important yet complicated, because of the variability in seizures and considerable difference between focal and generalized seizures. Assessment of cognitive functioning can be lengthy and burdensome to patients.

Adverse events of relevance will vary, depending on the drug used, its mechanism of action, and available data, though some allowance needs to be made for the possibility of “overlap“ with disease-related symptoms, the report said.

Physical functioning, including walking and weakness, should be evaluated. It also would be useful to distinguish the duration of time that patients have deficits in physical functioning in the later stages of their disease progression, authors said.

Role and social functioning should be assessed in most patients with high-grade gliomas, who will have symptoms and deficits that prevent returning to a job. “Patients might spend a substantial portion of their lives feeling ill, unable to do usual activities, or meet occupational, social, financial, and family obligations,” said Dr. Armstrong and coauthors in the report.

The scales and tools used to measure symptoms and functional concerns need to be those that best fit a particular clinical trial or clinical practice scenario. Several instruments that would be appropriate are discussed in the report, including the NCI Patient-Reported Outcome of the Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events (NCI PRO-CTCAE) and symptom and function scales or items in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS).

The next steps, according to report authors, will be to figure out how the symptom and function constructs align with typical primary endpoints of glioma clinical trials, such as time to recurrence or survival.

“Strategies for introducing these constructs to clinical trial cooperative groups and sponsors will be necessary,” they concluded.

Dr. Armstrong reported employment as a senior investigator and deputy chief of the neuro-oncology branch of the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI. His coauthors reported disclosures related to several companies and interests, including AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Merck, Taiho, and Tocagen.

SOURCE: Armstrong TS et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(2):e97-103.

Glioma treatment goals traditionally have focused on tumor shrinkage or prolonging survival, but it’s time for those endpoints to be supplemented by clinical outcomes that are meaningful to the patient, according to a recently published report from a neuro-oncology working group.

The group, which includes representatives of previous oncology working groups, the Food and Drug Administration, and observers from the European Medicines Agency, has established a core set of symptoms and functional points that they say could be used in clinical trials and clinical care for patients with high-grade gliomas.

“Patients want to live longer, but they also want to continue to function as well as possible for as long as possible,” said Terri S. Armstrong, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and coauthors in a report that sums up the work to date of the Fast Track COA Group.

That work, while specific to gliomas, echoes results from broader initiatives that seek to standardize patient-reported outcomes in oncology trials, Dr. Armstrong and coauthors wrote. The report was published in the Lancet Oncology.

The core set of symptom constructs and functional issues identified by the work group are represented already in patient-reported outcome measures, according to the authors.

The symptoms worth measuring fall into five categories, including pain, difficulty communicating, perceived cognition, seizures, and symptomatic adverse events. The functional issues were divided into two categories, physical functioning, including weakness or walking, and role functioning, which they defined as the ability to work or participate in social or leisure activities.

Some of those outcomes can be challenging or cumbersome to track, Dr. Armstrong and coauthors said.

Pain has “many dimensions“ and is important to track, the group wrote. Likewise, patients’ concerns related to language function also are important, but are very “noisy“ as a variable and can be specific to tumor location.

Collecting data on seizure frequency and severity is important yet complicated, because of the variability in seizures and considerable difference between focal and generalized seizures. Assessment of cognitive functioning can be lengthy and burdensome to patients.

Adverse events of relevance will vary, depending on the drug used, its mechanism of action, and available data, though some allowance needs to be made for the possibility of “overlap“ with disease-related symptoms, the report said.

Physical functioning, including walking and weakness, should be evaluated. It also would be useful to distinguish the duration of time that patients have deficits in physical functioning in the later stages of their disease progression, authors said.

Role and social functioning should be assessed in most patients with high-grade gliomas, who will have symptoms and deficits that prevent returning to a job. “Patients might spend a substantial portion of their lives feeling ill, unable to do usual activities, or meet occupational, social, financial, and family obligations,” said Dr. Armstrong and coauthors in the report.

The scales and tools used to measure symptoms and functional concerns need to be those that best fit a particular clinical trial or clinical practice scenario. Several instruments that would be appropriate are discussed in the report, including the NCI Patient-Reported Outcome of the Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events (NCI PRO-CTCAE) and symptom and function scales or items in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS).

The next steps, according to report authors, will be to figure out how the symptom and function constructs align with typical primary endpoints of glioma clinical trials, such as time to recurrence or survival.

“Strategies for introducing these constructs to clinical trial cooperative groups and sponsors will be necessary,” they concluded.

Dr. Armstrong reported employment as a senior investigator and deputy chief of the neuro-oncology branch of the Center for Cancer Research at the NCI. His coauthors reported disclosures related to several companies and interests, including AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Merck, Taiho, and Tocagen.

SOURCE: Armstrong TS et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(2):e97-103.

SAN DIEGO – When clinicians ask patients to quantify their level of chronic pain on a scale of 1-10, and they rate it as a 7, what does that really mean?

Robert A. Bonakdar, MD, said posing such a question as the main determinator of the treatment approach during a pain assessment “depersonalizes medicine to the point where you’re making a patient a number.” Dr. Bonakdar spoke at Natural Supplements: An Evidence-Based Update, presented by Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine.

“A personalized approach to pain, on the other hand, considers each patient’s individual journey: their sensitivities, experiences, and failures,” he said. “It considers areas that are often overlooked, such as the role of the gut microbiome, mood, and epigenetics.”

Over the past two decades, the number of American adults suffering from pain has increased from 120 million to 178 million, or to 41% of the adult population, said Dr. Bonakdar, a family physician who is director of pain management at the Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine. Data from the National Institutes of Health estimate that Americans spend more than $600 billion each year on the treatment of pain, which surpasses monies spent on cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. According to a 2016 report from the United States Bone and Joint Initiative, arthritis and rheumatologic conditions resulted in an estimated 6.7 million annual hospitalizations, and the average annual cost per person for treatment of a musculoskeletal condition is $7,800.

“If we continue on our current trajectory, we are choosing to accept more prevalence and incidence of these disorders, spiraling costs, restricted access to needed services, and less success in alleviating pain and suffering – a high cost,” Edward H. Yelin, PhD, cochair of the report’s steering committee, and professor of medicine and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a prepared statement in 2016. That same year, Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, editor of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, penned an editorial in which he stated that “The time has come to move past using a one-size-fits-all fifth vital sign . . . and reflexively prescribing an opioid when pain is characterized as severe” (Clev Clin J Med. 2016. Jun;83[6]:400-1). A decade earlier, authors of a cross-sectional review at a single Department of Veterans Affairs medical center set out to assess the impact of the VA’s “Pain as the 5th Vital Sign” initiative on the quality of pain management (J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21[6]:607–12). They found that patients with substantial pain documented by the fifth vital sign often had inadequate pain management. The preponderance of existing evidence suggests that a different approach is needed to prescribing opioids, Dr. Bonakdar said. “It’s coming from every voice in pain care: that what we are doing is not working,” he said. “It’s not only not working; it’s dangerous. That’s the consequence of depersonalized medicine. What’s the consequence of depersonalized nutrition? It’s the same industrialized approach.”

The typical American diet, he continued, is rife with processed foods and lacks an adequate proportion of plant-based products. “It’s basically a setup for inflammation,” Dr. Bonakdar said. “Most people who come into our clinic are eating 63% processed foods, 25% animal foods, and 12% plant foods. When we are eating, we’re oversizing it because that’s the American thing to do. At the end of the day, this process is not only killing us from heart disease and stroke as causes of death, but it’s also killing us as far as pain. The same diet that’s causing heart disease is the same diet that’s increasing pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar said that the ingestion of ultra-processed foods over time jumpstarts the process of dysbiosis, which increases gut permeability. “When gut permeability happens, and you have high levels of polysaccharides and inflammatory markers such as zonulin and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), it not only goes on to affect adipose tissue and insulin resistance, it can affect the muscle and joints,” he explained. “That is a setup for sarcopenia, or muscle loss, which then makes it harder for patients to be fully functional and active. It goes on to cause joint problems as well.”

He likened an increase in gut permeability to “a bomb going off in the gut.” Routine consumption of highly processed foods “creates this wave of inflammation that goes throughout your body affecting joints and muscles, and causes an increased amount of pain. Over time, patients make the connection but it’s much easier to say, ‘take this NSAID’ or ‘take this Cox-2 inhibitor’ to suppress the pain. But if all you’re doing is suppressing, you’re not going to the source of the pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar cited several recent articles that help to make the connection between dysbiosis and pain, including a review that concluded that dysbiosis of gut microbiota can influence the onset and progression of chronic degenerative diseases (Nutrients. 2019;11[8]:1707). Authors of a separate review concluded that human microbiome studies strongly suggest an incriminating role of microbes in the pathophysiology and progression of RA. Lastly, several studies have noted that pain conditions such as fibromyalgia may have microbiome “signatures” related to dysbiosis, which may pave the way for interventions, such as dietary shifting and probiotics that target individuals with microbiome abnormalities (Pain. 2019 Nov;160[11]:2589-602 and EBioMedicine. 2019 Aug 1;46:499-511).

Clinicians can begin to help patients who present with pain complaints “by listening to what their current pattern is: strategies that have worked, and those that haven’t,” he said. “If we’re not understanding the person and we’re just ordering genetic studies or microbiome studies and going off of the assessment, we sometime miss what interventions to start. In many cases, a simple intervention like a dietary shift is all that’s required.”

A survey of more than 1 million individuals found that BMI and daily pain are positively correlated in the United States (Obesity 2012;20[7]:1491-5). “This is increased more significantly for women and the elderly,” said Dr. Bonakdar, who was not affiliated with the study. “If we can change the diet that person is taking, that’s going to begin the process of reversing this to the point where they’re having less pain from inflammation that’s affecting the adipose tissue and adipokines traveling to their joints, which can cause less dysbiosis. It is very much a vicious cycle that patients follow, but if you begin to unwind it, it’s going to help multiple areas.”

In the Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) trial, researchers randomized 450 patients with osteoarthritis to intensive dietary restriction only, exercise only, or a combination of both (BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:93). They found that a 5% weight loss over the course of 18 months led to a 30% reduction in pain and a 24% improvement in function.

Inspired by the IDEA trial design, Dr. Bonakdar and his colleagues completed an unpublished 12-week pilot program with 12 patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater plus comorbidities. The program consisted of weekly group meetings, including a lecture by team clinicians, dietician, and fitness staff; group support sessions with a behavioral counselor; and a group exercise session. It also included weekly 1:1 personal training sessions and biweekly 1:1 dietitian meetings. The researchers also evaluated several deficiencies linked to pain, including magnesium, vitamin D, vitamins B1, B2, and B12, folate, calcium, amino acids, omega 3s, zinc, coenzyme Q10, carnitine, and vitamin C. The goal was a weight reduction of 5%.

The intervention consisted of a 28-day detox/protein shake consumed 1-3 times per day, which contained 17 g of protein per serving. Nutritional supplementation was added based on results of individual diagnostics.

According to preliminary results from the trial, the intended weight goal was achieved. “More importantly, there were significant improvements in markers of dysbiosis, including zonulin and lipopolysaccharide, as well as the adipokine leptin, which appeared to be associated with improvement in quality of life measures and pain,” Dr. Bonakdar said.

He concluded his presentation by highlighting a pilot study conducted in an Australian tertiary pain clinic. It found that a personalized dietitian-delivered dietary intervention can improve pain scores, quality of life, and dietary intake of people experiencing chronic pain (Nutrients. 2019 Jan 16;11[1] pii: E181). “This is another piece of the puzzle showing that these dietary interventions can be done in multiple settings, including tertiary centers with nutrition staff, and that this important step can improve pain and quality of life,” he said.

Dr. Bonakdar disclosed that he receives royalties from Oxford University Press, Lippincott, and Elsevier. He is also a consultant to Standard Process.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – When clinicians ask patients to quantify their level of chronic pain on a scale of 1-10, and they rate it as a 7, what does that really mean?

Robert A. Bonakdar, MD, said posing such a question as the main determinator of the treatment approach during a pain assessment “depersonalizes medicine to the point where you’re making a patient a number.” Dr. Bonakdar spoke at Natural Supplements: An Evidence-Based Update, presented by Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine.

“A personalized approach to pain, on the other hand, considers each patient’s individual journey: their sensitivities, experiences, and failures,” he said. “It considers areas that are often overlooked, such as the role of the gut microbiome, mood, and epigenetics.”

Over the past two decades, the number of American adults suffering from pain has increased from 120 million to 178 million, or to 41% of the adult population, said Dr. Bonakdar, a family physician who is director of pain management at the Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine. Data from the National Institutes of Health estimate that Americans spend more than $600 billion each year on the treatment of pain, which surpasses monies spent on cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. According to a 2016 report from the United States Bone and Joint Initiative, arthritis and rheumatologic conditions resulted in an estimated 6.7 million annual hospitalizations, and the average annual cost per person for treatment of a musculoskeletal condition is $7,800.

“If we continue on our current trajectory, we are choosing to accept more prevalence and incidence of these disorders, spiraling costs, restricted access to needed services, and less success in alleviating pain and suffering – a high cost,” Edward H. Yelin, PhD, cochair of the report’s steering committee, and professor of medicine and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a prepared statement in 2016. That same year, Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, editor of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, penned an editorial in which he stated that “The time has come to move past using a one-size-fits-all fifth vital sign . . . and reflexively prescribing an opioid when pain is characterized as severe” (Clev Clin J Med. 2016. Jun;83[6]:400-1). A decade earlier, authors of a cross-sectional review at a single Department of Veterans Affairs medical center set out to assess the impact of the VA’s “Pain as the 5th Vital Sign” initiative on the quality of pain management (J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21[6]:607–12). They found that patients with substantial pain documented by the fifth vital sign often had inadequate pain management. The preponderance of existing evidence suggests that a different approach is needed to prescribing opioids, Dr. Bonakdar said. “It’s coming from every voice in pain care: that what we are doing is not working,” he said. “It’s not only not working; it’s dangerous. That’s the consequence of depersonalized medicine. What’s the consequence of depersonalized nutrition? It’s the same industrialized approach.”

The typical American diet, he continued, is rife with processed foods and lacks an adequate proportion of plant-based products. “It’s basically a setup for inflammation,” Dr. Bonakdar said. “Most people who come into our clinic are eating 63% processed foods, 25% animal foods, and 12% plant foods. When we are eating, we’re oversizing it because that’s the American thing to do. At the end of the day, this process is not only killing us from heart disease and stroke as causes of death, but it’s also killing us as far as pain. The same diet that’s causing heart disease is the same diet that’s increasing pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar said that the ingestion of ultra-processed foods over time jumpstarts the process of dysbiosis, which increases gut permeability. “When gut permeability happens, and you have high levels of polysaccharides and inflammatory markers such as zonulin and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), it not only goes on to affect adipose tissue and insulin resistance, it can affect the muscle and joints,” he explained. “That is a setup for sarcopenia, or muscle loss, which then makes it harder for patients to be fully functional and active. It goes on to cause joint problems as well.”

He likened an increase in gut permeability to “a bomb going off in the gut.” Routine consumption of highly processed foods “creates this wave of inflammation that goes throughout your body affecting joints and muscles, and causes an increased amount of pain. Over time, patients make the connection but it’s much easier to say, ‘take this NSAID’ or ‘take this Cox-2 inhibitor’ to suppress the pain. But if all you’re doing is suppressing, you’re not going to the source of the pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar cited several recent articles that help to make the connection between dysbiosis and pain, including a review that concluded that dysbiosis of gut microbiota can influence the onset and progression of chronic degenerative diseases (Nutrients. 2019;11[8]:1707). Authors of a separate review concluded that human microbiome studies strongly suggest an incriminating role of microbes in the pathophysiology and progression of RA. Lastly, several studies have noted that pain conditions such as fibromyalgia may have microbiome “signatures” related to dysbiosis, which may pave the way for interventions, such as dietary shifting and probiotics that target individuals with microbiome abnormalities (Pain. 2019 Nov;160[11]:2589-602 and EBioMedicine. 2019 Aug 1;46:499-511).

Clinicians can begin to help patients who present with pain complaints “by listening to what their current pattern is: strategies that have worked, and those that haven’t,” he said. “If we’re not understanding the person and we’re just ordering genetic studies or microbiome studies and going off of the assessment, we sometime miss what interventions to start. In many cases, a simple intervention like a dietary shift is all that’s required.”

A survey of more than 1 million individuals found that BMI and daily pain are positively correlated in the United States (Obesity 2012;20[7]:1491-5). “This is increased more significantly for women and the elderly,” said Dr. Bonakdar, who was not affiliated with the study. “If we can change the diet that person is taking, that’s going to begin the process of reversing this to the point where they’re having less pain from inflammation that’s affecting the adipose tissue and adipokines traveling to their joints, which can cause less dysbiosis. It is very much a vicious cycle that patients follow, but if you begin to unwind it, it’s going to help multiple areas.”

In the Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) trial, researchers randomized 450 patients with osteoarthritis to intensive dietary restriction only, exercise only, or a combination of both (BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:93). They found that a 5% weight loss over the course of 18 months led to a 30% reduction in pain and a 24% improvement in function.

Inspired by the IDEA trial design, Dr. Bonakdar and his colleagues completed an unpublished 12-week pilot program with 12 patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater plus comorbidities. The program consisted of weekly group meetings, including a lecture by team clinicians, dietician, and fitness staff; group support sessions with a behavioral counselor; and a group exercise session. It also included weekly 1:1 personal training sessions and biweekly 1:1 dietitian meetings. The researchers also evaluated several deficiencies linked to pain, including magnesium, vitamin D, vitamins B1, B2, and B12, folate, calcium, amino acids, omega 3s, zinc, coenzyme Q10, carnitine, and vitamin C. The goal was a weight reduction of 5%.

The intervention consisted of a 28-day detox/protein shake consumed 1-3 times per day, which contained 17 g of protein per serving. Nutritional supplementation was added based on results of individual diagnostics.

According to preliminary results from the trial, the intended weight goal was achieved. “More importantly, there were significant improvements in markers of dysbiosis, including zonulin and lipopolysaccharide, as well as the adipokine leptin, which appeared to be associated with improvement in quality of life measures and pain,” Dr. Bonakdar said.

He concluded his presentation by highlighting a pilot study conducted in an Australian tertiary pain clinic. It found that a personalized dietitian-delivered dietary intervention can improve pain scores, quality of life, and dietary intake of people experiencing chronic pain (Nutrients. 2019 Jan 16;11[1] pii: E181). “This is another piece of the puzzle showing that these dietary interventions can be done in multiple settings, including tertiary centers with nutrition staff, and that this important step can improve pain and quality of life,” he said.

Dr. Bonakdar disclosed that he receives royalties from Oxford University Press, Lippincott, and Elsevier. He is also a consultant to Standard Process.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – When clinicians ask patients to quantify their level of chronic pain on a scale of 1-10, and they rate it as a 7, what does that really mean?

Robert A. Bonakdar, MD, said posing such a question as the main determinator of the treatment approach during a pain assessment “depersonalizes medicine to the point where you’re making a patient a number.” Dr. Bonakdar spoke at Natural Supplements: An Evidence-Based Update, presented by Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine.

“A personalized approach to pain, on the other hand, considers each patient’s individual journey: their sensitivities, experiences, and failures,” he said. “It considers areas that are often overlooked, such as the role of the gut microbiome, mood, and epigenetics.”

Over the past two decades, the number of American adults suffering from pain has increased from 120 million to 178 million, or to 41% of the adult population, said Dr. Bonakdar, a family physician who is director of pain management at the Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine. Data from the National Institutes of Health estimate that Americans spend more than $600 billion each year on the treatment of pain, which surpasses monies spent on cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. According to a 2016 report from the United States Bone and Joint Initiative, arthritis and rheumatologic conditions resulted in an estimated 6.7 million annual hospitalizations, and the average annual cost per person for treatment of a musculoskeletal condition is $7,800.

“If we continue on our current trajectory, we are choosing to accept more prevalence and incidence of these disorders, spiraling costs, restricted access to needed services, and less success in alleviating pain and suffering – a high cost,” Edward H. Yelin, PhD, cochair of the report’s steering committee, and professor of medicine and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a prepared statement in 2016. That same year, Brian F. Mandell, MD, PhD, editor of the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, penned an editorial in which he stated that “The time has come to move past using a one-size-fits-all fifth vital sign . . . and reflexively prescribing an opioid when pain is characterized as severe” (Clev Clin J Med. 2016. Jun;83[6]:400-1). A decade earlier, authors of a cross-sectional review at a single Department of Veterans Affairs medical center set out to assess the impact of the VA’s “Pain as the 5th Vital Sign” initiative on the quality of pain management (J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21[6]:607–12). They found that patients with substantial pain documented by the fifth vital sign often had inadequate pain management. The preponderance of existing evidence suggests that a different approach is needed to prescribing opioids, Dr. Bonakdar said. “It’s coming from every voice in pain care: that what we are doing is not working,” he said. “It’s not only not working; it’s dangerous. That’s the consequence of depersonalized medicine. What’s the consequence of depersonalized nutrition? It’s the same industrialized approach.”

The typical American diet, he continued, is rife with processed foods and lacks an adequate proportion of plant-based products. “It’s basically a setup for inflammation,” Dr. Bonakdar said. “Most people who come into our clinic are eating 63% processed foods, 25% animal foods, and 12% plant foods. When we are eating, we’re oversizing it because that’s the American thing to do. At the end of the day, this process is not only killing us from heart disease and stroke as causes of death, but it’s also killing us as far as pain. The same diet that’s causing heart disease is the same diet that’s increasing pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar said that the ingestion of ultra-processed foods over time jumpstarts the process of dysbiosis, which increases gut permeability. “When gut permeability happens, and you have high levels of polysaccharides and inflammatory markers such as zonulin and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), it not only goes on to affect adipose tissue and insulin resistance, it can affect the muscle and joints,” he explained. “That is a setup for sarcopenia, or muscle loss, which then makes it harder for patients to be fully functional and active. It goes on to cause joint problems as well.”

He likened an increase in gut permeability to “a bomb going off in the gut.” Routine consumption of highly processed foods “creates this wave of inflammation that goes throughout your body affecting joints and muscles, and causes an increased amount of pain. Over time, patients make the connection but it’s much easier to say, ‘take this NSAID’ or ‘take this Cox-2 inhibitor’ to suppress the pain. But if all you’re doing is suppressing, you’re not going to the source of the pain.”

Dr. Bonakdar cited several recent articles that help to make the connection between dysbiosis and pain, including a review that concluded that dysbiosis of gut microbiota can influence the onset and progression of chronic degenerative diseases (Nutrients. 2019;11[8]:1707). Authors of a separate review concluded that human microbiome studies strongly suggest an incriminating role of microbes in the pathophysiology and progression of RA. Lastly, several studies have noted that pain conditions such as fibromyalgia may have microbiome “signatures” related to dysbiosis, which may pave the way for interventions, such as dietary shifting and probiotics that target individuals with microbiome abnormalities (Pain. 2019 Nov;160[11]:2589-602 and EBioMedicine. 2019 Aug 1;46:499-511).

Clinicians can begin to help patients who present with pain complaints “by listening to what their current pattern is: strategies that have worked, and those that haven’t,” he said. “If we’re not understanding the person and we’re just ordering genetic studies or microbiome studies and going off of the assessment, we sometime miss what interventions to start. In many cases, a simple intervention like a dietary shift is all that’s required.”

A survey of more than 1 million individuals found that BMI and daily pain are positively correlated in the United States (Obesity 2012;20[7]:1491-5). “This is increased more significantly for women and the elderly,” said Dr. Bonakdar, who was not affiliated with the study. “If we can change the diet that person is taking, that’s going to begin the process of reversing this to the point where they’re having less pain from inflammation that’s affecting the adipose tissue and adipokines traveling to their joints, which can cause less dysbiosis. It is very much a vicious cycle that patients follow, but if you begin to unwind it, it’s going to help multiple areas.”

In the Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) trial, researchers randomized 450 patients with osteoarthritis to intensive dietary restriction only, exercise only, or a combination of both (BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10:93). They found that a 5% weight loss over the course of 18 months led to a 30% reduction in pain and a 24% improvement in function.

Inspired by the IDEA trial design, Dr. Bonakdar and his colleagues completed an unpublished 12-week pilot program with 12 patients with a BMI of 27 kg/m² or greater plus comorbidities. The program consisted of weekly group meetings, including a lecture by team clinicians, dietician, and fitness staff; group support sessions with a behavioral counselor; and a group exercise session. It also included weekly 1:1 personal training sessions and biweekly 1:1 dietitian meetings. The researchers also evaluated several deficiencies linked to pain, including magnesium, vitamin D, vitamins B1, B2, and B12, folate, calcium, amino acids, omega 3s, zinc, coenzyme Q10, carnitine, and vitamin C. The goal was a weight reduction of 5%.

The intervention consisted of a 28-day detox/protein shake consumed 1-3 times per day, which contained 17 g of protein per serving. Nutritional supplementation was added based on results of individual diagnostics.

According to preliminary results from the trial, the intended weight goal was achieved. “More importantly, there were significant improvements in markers of dysbiosis, including zonulin and lipopolysaccharide, as well as the adipokine leptin, which appeared to be associated with improvement in quality of life measures and pain,” Dr. Bonakdar said.

He concluded his presentation by highlighting a pilot study conducted in an Australian tertiary pain clinic. It found that a personalized dietitian-delivered dietary intervention can improve pain scores, quality of life, and dietary intake of people experiencing chronic pain (Nutrients. 2019 Jan 16;11[1] pii: E181). “This is another piece of the puzzle showing that these dietary interventions can be done in multiple settings, including tertiary centers with nutrition staff, and that this important step can improve pain and quality of life,” he said.

Dr. Bonakdar disclosed that he receives royalties from Oxford University Press, Lippincott, and Elsevier. He is also a consultant to Standard Process.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ latest maneuver to combat rising drug prices is the proposed addition of a second specialty drug tier for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

The proposal is part of a broader proposed update to Medicare Parts C and D for contract years 2021 and 2022.

Gurzzza/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ latest maneuver to combat rising drug prices is the proposed addition of a second specialty drug tier for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

The proposal is part of a broader proposed update to Medicare Parts C and D for contract years 2021 and 2022.

Gurzzza/Thinkstock

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ latest maneuver to combat rising drug prices is the proposed addition of a second specialty drug tier for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit.

The proposal is part of a broader proposed update to Medicare Parts C and D for contract years 2021 and 2022.

Gurzzza/Thinkstock

I was surprised when the name came up on my hospital census as a new consult.

andresr/Getty Images

Many years ago he’d been one of my attendings in residency. Someone I’d trained under. He’d been patient, almost grandfatherly, in the way he taught residents on his service. Never angry or impatient. I’d genuinely liked him as a person and respected him as a teacher.

And here he was now, a new consult on my daily hospital patient list.

A quick look at his chart brought the irony that I’m the same age now that he was when I worked under him. Time flies.

He didn’t remember me, nor did I expect him to. In my training from 1993 to 1997, I’d only dealt with him directly for a few months here and there. He’d seen a lot of residents come and go over his career.

He was, like me, older now. I wouldn’t have recognized him if I didn’t know the name in advance. He was frail now, seemingly smaller than I remembered, his mind and health damaged by his own neurologic issues.

Like all of us, I’ve taken care of other physicians, but this was the first time I’d encountered one of my former teachers in that role, and felt bad that he was in a situation I really couldn’t do much about.

I wrote some orders and moved on to the next consult, but haven’t stopped thinking about him.

Time comes for all of us sooner or later, though it’s never easy to reflect on. I’d certainly do what I could to help him, but was well aware (as I’m sure he was) that there was only so much I could.

When I came back the next day he’d left. At his own insistence, he wanted us to stop what we were doing and opted to be kept comfortable. It was certainly not an easy choice to make for any of us, but in character with the person and physician I still liked and respected.
 

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

I was surprised when the name came up on my hospital census as a new consult.

andresr/Getty Images

Many years ago he’d been one of my attendings in residency. Someone I’d trained under. He’d been patient, almost grandfatherly, in the way he taught residents on his service. Never angry or impatient. I’d genuinely liked him as a person and respected him as a teacher.

And here he was now, a new consult on my daily hospital patient list.

A quick look at his chart brought the irony that I’m the same age now that he was when I worked under him. Time flies.

He didn’t remember me, nor did I expect him to. In my training from 1993 to 1997, I’d only dealt with him directly for a few months here and there. He’d seen a lot of residents come and go over his career.

He was, like me, older now. I wouldn’t have recognized him if I didn’t know the name in advance. He was frail now, seemingly smaller than I remembered, his mind and health damaged by his own neurologic issues.

Like all of us, I’ve taken care of other physicians, but this was the first time I’d encountered one of my former teachers in that role, and felt bad that he was in a situation I really couldn’t do much about.

I wrote some orders and moved on to the next consult, but haven’t stopped thinking about him.

Time comes for all of us sooner or later, though it’s never easy to reflect on. I’d certainly do what I could to help him, but was well aware (as I’m sure he was) that there was only so much I could.

When I came back the next day he’d left. At his own insistence, he wanted us to stop what we were doing and opted to be kept comfortable. It was certainly not an easy choice to make for any of us, but in character with the person and physician I still liked and respected.
 

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

I was surprised when the name came up on my hospital census as a new consult.

andresr/Getty Images

Many years ago he’d been one of my attendings in residency. Someone I’d trained under. He’d been patient, almost grandfatherly, in the way he taught residents on his service. Never angry or impatient. I’d genuinely liked him as a person and respected him as a teacher.

And here he was now, a new consult on my daily hospital patient list.

A quick look at his chart brought the irony that I’m the same age now that he was when I worked under him. Time flies.

He didn’t remember me, nor did I expect him to. In my training from 1993 to 1997, I’d only dealt with him directly for a few months here and there. He’d seen a lot of residents come and go over his career.

He was, like me, older now. I wouldn’t have recognized him if I didn’t know the name in advance. He was frail now, seemingly smaller than I remembered, his mind and health damaged by his own neurologic issues.

Like all of us, I’ve taken care of other physicians, but this was the first time I’d encountered one of my former teachers in that role, and felt bad that he was in a situation I really couldn’t do much about.

I wrote some orders and moved on to the next consult, but haven’t stopped thinking about him.

Time comes for all of us sooner or later, though it’s never easy to reflect on. I’d certainly do what I could to help him, but was well aware (as I’m sure he was) that there was only so much I could.

When I came back the next day he’d left. At his own insistence, he wanted us to stop what we were doing and opted to be kept comfortable. It was certainly not an easy choice to make for any of us, but in character with the person and physician I still liked and respected.
 

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

BALTIMORE – Abnormal findings on overnight continuous EEG in patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent epilepsy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. In addition, a positive family history of febrile seizures also is associated with an increased risk of epilepsy in this population.

The literature suggests that the prevalence of epilepsy in patients with ASD ranges from 5% to 40%. This broad range may result from the heterogeneity of epilepsy risk factors among patients with ASD. These risk factors include intellectual disability, age, and syndromic forms of ASD such as tuberous sclerosis complex. Regardless of whether they have epilepsy, approximately 60% of patients with ASD have EEG abnormalities. The prognostic implications of these abnormalities are uncertain.
 

Investigators reviewed patients’ charts retrospectively

Divya Nadkarni, MD, a neurologist at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, and colleagues sought to clarify the relationship between risk factors such as EEG abnormalities and subsequent epilepsy in patients with ASD. They retrospectively identified patients who were followed jointly at UCLA and at Pediatric Minds, a neurodevelopmental clinic in Torrance, Calif. Eligible patients had a diagnosis of ASD, based on criteria from DSM-IV, DSM-5, or the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. In addition, patients had overnight, continuous video EEG evaluation and a minimum follow-up of 1 week after EEG. Patients with a history of epilepsy before the initial EEG evaluation were excluded. Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues collected clinical and electrographic data by chart review.

The study’s primary outcome was time to onset of epilepsy. Among the variables that the investigators analyzed were EEG abnormalities, which they defined as focal slowing or generalized or focal epileptiform discharges. The other variables were history of febrile seizures, family history of epilepsy, family history of febrile seizures, and family history of ASD. Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues analyzed the data using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models.

In all, 164 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria. The population’s median age at the initial EEG evaluation was 4.5 years. The median follow-up after this evaluation was 2.4 years. The investigators found 63 patients (38.4%) with abnormal EEGs, and 18 patients (11%) subsequently developed epilepsy after a median of 1.9 years.
 

Family history of febrile seizures was associated with time to epilepsy onset

The time to epilepsy onset was associated with abnormalities on the initial overnight continuous EEG. The hazard ratio of epilepsy among patients with EEG abnormalities was 8.0. Approximately one-third of patients with EEG abnormalities developed subsequent epilepsy, compared with approximately 5% of patients without EEG abnormalities, said Dr. Nadkarni.

In addition, time to epilepsy onset was independently associated with a positive family history of febrile seizures. This finding was unexpected, said Dr. Nadkarni. The hazard ratio of epilepsy among patients with a positive family history of febrile seizures was 12.6.

The patient’s own history of febrile seizures was not associated with time to epilepsy onset. One potential explanation for this result is that it is difficult to distinguish between febrile seizure and seizure with fever in the general pediatric population. Making this distinction in children with ASD, who may have atypical febrile seizures, might be still more difficult, said Dr. Nadkarni.
 

Time for guideline updates?

“Statements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Neurology, and the Child Neurology Society do not currently recommend routine EEG screening for all children with ASD,” said Dr. Nadkarni. Investigators are suggesting that the guidelines should be reevaluated, however. “Research shows that EEG abnormalities, particularly epileptiform abnormalities, are associated with worse outcome, in terms of developmental and adaptive functioning. EEG endophenotypes in ASD are starting to be elucidated ... That’s one reason to consider EEG screening.” Furthermore, preliminary connectivity research suggests that EEG screening of high-risk siblings of children with ASD may predict the development of ASD.

The small cohort and retrospective design were among the study’s limitations, said Dr. Nadkarni. Some patients were lost to follow-up, and some data were missing from patients’ charts.

“In our opinion, further study – ideally, a prospective, observational cohort study – might be warranted to determine whether overnight continuous EEG monitoring might be useful as a screening tool for epilepsy in patients with ASD,” Dr. Nadkarni concluded.

The study was conducted without external funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Nadkarni D et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.29.

BALTIMORE – Abnormal findings on overnight continuous EEG in patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent epilepsy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. In addition, a positive family history of febrile seizures also is associated with an increased risk of epilepsy in this population.

The literature suggests that the prevalence of epilepsy in patients with ASD ranges from 5% to 40%. This broad range may result from the heterogeneity of epilepsy risk factors among patients with ASD. These risk factors include intellectual disability, age, and syndromic forms of ASD such as tuberous sclerosis complex. Regardless of whether they have epilepsy, approximately 60% of patients with ASD have EEG abnormalities. The prognostic implications of these abnormalities are uncertain.
 

Investigators reviewed patients’ charts retrospectively

Divya Nadkarni, MD, a neurologist at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, and colleagues sought to clarify the relationship between risk factors such as EEG abnormalities and subsequent epilepsy in patients with ASD. They retrospectively identified patients who were followed jointly at UCLA and at Pediatric Minds, a neurodevelopmental clinic in Torrance, Calif. Eligible patients had a diagnosis of ASD, based on criteria from DSM-IV, DSM-5, or the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. In addition, patients had overnight, continuous video EEG evaluation and a minimum follow-up of 1 week after EEG. Patients with a history of epilepsy before the initial EEG evaluation were excluded. Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues collected clinical and electrographic data by chart review.

The study’s primary outcome was time to onset of epilepsy. Among the variables that the investigators analyzed were EEG abnormalities, which they defined as focal slowing or generalized or focal epileptiform discharges. The other variables were history of febrile seizures, family history of epilepsy, family history of febrile seizures, and family history of ASD. Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues analyzed the data using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models.

In all, 164 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria. The population’s median age at the initial EEG evaluation was 4.5 years. The median follow-up after this evaluation was 2.4 years. The investigators found 63 patients (38.4%) with abnormal EEGs, and 18 patients (11%) subsequently developed epilepsy after a median of 1.9 years.
 

Family history of febrile seizures was associated with time to epilepsy onset

The time to epilepsy onset was associated with abnormalities on the initial overnight continuous EEG. The hazard ratio of epilepsy among patients with EEG abnormalities was 8.0. Approximately one-third of patients with EEG abnormalities developed subsequent epilepsy, compared with approximately 5% of patients without EEG abnormalities, said Dr. Nadkarni.

In addition, time to epilepsy onset was independently associated with a positive family history of febrile seizures. This finding was unexpected, said Dr. Nadkarni. The hazard ratio of epilepsy among patients with a positive family history of febrile seizures was 12.6.

The patient’s own history of febrile seizures was not associated with time to epilepsy onset. One potential explanation for this result is that it is difficult to distinguish between febrile seizure and seizure with fever in the general pediatric population. Making this distinction in children with ASD, who may have atypical febrile seizures, might be still more difficult, said Dr. Nadkarni.
 

Time for guideline updates?

“Statements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Neurology, and the Child Neurology Society do not currently recommend routine EEG screening for all children with ASD,” said Dr. Nadkarni. Investigators are suggesting that the guidelines should be reevaluated, however. “Research shows that EEG abnormalities, particularly epileptiform abnormalities, are associated with worse outcome, in terms of developmental and adaptive functioning. EEG endophenotypes in ASD are starting to be elucidated ... That’s one reason to consider EEG screening.” Furthermore, preliminary connectivity research suggests that EEG screening of high-risk siblings of children with ASD may predict the development of ASD.

The small cohort and retrospective design were among the study’s limitations, said Dr. Nadkarni. Some patients were lost to follow-up, and some data were missing from patients’ charts.

“In our opinion, further study – ideally, a prospective, observational cohort study – might be warranted to determine whether overnight continuous EEG monitoring might be useful as a screening tool for epilepsy in patients with ASD,” Dr. Nadkarni concluded.

The study was conducted without external funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Nadkarni D et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.29.

BALTIMORE – Abnormal findings on overnight continuous EEG in patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent epilepsy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society. In addition, a positive family history of febrile seizures also is associated with an increased risk of epilepsy in this population.

The literature suggests that the prevalence of epilepsy in patients with ASD ranges from 5% to 40%. This broad range may result from the heterogeneity of epilepsy risk factors among patients with ASD. These risk factors include intellectual disability, age, and syndromic forms of ASD such as tuberous sclerosis complex. Regardless of whether they have epilepsy, approximately 60% of patients with ASD have EEG abnormalities. The prognostic implications of these abnormalities are uncertain.
 

Investigators reviewed patients’ charts retrospectively

Divya Nadkarni, MD, a neurologist at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, and colleagues sought to clarify the relationship between risk factors such as EEG abnormalities and subsequent epilepsy in patients with ASD. They retrospectively identified patients who were followed jointly at UCLA and at Pediatric Minds, a neurodevelopmental clinic in Torrance, Calif. Eligible patients had a diagnosis of ASD, based on criteria from DSM-IV, DSM-5, or the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. In addition, patients had overnight, continuous video EEG evaluation and a minimum follow-up of 1 week after EEG. Patients with a history of epilepsy before the initial EEG evaluation were excluded. Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues collected clinical and electrographic data by chart review.

The study’s primary outcome was time to onset of epilepsy. Among the variables that the investigators analyzed were EEG abnormalities, which they defined as focal slowing or generalized or focal epileptiform discharges. The other variables were history of febrile seizures, family history of epilepsy, family history of febrile seizures, and family history of ASD. Dr. Nadkarni and colleagues analyzed the data using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models.

In all, 164 patients met the study’s inclusion criteria. The population’s median age at the initial EEG evaluation was 4.5 years. The median follow-up after this evaluation was 2.4 years. The investigators found 63 patients (38.4%) with abnormal EEGs, and 18 patients (11%) subsequently developed epilepsy after a median of 1.9 years.
 

Family history of febrile seizures was associated with time to epilepsy onset

The time to epilepsy onset was associated with abnormalities on the initial overnight continuous EEG. The hazard ratio of epilepsy among patients with EEG abnormalities was 8.0. Approximately one-third of patients with EEG abnormalities developed subsequent epilepsy, compared with approximately 5% of patients without EEG abnormalities, said Dr. Nadkarni.

In addition, time to epilepsy onset was independently associated with a positive family history of febrile seizures. This finding was unexpected, said Dr. Nadkarni. The hazard ratio of epilepsy among patients with a positive family history of febrile seizures was 12.6.

The patient’s own history of febrile seizures was not associated with time to epilepsy onset. One potential explanation for this result is that it is difficult to distinguish between febrile seizure and seizure with fever in the general pediatric population. Making this distinction in children with ASD, who may have atypical febrile seizures, might be still more difficult, said Dr. Nadkarni.
 

Time for guideline updates?

“Statements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Neurology, and the Child Neurology Society do not currently recommend routine EEG screening for all children with ASD,” said Dr. Nadkarni. Investigators are suggesting that the guidelines should be reevaluated, however. “Research shows that EEG abnormalities, particularly epileptiform abnormalities, are associated with worse outcome, in terms of developmental and adaptive functioning. EEG endophenotypes in ASD are starting to be elucidated ... That’s one reason to consider EEG screening.” Furthermore, preliminary connectivity research suggests that EEG screening of high-risk siblings of children with ASD may predict the development of ASD.

The small cohort and retrospective design were among the study’s limitations, said Dr. Nadkarni. Some patients were lost to follow-up, and some data were missing from patients’ charts.

“In our opinion, further study – ideally, a prospective, observational cohort study – might be warranted to determine whether overnight continuous EEG monitoring might be useful as a screening tool for epilepsy in patients with ASD,” Dr. Nadkarni concluded.

The study was conducted without external funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Nadkarni D et al. AES 2019. Abstract 1.29.